PB97-964019
EPA/541/R-97/095
January 1998
EPA Superfund
Record of Decision:
Cecil Field Naval Air Station, OU 4
Jacksonville, FL
9/30/1997
-------
^ ^^ \ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 4
ATLANTA FEDERAL CENTER
100 ALABAMA STREET. S.W.
ATLANTA. GEORGIA 30303-3104
'SiP 3 0 MM
CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
4WD-FFB
Commanding Officer
Attn.: David Porter
Base Environmental Coordinator
DON, Southern Division
Naval Facilities Engineering Command
P.O.Box 190010
North Charleston,
South Carolina 20419-9010
Subject: Naval Air Station Cecil Field, Jacksonville, Florida
Record of Decision for Operable Unit 4
Dear Mr. Porter:
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has received and reviewed the final Record
of Decision (ROD) for Operable Unit 4 (OU 4). EPA concurs with the Navy's decision as set
forth in the ROD dated September 1997. This concurrence is contingent with the understanding
that the selection of no further remedial action at this site is protective of human health and the
environment. Should new information indicate otherwise, the Navy is liable for any future actions
as required.
NAS Cecil Field was listed on the National Priorities List as Cecil Field Naval Air Station
in 1989. Prior to NPL listing and designation for closure, the Installation and Restoration
Program identified 18 sites as needing further investigation. These 18 sites were grouped by
usage and waste type to form eight operable units. OU4 consists of site 10, which was a rubble
disposal area. OU 4 is located in an area designated for forestry management and airport reserve
per the NAS Cecil Field Final Reuse Plan, dated February 1996. Development of groundwater
resources and construction of buildings at this location is not anticipated. The Remedial
Investigation and Risk Assessment for OU 4 identified no unacceptable risks for any media,
therefore no further action is being recommended at this time. However, any new information
contradicting this finding may require further investigation or remedial actions.
Itocyctod/RecydaDta • Printed with Vegetable Ol Based Inks on 100% Recycled Paper (40% Postconsumer)
-------
EPA appreciates the coordination efforts of NAS Cecil Field and the level of effort that
was put forth in the documents leading to this decision. EPA looks forward to continuing the
excellent working relationship with NAS Cecil Field and Southern Division Naval Facilities
Engineering Command as we move toward final cleanup of the NPL site. Should you have any
questions, or if EPA can be of any further assistance, please contact Ms. Deborah Vaughn-
Wright, of my staff, at the letterhead address or at (404) 562-8539.
Sincerely,
\
Richard D. Green
Acting Director
Waste Management Division
cc: Mr. James Crane, FL DEP
Mr. Eric Nuzie, FL DEP
Mr. Michael Deliz, FL DEP
Mr. Mark Davidson, SOUTHDIV
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
OPERABLE UNIT 4
NAVAL AIR STATION CECIL FIELD
JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA
Unit Identification Code: N60200
Contract No.: N62467-89-D-0317/090
Prepared by:
ABB Environmental Services, Inc.
2590 Executive Center Circle, East
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Prepared for:
Department of the Navy, Southern Division
Naval Facilities Engineering Command
2155 Eagle Drive
North Charleston, South Carolina 29418
Mark Davidson, Code 1879, Engineer-in-Charge
September 1997
-------
CERTIFICATION OF TECHNICAL
DATA CONFORMITY (MAY 1987)
The Contractor, ABB Environmental Services, Inc., hereby certifies that, to the
best of its knowledge and belief, the technical data delivered herewith under
Contract No. N62467-89-D-0317/090 are complete and accurate and comply with all
requirements of this contract.
DATE:
September 2. 1997
NAME AND TITLE OF CERTIFYING OFFICIAL: Rao Angara
Task Order Manager
NAME AND TITLE OF CERTIFYING OFFICIAL: Dirk Brunner
Project Technical Lead
(DFAR 252.227-7036)
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Record of Decision, Operable Unit 4
Naval Air Station Cecil Field
Jacksonville, Florida
Figure Title Page No,
2-1 Site Location Map 2-2
2-2 Site Features and Sampling Locations 2-3
2-3 Surface Soil Human Health Contaminants of Potential Concern .... 2-9
2-4 Surficial Aquifer Human Health Contaminants of Potential Concern . . 2-13
2-5 Cancer Risk Summary, Future Land Use 2-17
2-6 Noncancer Risk Summary, Future Land Use 2-18
CEF-OU4.ROD
SAS.O9.97 -H-
-------
GLOSSARY
ABB-ES
ABB Environmental «;
-ces- Inc-
BRA
CERCLA
CPC
FS
HHCPC
HHRA
IROD
NAS
NCP
NOTW
OU
RAB
RI
ROD
SVOC
TRPH
US EPA
UZH
below land si'
baseline ri'K Assessment
Comp,-^nensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
chemicals of potential concern
Florida Department of Environmental Protection
feasibility study
human health chemical of potential concern
Human Health Risk Assessment
interim Record of Decision
Naval Air Station
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Contingency Plan
Navy-owned wastewater treatment works
operable unit
Restoration Advisory Board
remedial investigation
record of decision
semivolatile organic compound
total recoverable petroleum hydrocarbons
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
upper zone Hawthorne
CEF-OU4.ROO
SAS.O9.97
-IV-
-------
1.0 DECLARATION FOR THE RECORD OF DECISION (ROD)
1.1 SITE lu.^ AMP LOCATION. Operable Unit (OU) 4 is located approximately one
mile southwest oz the industrial area of the main base of Naval Air Station (NAS)
Cecil Field, Jackson-Vint Florida. OU 4 consists of Site 10, the Rubble
Disposal Area. Site 10 is located east of Rowell Creek near the west central
boundary of Cecil Field and sou^west Of the east-west runway.
1.2 STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE. TM s decision document presents the
selected remedial action for OU 4, located at UAS Cecil Field, Jacksonville,
Florida, which was chosen in accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, as amended by tKo Superfund Amendments
and Reauthorization Act of 1986 and the National Oil and Hazardous Substances
Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP, 40 Code of Federal Regulations, 300). This
decision document was prepared in accordance with the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (USEPA) decision document guidance (USEPA, 1992). This
decision is based on the Administrative Record for OU 4.
The USEPA and the State of Florida concur with the selected remedy.
1.3 DESCRIPTION OF THE SELECTED REMEDY. This ROD is the final action for OU 4
and is based on the results of the Remedial Investigation (RI) and Baseline Risk
Assessment (BRA) completed for OU 4. The selected remedy for OU 4 is No Further
Action. This remedy does not require any specific administrative, onsite actions,
monitoring, or 5-year reviews to ensure there are no unacceptable exposures to
potential hazards posed by conditions at the site. This remedy is consistent
with the BRA conducted for conditions observed at the site. The assessment
concluded that there is no imminent threat to public health or the environment.
1. 4 STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS. The selected remedy is protective of human health
and the environment and is cost-effective. Although contaminants, pathways, and
receptors were identified to be present at OU 4, the risks calculated for current
or potential human and ecological receptors being exposed to the soil and
groundwater did not exceed the USEPA acceptable risk criteria. According to
USEPA guidance, if no risk to human health or the environment is identified, no
further remedial action (including setting remedial action objectives and
conducting an engineering feasibility study [FS] to evaluate remedial alterna-
tives) is warranted at the site to ensure protection of human health and the
environment.
7
1.5 SIGNATURE AND SUPPORT AGENCY ACCEPTANCE OF THE REMEDY.
>x/L^,^rtx /
DavidTorter^ ^ Date
Base Realignment and Closure
Environmental Coordinator
CEF-004.ROD
SAS.O9.97 1-1
-------
2.0 DECISION SUMMARY
2.1 SITE AND OPERABLE UNIT NAME. LOCATION. AND DESCRIPTION. NAS Cecil Field
occupies more than 31,000 acres and is located 14 miles southwest of Jackson-
ville, Florida. The majority of Cecil Field is located within Duval County; the
southernmost part of the facility is located in northern Clay County (Figure
2-1).
The area surrounding NAS Cecil Field is rural and sparsely populated. The city
of Jacksonville lies approximately 14 miles to the northeast. Surrounding land
use is primarily forestry with some light agricultural and ranching use. Small
communities and scattered dwellings associated with these activities are located
in the vicinity. A small residential area on Nathan Hale Road, which abuts the
NAS Cecil Field property to the west, typifies these rural communities. The
nearest incorporated municipality is the town of Baldwin, whose center lies
approximately 6 miles to the northwest of the main facility entrance.
To the east of NAS Cecil Field, the rural surroundings grade into a suburban
fringe bordering the major east-west roadways. Low commercial use, such as
convenience stores, and low density residential areas characterize the land use
(ABB Environmental Services , Inc. [ABB-ES], 1992). A development called Villages
of Argyle, when complete, is planned to consist of seven separate villages or
communities that will ultimately abut NAS Cecil Field to the isouth and southeast.
A golf course and residential area also border NAS Cecil Field to the east
(Southern Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, 1989).
There is no housing in the immediate vicinity of OU 4. Bachelor enlisted
quarters, family enlisted housing, and senior officer housing is more than 5,000
feet to the north. Children would be expected to reside only in the family
enlisted housing or the senior officer housing areas.
NAS Cecil Field was established in 1941 and provides facilities, services, and
material support for the operation and maintenance of naval weapons, aircraft,
and other units of the operation forces as designated by the Chief of Naval
Operations. Some of the tasks required to accomplish this mission over past
years included the demolition and disposal of buildings, runways, and other
infrastructure features of an operational facility.
OU 4, also known as Site 10, consists of a long, narrow demolition debris area
(approximately 2,000 feet by 200 feet) located parallel to Rowell Creek and a
flightline access road. A map of OU 4 layout is provided on Figure 2-2.
OU 4 is vegetated with brush and trees that have established amongst the piles
of concrete and other demolition debris. The general area adjacent to OU 4 is
wooded, showing no adverse stress to the vegetation from the demolition debris.
In 1985, and during the site visits conducted by ABB-ES in 1995, the ground
surface exhibited no evidence (staining or absence of vegetation) of adverse
effects from previous waste activities at the site..
Surface water flow from OU 4 is typically overland flow through wooded land
toward Rowell Creek. To the north of the site, there is a small drainage swale
CEF-OU4.ROD
SAS.O9.97 2-1
-------
Operable Unit 4,
Site 10
NOTE:
NAS - Naval Air'Station
YELLOW WATER
WEAPONS AREA
N
3500 7000
SCALE: 1 INCH = 7000 FEET
FIGURE 2-1
SITE LOCATION MAP
t- vcrr\Ri\ou3\RC»gj-PwC- WH-BB o?.
RECORD OF DECISION
OPERABLE UNIT 4
NAVAL AIR STATION CECIL FIELD
JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA
CEF-OU4.ROD
SAS.O9.97
2-2
-------
RC-SW/SD-
CEF-10-SW/SD-2
CEF-10-4S
RC-SW/SD-5
PERIMETER ROAD
CEF-10-5S
RC-SW/SD-
Approximate site boundary
Treeline
SW/S02
Surface wafer and sediment
sample location with designation
5S
Monitoring well location
with designation
SSI
ERIMETER ROAD
Surface soil sample location
with designation
Grass
Manmade
drainage
SCALE: 1 rNCH = 400 FEET
FIGURE 2-2
SITE FEATURES AND
SAMPLING LOCATIONS
RECORD OF DECISION
OPERABLE UNIT 4
NAVAL AR STATION CECIL FIELD
JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA
CEF-OU4.ROD
SAS.09.97
2-3
-------
that drains water from wooded areas east of the site and from the gravel road and
directs it toward Rowell Creek.
As NAS Cecil Field is planned to close in 1999, reuse plans have been developed
to assist in property transfer and other closure activities. OU 4 is located in
an area identified for Public Buildings and Facilities (Forestry Manage-
ment/Airport Reserve). Residential land use is planned for other parts of the
facility, but not at OU 4. Currently, there are plans for a new runway, which
would prevent locating any buildings at OU 4. These plans reflect an anticipated
industrial undeveloped use for OU 4.
2.2 SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES. OU 4 was used by the base Public
Works Department as a rubble disposal area for a period of approximately 20 years
during the 1950s and 1960s. Wastes disposed of at the site included building
demolition debris, concrete, and other inert wastes such as tires, asphalt, and
furniture. The wastes have reportedly been both buried, as suggested by the
results of a geophysical survey conducted by Harding Lawson Associates, and
deposited directly on the land surface, as evidenced by the six rubble piles and
scattered debris that remains partially visible through thick vegetation.
Documentation regarding the quantity of debris dumped on the site is not
available. No reports or evidence of hazardous waste disposal at the site have
been discovered.
Environmental investigations of Site 10 began in 1985. The following reports
describe the results of investigations at OU 4 to date:
Initial Assessment Study (Envirodyne Engineers, 1985)
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Facility Investigation (Harding
Lawson Associates, 1988)
Remedial Investigation Report, OU 4 (ABB-ES, 1996)
Proposed Plan, OU 4 (ABB-ES, 1997)
2.3 HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION. The results of the RI and the BRA
were presented to the NAS Cecil Field Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) (composed
of community members as well as representatives from the Navy and State and
Federal regulatory agencies) on November 19, 1996.
The public was invited to a RAB meeting on July 15, 1997, for a briefing on the
results of the RI, the BRA, and the proposed plan, and to solicit comments on OU
4 from the community. Comments received during the public meeting are presented
in the Responsiveness Summary in Attachment A. A 30-day comment period was held
from July 21, 1997, through August 21, 1997. Comments received during the public
comment period are also presented in Attachment A.
Public notices of the availability of the Proposed Plan were placed in the Metro
section of the Florida Times Union on July 14, 1997. These local editions target
the communities closest to NAS Cecil Field. The Proposed Plan and other
documents are available to the public at the Information Repository, located at
CEF-OU4.ROO
SAS.09.97 2-4
-------
the Charles D. Webb Wesconnett Branch of the Jacksonville Library, 6887 103rd
Street, Jacksonville, Florida.
2 . A SCOPE AND ROLE OF OPERABLE UNIT. As with many Superfund sites, environmen-
tal concerns at HAS Cecil Field are complex. As a result, work has been
organized into eight installation restoration OUs along with more than 100 other
areas undergoing evaluation in the Base Realignment and Closure and underground
storage tank programs.
Final RODs have been approved for OUs 1, 2, and 7. Interim Records of Decision
(IRODs) were approved for OU 2, OU 6, and OU 7, which addressed the source
(concentrated deposits of wastes in soil) areas of contamination. The other OUs
are in various stages of the RI/FS process. IROD activities are complete at Site
17 of OU 2, at OU 6, and at OU 7. Final ROD remedial actions are underway at OUs
1, 2. and 7.
Investigations at OU A, the subject of this ROD, indicated the presence of soil
and groundwater contamination from past disposal practices. The purpose of
remedial response actions is to investigate, assess, and eliminate or control
unacceptable risks to human health and the environment. Exposure to surface
soil, subsurface soil and groundwater at OU 4 poses no unacceptable risk to human
health or the environment.
2.5 SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS.
Geology. Subsurface geologic materials recovered during drilling operations at
OU 4 indicate that the site is underlain by approximately 90 feet of Holocene to
Pliocene age fine-grained silty sand. This sand is typically brown to gray
throughout and varies in shade from light to dark. Layers of clayey sand, sandy
clay, and clay, ranging in thickness from less than an inch to 6 inches, were
encountered throughout this lithologic strata. Beneath the sand is a layer of
clay containing between 40 percent to 50 percent dolomite fragments. This clay
is underlain by dolomite. The dolomite is typically gray, microcrystalline,
moderately well cemented, moderately hard to soft, and contains mineral
replacement of shell material.
The dolomite is of the Miocene (between 6 and 24 million years old) age Hawthorn
Group. Locally, the uppermost layers of the Hawthorn Group include a continuous
carbonate-rich unit of dolomite, a limestone or marble rich in magnesium
carbonate, and/or shell hash. Historically, this-unit has been called the "rock
aquifer" or "secondary artesian aquifer." This unit is considered to be a water
producing zone of the intermediate aquifer system.
Hvdrogeology. In the area of investigation, there are three water-bearing
systems. In descending order, these are the surficial aquifer, the intermediate
aquifer (Upper Zone Hawthorne [UZH]), and the Floridan aquifer systems. Between
each system is an aquitard (less permeable unit). At OU 4, only the surficial
aquifer and the UZH were investigated.
The surficial aquifer is unconfined and composed of undifferentiated fine-grained
sand with some clayey sand and silt. Thin clay lenses were encountered in two
borings. These sediments extend to approximately 84 feet below land surface
CEF-CMJ4.ROD
SAS.09.97 2-5
-------
(bis) . The water table in the surficial aquifer is typically between 2 and 7 feet
bis. Groundwater flow in the surficial aquifer is generally to the west-
southwest, toward Rowell Creek.
The intermediate aquifer is encountered at the OU 4 source area at approximately
100 feet bis. In addition to its clay rich sediments, the Hawthorn includes near
its top a locally continuous carbonate-rich unit of dolomite with significant
secondary porosity. This carbonate-rich unit forms the historical "rock aquifer"
or "secondary artesian aquifer," a water-bearing unit widely used in this region
as a private drinking water source. In the NAS Cecil Field area, the unit is
approximately 20 to 25 feet thick. The top of this unit is irregular and may
represent an erosional unconformity. The groundwater flow in the intermediate
aquifer at OU 4 is interpreted to be to the northeast.
The groundwater in the surficial, intermediate, and Floridan aquifers is
classified by the State as potable, Class G-II (Florida Legislature, 1990).
Water obtained from the surficial aquifer system is primarily used for lawn
irrigation and domestic purposes, including heat exchange units in heating and
air conditioning systems. The yield of the wells is typically between 30 and 100
gallons per minute and water-use estimates for the surficial aquifer system are
approximately 10 to 25 million gallons per day for the city of Jacksonville
(Jacksonville Area Planning Board, 1980). The surficial aquifer leve? and flow
directions have been altered over time because of increased water use and pumping
rates.
The quality of water from the limestone, shell, and sand part of the UZH in the
intermediate aquifer system is hard to very hard and has moderate dissolved
solids levels. The iron content is variable and some areas contain hydrogen
sulfide (Geraghty & Miller, 1985). At least 50,000 homes in the Jacksonville
area obtain water from private wells in the UZH. The Florida Department of
Health and Rehabilitative Services estimates that there are approximately 75
private wells located within a 2-mile radius of NAS Cecil Field, and they
reportedly produce from within the UZH.
v
The Floridan aquifer system is one of the most productive aquifers in the world
and is the primary source of water in the Jacksonville area. NAS Cecil Field
obtains its potable water from five Navy potable water supply production wells
cased in the Floridan aquifer system within the property boundary. These wells
range in depth from 400 to 800 feet bis (NAS Cecil Field, 1990).
Contaminant Sources. At OU 4, the primary source -of contamination would be the
demolition and rubble debris resulting from infrastructure (e.g., roadways,
buildings, etc.) demolition, rehabilitation, and replacement, including runway
and taxiway pavement. Slabs of concrete are prevalent in the OU 4 area, along
with metal office furniture. The historic record and physical debris do not
indicate solvents, petroleum products, or other hazardous materials were
deposited at the site.
Surface Soil Analytical Results. Review of laboratory analyses from six surface
soil samples (Table 2-1) indicated the presence of methylene chloride, di-n-butyl
phthalate, total recoverable petroleum hydrocarbons (TRPH) and nine metals, which
were identified as chemicals of potential concern (CPCs) to ecological or human
receptors (Figure 2-3). Under pending Florida Department of Environmental
CEF-OU4.ROO
SAS.09.97 2-6
-------
to
Table 2-1
Surface Soil Contaminants
Record of
Naval
Decision, Operable Unit 4
Air Station Cecil Field
Jacksonville, Rorida
"-*• JSS&
Volatile Oraanic Compound* (j/a/ka)
Methylene chloride* 1/6
Semlvolatie Oraanic Compound* b/a/ki
Dl-n-butylphthalate* 5/6
Inoroanlc Analvta* (ma/ka)
Aluminum* 6/6
Araenle* 1/6
Barium* . 1/6
Calcium - 4/6
Chromium* 1/6
Cobalt* 1/6
Iron 6/6
Lead* . 6/6
Magnesium 6/6
Manganese* 6/6
Potassium 1/6
Sodium 2/6
Vanadium* 6/6
_ .. Detected
Reporting Concentra,ion
Umlt ^ Range
6 to 14 3 J
I)
380 to 480 21Jto7140
40 144 to 7,830
20 2.7
40 10.3
1,000 179 to 6,350
2 17
10 0.67
20 140 J to 9,150 J
0.6 1. 3 J to 7.2
1,000 15 to 115
3 1.8 to 11.7
1,000 59.4
1,000 200 to 253 J
10 0.74 to 28.5
Mean2
3J
55.3
1,980
2.7
10.3
4,062
17
0.67
2,180
4.8
78.7
5.4
59.4
227
7
Background
Screening
Concentration*
NA
NA
2,370
ND
9
458
4.6
ND
648
6.4
108
8.6
ND
ND
4.6
Risk-based
Concentration*
85,000
780,000
7,800
'0.43
550
1,000,000
'39
470
2,300
10400
460,468
39
1,000,000
1,000,000
55
Rorida Soil
Cleanup
Goals"
16,000
7,300,000
75,000
'0.8
5,200
NSC
'290
4,700
NSC
500
NSC
370
NSC
NSC
490
Analyte
HHCPC7
(Yes/No)
No
No
Yaa
Yas
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
Reason'
S, G
S, G
S, G
S
S, G
S, G
S, G
S
S, G
S
S
S,.G
Total Recoverable Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TRPH) (ma/ka)
TRPH* 6/6
12 to 15 26 J to 270 J
100
NA
NSC
"380
Yas
See notes on next page.
-------
Table 2-1 (Continued)
Surface Soil Contaminants
Record of Decision, Operable Unit 4
Naval Air Station Cecil Reid
Jacksonville, Florida
1 Frequency of detection Is the number of samples In which the analyte was detected in relation to the total number of samples analyzed (excluding rejected values).
1 The mean of detected concentrations is the arithmetic mean of all samples In which the analyte was detected. It does not Include those samples with "R", "U", or "UJ"
validation qualifiers.
1 The background screening value Is twice the average of detected concentrations for inorganic analytes In background samples.
4 For all chemicals except the essential nutrients (calcium, magnesium, potassium, and sodium), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Region III Risk-Based
Concentration (RBC) table for residential surface soil exposure per January 1993 guidance (Selecting Exposure Routes and Contaminants of Concern by Risk-based Screening,
EPA/903/R-93-001) was used for screening. Actual values are taken from the USEPA Region III RBC tables dated October 4, 1995, which are based on an excess lifetime
cancer risk of 10* and an adjusted hazard quotient of 0.1. For the essential nutrient, screening values were derived based on recommended dally allowances.
1 Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) memoranda titled 'Soil Cleanup Goals for Florida" dated September 29,1995, and "Applicability of Soil Clean-up
Goals for Rorlda" dated January 19, 1996.
' Analyte was Included or excluded from the risk assessment for the following reasons:
B - the maximum detected concentration did not exceed twice the arithmetic mean of detected concentrations at background locations and will not be considered further.
S * the maximum detected concentration did not exceed the risk-based screening concentration and will not be considered further.
G « the maximum detected concentration did not exceed Rorida soil cleanup goal concentration and will not be considered further.
7 The value Is the average of* sample and Its duplicate. For duplicate samples having one nondetect value, 1/2 the contract-required quantitation limit/contract-required
detection limit Is used as a surrogate.
* The value Is based on arsenic as a carcinogen.
' The value Is based on hexavalent chromium form.
18 The value for lead Is based on the USEPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response Directive No. 9355.4-12 "Revised Interim Recommended Soli Cleanup for
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Sites." (USEPA, 1994)
" The screening value Is from pending FDEP petroleum-contaminated soil regulations (Florida Administrative Code 62-770) dated July 1997.
Notes: The average of a sample and its duplicate Is used for all table calculations.
Samples Include CEF10SS1, CEF10SS2, CEF10SS3, CEF10SS4, CEF10SS5, and CEF10SS6.
Duplicate samples Include CEF10SS5D.
Background samples Include CEFBSS05, CEFBSS06, CEFBSS07, CEFBSS08, CEFBSS09, CEFBSS09D (Duplicate), CEFBSS010, CEFBSS011, CEFBSS012, CEFBSS013,
CEFBSS014, and CEFBSS015.
HHCPC • human health contaminants of potential concern.
i/g/kg • mlcrograms per kilogram.
• • chemicals that represent ecological contaminants of potential concern.
J » Indicates chemical identified by chemist, but quantity was estimated.
NA = not appropriate.
mg/kg « milligrams per kilogram.
NO = not detected.
NSC • no screening concentration available. ^
-------
Flighfline
apron
:EF-10-SS3
CEF-10-SS4
PERIMETER ROAD
CEF-10-SS5
Approximate site boundary
CEF-10-SS6
Treeline
Aluminum concentration
Arsenic concentration
Iron concentration
Total petroleum hydrocarbon
concentration
Access road
Surface soil sample location
with designation
Grass
Estimated value
ERIMETER ROAD
NOTES:
Only analytes identified as human health
contaminants of potential concern in Table 6-2
in the baseline risk assessment are shown.
• Average of sample and duplicate.
Surface soil concentrations are in milligrams
per kilogram (mg/kg).
Monmade
drainage
ditch
SCALE: 1 INCH = 400 FEET
FIGURE 2-3
SURFACE SOIL HUMAN HEALTH CONTAMINANTS OF
POTENTIAL CONCERN
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION
OPERABLE UNIT 4
NAVAL AIR STATION CECIL FIELD
JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA
CEF-OU4.ROO
SAS.09.97
2-9
-------
Protection (FDEP) regulations, the maximum TRPH observed in OU 4 surface soils
would be less than the action level of 380 milligrams per kilogram for
residential uses. The inorganic analytes aluminum, iron, and arsenic were
selected as human health chemicals of potential concern (HHCPCs) because the
maximum detected value exceeded the criterion of twice average background based
on the current understanding of background conditions. The BRA (ABB-ES, 1996a)
indicates that the compounds detected in surface soil do not pose an unacceptable
risk to human or ecological receptors.
Groundwater Surficial Aquifer. Analytes detected in the surficial aquifer and
the one intermediate (UZH) well, included semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs)
and inorganics. Those analytes identified as human health CPCs in the surficial
aquifer are shown in Table 2-2 and on Figure 2-4 and included bis(2-ethylhexyl)-
phthalate, aluminum, and iron. These analytes were also identified, along with
manganese, as ecological CPCs.
The organic, bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, was selected as an HHCPC because the
maximum detected value exceeded the USEPA Region III health-risk screening
criteria. No regulatory threshold was exceeded.
Aluminum, iron, and manganese were selected as HHCPCs because the maximum
detected value exceeded aesthetic (not health-based) criteria established by the
USEPA and FDEP.
The BRA (ABB-ES, 1996) indicated no unacceptable risks to human health or the
environment from these CPCs.
Groundwater Intermediate Aquifer. Because no unacceptable risks were identified
in the surficial aquifer, further evaluation and assessment of risk was not
undertaken for the intermediate (UZH) aquifer.
Surface Water and Sediment. Surface water and sediment samples were collected
from a drainage ditch north of the site (two samples) and from Rowell Creek
(seven samples collected as part of the OU 1 remedial investigation). These
ditches receive drainage from a woodland area and gravel access road east of the
site. No organics were detected in surface water samples from the ditch.
Organics detected in ditch sediments are listed in Table 2-3 and included
volatile organic compounds, SVOCs, pesticides, and TRPH. Inorganics detected in
the surface water and sediment of the ditch are listed in Table 2-4. While these
samples were collected to characterize conditions in the vicinity of OU 4,
topographic conditions do not provide a complete pathway from the site to the
ditch. Detected inorganics and organics at these two sampling locations are more
likely derived from the surface runoff collecting in the ditch from the runway
and other land uses east of the site.
According to the OU 1 Remedial Investigation report (ABB-ES, 1994), the Rowell
Creek samples detected several organic and inorganic contaminants in surface
water and sediment. Rowell Creek receives treated effluent from the Navy-owned
wastewater treatment works (NOTW) and is also .bordered on the west side opposite
Site 10 by OU 1 (Sites 1 and 2) and upgradient by Site 3. These contaminants
could have originated at any of these sites (Harding Lawson Associates, 1988) or
from NOTW. Impairment of benthic macroinvertebrate community and sediment
toxicity were also observed. However, the report did not identify OU 4 as a
possible source or contributor to the presence of these contaminants or the
CEF-OO4.ROO
SAS.09.97 2-10
-------
Table 2-2
Groundwater Contaminants
Record of Decision, Operable Unit 4
Naval Air Station Cecil Field
Jacksonville, Florida
Frequency Reporting Detected
Analyte of Limit Concentration
Detection' Range Range
SemH/olitla Oroinlc Compounds u/o/f (
bl8|2-Ethylhexyl)phthal«t« 2/4 10 2 J to 6 J
Inorganic Annlytes U/o/1)
Aluminum 2/4 200 669 to 7 1,059.5
Barium 2/4 200 '16.45 to 18.5
Calcium . 3/4 5,000 2,380 to '14,100
Chromium 1/4 10 73.75
Iron 4/4 100 529 J to T2,180 J
Magnesium 4/4 • 5,000 544 to 2,670
Manganese 1/4 15 749.35
Nickel 1/4 40 '13.45
Potassium 4/4 5,000 21 5 to 704
Sodium 4/4 5.000 2,710 to '5,570
Vanadium 2/4 50 2.7 to '4.4 J
Background . Rorida
Mean1 Screening Risk-Based Guidance
Concentration' Concentration CmeMtnMarit
4J NA 4.8 6
864 776 3,700 200
17.5 41.2 260 2,000
9,310 380 1,055,398 NSC
3.8 70 "18 '100
1,140 450 1,100 300
1,290 1,290 118,807 NSC
49.4 9.8 18 50
13.5 32 73 100
464 1,580 297,016 NSC
4.360 1,150 396,022 160,000
3.5 96 26 49
Analyte
HHCPC? Reason*
(Yes/No)
Yes
Yes
No B
No S
No B
Ye«
No S
Yes
No B
No B
No S, G
No B
See notes on next page.
-------
Table 2-2 (Continued)
Groundwater Contaminants
ro
ts>
Record of Decision, Operable Unit 4
Naval Air Station Cecil Field
Jacksonville, Rorida
1 Frequency of detection is the number of samples In which the analyte was detected in relation to the total number of samples analyzed (excluding rejected values).
1 The mean of detected concentrations Is the arithmetic mean of all samples in which the analyte was detected. It does not include those samples with "R", "U", or "UJ"
validation qualifiers.
1 The background screening value Is twice the average of detected concentrations for inorganic analytes in background samples.
4 For all chemicals except the essential nutrients (calcium, magnesium, potassium, and sodium), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Region III Risk-Based
Concentration (RBC) table for tap water exposure per January 1993 guidance (Selecting Exposure Routes and Contaminants of Concern by Risk-based Screening,
EPA/903/R-93-001) was used for screening. Actual values are taken from the USEPA Region III RBC tables dated October 4, 1995, which are based on an excess lifetime
cancer risk of 10°* and an adjusted hazard quotient of 0.1. For the essential nutrient, screening values were derived based on recommended daily allowances.
* The values are from Rorida Department of Environmental Protection Ground Water Guidance Concentrations, June 1994.
1 Analyte was included or excluded from the risk assessment for the following reasons:
B - the maximum detected concentration did not exceed twice the arithmetic mean of detected concentrations at background locations and will not be considered
further.
S • the maximum detected concentration did not exceed the risk-based screening concentration and will not be considered further.
Q *> the maximum detected concentration did not exceed Rorlda's guidance concentration and will not be considered further.
7 The value Is the average of a sample and Its duplicate. For duplicate samples having one nondetect value, 1/2 the contract-required quantltation limit/contract-required
detection limit Is used as a surrogate.
1 The value Is based on hexavalent chromium form.
Notes: The average of a sample and Its duplicate Is used for all table calculations.
Samples Include CF10MW2, CF10MW3, CF10MW4, and CF10MW5S.
Duplicate samples Include CF10MW5S.
Background samples Include CFBKMW1S. CFBKMW2S, CFBKMW4S, CFBKMW4SD (Duplicate), CFBKMW5S, CFBKMW7S, and CFBKMW8S.
HHCPC » human health contaminants of potential concern.
fjg/l • mlcrograms per liter.
J • Indicates chemical Identified by chemist, but quantity was estimated.
NA » not appropriate.
NSC • no screening concentration available.
-------
Flightline
. apron
CEF-10-1D
PERIMETER ROAD
LEGEND
Approximate site boundary
Treeline
Aluminum concentration
Iron concentration
Manganese concentration
Bis (2-Ethylhexyl) phthalate
concentration
Access road
ERIMETER ROAD
Al
Fe
Mn
Bis
CEF-10-5S
.K Monitoring well location
^^ with designation
.mm Gross
J Estimated value
NOTES:
Only analvtes identified as human health
contaminants of potential concern in Table 6-4
in the baseline risk assessment are shown.
Average of sample and duplicate.
Groundwater concentrations are in microgroms
per liter
200
400
SCALE: 1 INCH = 400 FEET
\C_ x Manmade
)V draim
>• ditch
drainage
FIGURE 2-4
SURFIdAL AQUIFER
HUMAN HEALTH CONTAMINANTS OF
POTENTIAL CONCERN
M \crrvxMV\«>'O«:.
07/1 J/iJ t»»X. fcloOID K1J
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION
OPERABLE UNIT 4
NAVAL AIR STATION CECIL FIELD
JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA
CEF-OU4.ROD
SAS.O9.97
2-13
-------
Analyte
Frequency
of
Detection3
Range of
Reporting
Limits
Range of
Detected
Concentrations
Mean of
Detected
Concentrations1
Table 2-3
Surface Water1 and Sediment Organics
Record of Decision, Operable Unit 4
Naval Air Station Cecil Reid
Jacksonville, Rorida
Sediment
Volatie Organic Compounds (pg/kg)
2-Butanone 2/2
Toluene 2/2
Seimivolatie Organic Compounds (f/g/kg)
Benzo(b)fluoranthene 1/2
Benzo(g,h,i)pery1ene 1/2
Benzo(a)pyrene 1/2
Di-n-butylphthalate 2/2
lndeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 1/2
Pesticides/PCBs (//g/kg)
4,4-DDD 1/2
4,4-DDE 1/2
4,4-DDT 1/2
Total Recoverable Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TRPH) (mg/kg)
TRPH 2/2
13 to 19
8 to 19
440
440
440
440 to 620
440
5 to 6
6
5
16 to 67
4 J to 46 J
6 J to *8
46J
43 J
46J
*78 J to 92 J
40 J
41.5J
*0.37 J
3.4 J
*250 to 710
5.2
7.3
46
43
46
85
40
1.5
0.37
3.7
480
1 No organic analytes were detected in surface water samples.
3 Frequency of detection is the number is samples in which the analyte was detected divided by the total number of
samples analyzed (excluding rejected values).
1 The mean of detected concentrations is the arithmetic mean of all samples in which the analyte was detected; it does
not include those samples with a "U" or "UJ" validation qualifier for that analyte.
* Value is the average of a sample and Hs duplicate.
Notes: The average of a sample and its duplicate is used for all table calculations.
Samples include CF10SD1 and CF10SD2.
Duplicate sample CF10SD2O.
pg/kg = micrograms per kilogram.
J = chemical was identified by chemist but quantity was estimated. -
PCBs - polychlorinated biphenyls.
ODD = dichlorodiphenytdichloroethane.
DDE = dichlorodiphenyldichloroethene.
DDT = dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane.
TRPH = total recoverable petroleum hydrocarbons.
mg/kg = micrograms per kilogram.
CEF-OU4.BOD
SAS.09.97
2-14
-------
Table 2-4
Surface Water and Sediment Inorganics
Record of Decision, Operable Unit 4
. Naval Air Station Cecil Field
Jacksonville, Florida
Analyte
Frequency
of
Detection1
Range of
Reporting
Limits
Range of
Detected
Concentrations
Surface Water Inorganic* (figlt}
Aluminum
Calcium
Iron
Magnesium
Manganese
Sodium
Vanadium
2/2
2/2
1/2
2/2
2/2
2/2
2/2
200
5,000
100
5,000
15
5,000
50
340 to 1.030
210,200 to 14,000
330
*901 to 1.000
10.7 to 12
1,770 to 21 ,990
*1. 8 to 3.9
Sediment Inorganics (my/kg)
Aluminum
Barium
Calcium
Chromium
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Selenium
Sodium
Vanadium
2/2
2/2
2/2
2/2
2/2
1/2
1/2
2/2
1/2
2/2
2/2
40
40
1.000
2
20
0.6
1.000
3
1
1,000
10
'1,690 to 1.700
3.1 to *7.4
186toM,680
J2.8 J to 3.3
2518 J to 519
'5-0
2288
4.3 to 29.8
2.8 J
293 J to 1352
24.7 to 5.1
1 Frequency of detection Is the number is samples in which the analyte was detected
divided by the total number of samples analyzed (excluding rejected values).
1 Value is the average of a sample and its duplicate.
Notes: The average of a sample and its duplicate is used for all table calculations.
Samples include CF10SW1/SD1 and CF10SW1/SD1.
Duplicate sample CF10SW2D/SD2D.
fjg/t = micrograms per (Her.
mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram.
J = chemical was identified by chemist but quantity was
estimated.
CEF-OU4.ROO
SAS.09.97
2-15
-------
impaired benthic community. The OU 4 RI (ABB-ES, 1996) further supports that OU
4 is not a source of surface water or sediment contamination. More detail on
these effects is provided in the OU 1 RI report (ABB-ES, 1994).
2.6 SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS. The BRA provides the basis for taking action and
indicates the exposure pathways that need to be addressed by remedial action.
It serves as the baseline indicating what risks could exist if no action were
taken at the site. This section of the ROD reports the results of the BRA
conducted for OU 4. The risk assessment identified no unacceptable human health
or ecological risks at OU 4.
Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA). The purpose of the HHRA was to characterize
the risks associated with possible exposures to site-related contaminants for
human receptors. Potential health risks were evaluated under current and assumed
future land-use conditions for a subset of contaminants detected in surface soil
and the surficial aquifer groundwater.
For receptors under assumed land uses, cancer and noncancer risks are estimated.
The NCP establishes an acceptable cancer risk as the excess lifetime cancer risk,
due to exposure to the human health CPCs at a site by each complete exposure
pathway, of 1 in a million to 1 in 10,000 (USEPA, 1990) or a noncancer hazard
index equal to or less than 1. Potential receptors assumed to be exposed to site
contaminants included a future resident, site trespasser, and site worker. The
results of the health risk assessment are depicted on Figures 2-5 and 2-6. Under
the future resident assumptions, the estimated excess (incremental) lifetime
cancer risk for a child/adult exposed to the surface soil, a risk of less than
1 in 100,000 was calculated. This falls well within the USEPA acceptance range.
All other exposure assumptions did not pose an unacceptable cancer or noncancer
risk.
Ecological Assessment. The purpose of the ecological risk assessment was to
characterize the risks associated with potential exposures to site-related
contaminants at OU 4 for ecological receptors. Potential risks for ecological
receptors were evaluated for selected contaminants detected in surface soil,
surface water, sediment, and groundwater at OU 4.
Risks to wildlife, soil invertebrates, and plants were evaluated for exposures
to selected contaminants in soil. No risks were identified for wildlife or
invertebrates being exposed to OU 4 surface soil. Adverse effects to plants are
unlikely considering site history, the conservative nature employed in selecting
phytotoxicity benchmarks, and the sporadic detection of selected inorganics in
OU 4 surface soil.
Sediment toxicity testing results indicate that no risks are present.
Risks were not identified for terrestrial wildlife resulting from exposures to
selected contaminants in surface water and sediment within the drainage ditches.
Potential risks for aquatic receptors were evaluated for exposures to selected
contaminants in groundwater. The maximum concentrations of selected contaminants
in unfiltered groundwater, as they are discharged to Rowell Creek, were
estimated. The risk characterization did not identify risks for aquatic
OEF-OU4.ROD
SAS.09.97 2-16
-------
in
6 <
to i
fO
1E-01-.
1E-02
1E-03
1E-04
Excess Lifetime 1E"05
Cancer Risk 1E.06
1E-07
1E-08
1E-09
1E-10
USEPA • U.S. Envfronmental Protection Agency
a « Excess lifetime cancer risk
USEPA maximum
risk limit range
Surface soil Surface soil
(child and adult resident) (adult and adolescent
trespasser)
Surface soil
(site maintenance
worker)
Oroundwater
(resident)
FIGURE 2-5
CANCER RISK* SUMMARY,
FUTURE LAND USE
RECORD OF DECISION
OPERABLE UNIT 4
NAVAL AIR STATION CECIL FIELD
JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA
U44-7nRQ240ttlt7MAW
-------
(A
8!
tO ':
(Vi
~4
CD
100
10
Hazard Index (HI)
0.01
0.001
.Guidance HI
Limit
8uff*o*tofl 8urtto»ion Surfanioll 8urf«o**oll Surface toll Qraundmtor
(whiK rttldtnt) (child rMldvnt) (adult tr*tp*ti«r) (adototMnt («Ki malnttnane* (r**ld*nt)
w) worttf)
FIGURE 2-6
NONCANCER RISK SUMMARY,
FUTURE LAND USE
RECORD OF DECISION
OPERABLE UNIT 4
NAVAL AIR STATION CECIL FIELD
JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA
8544-77 FX3 24 072197SMAW
-------
receptors in Rowell Creek that could be associated with exposures to selected
contaminants in groundwater.
2.7 DESCRIPTION OF THE NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE. Based on the risk assessment, no
unacceptable human health or ecological risks were identified at OU 4.
Therefore, no action is needed and no other remedial alternatives were
considered.
Under the No Action alternative, no treatment will be performed and rubble will
be left in place. According to the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) regulations, Section 121, if no action
is the preferred action, then no applicable or relevant and appropriate require-
ments apply to the OU.
Since OU 4 poses no unacceptable risk and the No Action alternative is warranted,
it does satisfy the CERCLA criteria. The No Action alternative is intended to
be the final action. This solution is meant to be permanent and effective in
both the long and short term. The No Further Action decision is the least-cost
option with no capital, operating, or monitoring costs and 5s protective of human
health and the environment.
2.8 DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES. No significant changes have been made
to this decision for No Further Action at OU 4.
CEF-OU4.ROO
SAS.09.97 2-19
-------
REFERENCES
ABB-ES. 1992. Technical Memorandum, Human Health Risk Assessment Methodology,
NAS Cecil Field. Prepared for Southern Division, Naval Facilities
Engineering Command (SOUTHNAVFACENGCOM), North Charleston, South Carolina.
ABB-ES. 1994. Final Remedial Investigation, Operable Unit 1, Naval Air Station
Cecil Field. Prepared for SOUTHNAVFACENGCOM, North Charleston, South
Carolina.
ABB-ES. 1996. Final Remedial Investigation, Operable Unit 4, Naval Air Station
Cecil Field. Prepared for SOUTHNAVFACENGCOM, North Charleston, South
Carolina (July).
ABB-ES. 1997. Proposed Plan for Remedial Action, Naval Air Station Cecil Field,
Operable Unit 4, Rubble Disposal Area (Site 10), Jacksonville, Florida.
Prepared for SOUTHNAVFACENGCOM, North Charleston, South Carolina (July).
Envirodyne Engineers. 1985. Initial Assessment Study, Naval Air Station Cecil
Field.
Florida Legislature. 1990. "Water Quality Standards." Florida Administrative
Code, Chapter 40C-3. Tallahassee, Florida (September).
Geraghty & Miller. 1985. Year-End Report of Groundwater Monitoring.
Harding Lawson Associates. 1988. RCRA Facility Investigation, Naval Air Station
Cecil Field.
Jacksonville Area Planning Board. 1980. 2005 Comprehensive Plan, Jacksonville,
Florida: Comprehensive Plan Supplement. Jacksonville, Florida.
Naval Air Station Cecil Field. 1990. Letter from Deane E. Leidholt, Commander,
CEC, U.S. Navy, to St. Johns River Water Management District, Jay C.
Lawrence, Palatka, Florida, regarding Consumptive Use Permit Application
No. 2-031-0113AUSGM2. Naval Air Station Cecil Field, Jacksonville, Florida,
file No. 5000, 18400.
Southern Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command (SOUTHNAVFACENGCOM).
1989. Naval Air Station Cecil Field Master Plan. North Charleston, South
Carolina (November).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1990. "National Oil and Hazardous
Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; Final Rule." 40 Code of Federal
Regulations, Part 300. Federal Register, 55(46):8718 (March 8).
USEPA. 1992. Guidance on Preparing Superfund Decision Documents, Preliminary
Draft. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Directive 9355.3-02.
Vargas, C. , and Associates, Ltd. 1981. Drawings of the Industrial Vastevater
Disposal Area, Building 313. Prepared for SOUTHNAVFACENGCOM (March).
CCF-OU4.ROO
SAS.09.97 Ref-1
-------
APPENDIX A
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
-------
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENT AND AGENCY RESPONSE. Comments and questions raised
during the public meeting are summarized below.
Audience question: Can the debris left at OU 4 be recycled?
BCT Response: Based on the risk assessment, there does not appear to
be any human health or environmental basis for not recy-
cling materials remaining at OU 4.
CEF-OU4.ROO
SAS.09.97
------- |