PB95-964034,
                                 EPA/ROD/R04-95/250
                                 March 1996
EPA Superfund
      Record of Decision:
       Homestead Air Force Base,
       Operable Unit 1, FL
       9/7/1995

-------
Homestead Air Reserve Base, Florida

Final
Record of Decision for
Operable Unit No. 1, Site FT-5,
Fire Protection Area No. 2
May 1995

-------
                       FINAL

               RECORD OF DECISION

                         FOR

                 OPERABLE UNIT 1
SITE FT-5, FIRE PROTECTION TRAINING AREA NO. 2

    HOMESTEAD AIR RESERVE BASE, FLORIDA
                       May 1995
                      Prepared for:

                U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
                  Missouri River Division
                     Omaha District
                    Omaha, Nebraska
                      Prepared by:

                   Montgomery Watson
            3501 North Causeway Boulevard, Suite 300
                 Metairie, Louisiana 70002

-------
                               RECORD OF DECISION

                               Operable Unit 1, Site FT-5,
                           Fire Protection Training Area No. 2
                              Homestead Air Reserve Base
                                  Homestead, Florida
                             FDEP Facility No. 138521996
                                      May 1995
Montgomery Watson appreciates the opportunity to work for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
at the Homestead Air Reserve Base facility in Homestead, Florida. If you have any questions or
comments concerning this report, please contact one of the individuals listed below.
                                             Respectfully submitted,

                                             MONTGOMERY WATSON
                                             Randall S. Luwe, P.G
                                             Project Manager
                                                       /
                                                      A. &
                                             Jerr/D. Gaccetta, P.G.
                                             Project Engineer

-------
                             TABLE OF CONTENTS

                                                                              Pag

SECTION 1.0 SITE NAME, LOCATION, AND DESCRIPTION	   1

       1.1    Operable Unit No. 1 Description	   2
       1.2    Regional Land Use	   3
       1.3    Regional Surface Hydrology	   3
             1.3.1  Regional Hydrogeologic Setting	   4
       1.4    Regional Site Geology and Hydrogeology	   5

SECTION 2.0 HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES	   6

      2.1    OU-I/Site FT-5 History	   6
             2.1.1  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 - Confirmation/Quantification	   9
             2.3.3  IRP Phase III - Technology Base Development	 10
             2.3.4  IRP Phase IV- Additional Investigations	 10
                   2.3.4.1 Phase IV - A Soil and Soil Vapor Investigation	 11
                   2.3.4.2 Phase IV - A Sediment Investigation	 12
                   2.3.4.3 Phase IV - A Surface Water Investigation	 13
                   2.3.4.4 Phase IV - A Groundwater Investigation	 13
             2.3.5  1991 Remedial Investigation of Site FT-5/OU-1	 14
             2.3.6  1993 Remedial Investigation of Site FT-5/OU-1	 15
      2.4    Community Participation History	 15
      2.5     Scope And Role of Responsible Action	 16
      2.6    Summary of Site Characteristics	 16
            2.6.1   Nature and Extent of Contamination	 17
            2.6.2  Previous Field Investigations	 17
                   2.6.2.1 Background Soil and Groundwater	 17
                   2.6.2.2 Volatile Organic Compounds	 18
                   2.6.2.3 Total Recoverable Petroleum Hydrocarbons/Cg-C20	 19
                   2.6.2.4 Base/Neutral and Acid Extractable Compounds	 20
                   2.6.2.5 Inorganics	 21
                   2.6.2.6 Pesticides/PCBs	 24
                   2.6.2.7 Total  Organic Carbon	 24
            2.6.3   Summary	 25
      2.7    Summary of Site Risks	 25
      2.8    Selection of Chemicals of Potential Concern	 26
      2.9    Exposure Assessment	 26
            2.9.1   Exposure Point Concentration	 26
            2.9.2   Land Use	 27

-------
                        TABLE OF CONTENTS

                                                                          Page

        2.9.3  Exposure Scenarios	  27
        2.9.4  Toxicity Assessment	  27
        2.9.5  Risk Characterization	  28
              2.9.5.1  Carcinogenic Risk	  28
              2.9.5.2  Total Risk	  30
              2.9.5.3  Risk from Lead Exposure	  30
        2.9.6  Chemicals of Concern and Remedial Goal Option	  30
        2.9.7  Uncertainties in the Risk Assessment	  31
              2.9.7.1  Ecological Risks	  32
 2.10    Description of Alternatives	  32
        2.10.1 Alternative 1 - No-Action with Groundwater Monitoring of
              Contaminants for Migration and Attenuation	  33
        2.10.2 Alternative 2 - Access Restriction for Groundwater, Use
              Restrictions for Soil, and Groundwater Monitoring of
              Contaminant Migration and Attenuation	  33
        2.10.3 Alternative 3 - Access Restriction for Groundwater, Use
              Restriction for Soil, Treatment of Rubble and Topsoil, and
              Groundwater Monitoring of Contaminant Migration and
              Attenuation	  34
       2.10.4 Alternative 4 - Access Restrictions for Groundwater, Use
              Restrictions for Soil, Treatment and/or Disposal of Rubble Pile
              and Topsoil, and Groundwater Monitoring of Contaminant
              Migration and Attenuation	  34
       2.10.5 Alternative 5 - Treatment and/or Disposal of Rubble, Topsoil,
              and Hot Spot Soils; In-Situ Biotreatment and Air Sparging of
              Groundwater; and Groundwater Monitoring	  35
2.11   Summary of Comparative Analysis of Alternatives	  35
       2.11.1  Overall Protection of Human Health and Environment	  36
       2.11.2 Compliance with ARARS	 36
       2.11.3 Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence	 37
       2.11.4 Reduction of Mobility, Toxicity, or Volume Through Treatment.... 37
       2.11.5  Short-Term Effectiveness	 37
       2.11.6 Implementability	 37
       2.11.7  Cost	 38
2.12   Selected Remedy	 38
2.13   Statutory Determinations	 39
2.14   Documentation of Significant Changes	 40

-------
                                 LIST OF TABLES

 Table                                                                      Follows
  No.      	Title	     Page

  2-1       Analytical Results of Phase IV-A Soil Samples Collected in 1989 From
           Soil Borings at Site FT-5, Fire Protection Training Area No. 2,
           Geraghty & Miller	  12
  2-2       Analytical Results of Phase IV-A Soil Samples Collected in 1989 From
           Monitoring Well Borings at Site FT-5, Fire Protection Training Area
           No. 2, Geraghty & Miller	  12
  2-3       Analytical Results of Phase IV-A Sediments Samples Collected in 1988
           at Site FT-5, Fire Protection Training Area No. 2,
           Geraghty & Miller	  13
  2-4       Analytical Results of Phase IV-A Grab Groundwater Samples Collected
           in 1988 From Open Boreholes at Site FT-5, Fire Protection Training
           Area No. 2, Geraghty & Miller	  13
  2-5       Analytical Results of Phase IV-A Groundwater Samples Collected in 1989
           From Permanent Monitoring Wells at Site FT-5, Fire Protection Training
           Area No. 2, Geraghty & Miller	  14
  2-6       Background Soil Concentrations	  18
  2-7       General Water Quality, Geraghty & Miller	  19
  2-8       Summary of Constituents Detected in Soil Samples Collected in 1993 at
           Site FT-5, Fire Protection Training Area No. 2	  18
  2-9       Summary of Constituents Detected in Groundwater Samples Collected
           in 1993 at Site FT-5, Fire Protection Training Area No. 2,
           Montgomery Watson	  19
 2-10       Summary of Constituents Detected in Surface Samples Collected in 1993
           at Site FT-5, Fire Protection Training Area No. 2, Montgomery Watson....  19
 2-11       Summary of Constituents Detected in Soil Samples Collected in 1993 at
           Site FT-5, Fire Protection Training Area No. 2, Montgomery Watson	 23
 2-12       Comparison of Metals Detected in Sediment Samples Collected at
           Site FT-5, Fire Protection Training Area No. 2, With Background
           Concentrations, Montgomery Watson	 23
 2-13       Chemicals of Potential Concern at FT-5, Fire Protection Area No.  2,
           Geraghty & Miller	 26
 2-14       Equations and Sample Calculations for Hypothetical Future Potable
           Groundwater Exposure, Site FT-5, Fire Protection Training Area No. 2	 27
 2-15       Equations and Sample Calculations for Soil Exposure, Site FT-5,
           Fire Protection Area No. 2	 27
 2-16       Equations and Sample Calculations for Wading Exposure at Site FT-5,
           Fire Protection Training Area, Geraghty & Miller	 27
 2-17       Cancer Slope Factors, Tumor Sites and USEPA Cancer Classifications
           for Constituents of Potential Concern, Site FT-5, Fire Protection
           Training Area No.  2,  Geraghty & Miller	  28
2-18       Reference Doses for Constituents of Potential Concern, Site FT-5,  Fire
           Protection Training Area No. 2, Geraghty & Miller	  28
                                    in

-------
                                LIST OF TABLES

Table                                                                       Follows
 No.       	Title	.    Page

 2-19       Risk-Based Remedial Goal Options for Soil Based on Potential Current
           Base Worker Exposure - Site FT-5, Fire Protection Training Area No. 2,
           Geraghty & Miller	 31
 2-20       Risk-Based Remedial Goal Options for Soil Based on Hypothetical
           Future Adult Resident Exposure, Site FT-5, Fire Protection Training
           Area No. 2, Geraghty & Miller	 31
 2-21       Risk-Based Remedial Goal Options for Soil Based on Hypothetical
           Future Child Resident Exposure, Site FT-5, Fire Protection Training
           Area No. 2, Geraghty & Miller	 31
 2-22       Comparative Analysis of Final Alternatives for Site FT-5, Fire Protection
           Training Area No. 2, Geraghty & Miller	 35

-------
                               LIST OF FIGURES

Figure                                                                      Follows
 No.       	Title	    Page

  1 -1       Location of Homestead Air Reserve Base	  1
  1 -2       Base Location Map	  2
  1-3       Location Map, Site FT-5, Fire Protection Area No. 2	  2
  1 -4       Site FT-5, Fire Protection Training Area No. 2 Study Area	  3
 2-1       VOCs and TRPH Detected in Groundwater Samples Collected in
           Groundwater Samples Collected During the 1989, 1991, and 1993 Field
           Investigations Site FT-5, Fire Protection Training Area No. 2	 19
 2-2       Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons Detected in Soil/Weathered Rock
           Samples Collected During the 1989, 1991, and 1993 Field Investigations,
           Site FT-5, Fire Protection Training Area No. 2	 20
 2-3       Organic Compound Detected in Groundwater Samples Collected During
           the 1989 , 1991, and 1993 Field Investigations, Site  FT-5, Fire Protection
           Training Area No. 2	 20
 2-4       Lead Concentrations Detected in Surface Soil/Weathered Rock Samples
           Collected During  the 1989, 1991, and 1993 Field Investigations,
           Site FT-5, Fire Protection Training Area No.  2	 21

-------
Homestead Air Reserve Base, Florida
Operable Unit No. 1
Fire Protection Training Area No. 2

Declaration for the Record of Decision

-------
                          DECLARATION STATEMENT

                                    FOR THE

               RECORD OF DECISION FOR OPERABLE UNIT NO. 1
 SITE NAME AND LOCATION

       Homestead Air Reserve Base
       Homestead, Dade County, Florida
       Operable Unit No. 1 - Site FT-5
       Fire Protection Training Area No. 2 (former Site FPTA-2)

 STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE

 This decision document presents the selected remedial action for the Fire Protection Training
 Area No. 2 (Site FT-5), Operable Unit No. 1 (OU-1), 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 Operable Unit. The information that forms the
 basis for this remedial action is contained in the administrative record for Site FT-5/OU-1.

 The selected alternative for OU-1 is access restriction for groundwater,  use restriction for
 soil, and  groundwater monitoring for contaminant migration and attenuation.  The State of
 Florida, the U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), and the  U.S.  Air Force
 (USAF) concur with the selected remedy presented in this Record of Decision (ROD).

ASSESSMENT OF THE SITE

Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from this site, if not addressed by
implementing the response actions selected in this ROD, may present a current or potential
threat to public health, welfare, or the environment.
                                      -i-

-------
  DESCRIPTION OF THE SELECTED REMEDY

  The response action selected in this  document addresses through access restriction for
  groundwater and institutional controls the health and environmental threats determined at this
  site as exposure to soil and groundwater.  It also  requires zoning  restriction by deed and
  groundwater monitoring.

  The major components of the selected remedy include:

    •   Implementation of deed restrictions or restrictive covenants to limit usage of Site
        FT-5/OU-1  to prevent schools, playgrounds, hospitals,  and residential units from
        being built at OU-1  to limit exposure to adults and children.

    •   Eliminate and prevent the practice of continued rubble disposal at the site.

    •   Restrict the placement of potable water wells into the contaminated groundwater
        beneath the site.

    •    Two years of semiannual groundwater monitoring followed by a review of the site to
        assess the migration and attenuation of groundwater contaminants.

    •   Five year review to determine whether the site remains protective of human health
       and the environment and evaluate the need for further action, if required.

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. The use of
institutional controls prevents human exposure to the  soils and the contaminated groundwater
while semiannual groundwater monitoring would track the migration and/or attenuation of
groundwater contaminants.  However, because treatment of the principal threats at the  site
were not found to be practicable, this remedy does  not satisfy the statutory preference for
treatment as a principal  element of the remedy.  The nature of the risk to human health is
minimal; and, with institutional controls, these risks do not  pose a threat to human health or
the environment. This alternative meets the human health remedial action objectives (RAOs)
                                        -u-

-------
 by using institutional controls to prevent human exposure to chemicals of concern (COCs) in
 the soil  and groundwater.  Therefore, the more cost effective remedial action  is being
 implemented based on evaluation of this risk and potential site usage.

 Because this remedy will result in hazardous substances, pollutants, or other contaminants
 remaining on-site  above health-based levels, a review  of the remedial action will be
 conducted within 5 years after commencement of the remedial action to ensure that the
 remedy continues to provide adequate protection of human health and the environment. The
 review will be performed every five years thereafter.
UNITED STATES AIR FORCE
HOMESTEAD AIR FORCE BASE
By:.
Date:
                   Mr. Alan Olsen
              Director, HQ AFBCA-DR
                                      -in-

-------
Homestead Air Reserve Base, Florida
Operable Unit No. 1
Site FT-5, Fire Protection Training Area No. 2

Decision Summary for the Record of Decision

-------
                              DECISION SUMMARY

                                     FOR THE

               RECORD OF DECISION FOR OPERABLE UNIT NO. 1


 1.0       SITE NAME, LOCATION, AND DESCRIPTION

 Homestead Air Reserve Base (ARB)  (formerly Homestead Air Force Base) 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 area 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 above mean sea level (msl). The Base is  surrounded by a canal
 (Boundary Canal) that discharges into Military 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 farmland are irrigated from aquifer
 wells (USEPA,  1990). All recharge to the aquifer is through rainfall.

 Homestead Army Air Field, a predecessor of Homestead Air Reserve Base, was activated in
 September 1942, when the Caribbean Wing Headquarters took over the air field previously
 used by Pan American Air Ferries, Inc. The airline had developed the site a few years earlier
 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  1943 to training transport
 pilots and crews.

 In September 1945, a severe hurricane caused extensive damage to the air field. The Base
 property was then turned over to Dade County and was managed by the Dade County Port
 Authority for the next eight years. During this period, the runways were used by crop dusters
 and the buildings housed a few small industrial and commercial operations.

In 1953, the federal government again acquired the airfield, together with some surrounding
property, and rebuilt the Site as a Strategic Air Command (SAC) Base.  The Base operated

-------
 under SAC until July  1968, when it was changed to the Tactical Air Command (TAC) and
 the 4531st Tactical Fighterwing became the new  host.  The  Base was transferred to
 Headquarters Air Combat Command (HQ/ACC) on June 1, 1992.

 In August 1992, Hurricane Andrew struck south Florida causing extensive damage to the
 Base. The Base was placed on the 1993 Base Realignment and  Closure (BRAC) list and
 slated for realignment with a reduced mission.  Air Combat Command departed the Base on
 March 31, 1994 with Air Force Reservists activated at the Base on April 1, 1994. The 482nd
 Reserve Fighter Wing now  occupies approximately 1/3  of the Base with the remaining
 2/3 slated for use and oversite by Dade County.

 1.1       OPERABLE UNIT NO. 1  DESCRIPTION

 Operable Unit 1 (OU-l)/Site FT-5 occupies a general area approximately 11 acres in size and
 is located in the southwestern portion of Homestead ARB, north of the approach zone to
 Runway 05 and southwest of taxiway A (Figures 1-2). The Site FT-5/OU-1 area is bordered
 by Campbell  Drive  to  the  west  and northwest  which is  paved  and  oriented
 northeast/southwest; an unnamed paved  road to the south; and a drainage canal to the east
 and northeast which typically contains water to a depth of one to two feet.

 Beginning at  the northern end  of the site, the drainage  canal flows  from northwest to
 southeast for approximately 525  feet.  The canal then changes course by ninety degrees and
 flows from the northeast to the  southwest for  approximately 780 feet until it reaches the
 southern boundary of the site.  Offsite,  the canal turns southward and flows  south to the
 Boundary Canal which is located approximately 700 feet south of the site area. Remnants of
 a circular concrete pad are located on  the eastern part of the site where the drainage canal
 forms a right angle.

The site is currently inactive (with respect to fire protection training activities and disposal
practices) and consists of an elevated fill/vegetation  area, which is approximately 600 ft by
450 ft, located in the southern portion  of the site (Figure 1-3).  Lithologic logs indicate the
fill was approximately three to six feet thick in  1989. The elevated fill area is covered with
low vegetation, pine trees, limestone rubble,  asphalt, and other construction debris.  Because
the site is actively used as a rubble fill  area by the Facility, the area occupied by the fill has
changed since  1989 and is continually  changing. There is typically less than two-inches of
soil covering the limestone bedrock at the  site  (exclusive of the fill area). The limestone

-------
                                           o

                                   HENDRY COUNTY
                                COLLIER COUNTY
                                                   I	1
                                          MONROE COUNTY I
                                                       PALM BEACH COUNTY
                                                              BOCA RATON J
                                                      BROWARD COUNTY
                                                  I ---- ,
              LAUDERDALE

              ___J—4
                                                        DADE COUNTY
                                                                       S\\
                                                                       (
 i
r
                                                            PERRINEy BISCAYNE
                                                        I         •(    BAY

                                                      HOMESTEAD   HOMESTEAD
                                             EVERGLADES   |_
                                              NATIONAL     '
                                                PARK
                                       -
                                                           0'
                                                                   10 Mi
                          20 Mi
a.

5

i

I

I
                                                                APPROX. SCALE
       HOMESTEAD AIR RESERVE BASE
           HOMESTEAD, FLORIDA
                                                               LOCATION OF
                                                        HOMESTEAD AIR RESERVE BASE
                                                                 FIGURE 1-1

-------
I
Source: USGS 7.5 minute
       Topographic Quadrangles
       Arsenteker, Homestead,
       Goulds, and Perrine.
                                  N
                                       1000
2000
                                                FEET
       HOMESTEAD AIR FORCE BASE
          HOMESTEAD, FLORIDA
                                                                   BASE LOCATION MAP
                                                                     FIGURE 1-2

-------
                                   Housing Area
                              North Gate
                                                            Florida Gate
                                                              "\
                                                                                       FLORIDA
                                                                                  Homestead
                                                                                    AFB
                 _______ \.  BOUGAINVILLE BOULEVARD
                  II
            	: II
                  !l
                  il
                  Y
                  II
                           j' ELLENDOAF
                           •'   STREET
                           cc:
                           oi i

                           SI   BIGGS

                                              v-°    #
                                              <-.>     nX^
                                            '  ,
                                .*/
                                                                                                      Military Canal
              Ordnance Storage
                     FT-5
                      X
                    X /
                      '
                                                                                       Stormwater
                                                                                        Reservoir
                                                                                                   Communication
                                                                                                   Station
LEGEND
'Installation Boundary

Boundary Canal

Site Location
                                             N
                                       0      1000    2000


                                         SCALE IN FEET
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
        HOMESTEAD ARB
        LOCATION MAP
           SITE FT-5
FIRE PROTECTION AREA NO. 2


          FIGURE 1-3

-------
 bedrock is generally characterized as highly weathered and is penetrable with a split-spoon
 formation sampler.

 A drainage ditch is located south of the site just east of the intersection of the unnamed paved
 road and the drainage canal bordering the site.  This ditch collects runoff from the runway
 area and flows from southeast to northwest into the drainage canal bordering the site. The
 Ordnance Storage Area is located approximately 100 feet north of Site FT-5/OU-1 and
 Taxiway A is located approximately 350-400 feet northeast of the site.  In addition, two
 buildings, 4071 and 4076, are located approximately 150 feet northeast of the drainage canal
 which borders the upper part of the site (Figure 1-4).

 1.2       REGIONAL LAND USE

 The area adjacent to Homestead ARE including Site FT-5/OU-1, to the west, east, and south
 within a half-mile radius is primarily composed of farmland and plant nurseries. Residential
 areas are located within  a half-mile to the north and southwest of the Base. Woodlands are
 located approximately one-half-mile east of the facility and mangroves and marsh occur
 adjacent to Biscayne Bay. The Biscayne National Park is located 2 miles east of Homestead
 ARE; the Everglades National park is located 8 miles west-southwest of the Base; and the
 Atlantic Ocean is approximately 8  miles east of the Base.  OU-I/Site FT-5 is located in a
 portion of the Base which  will remain federal property under the  auspices  of the  482nd
 Fighter Wing.  Due to its proximity to the approach zone to Runway 05  and Taxiway A,
 development of the site is not likely in the foreseeable future.  Although the groundwater at
 the site is not suitable for potable use, it is still classified as a potable source of drinking
 water.

 1.3        REGIONAL SURFACE HYDROLOGY

 Surface hydrology at Homestead ARB, including Site FT-5/OU-1 is controlled by five main
 factors:   1) relatively  impermeable areas covered by runways, buildings, and roads;
 2) generally, high infiltration rates through the relatively thin layer of soil cover; 3) flat
 topography; 4) generally, high infiltration rates through the outcrop locations of the Miami
 Oolite Formation; and 5) relatively high precipitation rate compared to evapotranspiration
rate. Infiltration is considered to be rapid through surfaces of oolite outcrop and areas with a
thin soil layer.  Infiltration rates are accelerated by fractures within the oolite, as well as
naturally occurring solution channels.  Precipitation percolates through the relatively thin
vadose zone to locally recharge the unconfmed aquifer.

-------
                              Elevated Fill/
                             VegetationArea
LEGEND
 ~~~~~   Boundary Canal
 	   Drainage Canal
 =^^   Road
   	   Fence
 	   Approximate Site Boundary
0     200  	400

  SCALE IN FEET
     U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
            HOMESTEAD ARE
               SITE FT-5
FIRE PROTECTION TRAINING AREA NO. 2
             STUDY AREA

               FIGURE1-4

-------
 Natural drainage is limited because the water table occurs at or near land surface.  The
 construction of numerous drainage canals on Homestead ARE has improved surface water
 drainage and lowered the water table in some areas. Rainfall runoff from within Homestead
 ARE boundaries is drained via diversion canals to the Boundary Canal.

 A drainage divide occurs within the Homestead  ARE facility property, running from the
 northern end of the facility, toward the center. Water in the Boundary Canal flows generally
 south and east along the  western boundary of the property, and south along the eastern
 boundary, converging at a storm-water reservoir located at the southeastern corner of the
 Base. Flow out of the storm water reservoir flows into Military Canal, which, in turn, flows
 east into Biscayne Bay, approximately 2 miles east of the Base. Water movement is typically
 not visible in the canals in dry weather due to the lowered water table and the very low
 surface gradient (0.3 feet per mile) that exists at the Base.

 1.3.1      Regional Hydrogeologic Setting

 The regional hydrogeology in the southeast Florida area consists of two distinct aquifers:  the
 surficial aquifer system  which consists of the Biscayne Aquifer and the Grey Limestone
 Aquifer, and the lower aquifer, the Floridan Aquifer.

 Biscayne Aquifer. The Biscayne Aquifer at Homestead ARB consists of the Miami Oolite,
 Fort Thompson formation, and the uppermost part of the  Tamiami Formation.  In general, the
 most  permeable parts of the aquifer lie within the Miami Oolite and the Fort Thompson
 Formation.

 The Biscayne  Aquifer underlies all of Dade, Broward, and southeastern Palm Beach
 Counties. The Biscayne Aquifer is the sole source of potable water in Dade County and is a
 federally-designated sole-source aquifer pursuant to Section 1425 of the Safe Drinking Water
 Act (SDWA). The Biscayne Aquifer supplies drinking  water to approximately 2.5 million
 people within local communities. All recharge to the aquifer is derived from local rainfall,
 part of which is lost to evaporation, transpiration, and runoff.

The Biscayne Aquifer has reported transmissivities ranging from approximately 4 to
 8 million gallons per day per foot (mgd/ft) (Allman et al., 1979).

-------
 Water-table contours indicate that under natural conditions, groundwater flows southeasterly
 toward Biscayne Bay.  The hydraulic gradient of the aquifer is approximately 0.3 ft/mile.
 The water table at Homestead ARB generally is encountered within 5 to 6 feet of land
 surface, but may  occur at or near land surface during the wet season (May to October).
 Fluctuations of groundwater levels and local variations in the direction of groundwater flow
 are due to several factors:   (1) differences in infiltration  potential; (2) runoff from paved
 areas; (3) water-level drawdown near pumping wells; (4) significant but localized differences
 in lithology (e.g., silt-filled cavities); and (5)  drainage effects of canals and water-level
 control structures.

 Floridan Aquifer. Underlying the low-permeability sediments of the Tamiami  formation
 and Hawthorn Group are the formations which constitute the Floridan Aquifer. The Floridan
 Aquifer is composed of limestone and dolomite.  It  is under artesian pressure and water
 levels in deep wells may rise 30 to 40 ft above ground surface.  Groundwater within these
 Miocene and Eocene age formations  tends to contain dissolved constituents  at levels
 significantly above those recommended for drinking water.  In view of the poor water quality
 and the depth of water yielding zones (800 to 900 feet below land surface [bis]), 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 stratigraphy of the  shallow aquifer system as determined from soil borings performed
 during site investigations by Geraghty & Miller (G&M) indicate debris and fill in the area of
 the rubble  mound  approximately three to six feet in thickness.  The fill material  has been
 described as a gray to brown sand and silt with a high percentage of asphalt and concrete as
 well as construction and demolition (C&D) debris. There is typically less than two-inches of
 soil covering the limestone bedrock which consists of surficial weathered Miami Oolite
 ranging in depth from 2  to 6 feet bis.  The weathered limestone consists of a white  to brown
 semi-consolidated to consolidated oolitic limestone.  This strata is underlain by consolidated
 to semi-consolidated oolitic and coral limestone interbedded with coarse to fine  sand  and
clayey sand layers and lenses down to the total depth of borings (approximately 40 feet bis).

The Biscayne Aquifer is one of the most transmissive aquifers in the world and it underlies
Homestead  ARB.   A thin vadose zone, nominally less than  5 feet deep,  overlays  the
groundwater table at  the site.  As previously stated, the aquifer structure is a calcium
carbonate matrix. This lithology is know to have natural concentrations of target analyte list
(TAL) metals.  In descending order by concentration, calcium, aluminum, iron magnesium,

-------
 sodium, and potassium can be considered the primary metals of carbonate rock.  The other
 TAL metals occur in trace concentrations, less than 50 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg).
 The range and the standard deviations are not provided at this time.  It should be expected
 that, as precipitation infiltration and  recharge take 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 at
 the site to quantitatively differentiate horizontal and vertical components of the aquifer's
 hydrologic conductivity.   The possible  presence of vertical  solution  zones  is  well
 documented  in the 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 shallow groundwater is discharging to ditches
 provided sufficient detail to arrive at the remedial decision for OU-1/Site FT-5.

 2.0       HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES

 2.1       OU-1/SITE FT-5 HISTORY

 2.1.2     Past Site Usage

 The  Fire Protection Training Area No. 2 operated from 1955 to 1972.  The area was not
 equipped with a liner or residual fuel collection system and it was not a  routine practice to
 first  wet the burn area with water before applying flammable liquids (Engineering-Science,
 1983).  A variety of materials were burned at the site including JP-4, aviation gas,  various
contaminated  fuels,  and waste liquids from  base shops (oils, lubricants, solvents, etc.).
Extinguishing agents included water, carbon dioxide, aqueous film forming foam, and
protein  foam.  After training activities ceased at the site in 1972, construction debris was
disposed of by dumping and spreading it over  a portion of the site.  A mound of compacted
material approximately 3 to 6 feet  (ft) above grade, with the dimensions of approximately
600 ft by 450 ft, is present in the southern portion of the site.  Aerial photographs examined
from 1958, 1962,  1973, and 1983 indicate that several (at least four) fire training pits existed
in the location of the elevated fill area and at least one additional fire training pit was  located
north of the elevated fill area (G&M, 1994).

-------
 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
 (DOD) developed the  Installation Restoration Program (IRP)  for response actions for
 potential releases of toxic or hazardous substances at DOD facilities. Like the Environmental
 Protection Agency's (EPA's) Superfund Program, the IRP follows the procedures of the
 National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). Homestead
 ARE was already engaged in the IRP  Program when it was placed on the National Priorities
 List (NPL) on August 30, 1990.  Cleanup of DOD facilities is paid for by the Defense
 Environmental Restoration Account (DERA), which is DOD's version of Superfund.

 The Superfund Amendment and Reauthorization Act (SARA), enacted in 1986, requires
 federal facilities to follow NCP guidelines. The NCP was amended in 1990 (see 40 CFR 300
 et seq.) to implement CERCLA under  SARA.   In addition, SARA requires greater EPA
 involvement and oversight of Federal Facility  Cleanups.  On March  1, 1991, a Federal
 Facility Agreement (FFA) was signed by Homestead ARB (formerly Homestead AFB), the
 USEPA, and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). The FFA guides
 the remedial design/remedial action (RD/RA) process.

 The purpose of the FFA  was  to establish a  procedural framework and  schedule for
 developing, implementing, and monitoring appropriate response actions at Homestead ARB
 in accordance with existing regulations.  The FFA requires the submittal of several primary
 and secondary  documents for each of the operable units at Homestead ARB. This ROD
 concludes all of the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) requirements for Site
 FT-5/OU-1 and selects a remedy for Operable Unit No. 1.

 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 RI/FS stage of
CERCLA; ten sites are being investigated in the Preliminary Assessment/Site Investigation
(PA/SI) stage of CERCLA, with 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, a RCRA Facility Investigation (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 RI/FS guidelines:

 OU-1  -      Fire Protection Training Area 2 (FT-5)
 OU-2  -      Residual Pesticide Disposal Area (OT-11)
 OU-3  -      PCB Spill C.E. Storage Compound (SS-13)
 OU-4  -      Oil Leakage Behind the Motor Pool (SS-8)
 OU-5  -      Electroplating  Waste Disposal Area (WP-1)
 OU-6  -      Aircraft Washrack Area (SS-3)
 OU-7  -      Entomology Storage Area (SS-7)
 OU-8  -      Fire Protection Training Area 3 (FT-4)
 OU-9  -      Boundary Canal/Military Canal (SD-27)

 Operable  Unit No. 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
 currently in various phases of the RI/FS process.

 2.3        INVESTIGATION HISTORY

 2.3.1      IRP Phase I - Record Search

 An IRP Phase I - Records Search was performed by Engineering-Science, and is summarized
 in their report, dated August  1983 (Engineering-Science,  1983).  During the Phase I study,
 sites with  the potential for environmental contamination resulting from past waste disposal
 practices were identified. Thirteen sites of potential concern were identified by reviewing
 available installation records, interviewing past and present Facility employees, inventorying
 wastes  generated  and  handling practices, conducting field inspections, and  reviewing
 geologic and hydrogeologic data.  In general, Phase I studies are used to determine if a site
requires further investigation.

The thirteen sites identified were ranked using the Hazard Assessment Rating Methodology
(HARM) developed by JRB Associates of McLean, Virginia, for the USEPA.  HARM was
later modified for application to  the Air Force IRP. The following factors are considered in

-------
  HARM:  (1) the possible receptors of the contaminants; (2) the characteristics of the waste;
  (3) potential  pathways for contaminant migration; and (4) waste management practices.
  HARM scores for the sites ranked at Homestead ARE ranged from a high of 72 to a low of
  7 out of 100.  Eight of the thirteen sites were determined to have a moderate-to-high
  contamination  potential, one  of which was the Fire Protection Training Area No. 2.
  Additional monitoring was recommended for these sites.  The remaining five sites  were
  determined to have a low potential for environmental contamination.

  According to the IRP Phase I Report, Site FT-5/OU-1 received a moderate to high HARM
  score of 66 due to the moderate quantity of liquid wastes used and the high potential for
  contaminant migration in surface- and groundwaters of the site.  Site FT-5/OU-1 scored high
  as a potential  migration pathway because of the extremely permeable nature of the soils and
 underlying rock in the area and the proximity of the bordering drainage canal.  Groundwater
 samples were collected for analyses of pH, total dissolved solids (TDS), oil and grease, total
 organic carbon (TOC), phenols, volatile halocarbons, and volatile aromatics.

 2.3.2      IRP Phase II - Confirmation/Quantification

 An IRP Phase II study was performed by Science Applications International Corporation
 (SAIC), and was reported on in  March 1986 (SAIC, 1986).  The objectives of Phase II are to
 confirm the presence or absence of contamination, to quantify the extent and degree of
 contamination, and to determine if remedial actions are necessary. During the Phase II study,
 additional investigations were performed at the eight sites recommended for monitoring in
 the Phase I report, as well as two of the other thirteen originally-identified sites. The Fire
 Protection Training Area No. 2 was included in this investigation.

 During the Phase II investigation, one shallow monitoring well (1-13) approximately 18 ft
 deep  was installed  southeast of the  suspected contamination area at Site FT-5/OU-1 in
 November 1984. Groundwater  samples were collected from monitoring well 1-13 and fire
 fighting Supply Well 248 located just northeast of Building 248 within the Ordnance Storage
 Area.  The groundwater samples were analyzed for oil and grease, total organic halogens
 (TOX), and TOC.   The  upgradient  well,  the  fire  fighting supply well, contained
 concentrations of TOX just above the  detection limit.  Monitoring well 1-13, installed
 downgradient  of the  suspected location on this site, contained the  highest TOX value
 reported during the  Phase II investigation.  The specific compound(s) responsible for this
TOX  value were not known but are probably related to chlorinated solvents contained in
wastes once used for training fire fighters or related to chlorinated pesticides used in the  area

-------
 (SAIC,  1986).  No significant levels of TOC and biological oxygen demand (BOD) were
 detected in the wells (SAIC, 1986).  The exact location of the actual fire protection training
 pit  was not determined  because it has been  obscured by the rubble fill northwest of
 monitoring well 1-13.

 The Phase II report contained the following alternatives for additional investigation at this
 site: (1) resample monitoring well 1-13 and analyze for halogenated organics to identify the
 specific  compounds involved in the contamination; (2) install a minimum of four additional
 monitoring wells and collect groundwater  samples  for  analysis of halogenated Priority
 Pollutants to identify the compounds responsible for the elevated TOX value and to further
 define the contaminated area; (3) collect surface water and associated sediment samples from
 a minimum of four locations along the canal which runs east of the site and analyze samples
 for  halogenated  Priority  Pollutants to define the role of groundwater as  a contaminant
 pathway; and (4) use a combination of alternatives 2 and 3 above  which would identify
 specific  contaminants, better define the plume, and characterize the surface water pathway.
 The recommendations of the  Phase II report however, included additional installation of
 three monitoring  wells and sampling of the new and existing monitoring wells for TOX and
 organic priority pollutants.

 2.3.3     IRP Phase III - Technology Base Development

 The IRP Phase  HI is a  research  phase  and involves technology  development  for an
 assessment of environmental impacts. There have been no Phase III tasks conducted at the
 Base to date.

 2.3.4     IRP Phase IV - Additional Investigations

The  IRP  Phase IV investigations consists of two areas of work activity.  Phase IV-A involves
 additional site investigations necessary to meet the  Phase II objectives, a review of all
management methods and technologies that could possibly  remedy site  problems, and
preparation of a baseline risk assessment to address the potential hazards to human health and
the environment associated with the constituents detected at the site.   Detailed alternatives
are developed and evaluated and a  preferred alternative is selected. The preferred alternative
then is described in sufficient detail to  serve  as a baseline document for initiation of
Phase IV-B.
                                        10

-------
 An IRP Phase IV-A investigation was performed at Site FT-5/OU-1 by G&M during two
 separate field  programs, the first in 1988 and the  second in  1989.  The results of this
 investigation are included in the report entitled "Draft Remedial Investigation/Endangerment
 Assessment for Fire Protection Training Area No. 2 (FPTA-2), Homestead Air Force Base,
 Florida," December 1990.

 2.3.4.1    Phase IV-A Soil and Soil Vapor Investigation. In February 1988, during the
 first field program, a soil vapor investigation was conducted at Site FT-5/OU-1. Twenty-one
 soil borings (B-43 through B-63) were augured to a depth of approximately 8 ft below land
 surface (bis) at Site FT-5/OU-1 in  the area located adjacent to the elevated fill.  After
 completion, each borehole was sealed for approximately 12 hours prior to analyzing the
 boring headspace with a Photovac™ TIP  containing a photoionization detector (PID) and
 calibrated  to a  100  parts  per million  (ppm)  isobutylene standard.   Organic vapor
 concentrations greater than ambient levels were detected in six soil borings.  Five of the six
 borings were located just east of the elevated fill area.  On the basis of the soil vapor survey,
 five additional soil borings were drilled to approximately 18 ft bis to install monitoring wells
 HS-10 through HS-14. Continuous split-spoon formation samples were collected to the total
 depth  of each  borehole to determine the physical  and lithologic characteristics of the
 soil/weathered limestone bedrock.

 In March and April  1989, during the  second field program, 20 additional soil borings were
 drilled (TW-21  through TW-23,  TW-31 through TW-34, FPTA2-SB1 through FPTA2-SB8,
 FPTA2-MW1(SS1)  through FPTA2-MW4(SS4), and FPTA2-DMW1) for a soil and soil
 vapor  investigation. Boreholes  TW-21 through TW-23 and TW-31 through TW-34 were
 drilled to install temporary  monitoring wells.  Boreholes TW-21 through TW-3, TW-31 and
 TW-32 were drilled to eight ft bis. Boreholes TW-33 and TW-34 were drilled in the elevated
 fill area to  approximately seven ft bis.  Soil samples were collected in each borehole at
 two-foot intervals until the water table was encountered. The samples were analyzed with an
 organic vapor analyzer (OVA), containing a flame ionization detector (FID), and a TIP.

Eight exploratory soil borings (FPTA2-SB1 through FPTA2-SB8) were drilled to aid in
evaluating  the  aerial extent of subsurface  hydrocarbon  constituents.   Soil  borings
FPTA2-SB1 through FPTA2-SB4 were drilled to four ft  bis, soil borings FPTA2-SB5
through FPTA2-SB7 to eleven ft  bis, and soil boring FPTA2-SB8 to eight ft bis. Split-spoon
soil samples were collected in each borehole and analyzed with an OVA and TIP. Additional
samples were collected from varying depths in the eight soil borings and submitted to Versar
                                        11

-------
 Laboratory, Inc., for analysis of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), base/neutral  acid
 extractable organic compounds (BNAs), Cg-C2o hydrocarbons, and total lead (Table 2-1).

 Five additional soil boring locations (FPTA2-MW1[SS1] through FPTA2-MW[SS4] and
 FPTA2-DMW1) were selected based on the results of the organic vapor analyses  and
 analyses of groundwater collected from  temporary monitoring wells.  These soil borings
 were drilled to install five permanent monitoring wells.  Split-spoon soil samples were
 collected in boreholes FPTA2-MW1  through  FPTA2-MW4 for chemical analyses by the
 contracted laboratory.  These soil samples were collected above the water table to determine
 the presence or absence of subsurface hydrocarbon constituents in the vadose zone. Each
 soil sample was analyzed for the following:  VOCs, BNAs, Cg-C2o hydrocarbons, and total
 lead. The results of these analyses are provided in Table 2-2. Split-spoon soil samples also
 were collected from each monitoring well  borehole for on-site organic vapor analysis with an
 OVA and TIP.

 The soil organic vapor analyses indicated  elevated organic vapor concentrations using a TIP
 which is a PID and an  OVA which is a FID.  The highest organic vapor concentrations were
 detected in soil collected from depths greater than four ft bis at FPTA2-SB7, FPTA2-SB5,
 TW-34, and TW-33 which are located in  the central area of the elevated fill (G&M, 1990).
 The maximum detected soil vapor concentrations for soils shallower than four ft bis were
 detected at FPTA2-MW1, TW-22, and FPTA2-DMW1 which are  located immediately east
 of the elevated fill.

 In the eight surface samples collected from  0 to 3 ft  bis, BNAs, most of which were
 polynuclear aromatic  hydrocarbons (PAHs), were detected in five of the samples, Cg-C2o
 hydrocarbons were detected in one sample,  and  lead was detected in six of the  samples.
 VOCs were not detected in  the surface soil  samples collected. In  the 11 subsurface soil
 samples collected from 3 to 10 feet bis, BNAs,  most of which were PAHs, were detected in
 ten of  the samples, ethylbenzene and  xylenes  were detected  in one sample, Cg-C2o
 hydrocarbons were detected in two of the samples, and lead in nine of the samples.  The
 highest  concentrations of total BNAs were detected in surface samples collected from 0 to 3
 feet bis  and subsurface samples collected from 3 to 8 feet in the elevated fill area.

2.3.4.2    Phase IV-A Sediment  Investigation.  In  1988, five  sediment samples were
collected from the drainage canal adjacent to Site FT-5/OU-1 and were analyzed for VOCs,
BNAs, total recoverable petroleum hydrocarbon (TRPH), total lead, and BOD. The results
                                        12

-------
                                                                                  TABLE 2-1
                                                     ANALYTICAL RESULTS OF PHASE IV-A SOIL SAMPLES COLLECTED IN 1080
                                                    FROM SOIL BORINQS AT STTE FT-«, RRE PROTECTION TRAINING AREA NO. 2
                                                                            Homestead ARB, Florid*
LOCATION
SAMPLE DEPTH
CONSTITUENTS a/
VOLATILE ORQANICS
Ethylbenzene
Xyteoe (total)
BASBNEUTRAL EXTRACTABLES
Acanaphthene
Anthracene
BeruD(a)anthracena
BenzD(a)pyrene
Ben2D(b)fluoranthene
Banzo(g,h,l)perylen0
BenzD(k)fluoranthene
Chrysona
Dl-n-butylphthalale
Dlbenzo(a,h)anthracene
2,6-Dlnl(rololuene
bb(2-Ethylhexyl)phtnalate
Fhioranthena
Fhiorena
lndeno(1 ,2,3-cd)pyrene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
C8-C20 HYDROCARBONS (total)
TOTAL LEAD e/


UNITS
ug/kg

ug/Xg







ug/kg
mg/kg
FPTA2-SB1
0-2ft


< 29
< 29

< 633
< 633
< 633
< 633
< 633
< 633
< 633
< 633
1660 b/
< 633
< 633
< 633
< 633
< 633
< 633
< 633
< 633
< 633
< 12500
< 0.610
FPTA2-SB2
0-3ft


< 27
< 27

< 2870
(2390)
11100
12800
17700
14000
18200
17600
< 2870
4480
< 2870
< 2870
21100
< 2870
8790
< 2870
9600
18600
< 56900
78
FPTA2-SB3
0-2(1


< 30
< 30

< 694
< 694
< 694
< 694
< 694
< 694
< 694
< 694
< 694
< 694
< 694
< 694
< 694
< 694
< 694
< 694
< 694
< 694
< 13800
< 0.63
FPTA2-SB4
0-2(1


< 32
< 32

< 649
< 649
< 649
< 649
< 649
< 649
< 649
< 649
< 649
< 649
< 649
< 649
< 649
< 649
< 649
< 649
< 649
< 649
< 12900
23
FPTA2-SB5

S c/


43
84

6250
10500
16200
8290
8560
6520
11200
14800
< 3430
3800
< 3430
< 3430
31600
6990
4640
7400
53600
24000
114000
15
D d/


< 31
< 31

< 658
< 658
< 658
< 658
< 658
< 658
< 658
< 658
< 658
< 658
< 658
< 658
< 658
< 658
< 658
< 658
< 658
< 658
< 13000
< .600
FPTA2-SB8

S


< 27
< 27

12500
29400
54400
34200
41500
33900
45500
53500
< 8070
13900
< 8070
< 8070
113000
10800
23500
9340
152000
94500
< 160000
44
D


< 34
< 34

< 676
P55J
736
I546J
13491
< 676
< 676
774
< 676
< 676
< 676
< 676
1200
< 676
< 676
< 676
1240
954
< 13400
2.2
FPTA2-SB7

S


< 28
< 28

6400
17300
47800
40000
47300
23800
30300
48200
< 2910
6630
< 2910
< 2910
75000
7090
18500
3870
74400
56900
< 57600
5.6
D


< 32
< 32

< 641
1537]
653
(590]
15321
< 641
< 641
785
< 641
< 641
< 641
< 641
1320
< 641
< 641
(328]
1720
1060
23600
< 0.61
FPTA2-SB8

S


< 35
< 35

11500
19400
37200
23300
23100
14400
22500
34900
< 6940
7250
< 6940
< 6940
91500
11800
< 6940
8390
144000
62400
< 137000
14
D


< 32
< 32

821
1400
2410
1770
1940
< 641
2410
3300
|628] bf
< 641
653
|385]
5420
738
1390
I337J
6620
6590
< 12700
.700
a/ Constltutents not detected In any samples are not shown.
b/ Constituent delected In lab blank.
c/ S • shallow sample collected In the 4-8 ft bis range.
d/ D • deeper sample collected In the 6-10 ft bis range.
[) Value Is between Instrument detection limit and level of quantltatlon.
e/ Data originally reported In ug/kg.
Source:   Qeraghty & Miller. Inc. (Q&M Project No. TF702.02)
    f-.\TF702\FPTA2\RI\TABLE2-1 .XLS

-------
                                                         TABLE 2-2
                            ANALYTICAL RESULTS OF PHASE IV-A SOIL SAMPLES COLLECTED IN 1989
                   FROM MONITORING WELL BOREHOLES AT SITE FT-5, FIRE PROTECTION TRAINING AREA NO. 2
                                                   Homestead ARB, Florida
LOCATION
CONSTITUENTS eJ
VOLATILE ORGANICS
Ethylbenzene
Xylene (total)
BASE/NEUTRAL EXTRACTABLE ORGANICS
Acenaphthene
Anthracene
Benzo(a)anthracen0
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluorBnthene
Benzo(g,hli)perylene
Benzo(k)fluoranthen0
Butylbenzlyphthalate
Chry serve
Di-n-butytphthalate
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
bis<2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate
Ruoranthene
Ruorene
lndeno(1 ,2.3-cd)pyrene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
C8-C20 HYDROCARBONS (total)
TOTAL LEAD e/
UNITS
ug/kg


ug/kg


















ug/kg
mg/kg
FPTA2-SS
FPTA2-MW
S

< 7720
< 7720

< 15600
< 15600
[11500]
[11 100)
< 15600
< 15600
< 15600
< 15600
16900
< 15600
< 15600
< 15600
22000
< 15600
< 15600
35400
17300
22000
2900000
45
FPTA2-SS2
FPTA2-MW2
So/

< 26
< 26

20200
56000
150000
84200
104000
56000
90000
< 13600
129000
< 13600
19000
< 13600
288000
14600
52500
[7610]
340000
230000
< 270000
32
Dd/

< 29
< 29

15700
25700
44900
21000
22800
24600
22600
< 14000
41900
< 14000
< 14000
< 14000
73600
[7750]
24300
[10700]
117000
77500
< 279000
23
FPTA2-SS3
FPTA2-MW3
S

< 26
< 26

[4320]
14600
54600
29900
36500
25000
35300
< 5050
53900
< 5050
6600
< 5050
133000
[3490]
16500
< 5050
79900
109000
< 100000
53
D

< 26
< 26

< 14400
15300
35600
24400
30800
28200
22300
< 14400
37100
< 14400
< 14400
< 14400
63800
< 14400
22400
< 14400
66400
69500
< 285000
25
FPTA2-SS4
FPTA2-MW4
S

< 28
< 28

34600
52000
89900
53700
< 14000
37600
< 14000
[11700] b/
97200
[8030] b/
< 14000
17300 b/
156000
35200
41600
[13400]
210000
143000
< 279000
8.6
D

< 29
< 29

21900
44100
77600
59800
75600
71500
70400
67600 b/
82900
< 14700
< 14700
[9180] b/
155000
27500
73300
[11400]
186000
127000
< 292000
34
a/ Constitutents not detected in any samples are not shown.
b/ Constituent detected in lab blank.
c/ S - shallow sample collected in the 0-3 ft bis range.
d/ D « deeper sample collected in the 3-6 ft bis range.
[ ] Value is between instrument detection limit and level of quantitation.
e/ Data originally in ug/kg
Source:   Geraghty & Miller, Inc. (G&M Project No. TF430.01)
     I:\TF702\FPTA2\RI\TABLE2-2.XLS

-------
 of these analyses are presented in Table  2-3.  Lead was detected in all sediment samples
 collected.

 2.3.4.3    Phase IV-A Surface Water Investigation.  In 1988, five surface water samples
 were collected from the same points along the drainage canal adjacent to Site FT-5/OU-1 as
 the sediment samples and analyzed for VOCs, BNAs, TRPH, total lead, and BOD. Lead was
 detected in all surface  water samples collected  and  trichlorofluoromethane was detected in
 one surface water sample. The concentrations of lead and trichlorofluoromethane, however,
 were between the analytical method detection limit and the practical quantitation limit
 (PQL). The practical quantitation limit is  the lowest concentration of an analyte that can be
 quantified by the laboratory, and is generally  five to ten times greater than the method
 detection limit which is the lowest concentration of  an analyte that can be reliably detected
 by the analytical method.

 2.3.4.4    Phase  IV-A  Groundwater  Investigation.   Phase  IV-A  groundwater
 investigations  were conducted during both the 1988 and  1989 field programs.  Grab
 groundwater samples were collected from three open boreholes  during the  1988 field
 program to evaluate potential placement of permanent monitoring wells.  Five permanent
 monitoring wells  (HS-10  through  HS-14) were installed  in  1988.   Seven  temporary
 monitoring wells (TW-21  through TW-23 and TW-31 through TW-33) were installed during
 the 1989 field program to evaluate potential placement of additional permanent monitoring
 wells.  Five  additional  monitoring wells (FPTA2-MW1  through  FPTA2-MW4 and
 FPTA2-DMW1) were installed in 1989.  One temporary monitoring well (TW-33) was later
 converted into permanent monitoring well FPTA2-MW5.

 During the  1988 Phase IV-A field programs, grab groundwater samples were collected from
 three soil borings (B-43, B-57, and B-58) and were analyzed by the contracted laboratory for
 VOCs. Benzene, chlorobenzene, and ethylbenzene were used only to select locations for the
 first five permanent monitoring wells.  The results  from these  analyses are presented in
 Table 2-4.

 In February  1988, five shallow (approximately 18 ft deep) monitoring wells (HS-10 through
 HS-14) were installed based  on the results of the  soil vapor investigation.  In March of 1988,
 groundwater samples were  collected from the  six  permanent monitoring wells  (HS-10
through HS-14, and 1-13) located at Site FT-5.  These  samples  were analyzed for VOCs,
BNAs, TRPH, BOD, and total lead.  Lead was detected in four of the six samples collected.
                                        13

-------
                                                                TABLE 2-3
                         ANALYTICAL RESULTS OF PHASE IV-A SEDIMENT SAMPLES COLLECTED IN 198B AT SITE FT-S,
                                                  FIRE PROTECTION TRAINING AREA NO. 2
                                                         Homestead ARB. Florida
LOCATION
CONSTITUENTS a/
VOLATILE ORGANCS
BASE/NEUTRAL AND ACID EXTRACT ABLE ORGANICS
TOTAL LE AD cV
BODb/
TRPHc/

UNITS
u0*g
ug*8
mg*g
ug/Xo
ug/Kg
SED01

NO
NO
3O
NO
NO
SED02

NO
NO
28
ND
NO
SED03

ND
ND
44
ND
ND
SED04

ND
ND
22
ND
ND
SED05

ND
ND
17
ND
ND
     a/ Constituents not detected In any camples are not shown.
     b/ Biochemical oxygen demand.
     c/ Total recoverable petroleum hydrocaitoons.
     (] Value Is between instrument detection Imi and level o) quanUation.
     ND Not detected. None of the constituents h this group were detected above their respective detection Emit*.
     cV Data original)/ reported in ug/kQ.

     Source:   Geraghty & Miller, Inc. (G&M Project No. TF702.02)
I:\PROJ\TF702\FPT A2\R^ABLE2-3.XLS

-------
                                                   TABLE 2-4
                        ANALYTICAL RESULTS OF PHASE IV-A GRAB GROUND-WATER SAMPLES
                              COLLECTED IN 1988 FROM OPEN BOREHOLES AT SITE FT-6,
                                      FIRE PROTECTION TRAINING AREA NO. 2
                                             Homestead ARB, Florida
LOCATION
CONSTITUENTS a/
VOLATILE ORGANICS
Benzene
Chlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene

UNITS
ug/L



B-43


< 5
< 5
< 5
B-57


< 5
< 5
< 5
B-58


655
335
305
                 a/ Constituents not detected In any samples are not shown.

                 Source: Geraghty & Miller, Inc. (G&M Project No. TF702.02)
f:\PROJ\TF702\FPTA2\RI\TABLE2-4.XLS

-------
 VOCs, BNAs, TRPH, and BOD were not detected in the monitoring wells. The results from
 these analyses are presented in Table 2-5.

 During the March and April 1989 Phase IV-A field program, seven temporary monitoring
 wells  (TW-21  through TW-23, and TW-31  through TW-34), four permanent shallow
 monitoring wells (FPTA2-MW1 through FPTA2-MW4), and one permanent deep monitoring
 well (FPTA2-DMW1) were installed at Site FT-5. Each temporary monitoring well (except
 for TW-33 and TW-34) was installed to  approximately 8 ft bis. Temporary monitoring well
 TW-33, which was later converted to permanent monitoring well FPTA2-MW5, and TW-34
 were installed through the hard fill to approximately 13 ft bis.  The five shallow wells are
 approximately 18 ft deep and the deep  well is approximately 40 ft deep.  The permanent
 monitoring well locations were based on the results of the soil  vapor survey conducted in
 1989 and analyses of groundwater samples collected from temporary monitoring wells.

 In March and April of 1989, groundwater samples were collected from  six temporary
 monitoring  wells  (TW-21 through TW-23, and TW-31 through TW-33) and eleven .
 permanent monitoring wells (FPTA2-MW1 through FPTA2-MW4, FPTA2-DMW1, HS-10
 through HS-14, and 1-13).  These samples were analyzed for:  VOCs, BNAs, total Cg-C2o
 hydrocarbons (except TW-21 and TW-23), total lead, and dissolved lead. The temperature,
 pH, and conductivity of each sample was  measured at the time of sample collection.

 In the  17 permanent and temporary monitoring wells sampled, VOCs including benzene,
 ethylbenzene, toluene, chlorobenzene, and xylene were detected in six of the wells, BNAs
 and lead were detected in four wells, and Cg-C2o hydrocarbons were detected in two of the
 wells samples. The concentrations of toluene, xylene and chlorobenzene were between the
 instrument detection limit and the practical quantitation limit.

 2.3.5      1991 Remedial Investigation  of Site FT-5/OU-1

In 1991, a remedial investigation (RI) was conducted at Site FT-5/OU-1 by G&M to evaluate
the current groundwater and soil quality with respect to the USEPA Target Compound List
(TCL) and Target Analyte List (TAL) for VOCs, BNAs, and metals. The 1991 RI included
the collection of four surficial soil samples (0 to 1 foot below the original soil horizon) and
 12-groundwater samples from the site's existing monitoring wells.
                                       14

-------
  2.3.6     1993 Remedial Investigation of Site FT-5/OU-1

  In 1993, G&M performed additional RI assessment activities to further evaluate the soil and
  groundwater quality with respect to the USEPA TCL/TAL for VOCs, BNAs, organochlorine
  (OC) pesticides/PCBs, and metals,  utilizing EPA Contract Laboratory Program  (CLP)
  protocols and to fill data gaps from  previous field investigations as well as evaluate any
  impacts as a result of Hurricane Andrews. Eleven surficial soil samples were collected from
  the site's existing monitoring wells, and  five sediment and surface water samples were
  collected in the drainage ditch which borders the site.

  2.4       COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION HISTORY

 The Remedial Investigation/Baseline Risk Assessment report and the Proposed Plan (PP) for
 Homestead ARB Site FT-5/OU-1 were released  to the public in April and November 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 November 8, 1994 to December 23, 1994 as part of
 the community relations plan for Operable Unit No. 1.  Additionally, a public meeting was
 held on Tuesday, November 29, 1994 at 7:00 pm at South Dade High School.  A public
 notice was published in the Miami Herald  and the South Dade News Leader on Tuesday,
 November 22, 1994.  At this meeting, the USAF,  in coordination with USEPA Region IV,
 FDEP, and Dade County Environmental Resource Management (DERM), were prepared to
 discuss the RI results, the Baseline Risk Assessment, the Feasibility Study, and the Proposed
 Alternative of access restriction for groundwater,  use restriction for soil, and groundwater
 monitoring for contaminant migration and attenuation 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.

 After .the close of the November-December  1994 public comment period, Alternative 5 was
 added for consideration,  making  a  total of five remedial alternatives given further
 consideration subsequent to the Feasibility Study. This additional alternative includes the
biotreatment of contaminated groundwater.

Because of the addition of a fifth remedial alternative for consideration, the public comment
period was opened for thirty days, beginning March 14, 1995, and ending April 12, 1995,
                                        15

-------
                                                             TABU 2-6
                           ANALYTICAL RESULTS OF PHASE (V-A GROUND-WATER SAMPLES COLLECTED IN 1MB
                                         FROM PERMANENT MONITORING WELLS AT SITE FT-6,
                                               FIRE PROTECTION TRAINING AREA NO. 2
                                                       Hom*sta«d ARB, Florida
LOCATION
CONSTITUENTS &/
VOLATILE ORGANICS
BASE/NEUTRAL AND ACID EXTRACTABLE ORGANICS
TOTAL LEAD
BODb/
TRPH

UNFTS
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
mo/L
mg/L
HS-10

ND
ND
12.3]
< 2
< 0.21
HS-11

ND
ND
[1.8J
< 2
< 0.21
HS-12

ND
ND
11.2]
< 2
< 071
HS-13

ND
ND
< 1.0
< 2
< 020
HS-14

ND
ND
[2.7]
< 2
< 0.20
M3

ND
ND
< 1.0
< 2
< 0.21
     aJ Constituents not detected in any samples are not shown.
     bl Biochemical oxygen demand.
     d Total recoverable petroleum hydrocarbons.
     [ ] Value is between instrument detection ImS and level of quantitatlon.
     ND Not detected. None oi the constituents In this group were detected above their respective detection imiu.

     Source:   Geraghty & Miller. Inc. (G&M Project No. TF7Q2.02)
f:\PROJYTF702\FPTA2\RI\TBL2-5.XLS

-------
  to provide the public with an opportunity to comment on this added alternative prior to
 issuance of the final Record of Decision. A notice was placed in the South Dade News
 Leader  on Tuesday, March 14,  1995.  No comments were received during this additional
 public comment period.

 This  record of decision  document  presents the selected remedial  action for OU-1 at
 Homestead Air Reserve Base, 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
 base 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 Operable Unit (OU).

 The U.S. Air Force with concurrence from the state of Florida and the USEPA, has elected to
 define OU-1 as the Fire Protection Training Area No. 2. The remedial actions planned at
 each of the OUs at Homestead ARB are, to the extent practicable,  independent of each other.
 This response  action addresses the soil and groundwater contamination identified at OU-1.
 For hypothetical future adult and child residents, both ingestion of contaminated soil and
 groundwater pose a risk above the target risk range considered protective of human  health by
 USEPA and FDEP. The total site risks for Site FT-5/OU-1 were estimated above the USEPA
 and FDEP health-based levels of concern for both current and future land use scenarios.

 2.6       SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS

 Fire protection training activities were conducted at Site FT-5/OU-1 from 1955 to  1972. A
 variety of materials were  burned at the  site including JP-4, aviation gas, various
 contaminated fuels, and waste liquids  from base shops. The area was not equipped with a
 liner or residual fuel collection system. Extinguishing agents included water, carbon dioxide,
 aqueous film-forming foam, and protein foam. After training activities ceased at the site in
 1972, construction debris was disposed of by dumping and spreading it over the site.  A
 mound of debris, approximately 6 feet high, presently covers an area 600 feet by 400 feet in
the southern portion of the site.

The following subsections summarize the nature and extent of the contamination identified at
                                        16

-------
 Site Ft-5/OU-l during investigations conducted from 1988 through 1993.  The investigations
 in 1991 and 1993 were  conducted  in accordance with the approved  Facility Remedial
 Investigation Work Plan (G&M), 1991. It should be noted that soil samples collected at Site
 FT-5/OU-1  can  be divided into three categories:  soil/weathered limestone, limestone
 bedrock, and fill.

 2.6.1      Nature and Extent of Contamination

 Remedial investigations have been performed at Site FT-5/OU-1 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 G&M in 1994. In general,
 the results of the sampling and analysis reveal that contamination in surficial soil/weathered
 rock samples appears  to be confined to the area of the fill and the immediate vicinity of
 monitoring well FPTA2-MW1.  PAH groundwater contaminants appear to be confined to the
 elevated fill  while BTEX contamination appears to be in the vicinity of monitoring  well
 FPTA2-MW1.  Low levels of some constituents were observed in sediment and surface water
 samples, but non at concentrations above regulatory limits or at levels of human health
 concern.

 2.6.2       Previous Field Investigations

 Five field investigations have been performed to date at Site FT-5. The earliest investigation
 was performed in 1984 by SAIC. One groundwater sample was collected and analyzed for
 oil and grease, TOX, and TOC.  The results of that field investigation recommended  further
 investigations. Additional investigations were conducted in 1988, 1989, 1991, and 1993.

 Six groundwater  samples and five  surface water and sediment samples  were collected in
 1988 and analyzed for  VOCs, BNAs,  BOD, TRPH, and lead. Nineteen soil and seventeen
 groundwater  samples were collected in 1989 and analyzed for VOC, BNAs, total C8-C20
 hydrocarbons and total  lead.  Four surface soil and 11 groundwaters samples were collected
 in 1991.  The surface soil samples were analyzed for VOCs, BNAs, and metals.  The
 groundwater  samples were analyzed  for VOCs, BNAs,  TRPH, and metals.  Finally, 11
 surface soil, six groundwater, and five sediment and surface water samples were collected in
 1993.  All the samples were analyzed for VOCs, BNAs, OC pesticides, metals, and cyanide.
In addition, groundwater samples were analyzed for TDS, sediment samples were analyzed
for TOC and acid volatile sulfide, and surface water samples were analyzed for hardness.
                                        17

-------
 2.6.2.1.   Background Soil and Groundwater.  This  section discusses the background
 data that were obtained by G&M during the 1991 field investigation.  This section also
 discusses the general groundwater quality of the Biscayne Aquifer as well as the background
 water quality beneath Site FT-5/OU-1.  Because there are no chemical-specific ARARs for
 soils, cleanup objectives are generally established by comparing the existing site conditions
 to an established "background".  This is especially important  for metals, which can occur
 naturally in high concentrations and over large areas.

 Background levels for Homestead ARB soils at 0 to 2 ft bis,  were based on soil samples
 collected as background at four CERCLA sites and one RCRA site and are summarized in
 Table 2-6.  Also presented in Table 2-6 are the common ranges of inorganic constituents
 found in soils in  the eastern U.S., and typical  values of both organic and inorganic
 constituents found in  soils in the eastern U.S., and typical values of both organic and
 inorganic constituents found in uncontaminated soils.

 Low levels of some pesticides have been found at several Homestead ARB sites.  Pesticides
 are not considered probable contaminants of site-specific activities at the fire training areas.
 Past  use of the Base as a crop dusting facility may explain  the  ubiquitous presence  of
 pesticides.  Pesticides were analyzed for at OU-1, but were  below health-based levels.

 The groundwater in the Biscayne Aquifer has been characterized in a number of studies.
 Analytical results from water samples collected from water supply wells, canal water (Radell
 and Katz, 1991), the East Everglades (Waller, 1982), and from the Dade County Landfill
 (McKenzie,  1983)  indicate that  all  waters are calcium bicarbonate in character.  The
 groundwater is typically classified as "hard", but otherwise  is of generally acceptable
 chemical quality.  Dissolved iron concentrations are naturally high in the Biscayne Aquifer
 and commonly exceed the Florida secondary drinking water regulations.  General mineral,
 trace metal,  and major water quality indicators are summarized in Table 2-7.   Saline
 groundwater is found in an area paralleling the coast and extends beneath the Base and Site
 FT-5  (Klein and Waller,  1985).

 2.6.2.2 Volatile Organic  Compounds. Ethylbenzene and xylenes were detected  at low
concentrations (less than 0.1  mg/kg)  in one 1989 surface soil sample.   In  1991,  low
concentrations of six VOCs were detected in all four surface soil samples collected.  The
compounds  detected were methylene  chloride, acetone, 2-butanone, tetrachloroethene,
chlorobenzene, and  ethylbenzene. All VOC concentrations detected were  below 1  mg/kg
with  the exception of ethylbenzene.   Ethylbenzene was  detected at  16  mg/kg in
                                         18

-------
                                                                TABLE 2-«

                                             BACKGROUND SOIL CONCENTRATIONS
Compound
Volatile Organic Compounds (ug/kg)
Acetooe
Chlorobenzeoe
Metbylene Chloride
Average
Carbonate
Composition
Hem (1989)

Homestead ARB
Background
Soll(a)
0-2 ft bis
119.2
4
Typical Values
for Uncontamlnated
Soils (b)
(mg/kg)

Common
Range(c)
(mg/kg)

Average(c)
(mg/kg)

 Total PAH* (ug/kg)
                                                                  738.55
0.01 - 1.3 forest (d)
 0.01 - 1.01 rural
 0.06 - 5 .» urban
 *- 336 road dust
Base/Neutral and Acid Extracuble Organic Compounds (ug/kg/dw)
Acenaphtbeoe ND
Benzo(a)aiithracene 67
Benzo(a)pyrene 66
Benzo(b)fluarantbeoe 69
Benzo(gJU)perylene 44
Bcnzo10.000
2-10(e)

-------
                                                                             TABLE 2-7
                                                                     GENERAL WATER QUALITY
                                                                   HOMESTEAD AIR RESERVE BASE
                                                                              STTEFT-5
Parameter
(Concentrations in micrognms per
liter)
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
rVjrpiiim
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Leld
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
(Concentrations in milligrams per
liter)
Calcium
Magnesium
Manganese
Iron
Potassium
Sodium
Bicarbonate
Chloride
Sulfate
Nitrate
pH
TDS
TOC
Supply WeUs"
Median


-
.
-
24
.
.
10

07










92
3.7
0.014
0.312
1.8
22
272
36
17
0.13
7.13
350
14
Range


•
-
-
BDL-300
.
-
BDL-90
-
BDL-31
BDL-604
-
.
.
.
.
.
-


27 - 190
0.9 - 53
BDL-0.150
BDL-21
0.23 - 16
2.8 - 530
66-610
5.0-980
0.1 - 160
<0.04 - 32
6.35 - 7.80
111-2,130
0.8 - 74
Canal
Median


•
-
-
36
-
-
3
-
3
7
-
-
.
-
.
.
-


84
8.8
0.006
0.10
2.5
44
276
78
14
0.04
7.62
422
21
Water"
Range


-
-
-
5- 100
-
-
1-40
-
1-80
1-72
-
-
-
-
.
.
-


74-100
2.9 - 32
0.001-0.041
0.004-1.24
1.6-6.6
23 - 120
224-415
36- 190
4.3 - 53
0.01-0.19
7.27 - 7.85
323 • 818
5.0-46
Ea*tStudyb
Range


Oe-70
-
0-2
0-100
.
0-3
10-20
-
0-11
0-21
0.5
-
0
0-1
.
.
10-40


93 - 130
10-26
10-20
0.75 - 5.0
6.2 - 16
54 - 220
210-284
120 - 450
58-99
0.00 - 0.05
7.1 - 7.4
629 - 846
0-13
West
Studyb
Range


-
-
1-7
-
-
1-9
10-20
-
0-2
0- 10
0.5 - 0.5
2-22
.
0-60
.
. •
-


72-84
2.8 - 4.0
0.1 -0.3
0.4 - 1.6
0.2 - 9.5
8.6-13
230-440
15-20
2.1- 14
0.0 - 0.76
6.7 - 8.0
236 - 288
0-83
Site FT-5d'f
Background Well
11-11


1,500
<50
26
110
<0.5
<5.0
<2,000
<10
<25
9.4
0.46
<400
<250
<10
<50
87
57


91 - 6,300
1.7-16
0.16
0.017
1.4-19
6.3-21
.
.
.
.
.
.
-
Site FT-5d»f
Investigation Wells
Range


<200- 6.100
<50
<10- 12.1
<10-50.8
<0.5
<5.0
<50to<1.000
<10
<25
<5.0 - 34
<0.20
<40
<10 to <50
<10
<10
<10- 19
<20-490


89-1.200
1.6-4.5
<0.010-0.05
<0.05 - 2.6
<1 0 - 6 1
8.3 - 319
.
.
.
.
.
.
-
 8 -Radell and Katz, 1991
 b - Waller, 1982
 c • McKenzie
From: Geraghty & Miller, 1993a
a - Geraghty A Miller. 1993a
e - Compounds not detected in this study were reported as zero
' - Insufficient dala for ion balance verification

-------
 FPTA2-SL-10.  Low concentrations of six VOCs were detected in 10 of the 11 surface soil
 samples collected in 1993 (Table 2-8).  The VOC compounds detected are commonly used as
 solvents or degreasers and may  have been disposed of at Site FT-5;  however, several
 oxygenated VOCs are also common laboratory contaminants.  Detections of 2-butanone.
 methylene chloride, and acetone (detected at low levels in 10 of the 11 samples) may be the
 result of laboratory contamination.

 No VOCs were detected in the six groundwater samples collected in 1988.  VOCs were
 detected in four of the 17 groundwater samples collected in 1989 (Figure 2-1). Benzene was
 detected in three of the samples at concentrations ranging from 8.7 to 212 micrograms per
 liter (u.g/L). VOCs were detected in two of the 11 samples collected in 1991 (Figure 2-1).
 Benzene was detected in one of the 1991 samples at a concentration of 2.6 u.g/L.

 VOCs were detected in one of the six  groundwater samples collected in 1993 (Figure 2-1,
 Table 2-9). Benzene was  detected in FPTA-MW-1 at a concentration of 2 Hg/L and its
 duplicate sample FPTA-MW9001 at a concentration of 1 fig/L.  This is above and at the state
 maximum contaminant level (MCL) of 1 |J.g/L.   However, this well contained  benzene
 concentrations of 2.6 fig/L in  1991 and 72  ng/L in  1989. The overall benzene,  toluene,
 ethylbenzene,  and  xylenes (BTEX) concentration detected  in FPTA2-MW1  and
 FPTA2-MW9001 (2 and 1 |ig/L) in 1993  are approximately 5 and 10 times lower than the
 concentration of BTEX detected in 1991 (10.9 |J.g/L) and approximately 50 times lower than
 the concentration of BTEX detected in 1989 (102 u.g/L). The  decrease in BTEX  in the
 groundwater at Site FT-5/OU-1 suggests that the BTEX is attenuating naturally,  possibly
 from biodegradation (G&M, 1993a).

 VOCs were not detected in the 1988 sediment or surface water samples. VOCs were also not
 detected in the 1993 sediment  samples.  Low concentrations (<10 JJ.g/L) of  four VOCs
 (bromodichloromethane, 2-butanone, methylene chloride, and 1,1,1-trichloroethane) were
 detected in the 1993 surface water samples (Table 2-10). All the VOCs detected  in the
 samples were at concentrations between the instrument detection limit and the practical
 quantitation limit:  and 2-butanone and methylene chloride  are  probably  laboratory
 contaminants.

2.6.2.3 Total Recoverable Petroleum Hydrocarbons/Cg-C20. Petroleum hydrocarbons in
the Cg-C20 range were detected in two of the  1989 surface  soil samples at concentrations of
 114 mg/kg and 2,900 mg/kg.  Soil samples collected during the 1988, 1991, and 1993
investigations were not analyzed for Cg-C20  hydrocarbons.
                                        19

-------
LEGEND
TRPH/C8-C20
      VOCS
       NA
       ND
         J
1993
FPTA2-MW1 1999 1991 1993 (Dup)
TRPH/Cg-CgQ
VOCs
Benzene
Chtorobenzone
Ethy benzene
Toluene
Xytene
1.5

72
ND
25
[13]
[17]
27

2.6
ND
ND
1.3
ND
NA

2 J
4 J
ND
ND
ND
NA

1J
3J
ND
ND
ND
                                                                                   MW5
                                                                                   Elevated FHV
                                                                             MW4  Vegstatton Area
FPTA2-MW3 1989 1991
TRPH/Cg-C^
VOCs
1.0
ND
6.66
ND
                                                                  MW3
                                                                        L
ND



FPTA2-MW4 1989 1991 1993
TRPH/C8-C20
VOCs
Toluene
ND
[3.7]
<1.0
ND
ND
ND
                                                                                  Drainage Ditch
           Groundwater Sampling Location
           Total Recoverable Petroleum Hydrocarbons/C8-C2o Hydrocart>ons
           Volatile Organic Compounds Detected Above
           Slate or Federal MCLs
           Not Analyzed
           Not Detected Above Instalment Detection Limits
           Positive result has been classified as qualitative due to
           deficiencies in one or more quality control measures
All Results in Micrograms per Liter (pg/L)
        '   Paved Road
       ~   Drainage Canal
 Reference: G&M. 1994a                           '	
                                                                                                                                       200
                                                                                                                            SCALE IN FEET
                                                                         To
                                                                       Boundary
                                                                        Canal
           U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
                  HOMESTEAD ARB
           VOCs AND TRPH DETECTED IN
  GROUNDWATER SAMPLES COLLECTED DURING
 THE 1989, 1991, AND 1993 FIELD INVESTIGATIONS
SITE FT-5, FIRE PROTECTION TRAINING AREA NO. 2
                      FIGURE 2-1

-------
                       TABLE 2-8

SUMMARY OF CONSTITUENTS DETECTED IN SOIL SAMPLES COLLECTED
    IN IWJ AT SITE FT-S. FIRE PROTECTION TRAINING AREA NO. 2
            HOMESTEAD AIR FORCE BASE, FLORIDA
                        (Puge 1 of 6)
G&M I.D. FPTA2-SL-OOI3 FPTA2-SL-90I3 FPTA2-SL-OOI4 FTTA2-SI^«OI5
Average Carbonate Homestead AFB Savannah I.D. 40688-7 40688-12 40688-8 40688-9
Coapodtloa Background/b Dale Sampled 2/4/93 1/4/93 2/4/93 2/4/93
Parameter Hem (1*89) Average Range % Solldj 80 SO 88 85
Volatile Orgaok Compound! (jg/Vg dw)
Methylene Chloride 4 4.0-O2 (2.100) U < 1.600
Acetone 119.2 8.3-230.0
12.000
2-Butanone ND 
-------
                        TABLE 2-8

SUMMARY OF CONSTITUENTS DETECTED IN SOIL SAMPLES COLLECTED
    IN 1993 AT SITE FT-5, FIRE PROTECTION TRAINING AREA NO. 2
            HOMESTEAD AIR FORCE BASE, FLORIDA
                        (Page 2 of 6)
Parameter
Organochlortae Pedklde*/PCBi Og/kg dw)
Hcpuchlor Epoxide
4,4'-DDE
4,4'-DDD
MrtaU (mg/kg dw)
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Calcium
Chromium
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Silver
Sodium
Vanadium
Zinc
Cyanide (mg/kg dw)
Average Carbonate
Cwnportloo
Hem (1989)
ND
ND
ND
8,970
1.8
30.0
272,000
7.1
4.4
8.190
16.0
45.300
842.0
0.19
393
13
16
ND
G&M I.D. FPTA2-SL-0013
Homestead AFB Savannah I.D. 40688-7
Background/b Date Sampled 2/4/93
Average Range % Solldi 80
ND
ND
ND
2,400
1.6
42.9
345.000
11.5
ND
1,650
4.1
1.050
23.0
ND
555
ND
20
NA
<4.7-«r5.8 < II
<4.7-<5.8 34 "
<4.7-<5.8 270
2,100-2.700 836

-------
                        TABLE 2-8

SUMMARY OF CONSTITUENTS DETECTED IN SOIL SAMPLES COLLECTED
    IN 1993 AT SITE FT-5, FIRE PROTECTION TRAINING AREA NO. 2
            HOMESTEAD AIR FORCE BASE, FLORIDA
                        (Page 3 of 6)
Parameter
Volatile Organic Compounds 0>g/kg dw)
Melhylene Chloride
Acetone
2-Bulanone
Bromodichloromelhane
Benzene
Chlorobenzene
Xyleno
Bate/Neutral and
Acid Eitractable Compound! Oig/kg dw)
3-Methylphenol/4-Melhylpheno(m-.p-Cresol)
Naphthalene
2-Mcthylnaphthalene
Acenaphihylcne
3-Nilroaniline
Acenaphlhene
Dibenzofuian
Fluorene
Penlachlorophcnol
Phenanihrene
Anthracene
Carbazole
Di-n-buiylphlhalaie
Fluoranihene
Pyrene
Butylbenzylphlhalale
Benzo(i)anlhracene
Chrysene
Benzo(b)nuoranthene
Benzo(k)nuoranlhenc
Benzo(a)pyrene
lndeno(l.2.3-cd)pyrcne
Dibenz(a,h)anihracene
Benzo(g.h,i)perylene
Average Carbonate
Hem (1989) Averac
4
119.2
ND
ND
ND
3.8
ND
NA
50
84
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
50
ND
ND
52.4
49.1
16
67
79
69
66
66
45
17
44
C4M I.D. FPTA2-SL-0016 FPTA2-SL-00I7 FPTAJ-SL-WIg FPTA2-SlrOOI9
Homestead AFB Savannah I.D. 40688-10 40688-11 40688-13 40688-14
Background/b Dale Sampled 2/4/93 2/4/93 2/4/93 2/4/93
e Range % Solid. (9 88 83 83
40-
-------
                                                                               TADLE2-8

                                                      SUMMARY OF CONSTITUENTS DETECTED IN SOIL SAMPLES COLLECTED
                                                          IN 1993 AT SITE FT-5, FIRE PROTECTION TRAINING AREA NO. 2
                                                                   HOMESTEAD AIR FORCE BASE. FLORIDA
                                                                               (Page 4 of 6)
GAM I.D. FPTA2-SL-4016
Avenge Carbonate Hometfead AFB Savannah I.D. 40688-10
CompodUon Background/fa Dale Sampled 2/4/93
Parameter Hem (1989) Average Range % Solid* 89
Organochlorine Festkldet/PCBi Ug/kg dw)
Hepuchlor Kpoxide NU NO <4J-<3.8 	 R7J J
4,4'-DDE ND NO <4.7-<5.8 < 370
4,4'-DDD ND ND <4.7-<5.8 < 370
MeUb (mg/kg dw)
Aluminum 8.970 2.400 2,100-2,700 1.440
Arsenic 1.8 1.6 <1. 1-1.6 "J.'J
Barium 30.0 42.9 3.8-80 < 2.2
Calcium 272.000 345.000 320,000-370.000 260,000
Chromium 7.1 11.3 11-12 "' IJ.'I 	
Copptr 4.4 ND <2./-
-------
                        TABLE 2-8

SUMMARY OF CONSTITUENTS DETECTED IN SOIL SAMPLES COLLECTED
    IN 1993 AT SITE FT-5, FIRE PROTECTION TRAINING AREA NO. 2
            HOMESTEAD AIR FORCE BASE, FLORIDA
                        (Pyge 5 of 6)



Parameter
Volatile Organk Compounds (/ig/kg dw)
Mcthylcnc Chloride
Acetone
2-Buunone
Bromodichloromethane
Benzene
Chlorobenzene
Xylenes

Average Carbonate
Composition

Homestead AFB
Background/b
Hen (1989) Average Range

4
119.2
ND
ND
ND
3.8
ND

4.0- < 12
8.3-230.0

-------
                                                                                        TAULE2-8

                                                             SUMMARY OF CONSTITUENTS DETECTED IN SOIL SAMPLES COLLECTED
                                                                  IN 1993 AT SITE FT-5, FIRE PROTECTION TRAINING AREA NO. 2
                                                                           HOMESTEAD AIR FORCE BASE, FLORIDA
                                                                                        (Page < of 6)



Parameter

Avenge Carbonate
CompofUlon
Hem (1989)

G&M I.D. FPTA2-SL-M20
Homestead AFB Savannah I.D. 40688-15
Background/b Dale Sampled 2/4/93
Average
Range % SoUdi 85
FPTA2-SL-W2I FPTA2.SL-0022 FPTA2-SU0023
40688-li 4068J-I7 40688- IS
2/4/93 2/4/93 2/4/93
87 83 89
Orgaoochlorloe Pe««lclde»/PCBj (jg/kg dw)
Heplachlor Eponidc
4,4'-DDE
4,4'-bbD
Metali (mg/kg dw)
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Calcium
Chromium
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Silver
Sodium
Vanadium
Zinc
Cyanide (mg/kg dw)
Notes:
Pg/kg micrograms per kilogram
mg/kg milligrams per kilogram
< Analyle was not detected at
ND
ND
ND

8.970
1.8
30.0
272,000
7.1
4.4
8.190
16.0
45,300
842.0
0.19
393
13
16
ND



or above the indicated concentration.
J Positive result has been classified as qualitative due to deficiencies in one or
ND
ND
ND

2,400
1.6
42.9
345.000
11.5
ND
1,650
4.1
1,050
23.0
ND
555
ND
20
NA




<47-<5.8 < 2
<47 <5.8 < 3.9
<4.7-<5.8 < 3.9

2.100-2.700 580

-------
                    TABLE 2-9

SUMMARY OF CONSTITUENTS DETECTED IN GROUNDWATER
           SAMPLES COLLECTED IN 1993 AT
    SITE FT-5, FIRE PROTECTION TRAINING AREA NO. 2
           Homestead Air Rcserre Base, Florida
                    (Page 1 of 3)
Ptruiftor
VOIATOI ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (at/I*
B*ni«M
CUmotNounB
MetlqrltBt Chloriik
SBMIVOLATILS ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (o|O.)t
MtkUqrkii|ibthikOT
J-M«liylpbMX)V4-Metb,lj*nio»(n>-4vO«l)
AotPlpOlnUM
Aootphffiylcot
Antincrat
Ni(2-EtliyU>ajr|)pbUulil*
Bilylbcul^xhiliu
Ctrbuok
Dt-D-talrfeMhihu
DI-o-ocbUiaht«
Dibenxofuu
DUtbylpbUttli*
Flontn
Pbanadicot
NipbUubo*
Pbenuibreoe
pyitw
ORGANOCHLOJUNl PESTICIDBS/PCBi (o^Lh
METALS (mO.):
Anealc
Bulom
Cildom
Ina
MmctJon
MlDfltKK
Pouulam
Sodom
CYANIDE (0*1*
TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS (m*X):
florldi
Grouxk
w»Ur
GuMiiKt
ConcenlriUoni
m
lk
10
5
MS
NS
20
10
'10
14
1400
NS
700
10
NS
S600
10
4]
10
10
10

50*
1000*
NS
3C01
NS
xf
* k
IKXXXT
154
JOO1
FAC
17-T7I
norldt
lb
NS
NS
d
NS
c
c
c
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
C
c
d
c
c

NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
EPA
DrtaUnf
W»ltr
Sbndtt*
f
NS
NS
re
NS
NS
hS
hS
41
\af
NS
f«
KB
^
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS

50*
20001'"
NS
w
re
io"
w
re
ax/
50011
EPA
Motown
ContMnluol
U*«l Goal
NS
N5
NS
NS
N5
NS
NS
re
o1
10/
NS
NS
re
re
NS
re
NS
re
re
NS

NS
2000*
re
NS
re
re
NS
re
»/
NS
CftM ID. HS-ll
SnwubLD. 40743-1
D«tt Smpfed 1W9)
< to
< 10
(D
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
•c 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
n>
< 10
< 10
91600
< 50
(1CTO)
< 10
(1)50)
6340
< 10
770
rfTAJ-MW.J
4O8M-J
1/1 V9)

I <2'
<«)
U < 10
< (0.7)
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
(0.9)
(0.2)
< 10
(0.2)
(0.5)
< 10
(0.2)
< 10
< 10
(0.6)
< 10
(0.03)
ND
U < 10
J
< 10
89600
< 50
(1900)
< 10
(2)50)
9820
< 10
290
rrtAi-Mw.
»»01
40804-4
2V1V93

1 ' (D
' («
< . 10
(1)
(D
< 10
< 10
< 10
U (l)
U (0.4)
< 10
U (0.2)
(0.3)
< 10
< 10
< 10
(0.07)
(1)
(0.2)
(0.05)
K>
U < 10
1
< 10
92500
< 50
(1920)
< 10
(2420)
10100
< 10
280
mv^
MWJ
4«7u:i
2/SWJ
) < 10
1 < 10
U < 10
J
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
U (0.9) U
U < 10
< 10
u < 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
(0.5)
< 10
< 10
(0.2)
ND
U < 10 U
) J
(12.5)
115000
1 *!° 1
(27201
39.2
(1780)
1)40
< 10
200

-------
                                                                               TABLE Z-9
                                                       SUMMARY OF CONSTITUENTS DETECTED IN GROUNDWATER
                                                                     SAMPLES COLLECTED IN 1993 AT
                                                            SITE n-6, FIRE PROTECTION TRAINING AREA NO. 2
                                                                     Homestead Air Reserve Bast, Florida
                                                                               (Page 2 of 3)
PtruntUr





VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (H/U
Benzeoe
Chtoobenieoe

florid.
Crowd-
W.UT
Guldino
Coounlrition*
ID

lk
10

FAC
17-770
florldi




lb
NS

KPA
DrinUni
W«t*r
SUndvdt



5*
NS

EPA
Mud mum
ConUmliuot
Ur.l Got!



NS
NS

C*M LD. fPTAJ-
Smnub LD. MW-4
Out Suapkd 40MM.1
1/10(93



< 10
< 10

FPTArMWJ
4V743-3
2/W93




< 10 U <
< 10 I) <
I
FTTAJ-
DMW1
40*04-3
1/10/93



10
10

KqulpaMl
Bl«ik
4O8M-*
l/IO/»3



U < 10
U < 10
J
Melbyteat Cbloride
SKMTVOLATILI ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (n^L):
                                                                                 NS
2-Melbybupbtl»lcDc
3-MMbylpbRX>l/4-Mclliylpt)ei»l(m-,p-Crnol)
Acenapbibcoe
Aceupblbykne
AottiriotiK
bfi(2-EUiyU>uyl)pbU>iUu
BglylbrailpbUuUU
Cubuok
Dl-o-borylpbttuUic
CH-n-oclylpbUuUie
Dibcuafuim
CHelbylpbUuUlc
Plooriolbcoe
Plooreoe
NipbUulne
PbeniDlbicoe
Pyrene
W
NS
20
10
10
14
1400
NS
700
10
NS
5600
42
10
10
10
10
d
NS
c
c
c
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
c
c
d
c
c
NS
NS
ra
NS
NS
41
I00f
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
O1
NS
NS
KB
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
< 10
< 10
(2)
(0.1)
(0.4)
(0.6)
(0.3)
< 10
< 10
< 10
(1)
< 10
(3)
(0.7)
(0.3)
(0.2)
(J)
< 11
< II
(0
(0.1)
m
U 1 60
U < 11
< II
< II
< II
(O
< II
(5)
<«>
(0-4)
(•)
(3)
U <
1
V <
1
1 <
1 <.
1 <
I'-
U
J
u <
J
u
j
u <
J
J <
u
J
J <
1 <
j <
J <
J <
10
10
10
10
10

-------
                                                                                       TABLE 2-9
                                                             SUMMARY OF CONSTITUENTS DETECTED IN GROUNDWATER
                                                                            SAMPLES COLLECTED IN 19» AT
                                                                  SITE FT-5, FIRE PROTECTION TRAINING AREA NO. 2
                                                                            Homestead Air Reset-re Base, Florida
                                                                                       (Page 3 of 3)
Parameter
Mitanioa
Min(>mt
PoUMloa
Sodlim
CYANIDE (o»/L):
TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS (ntf/L):
Florida
Ground-
wilcr
GukUaca
CoocnlralioM
m
NS
3d1
NS
160000k
134
5001
fAC
17-771
Florida
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
EPA
DrtnkJnj.
Waur
Slmdardi
NS
so"
NS
NS
vf
SCO"
EPA
Maxtmoro
Conlamlnanl
L«T>t Goal
NS
NS
NS
NS
vf
NS
CAM IX). fTTAJ-
Snumah 1X1. MW-4
DaU Sampled 40SOt-l
1/I093
(«IO)
1 "2 1
~tt!o)
10700
< 10
1 «« 1
rrvTA^MWS
407(3-3
2/W93
(3340)
(14X)
10300
< 10
470
DMW1
408M.3
lt\W»
(4330,
< 10
6170
32900
< 10
410
Equipment
Blank
4«804-l
1/1 OT3
< 300
< 10
< 1000
< 300
< 10
3
NOTES:
"   The total of volatile organic aromatia (benzene, toluene, ethylbenzeoe and xylenes) must be <50 ug/L to meet FAC 17-770 guidelines.
    The total of polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon] excluding naphthalenei must be <10 ug/L to meet FAC 17-770 guidelines.
    The total of naphthalenes and methyl naphthalenes must be <100 ug/L to meet FAC 17-770 guidelines.
    Numbers represent EPA's Final MCL (Max Contaminant Levels).
    Numben represent EPA's Proposed Primary MCL ot Proposal MCLG, Federal Register, Vol. 55, No. 143, July 1990.
    Numbers represent EPA's Primary MCL for Inorganics.
    Numben represent EPA's Secondary MCL for Inorganics which are non-enforceable taste, odor or appearance guidelines.
    Numbers represent EPA's Final MCL effective July 1992, Federal Register, January 30, 1991 and July 1, 1991.
    Florida Primary Drinking Water Standard.
    Florida Secondary Drinking Water Standard.
    Florida Ground-Water Guidance Concentrations for Minimum Criteria Requirements (Rule 17-3.402, FAC).
    No Standard Available.
    Result is greater than instrument detection limit but less than practical quantitation limit.
    Positive result has been classified as qualitative.
    Analyte was n6t detected and has been classified as qualitative.
     Result has been classified as undetected.
     Analytical Result was generated from * reextraction and reanalysis of the sample.
         Concentration exceeded Florida Groundwater Guidance Concentration.
c
d
e
f
8
b
i
k
1
m
NS
J
UJ
U

-------
                                                                                TABLE 2-10

                                                     SUMMARY OF CONSTITUENTS DETECTED IN SURFACE WATER SAMPLES
                                                                       COLLECTED IN 1993 AT SITE FT-S
                                                                   FIRE PROTECTION TRAINING AREA NO. 1
                                                                  HOMESTEAD ADI RESERVE BASE, FLORIDA
Parameter Florida Out
IQFrab
Surficc Water
Quality
Standard
Volatile Organic Compound*
(HS/L)
Bromodichlorcm ethane
2-Butanooe
Mcthylene Chloride
1 , 1 , 1 -Trichloroethane
Base/Neutral aod
Add Extractable Compound*
(MS/L)
bis(2-
Ethylhexyl)pbthalate
Butylbenzylphlhalate
Organocblorlne
Pe*tidde*/PCB* (ug/L)
Metal* (jlg'L)
Cafcium
Magnuium
Potauhim
Sodium
Cyanide Olg/L)
Total Dtraolred SoUdi (mg/L)


NS
NS
NS
NS



NS
NS



NS
NS
NS
NS
<5
NS
Federal GAM I.D. FPTA2-SW-0001
Water Savannah LD. 40742-*
Quality Date 2*93
Criterion Sampled


NS
NS
NS
NS



NS
NS



NS
NS
NS
NS
5.2
NS


(1)
< 10
< 10
< 10



< 10
< 10
ND


77.700
(2.220)
(3.830)
13.700
< 10
203
FPTA2-SW-0002
40742-5
2/8/93


(1)
< 10
< 10
< 10



(2) U
(0.2) U
ND


77.500
(2.230)
(3,930)
14.000
< 10
203
FPTA2-SW-0003
40742-4
2/8/93


(1)
< 10
< 10
(2)



18 U
(0.2) U
ND


75.800
(2,250)
(3,840)
14.000
< 10
199
FPTA2-SW.9003
40742-3
2/8/93


(1)
< 10
< 10
(2)



(2) U
(0.2) U
ND


71,600
(2,170)
(3.800)
13,900
< 10
188
FPTA2-SW-0004
40742-2
2/8/93


(2)
< 10
(1) U
(3)



(0.4) U
(0.2) U
ND


74,500
(2.250)
(3,870)
14.200
< 10
195
FPTA2-SW-0005
40742-1
2O/93


(2)
(7)
(8)
(4)



(0.9)
(0.3)
ND


75,800
(2.310)
(3.910)
14,400
< 10
199




U




U
U









Note*:
U   Classified at undetected.
( )  Value U gretfer than instrument detection limit but leal than practical quantitalioo limit
ND None of the compound* in thi* analyte group were detected.

-------
 TRPH was not detected in any of the  1988 groundwater samples.  Concentrations of Cg-C20
 hydrocarbons were detected in three of the  15 samples taken in 1989 and analyzed for this
 constituent, at concentrations of 318, 1,510, and 32,000 Jig/L. TRPH was detected in three of
 the 11 groundwater samples collected in 1991. The concentrations of the three samples were
 1.0, 6.1, and 21  Jig/L.   These concentrations were  much lower than the  1989 C8-C20
 concentrations and were detected in approximately the same locations (Figure 2-1).

 TRPH was not detected in any of the 1988 sediment or surface water samples.  The sediment
 and surface water samples collected in  1993 were not analyzed for TRPH.

 2.6.2.4 Base/Neutral and Acid  Extractable Compounds.  BNAs (mostly PAHs) were
 detected in 15 of the 19  soil samples  collected in 1989.  The concentration of total PAHs
 ranged from about 5 to 1,400 mg/kg (Figure 2-2).  BNAs (mostly PAHs) were detected in all
 four of the surface soil samples collected in 1991.  The concentration of total PAHs ranged
 from about 0.6 to  180 mg/kg (Figure 2-2).  BNAs (mostly PAHs) were detected in all 11  of
 the surface soil samples collected in 1993.  The concentrations of total PAHs ranged from
 about 0.1 to 2,372 mg/kg (Figure 2-2,  Table 2-8). In general, the highest concentrations  of
 PAHs detected during the investigations were found in and below the fill area, and in an
 asphalt area east of Campbell Drive. The source of PAHs in the fill area is unknown but is
 likely from asphalt (which contains PAHs) that was placed at the site after the fire training
 activities ceased.  The PAHs in the other surface soils are likely from the burning activities
 during fire training exercises and/or from the asphalt in the fill area.

 BNAs were not detected in any of the 1988 groundwater samples collected.  However, these
 samples were collected along the perimeter of the elevated fill area and could not be used  to
 characterize groundwater quality beneath  the fill.  BNAs (mostly PAHs) were detected in
 four of the 17 groundwater samples collected in 1989. Total PAH concentrations (excluding
 naphthalene) ranged from about 47 to  436 |ig/L.  Total naphthalene concentrations ranged
 from 17  to 388 ng/L (Figure  2-3). BNAs (mostly PAHs) were detected in five of the
 11 groundwater samples collected in 1991.   Total PAH concentrations (excluding
 naphthalene) ranged from  about 7 to  85  |ig/L.  Total naphthalene were detected in two
 samples at concentrations of 0.45 and 70 u.g/L (Figure 2-3). BNAs (mostly PAHs)  were
detected in four of the six groundwater samples collected in 1993. Total PAH concentrations
(excluding naphthalene)  ranged  from less than 1 to  26.1  u.g/L.   Total  naphthalene
concentrations ranged from 0.3  to 1.3 u,g/L (Figure 2-3, Table 2-9).
                                        20

-------
        N
0	   100	200


   SCALE IN FEET


Ordnance £
FPTA2-SI
Total PAH

FPTA2-SB6 4-8 Fl. 6-10 Fl.
Total PAHs | 585.14 542

N _ _ ""
FPTA2-SS2 0-3 Fl. 3-6 Fl.
Total PAHs (1,381.91 53.05
FPTA2-SL-0018 1993 |
Total PAHs
12 4 1
                                                                                1991
                  80
FPTA2-SL-0019 1993 |
Total PAHs
01 1
**l-/-9
                                        SL9/99
                                                        0019
                                              X.
FPTA2-SB5 4-8 Fl.
Total PAHs
214.35
6-10 Fl. |
I H
    5
r
FPTA2-SL-0023 1993 |
Total PAHs
1.663 |
                                                                       FPTA2-SL-0014

                                                                       Total PAHs
FPTA2-SL-11
Total PAHs
^x /
•^ .
/ ^--/. »
014

19931 r
2,372 1 •
1991
104
SB-6
SS-2
Building
4076
                                                                                                          FPTA2-SL-0020    1993
                                                                                                                                              Building ••
                                                                                                                                                4071
                                                                                                          Total PAHs
                                                                                                                            7.9
                                                                                                                           0020
FPTA2-SL-0017
Tola! PAHs
1993 |
14.0 1
FPTA2-SB7
Total PAHs
0-4 Fl. 6-10 Ft. |
1 501.49
6.87 |
FPTA2-SS3 0-3 Fl. 3-6 Ft. |
Total PAHs
602.61
415.8 |
                                                                          X 0015,


                                                                           SS-3 '
                                                                                                    SL-11
                                                                                                     0016 A

                                                                                      -    SB-Sm          \

                                                                                      Elevated Fin/Vegetation Area
FPTA2-SS1
Total PAHs
0-3 Fl. 1
| 136.2 I
SS-1 •
                                                                                                                        0013
                                                                                                                                      0021
                                                                                                             SL-10,
                          SS-4 •

                           SB-8
FPTA2-SL-0016 1993 {
Total PAHs
1.752 1
FPTA2-SL-0012 1991 |
Total PAHs
0.7
FPTA2-SL-0021 1993 |
Total PAHs
2.2 |
FPTA2-SL-
0013/9013 1993
Tolal PAHs
66.3
1993(o,,,,| j
57 4
FPTA2-SL-0022 1993 | //
Total PAHs 21.6 | 	 ^^ 	 A
//_ Total PAHs 156.3f
LEGEND
• 1989 Soil/Weathered Rock Sampling Location
• 1991 Soil/Weathered Rock Sampling Location
A 1993 Soil/Weathered Rock Sampling Location
Total PAHs Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons, excluding Na
All Results in milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg)
Paved Road
ITT ~T~ Drainage Canal
Reference: GSM, 1994a
',./ "D-' \ /
,t^ I \
/" / -V
^ / FPTA2-SB8 4-8 Ft.
' j _/ 	 Total PAHs 455.58
•J FPTA2-SL-0015 1993 KX^X^^
Total PAHs | 157.B | |^\ ^
II \\
" \\
M \
II XX
phlhalenes .
To
Boundary
Canal

/^ Total PAHs | 18 j
6-10 Fl. j FPTA2-SS4 0-3 Fl. 3-6 Ft. |
35-15 | Total PAHs 964.2 1084 |
\
^^ Drainage Swale
^k
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
HOMESTEAD ARB
POLYNUCLEAR AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS DETECTED
IN SOIL/WEATHERED ROCK SAMPLES COLLECTED
DURING THE 1989, 1991 AND 1993 FIELD INVESTIGATIONS
SITE FT-5, FIRE PROTECTION TRAINING AREA NO. 2
FIGURE 2-2

-------
                                 Total PAHS
                                 Total Naphthalenes
                                                                                                        (
                                                                                                          Building
                                                                                                                   Building
                                                                                                                   4076
FPTA2-MW5 1989 1991 1993
Total PAHs
Tolal Naphthalenes
317
170
84.75
0.45
26.1
0.4
                                                                      • MW2
FPTA2-MW3 1989 1991 1993
Total PAHs
Total Naphthalenes
ND
ND
6.68
0
NS
NS
                                                                    \.
FPTA2-MW1
Tolal PAHs
Tolal Naphthalenes
/
1989 1993
6.22
127
0.03
1.3

MW1 / TW-22
\ *


1993(1 up) 1
032 1
/ Concrete
V Fad \ x
'•,  1993
Total PAHs
Tolal Naphthalenes
46.8
17
29.59
0
14.08
0
8.4
0.3
                                                                              Drainage Ditch
 LEGEND
Tolal PAHs
Groundwater Sampling Location
Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons,
excluding Naphthalenes
     ND     Not Detected Above Instrument Detection Limits
     NS     Not Sampled
 All Results in Micrograms per Liter (pg/L)
  '          Paved Road
  	    Drainage Canal
  Reference:  G&M. 1994a
                                                                                                                       100
                                                                                                                              200
                                                                                                                   SCALE IN FEET
                                                       To
                                                     Boundary
                                                      Canal
          U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
                 HOMESTEAD ARB
       ORGANIC COMPOUNDS DETECTED IN
 GROUNDWATER SAMPLES COLLECTED DURING
 THE 1989,1991, AND 1993 FIELD INVESTIGATIONS
SITE FT-5, FIRE PROTECTION TRAINING AREA NO. 2

                    FIGURE 2-3

-------
 The total PAH  concentrations (including naphthalene) detected in groundwater samples
 FPTA2-MW1/FPTA2-SL-9001, FPTA2-MW2, FPTA2-MW4, and FPTA2-MW5 in  1993
 were 100/57, 53, 3, and 3 times lower, respectively, than concentrations detected in 1991.
 Similar results were found in the Phase I investigation where concentrations of total PAHs
 detected in samples FPTA2-MW2, FPTA2-MW4, and FPTA2-MW5 analyzed in 1991 were
 from 2 to 7 times lower than total PAH concentrations detected in  1989. The decrease in
 total  PAH  concentrations  in  monitoring  wells  FPTA2-MW2,  FPTA2-MW4,  and
 FPTA2-MW5 between 1989, 1991,  and 1993, and FPTA2-MW1 between  1991 and 1993
 suggests that the PAHs are attenuating naturally, probably from aerobic biotransformation
 (G&M, 1993a).   However, total  PAHs (excluding naphthalene)  detected in one 1993
 groundwater sample (FPTA2-MW5)  still exceeded the state MCL of 10 p.g/L with a
 concentration of 26.1 jig/L. None of the 1993 groundwater samples collected exceeded the
 state MCL for total naphthalene of 100 jig/L.

 BNAs were not  detected in the 1988 surface water samples collected.  Two BNAs were
 detected but classified  as  undetected in  the  1993 surface water samples collected
 (Table 2-10).

 BNAs were not detected in the 1988 sediment samples collected.  BNAs (mostly PAHs) were
 detected in  all five of the  1993  sediment samples collected (Table 2-11).  Total PAH
 concentrations ranged from about 0.05 to about 8.8 mg/kg.  Several of the BNAs detected
 exceeded National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Effects Range-Low
 (ER-L) guidelines.

 2.6.2.5 Inorganics. Lead was detected in 10 of the 12 surface soil samples collected in 1989.
 The lead concentrations ranged from  0.7 to 78 mg/kg. Lead was detected in all four of the
 surface soil samples collected in 1991  at concentrations of 21 to 1,100 mg/kg.  Originally, the
 1991 samples were collected as  background samples.   However, a  review of aerial
 photographs suggests that these samples were collected in the vicinity  of a former fire
 training pit and are not appropriate background samples.  Lead was detected in all 11 of the
 surface soil samples collected in 1993.  The lead concentrations detected in 1993 ranged
 from 7.4 to  110 mg/kg (Table 2-8).  Detected  lead concentrations are summarized in
 Figure 2-4.

Because the background soil sample collected at Site FT-5/OU-1  may be inappropriate, lead
concentrations detected in surface soil/weathered rock samples collected at Site FT-5 were
compared to  average Homestead ARB concentrations (Table 2-6).  Concentrations of lead
                                       21

-------
                                               Ordnance Storage Area -V.
0     100

  SCALE IN FEET
                                     Building    |—
                                     4076
                                                    FPTA2-SL-0014  1993
                                                                           0016
                                                                   SB-5~|i       \
                                                                Elevated FilWegelalion Area
                                                                                   Drainage Swale
             1989 Soil/Weathered Rock Sampling Location

             1991 Soil/Weathered Rock Sampling Location

             1993 Soil/Weathered Rock Sampling Location
             U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
                     HOMESTEAD ARB
         LEAD CONCENTRATIONS DETECTED IN
SURFACE SOIL/WEATHERED ROCK SAMPLES COLLECTED
DURING THE 1989,1991 AND 1993 FIELD INVESTIGATIONS
   SITE FT-5, FIRE PROTECTION TRAINING AREA NO. 2
   All Results in milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg)

            Paved Road
     To
Boundary
   Canal
             Drainage Canal

   Reference: G&M. 1994a

-------
 detected in 25 of the 27 surface soil/weathered rock samples collected in  1989, 1991. and
 1993  were above the Homestead ARE lead background range for surface (0 to 2 ft bis)
 soil/weathered rock.

 Additional target analyte list (TAL) metals and general minerals detected in the four shallow
 soil samples collected in 1991, and 11 surface soil  samples collected in  1993  included
 aluminum,  calcium, barium, cadmium, chromium, copper,  iron, magnesium, manganese,
 nickel, potassium, sodium, vanadium,  zinc, mercury, and arsenic.  The 1993 results  are
 presented in Table 2-8.  These metals are typically present in carbonate rocks and soils.
 According  to  average carbonate composition  data presented by  Hem (1989),  calcium,
 magnesium, aluminum, iron, manganese, potassium,  and sodium are the most common
 constituents of carbonates. Additionally, barium, chromium, copper, nickel, vanadium, zinc,
 mercury, and arsenic occur as trace concentrations. Average concentrations of two  common
 carbonate constituents (calcium and sodium) and three trace carbonate constituents (barium,
 chromium,  and zinc) detected in Homestead ARB background surface (0 to 2 feet bgs)
 soil/weathered  rock samples were above the average carbonate composition concentrations
 (Hem, 1989).

 Soil samples collected in 1993 were analyzed for cyanide. Cyanide was not detected in any
 of the  11 soil samples collected.

 Lead was  detected in four of the six groundwater samples collected in  1988.  The
 concentrations ranged from 1.2 to 2.7 fig/L.  Lead was detected in four of the 17 groundwater
 samples collected in  1989.  The concentrations ranged from 7.5 to  311 |lg/L.  Two of the
 samples were above the federal action level of 15 u.g/L and one of the samples was above the
 state MCL of 50 u,g/L.  Lead was detected in six of the 11 groundwater wells sampled in
 1991.  The concentrations ranged from 7.5 to 67 ^ig/L.  Three of the samples were above the
 federal MCL of 15 (ig/L and two samples were above the state MCL of 50 p.g/L. Lead was
 not detected in any of the six groundwater samples collected and analyzed for lead in 1993.
 This may be attributed to sampling techniques.

 Additional TAL metals and general minerals detected in groundwater  samples  collected in
 1993 include barium, calcium, iron, magnesium, manganese, potassium, sodium, and arsenic
 (Table  2-9).  No groundwater quality standards or guidelines exist for calcium, magnesium,
 and potassium.  Calcium (89,600 to 149,000 \igfL), magnesium (1,670 to 4,550 (ig/L), and
potassium (1,350 to 6,170 Hg/L) are within or slightly above the range of dissolved calcium,
magnesium,  and potassium reported for the Biscayne  aquifer (Table 2-7).  Arsenic was
                                        22

-------
 detected in one groundwater sample at 12.1 Jig/L which is well below the state MCL of
 50 |ig/L.  Barium was detected in  four samples at concentrations ranging from 12.5 to
 50.8 |ig/L, which are well below the state MCL of 1,000 fig/L.  Sodium was detected in all
 groundwater samples at concentrations ranging from 6,340 to 32,900 [igfL, which are well
 below the state MCL of 160,000 fig/L.

 High concentrations of TAL metals including aluminum, lead, and manganese detected in the
 1991 groundwater samples have been attributed to the presence of suspended sediments in
 the  groundwater samples.  Redevelopment of these wells, which removed suspended
 sediment, prior to collecting  groundwater samples in 1993 provided more accurate
 measurements  of dissolved TAL metals.  Aluminum concentrations detected in the 1991
 samples exceeded the federal Secondary MCL (SMCL) (50 to 200 |ig/L) for drinking water.
 The  1993 samples were all below the detection limit of 200 u,g/L.  Lead  concentrations
 detected in samples FPTA2-MW1 and FPTA2-MW4, which exceeded the federal MCL of
 15 ng/L  in 1991, were below the detection limit  of 3  p.g/L  in  1993.  Manganese
 concentrations  detected in samples FPTA2-MW2 and  HS-11, which exceeded the federal
 SMCL  for drinking water and state  Secondary Drinking Water Standards  in 1991, were
 below the detection limit of 10 u,g/L in 1993.

 Groundwater samples  collected in  1993 were analyzed for cyanide.  Cyanide was not
 detected in any of the six  samples  collected.  TDS were detected in  1993 groundwater
 samples at concentrations ranging from 200 to 510 mg/L. Only one sample contained TDS
 concentrations above the SMCL of 500 mg/L (Table 2-7).

 Lead was detected in all five of the 1993 sediment samples at concentrations ranging from
 4.4 to 39.5 mg/kg (Table 2-11).  Lead was detected in all five  of  the  1988 surface water
 samples collected. The concentrations ranged from 2.6 to 7.5 u,g/L. Lead was not detected
 in any of the 1993 surface water samples.

 Additional TAL metals and general  minerals detected in 1993  sediment samples include
 aluminum, calcium, chromium, iron,  magnesium, manganese, sodium, vanadium, zinc, and
 arsenic.   At several sampling locations, concentrations of metals detected in the drainage
 ditch were greater than background sediment (FPTA2-SD-0001) concentrations (Table 2-11).
 Table 2-12 presents the background sediment (FPTA2-SD-0001) concentrations for all
detected metals, the range of concentrations detected in the drainage ditch, and the number of
samples above background for each constituent. Each metal (except sodium) was detected at
concentrations above the two background samples in at least one sediment sample.
                                       23

-------
                     TABLE Ml

SUMMARY OF CONSTITUENTS DETECTED IN SEDIMENT SAMPLES
                 COLLECTED IN 1993 AT
      SITE FT-5. FIRE PROTECTION TRAINING AREA NO. 2
         HOMESTEAD AIR FORCE BASE, FLORIDA
                     (P«gelofJ)
""—

BwMmtnl **t feU
Eilrwubfc
AflUraam
B*ixo(i)p]mM
B* ti*X klflvonMbcM
^ g T*K 1, H it)P*TT W X
Cutaoto
QOr—
4.4--DDD
4X-DDB
Atenira
Am*
Cildu
bw
NOAA
KS-L
M
230
400
N
N
N
N
400
60
600
N
230
350
2
2
N
33
N
to
N
NOAA
HUM
V»!M'
9«0
1.60
0
2 JO
0
N
N
N
N
240
0
260
3.60
»
N
1.40
0
20
15
N
15
N
145
N
Uurlm
SQC
NS
UI7.000
1.063.000
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
14*3.000
NS
1.3 11, 000
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
hurlm
SOC
•1 l.»*
oc
NS
25.023
20.197
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
33.777
NS
24,909
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
GAM IJX JTT/U-SD-
Sxuuk LD. 0001
D.US.mpW 4074>lt
*SoB* 1/4/M
NO
< 150
< 150
< HO
< 1)0
< 150
< 150
< 150
< 150
< 150
< 150
< 150
< 1)0
< 1.)
< 1.5
U20
< ).2
309.000
1.7
IJZOO
ITTA1-SD. rPTAJ^D-
0001 M03
40741-11 40742-17
van i/vn
57 70
NO NO
< 310 (65)
(60) TO
(69) IJ3
(120) 950
(36) 110
(45) 100
< 510 (61)
(91) 790
< 5»o < TTJ
(160) IJOO
(61) 710
(47) (210)
(120) 1.500 1

< 54 J.4
< 5.1 1.9
1 2.150 I 1)3 1
U 11.7 ) 4.2 I
J
307.000 313.000
17 J 1.5
2.360 101
FPTAJ-SD-
FPTA2-SD. 0004
K»3 40741-14
40741-K 2/0
(47)
(52)
< 4&0
J (63)
"1 < 4*0
(110)
(10)
(110)
< 4.1
< 4.1
J 959
1 < 2.9
263.000
4.7
662


J
1
1

-------
                                                                                              TABLE Ml
                                                                   SUMMARY OF CONSTITUENTS DETECTED IN SEDIMENT SAMPLES
                                                                                        COLLECTED IN 1993 AT
                                                                          SITE FT-5, FERE PROTECTION TRAINING AREA NO. 2
                                                                               HOMESTEAD AIR FORCE BASE, FLORIDA
                                                                                              (P«gt2of2)
(J(XAA NOA Uurlm
NnmiUr OH, . A SQC
Vtht M ' £$
v* OQ
L.14 35 110 NJ
Mi(i»4» N N K»
MUIUM N N • W
Jii»n 1 1 M
Jodlw M N M
Vmutun N N N$
ZJK IM 770 MS
C7«>ld« (tnfAt *•) KS Nl K5
T»UIOrtuk CarbM (BaAiO) » W W
Art* VW.ll. MMt (na/lf 4V) f« fB M
AVS KitncUbb MiUK
lixl (7411), a|/kj tfw NJ NJ W

Z!M (4010), Bf/kf *w » « M
Notes:
8 The sediment cnulitv criteria (SOO cannot be direct!!
Uurlm
»QC
OC
US
XI
N3
W
M
NJ
N5
M
W

W

m
GAM IJX FPTAl^D-
J^THkAh LIX 0001
Dttl SAfnplt4 40741-lt
* Soldi 1/4/93
19
(669)
111
< 5.1 <
(673)
(3.1)
< 0.45 . <
< 14.000
< 14 <

< 9.1 U
1
11.4 J

/ comoared with the Site FT-5 drainaee ditch data becau
FTTAl^D- FTTAJ-SD-
0001 000)
40741.11 40743-IT
1/4/93 1/4/9)
57 1%

11.5 |
(IM)
10J
)J <
(5SH
(7.1)
13.3
0.44 <
11,000
II

1.1 I

9.7 I

se the SOC ire Dresente<

35.4 1
(711)
IM
1.9 <
(401)
(4.0)
49.9
OJ« <
15.000
16

17.) 1

25.) 1

t a* normalized to orian
•00)
1/4^3
49

31.3 |
(»0)
13.1
19 <
(4TT)
(4.4)
39.0
0.34 <
13.000
U

10.1 )

117 J

ic carbon (i.e., presente<
0004
40741-14
1/tft)
44

J9.5
(T76)
19.4
4.4
(340)
(9-9)
14.4
a 55
15.000
40

13.0

11.7

on a per or
0001
4*743-15
1/4/t)
49
1 M
(413)
9.9
< 1.9
(401)
(4.4)
4.9
< 0.)4
11.000
13

I < 4.9

1 5.1

tanic carbon weicht bas











u
J
I

ls).T
     (Jij/Vg OC) by the avenge OC content of 1.9% (.019 kg of COkg of sediment).

     Organic Caibon
     The criteria U that a sediment U not actively toxic when the molar sum of simultaneously extracted cadmium, copper, mercury, nickel, lead, and line U leu than the molar acid volatile sulfide concentration (DiTolo a al., 1992).
     National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Technical Memorandum NOS OMA 52. Effects Range - Low value* are concentrations equivalent to the lower 10 percentile of available data screened by NOAA and
     indicate the low end of the range of concentrations in specific sediments at which adverse biological effects were observed or predicted In sensitive specie* and/or sensitive life suges.

     Effects Range • Median value* are concentrations equivalent to the midpoint of the range of available data screened by NOAA.
1    Positive result has been classified a* qualitative.
U    Classified as undetected
UI   Analyte was Dot detected.
NS   No Standard
N    No value available
()   Value is greater than instrument detection limit but leu than practical quantitation limit
     Value exceeds  NOAA ER-L To-Be-Considered guidelines
)ig/kg    micTOgTun* pet kilogram dry weight
tug/leg    milligrams pet kilogram dry weight
NO  None of the compounds In this analyle group were detected.

-------
                                              TABLE 2-12

               COMPARISON OF METALS DETECTED IN SEDIMENT SAMPLES COLLECTED
    AT SITE FT-5, FIRE PROTECTION TRAINING  AREA  NO. 2, WITH BACKGROUND CONCENTRATIONS
                              HOMESTEAD AIR  RESERVE BASE, FLORIDA


Analyte

Aluminum
Calcium
Chromium
Iron
Magnesium
Manganese
Sodium
Vanadium
Zinc
Lead
Arsenic

Average
Carbonate
Composition
8,970
272.000
7.1
8,190
45,300
842
393
13
16
16
1.8
Background
Boundary Canal b/
Sediment
«/ BC-SD-0010
2,700
310,000
11
1,700
1,000
<29
290
5.7
27
11
2
Background
Site FT-5
Sediment
FPTA2-SD-0001
1.320
309,000
8.7
1.200
669
12.8
672
5.8
25.6
19
<5.2
Site FT-5
Sediment
Concentration
Range (4) c/
853 - 2,850
254,000-370,000
4.7-17.3
662 - 2.360
613-880
9.9 - 29.6
340 - 553
4.0 - 7.8
6.9 - 49.9
4.4-39.5
<2.9- 11.7
a/ Hem, J.D., 1989 Average carbonate composition of precipitates in carbonates.
b/ Boundary Canal sediment sample located approximately 500 feet east of Mystic Lake on the north side of Homestead AFB.
c/ Number of samples considered.
                                                                                           I:\pio|\l(704\II 5\IABL4-I6.XLS

-------
 The following metals and general minerals were detected in surface water samples collected
 from  the  Site FT-5/OU-1  drainage ditch:  calcium  (71,600-77,700  M-g/D. magnesium
 (2,170-2,250 Hg/L), potassium  (3,800-3,930 jig/L), and sodium (13,700)-( 14,400 ug/L)
 (Table 2-10). These constituents are present in the groundwater of the Biscayne aquifer, the
 major source of water in the Site FT-5/OU-1 drainage ditch (Table 2-7). Concentrations of
 calcium, magnesium, potassium, and sodium detected in the Site FT-5 drainage ditch were
 within the  ranges detected in the Biscayne aquifer (Table 2-10).

 Cyanide was not detected in any of the 1993 sediment or surface water samples collected.

 2.6.2.6 Pesticides/PCBs.  The 11 soil samples collected in 1993 were analyzed for target
 compound list (TCL) pesticides/PCBs. Three pesticides, heptachlor epoxide, 4,4'-DDE, and
 4,4'-DDD were detected in the soil/weathered rock samples (Table 2-3). Heptachlor epoxide
 was detected in  soil/weathered rock samples FPTA2-SL-0014 and FPTA2-SL-0016 at
 concentrations of 200 and 260 |ig/kg, respectively. 4,4'-DDE and 4-4'-DDD were detected in
 FPTA2-SL-0013 at  concentrations of  24  and  270 mg/kg,  respectively, and in
 FPTA2-SL-9013 (duplicate of FPTA2-SL-0013) at concentrations  of 34 and 340  u.g/kg,
 respectively.  The concentration of 4,4'-DDE detected in FPTA2-SL-9013 was between the
 method detection limit and practical quantitation limit and the concentrations of heptachlor
 epoxide detected were qualified because of errors in the associated quality control measures.
 These pesticides were not detected in average Homestead ARB  background concentrations
 for surface  (0 to 2 feet bgs) soil/weathered rock.

 Organochlorine pesticides were not detected in groundwater samples collected in 1993. Two
 organochlorine pesticides were detected in the 1993 sediment samples collected. 4,4'-DDD
 was detected  in two samples at concentrations of 5.4 and 3.1  Hg/kg and 4,4'-DDE was
 detected in three samples at concentrations ranging from 3.6 to 12 p.g/kg (Table  2-11).
 Concentrations of 4,4'-DDD and  4,4'-DDE detected in  sediment samples exceeded NOAA
 ER-L guidelines  of 2 Jig/kg.  Organochlorine pesticides/PCBs were not detected  in  the
 surface water samples collected in 1993.

2.6.2.7 Total Organic  Carbon.  The varying  toxicity of nonionic  organic  chemicals in
different sediments is related to the TOC content in sediments.  This is due to TOC in
sediment controlling the extent of adsorption. TOC was analyzed in all 1993 drainage ditch
sediment samples.  Concentrations  detected in all five sediment samples ranged  from
 12,000 to 26,000 mg/kg (Table 2-11), with an average  TOC of  1.9 percent.  The average
                                        24

-------
 TOC of 1.9 percent was used to calculate the interim Sediment Quality Criteria (SQC). The
 SQC cannot be  directly  compared  with  the drainage ditch data  because the  SQC are
 presented as normalized to organic carbon (i.e., presented on a per organic-carbon-weight
 basis).  To allow  a direct comparison between the drainage ditch data and the SQC, the SQC
 for the average carbon content in drainage ditch sediments (1.9 percent) was calculated, and
 is presented in Table 2-11.

 2.6.3      Summary

 The most prevalent constituents detected in the soil/bedrock and groundwater at Site FT-5
 are semivolatile organic compounds  (SVOCs) (i.e., BNAs).  The SVOCs detected in the
 soil/bedrock and groundwater are primarily 2- to 5-ring PAHs. VOCs were detected at low
 levels in some of the surface soil samples  collected in 1989 and all of the 1991 and 1993
 samples.  Most of the VOCs detected are suspected as laboratory contaminants.  VOCs,
 primarily benzene  and  toluene, were detected in four of  the 17  groundwater samples
 collected in 1989, in two of the 11 groundwater samples collected in 1991, and in one of the
 six groundwater  samples (and  its associated  duplicate)  collected in  1993.  VOC
 concentrations in groundwater decreased  significantly since 1989  and 1991 suggesting
 natural attenuation, possibly from biodegradation.

 Metals  (except for  lead)  were detected  in the soils and groundwater  at  Site  FT-5 at
 concentrations within typical background levels. Lead concentrations detected in surface soil
 samples were generally below 100 mg/kg.  Only  three samples had lead concentrations
 greater than 100 mg/kg.  Lead was detected in groundwater samples  collected in 1989 and
 1991 at concentrations greater than the state MCL. Lead was not detected in the groundwater
 samples collected in 1993.  Low concentrations of VOCs, BNAs, and metals were detected in
 the sediment and surface  water samples.

 2.7       SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS

 In order to evaluate whether existing or future exposure to  contaminated  media at Site
 FT-5/OU-1 could pose a risk to human health and the environment; the USAF completed a
 Baseline Risk Assessment (BRA) in April 1994, with USEPA oversight of the process. The
 USAF evaluated potential site risk in the absence of any further remediation.  This evaluation
 then served as a baseline  for determining whether cleanup of each site media was necessary.
In the BRA, the USAF evaluated site risk for several environmental media.  This ROD
addresses the risks attributable to chemicals in the groundwater and soil at Site FT-5/OU-1.
                                        25

-------
 The BRA included the following major components: selection of chemicals of potential
 concern  (COPC), exposure  assessment,  toxicity assessment, risk characterization,
 development of remedial goal options, ecological risk and uncertainties.

 2.8       SELECTION OF CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN

 Chemicals are included in the BRA as COPCs if the results of an initial screening indicate
 the chemical might pose a current or future risk  above levels deemed protective of human
 health and the environment by the USEPA.  COPCs at Site FT-5/OU-1 were based on the
 twice  background criteria  for organic chemicals, elimination of lab contaminants and
 detection frequency for organic chemicals and essential nutrient elimination.
 COPCs for soil, groundwater, surface water, and sediment in Table 2-13.

 2.9       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 route
 (inhalation of vapors, ingestion of groundwater, etc.). All  four of these elements must be
 present for a pathway to be complete.

 2.9.1      Exposure Point Concentration

 The exposure point concentration for each contaminant was derived using the 95  percent
 upper confidence limit (UCL95) on the arithmetic mean as defined by the following formula:
where:       y     =      arithmetic mean of the log-transformed data
             S     =      standard deviation of the log-transformed data
             H     =      statistical parameter
                                       26

-------
                                  TABLE 2-13

                 CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN AT
              FT-5, FIRE PROTECTION TRAINING AREA NO. 2
                HOMESTEAD AIR RESERVE BASE, FLORIDA
                                 (Page 1 of 2)
     Constituent
Groundwater
                                    Surface
                                    Soil
          Total
          Soil
        Surface
         Water
Sediment
 VOCs
 Acetonea
 Benzene
 Bromodichloromethan
 e
 2-Butanonea
 Ethylbenzene
 Methylene chloride2
 Toluene
 1,1,1-Trichloroethane
 Xylenes (total)

 BNAs
 Acenaphthene
 Acenaphthylene
 Anthracene
 Benzo(a)anthracene
 Benzo(b)fluoranthene
 Benzo(k)fluoranthene
 Benzo(a)pyrene
 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
 Butylbenzylphthalate
 Carbazole
 Chrysene
 Dibenzo(a,h)anthracen
 e
 Dibenzofuran
 Diethylphthalate
 Fluoranthene
 Fluorene
 n-Hexane^
Indeno(l,2,3-
c,d)pyrene
2-Methylnaphthalene
     X
     X
     X
     X
     X
     X
     X
     X
     X
     X
     X
     X
     X
     X
                  X

                  X

                  X
                  X
                  X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

X

X
X

X

X
           X
           X
           X

           X
           X
           X
                            X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
                                      X
   X
   X
   X
   X
   X
   X

   X
   X
   X
   X

-------
                                   TABLE 2-13

                   CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN AT
               FT-5, FIRE PROTECTION TRAINING AREA NO. 2
                  HOMESTEAD AIR RESERVE BASE, FLORIDA
                                  (Page 2 of 2)
Constituent
Naphthalene
Pentachlorophenol
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Pesticides
4,4'-DDD
4,4'-DDE
Heptachlor epoxide
Metals
Aluminum
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Nickel
Vanadium
Zinc
Petroleum
Hydrocarbons
Groundwater
X

X
X








X

X
X
X



X
X

Surface
Soil
X
X
X
X

X
X


X
X

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

Total
Soil
X
X
X
X

X
X
X

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

Surface Sediment
Water


X
X

X
X









X X
X





a Strongly suspected laboratory contaminant
b n-Hexane is used as a surrogate for petroleum hydrocarbons.

Adapted from: Geraghty & Miller, 1994a,b

-------
  Often, with limited data sets, the UCLgs is higher than the maximum detected concentration.
  If so, the maximum concentration detected was used as the exposure point concentration
  rather than the

  2.9.2  Land Use

  Hypothetical future use of the site for residential  purposes is unlikely.  However, for the
  purposes of the BRA, the hypothetical future risks were evaluated for the possibility of future
  residential development of the site and installation of a potential potable well.

 2.9.3      Exposure Scenarios

 Potential current risks at the site were evaluated based on a base worker, accessing the site
 for cutting the grass, who  could ingest soil, have skin contact with soil, or inhale dust from
 soil.  Future populations at risk consisted of hypothetical adults and children. Exposure to
 contaminated groundwater  and soil  was evaluated for hypothetical adult and children
 residents.  Risks were evaluated based on conservative  use of Reasonable Maximum
 Exposure (RME) assumptions.

 The exposure assumptions for each pathway are provided  in Tables 2-14 through 2-16.
 Based on the exposure point concentrations derived from site data for the chemicals shown in
 Table 2-13 and using the exposure assumptions identified  in Tables 2-14 through 2-16;
 USEPA estimated the chronic daily intake (GDI) associated with each exposure pathway and
 population combination. The formula used to calculate the  GDI for each pathway are also
 provided in Tables 2-14 through 2-16.

 2.9.4      Toxicity Assessment

 The toxicity assessment evaluated possible harmful effects of exposure to each COPC. A
 number of chemicals found at the site, including polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs),
 arsenic,  benzene, cadmium, chromium, and lead  have the  potential  to cause cancer
 (carcinogenic). Cancer slope factors (CSFs) have been developed by EPA's Carcinogenic
 Assessment Group  for estimating lifetime cancer risks  associated with exposure to
 potentially carcinogenic compounds.  These CSFs, which are expressed in units of (mg/kg-
 day)'1 are multiplied by the estimated GDI of a potential carcinogen to provide an upper-
 bound estimate of the excess lifetime cancer risk associated with exposure at the intake level.
The term  "upper bound" reflects the conservative estimate  of the risks calculated for the
                                        27

-------
                                          TABLE 2-14
        EQUATIONS AND SAMPLE CALCULATIONS FOR HYPOTHETICAL FUTURE
                          POTABLE GROUNDWATER EXPOSURE,
                   SITE FT-5, FIRE PROTECTION TRAINING AREA NO. 2
                        HOMESTEAD AIR RESERVE BASE, FLORIDA
                                          (Page 1 of 2)


 Equation Definitions

        GWExD.  =•    EPC,- x IR x EF x ED
                           BWx AP

        GWExDd  -    EPC,- x SSA x PC x ET x EF x ED
                              BW x AP x UCF

        GWExD,   -    EPC,- x VF. x BR x EF x ED
                              BWx AP

        HI        -     GWExD.    +    GWExD.
                         RfD.            RfD.

        ELCR     -    [( GWExD. x CSF. )  +  ( GWExD, x CSF.)] x TEF

 where:

 AP       Averaging period (equal to ED x 365 days/year for non-cancer effects; 25.550 days [365
          days/year for 70 years] for carcinogenic effects) (USEPA, 1989a).
 BR       Breathing rate (15 m'/day) (USEPA, 1991 a).
 BW       Body weight (70 kg for an adult; 15 kg for a child (aged 0 to 6]) (USEPA, 1991 a).
 CSF      Cancer slope factor for oral (CSF.) or dermal (CSF.) intake (kg-day/mg).
 ELCR     Excess lifetime cancer risk.
 EF       Exposure frequency (350 days/year) (USEPA, 1991 a).
 ET       Exposure time while  bathing/showering  (hours) (15 minutes - 0.25 hour) (Foster and
          Chrostowski, 1987).
 ED       Exposure duration (30 years for an adult resident; 6 years for a child resident (aged 0 to 6]).
 EPC,.     Exposure point concentration in groundwater (mg/U (Table 3.1)
 GWExD   Potable groundwater  exposure dose for oral (GWExD.),  dermal (GWExDd), or inhalation
          (GWE,D,) intake (mg/kg/day).
 HI        Hazard index.
 IR        Ingestion rate of drinking water (2 liters/day for an adult; 1 liter/day for a child (aged 0 to
          6]) (USEPA, 1991 a; 1989O.
 PC       Permeability constant (cm/hour) (Table 3.11).
 RfD       Reference dose for oral (RfD.) or dermal (RfD.) intake (mg/kg/day).
 SSA      Exposed skin surface area while bathing/showering (18.150 cm2 for an adult; 5.150 cm2 for
          a child (aged 0 to 61)  (USEPA, 1989d).
TEF       Toxicrty equivalency factor for carcinogenic poh/nuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)
          (Table 3.10); not applicable for other carcinogens.
 UCF      Unit conversion factor (1,000 cm'/U.
VFW       Volatilization factor for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from household tap water (0.5
          Urn3) (USEPA, 1991d).

-------
                                       TABLE 2-14
      EQUATIONS AND SAMPLE CALCULATIONS FOR HYPOTHETICAL FUTURE
                        POTABLE GROUNDWATER EXPOSURE,
                  SITE FT-5, FIRE PROTECTION TRAINING AREA NO. 2
                      HOMESTEAD AIR RESERVE BASE, FLORIDA
                                       (Page 2 of 2)
 Example Calculation: Cancer Effects of Benzo(k)fluoranthene (Adult Resident)

 GWExD.  =     (0.0027 mo/L) (2 L/dav) (350 days/year) (30 years)
                           (70 k0) (25.550 days)

                3.17E-05 mg/kg/day
 GWExD,
 ELCR
 (0.0027 mo/L) (18.150 cm2) (4.1 cm/hour) (0.25 hour) (350 davs/vear) (30 years)
               (70 kg) (25,550 days) (1,000 cm'/U

 2.95E-04 mg/kg/day

 [(3.17E-5 mg/kg/day)(7.3 kg-day/mg)] x 0.1

 2.3E-05
 CSF, is not available for benzo(k)fluoranthene; therefore, dermal exposure is not included in the ELCR
 calculation.

 Non-Cancer Effects of Toluene (Child Resident)

 GWExD.   -     (0.0077 mo/L) (1 L/dav) (350 davs/vear) (6 years)
                         (15kg) (2,190 days)
GWExDd
GWExD,
HI
4.92E-04 mg/kg/day

(0.0077 mo/L) (5.150 cm3) M.O cm/hour) (0.25 hour) (350 davs/vear) (6 years)
                        (15 kg) (2,190 days) (1,000 cnV/U

6.33E-O4 mg/kg/day

(O.OO77 mo/L) (0.5 UmJ) (15 mj/dav> t350 davs/vear) (6 years)
                        (15kg) (2.190 days)
3.69E-03 mg/kg/day

4.92E-04 mo/ko/dav
 2E-01 mg/kg/day

4.3E-02
6.33E-O4 ma/ko/dav
 2E-01 mg/kg/day
3.69E-03 ma/ka/dav
 1E-01 mg/kg/day
TK7O402VDM. 1OJ4U»-*»r-*4

-------
                                             TABLE 2-15
               EQUATIONS AND SAMPLE CALCULATIONS FOR SOIL EXPOSURE
                      SITE FT-S, FIRE PROTECTION TRAINING AREA NO. 2
                           HOMESTEAD AIR RESERVE BASE, FLORIDA
                                             (Page 1 of 4)


 Equation Definitions:
      SExD.
               EPC. x IR x EF x ED x  UC,
                        BW  x AP
                                                                            mg/kg/day
      SExD,
      EPC.  x SSA x SAR x ABS  x  EF  x  ED x UC,
                      BW x AP
                                                                     [ mg/kg/day )
      SExD,
EPC, x BR x (1 /VF * 1 /PEF) x ET x EF x ED
                BW x AP
                                                                           mg/kg/day ]
         VF   - Q7C  x   (3.1416 x a x T)"'   x  uc
                         2  x Dei x Pa  x Kas        z
                                                                              I m3/kg ]
         PEF  « Q/C  x
                                     UC,
                        0.036 x  {1 - G) x iUm/Ut)' x F
                                                                              I m3/Jcg
             Q/C
         •  (exp{[ (0.1004 x In(AJ) - 5.3466] * (2.92 x sY) })
                                                                              I (g/m2/sec)/(kg/m3) 1
    sY  -  0.02685 x  [o.25 * lln(A) "
                                          26.3608
                                                                                      ( unitless )
                           Dei x Pa
                    Pa * IPS x (1 -Pa)/Kas]
                                                                                     I cma/sec ]
             Dei   - Di x (Pa"3/?!1)
     ELCR  - [ (SExD. x CSF.) * (SExD« x CSF.) «• (SExD, x CSF,) J x TEF
                                                                            I cm7/sec 1


                                                                            [ unitless 1
     HI
     SExD.  ^  SExD,  ^  SExD.
      RfD0   *   RfD.     RID,
                                                                       ( unitless )
where:

A
ABS
AP
Contiguous area of contamination (m2); 11 acres (44,500 m2).
Dermal absorption efficiency, constituent-specific (Table 3.11).
Averaging period (25,550 days (70 years x 365 days/year) for cancer effects; ED x 365 days/year for non-
cancer effects) (USEPA, 1989a).
        inrrri nofmt »»ITI

-------
                                                     TABLE 2-15
                    EQUATIONS AND SAMPLE CALCULATIONS FOR SOIL EXPOSURE
                            SITE FT-5, FIRE PROTECTION TRAINING AREA NO. 2
                                 HOMESTEAD AIR RESERVE BASE, FLORIDA
                                                     (Page 2 of 4)
  BR        Breathing rate 10.83 m'/hour [20 m3/dayj for residents; 2.5 m'/hour 120 ms/8-hour dayl for the base worker)
            (USEPA, 199 la).
  BW        Body weight (70 kg for an adult; 15 kg for a child (aged 0 to 6] [USEPA,  1991 all.
  CSF       Cancer slope factor for oral (CSF0),  dermal (CSFJ, or inhalation (CSF,) intake (kg-day/mg) (Table 3.10).
  Dei        Effective diffusivity (cmj/sec).
  Di         Diffusivity in air (cm2/sec) (Table 3.7).
  ED        Exposure duration (years) (25 years for a base worker (USEPA, 199la); 30 years for an adult resident (USEPA,
            1989al; 6 years for a child resident [aged 0 to 61).
  EF         Exposure frequency (days/year) (350 days/year for residents (USEPA, 1991 a); 12 days/year for a base worker).
  ELCR      Excess lifetime cancer risk (unrtless).
  EPC,       Constituent exposure point concentration in soil (mg/kg) (Table 3.2 for base worker; Table  3.3 for residents).
  ET         Exposure time (4 hours/day for a base worker; 24 hours/day for residents).
  F          Function of Ut/Um (0.0126)(unitJess); F - 0.18 x ( 8x* + 12x ] x exp(-x2), where x = 0.886 (Ut/Um).
 Foe        Fraction organic carbon in soil (0.02).
 G          Fraction of vegetative cover (unitless); conservatively assumed as zero.
 H          Henry's Law Constant (atm-m'/mol) (Table 3.7).
 HI         Hazard index (unitiess).
 IR         Incidental ingestion rate for soil (50 mg/day for a base worker; 100 mg/day for an adult resident; 200 mg/day
            for a child resident (aged 0 to 61) (USEPA. 1991 a).
 Kas        Soil-air partition coefficient (g soil/cm* air); calculated as (41 mol/atm/m*)  x H / (Koc x Foe).
 Koc       Organic carbon partition coefficient  (cmj/g or mUg) (Table 3.7).
 Pa        Air-filled soil porosity (0.06) (unitiess).
|PEF       Paniculate emission factor (site-specific) (1.83 x 10'° mj/kg).
ft        Total soil porosity (0.43) (unitiess).
 ps        True soil or particle density (2.65 g/cm').
 RfD       Reference dose for oral (RfD,}, dermal (RfD.), or inhalation  (RfD,) intake (mg/kg/day) (Table  3.9).
 SAR       Soil adherence rate (1 mg/cm2/day) (USEPA, 1992b).
 SExD      Soil exposure dose from oral (SExD.). dermal (SExD,), or inhalation (SExD,) exposure (mg/kg/day).
 SSA       Exposed skin surface area (3,160cm2for base worker (USEPA, 1992bl; 4,650cm2 for an adult resident; 3,220
           cm2 for a child resident (aged 0 to 6] [USEPA. 1989cl).
 T         Exposure interval (sec) (7.9  x  10* sec (25 years) for a base worker; 9.5 x 10* sec [30 years) for residents).
 TEF       Toxicity equivalency factor for carcinogenic polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons  (PAHs)  (Table 3.10);  not
           applicable for other constituents.
 UC,       Unit conversion 1 (10"*kg/mg).
 UC,       Unit conversion 2 (10"1 mVcm1).
 UC,       Unit conversion 3 (3,600 sec/hour).
 Um        Wind speed (4 m/sec (NOAA. 1974]).
 Ut         Equivalent threshold value of windspeed at 10 meters (12.8 m/sec).
 VF        Volatilization factor (site- and constituent-specific) (m*/kg).
Sample Calculation:  Cancer Effects of Chrysene (base worker)
  SExD   „  (160 mg/kg) x (SO mg/d) x (12 d/yr) x (25 yrs) x (10r* kg/mg)
      0                        (7Okg) x (25.550d)
         -  1.34 x 10-* mg/kg/d
TF07IM01 l\D«.i

-------
                                              TABLE 2-15
                EQUATIONS AND SAMPLE CALCULATIONS FOR SOIL EXPOSURE
                       SITE FT-5, FIRE PROTECTION TRAINING AREA NO. 2
                            HOMESTEAD AIR RESERVE BASE, FLORIDA
                                              (Page 3 of 4)
  SExD   • nSOmg/tcQ) x (3.160cm*) x (1 mg/cm'/d) x (0.03) x (12d/yr) x (25yrs) x (1Q-*kg/mg|
      "                                (70kg) x (25,550d)

         - 2.54 x 10-* mg/kg/d

  Dei -  (0.04531 cm'/sec) x (0.06X3V0.43*)  •  2.09 x 10** cmj/sec

  Kas  -   (41 mol/atm/mj) x (3.15 x 1Q-7atm-ma/mol)  , 2 69 x 10** a/cm3
                  (240.000 cmj/g) x (0.02)


  a  -  	(2.09 x 10-»cm»/sec)xO.Q6	 „  ,.35 x 10-«cm'/sec
       0.06 * l(2.65g/cm;i) x (1 -0.06)/(2.69 x 10-«g/cm3)l


  sY -  0.02685 x  fo.25 *  nn(44.500m»)- 11.05091']  . Q.006836
                   [              26.3608        I


  Q;C  -  (exp( [ (0.1004 x ln(44.500m*]) - 5.3466J * (2.92 x 0.006836) })

       -  70.25 (o/ma/sec)/(kg/m3)
  VF  - f-yr>7gQ/"ia/sec] ^ I3.1416x (1.36 x 1Q-»cm»/5ec) x (7.9 x 10«sec)l"»
        [  '     Ico/m3 j   2 x (2.09 x lO^cm'/sec) x 0.06 x (2.69 x 10-*g/cmJ)

      - 1.91 x 10* ms/kg
             jg g/m*/secl x                     3,600 sec/hour
            '    kg/m3 J   (0.036 g/mj/hr) x (1 -0) x | (4 m/scc)/( 12.8 in/sec) P x 0.01257

         1.83 x 10" m»/kg
                                       (70 kg) x (25,550 d)
         1.Mx1Cr10
 ELCR -  (l(1.34x 10-*mg/kg/d) x (7.3kg-d/mg)| » 1(1.56 x 1 0-10mg/kg/d) x (6.1 kg-d/mg)]} x 0.01

       -  9.8 x 10-«
          (CSF, is not available for chrysene; therefore, dermal exposure is not included in the ELCR calculation.)
TO) 70401 t\O*B. IOO>VM

-------
                                          TABLE 2-15
              EQUATIONS AND SAMPLE CALCULATIONS FOR SOIL EXPOSURE
                    SITE FT-5, FIRE PROTECTION TRAINING AREA NO. 2
                         HOMESTEAD AIR RESERVE BASE, FLORIDA
                                          (Page 4 of 4)
Sample Calculation: Non-Cancer Effects of Cobalt (adult resident)
 SExD  .  (1.3mg/kg) x (100mg/d) x (350d/yr) x (30yrs> x (1Q-«kg/mg)
                           170kg) x (10,950d)
       -  1.78x10-* mg/kg/d
 SExD  . (1.3mg/kg) x (4,650cm*) x (1 mg/cma/dl x 0.0011 x (350d/yr> x (30yrs> x (1Q-*kg/mg)
     *                              (7Okg) x (10.950 d)
       - 8.28 x 10-« mg/kg/d
 SExD  .  Q^mfl/hB) x{0 *(1^.83x10loma/Ka)l x(O83m3/hO x(24hi/d) x QSOd/yr) x QOyra)
     1                             (70 »^)x (10,850 d)
       -  1.94x10-"
 H|  m 1.78x 10"«mo/kg/d  ^  8.28 x 1Q-« mg/kg/d
        6 x 10'a mg/kg/d        2 x 10*2 mg/kg/d

    - 0.000034

        (RfD,is not available for cobalt; therefore, inhalation exposure is not included in the HI calculation.)

-------
                                             TABLE 2-16
          EQUATIONS AND SAMPLE CALCULATIONS FOR WADING EXPOSURE
                    SITE FT-5, FIRE PROTECTION TRAINING AREA NO. 2
                         HOMESTEAD AIR RESERVE BASE, FLORIDA
                                             (Page 1 of 2)
 Equation Definitions:

 WExD.
EPC
x ED x EF x ET
                            BWx AP
 _ x IR^ x ED x EF
BW x AP x DC,
 WExD,
EPC- x SSA x PC x UC, x ED x EF x ET
      BW x AP
                                   ^ x SSA x SAR x ABS x ED x EF
                                          BW x AP x UC,
          ELCR     =  t(WExD0 x CSF0) + (WExDd x CSFJ1 x TEF

          HI        =  (WExD./RfD.) -t- IWExDa/RfD.)

 where:

 ABS       Dermal absorption efficiency, constituent-specific (from Table 3.11).
 AP        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, 1991 a).
 BW       Body weight (70 kg for an adult; 38 kg for an older child [aged 6 to 15 years! (USEPA, 1991 a; USEPA,
           1989c).
 CSF.       Cancer slope factor adjusted to an absorbed dose (kg-day/mg) (from Table 3.10).
 CSF.       Cancer slope factor for oral exposure  (kg-day/mg) (from Table 3.10).
 ED        Exposure duration (25  years for a base worker; 9 years for an older child (aged  6 to 15 years!).
 EF        Exposure frequency (12 days/year).
 ELCR       Excess lifetime cancer  risk (unities*).
 EPC..      Constituent exposure point concentration in the surface water (mg/U (Table 3.4).
 EPC*       Constituent exposure point concentration in the sediment (mg/kg) (Table 3.4).
 ET        Exposure time (8 hours/day for a base worker; 2.6 hours/day for an older child).
 HI         Hazard index (unities*).
 IR^        Incidental ingestion rate of sediment while wading (5 mg/day).
 IR_        Incidental ingestion rate of surface water while wading (0.005 liters/hour).
 PC        Permeability constant (cm/hour)  (from Table 3.111.
 RfD.       Reference dose adjusted to an absorbed dose  (mg/kg/day) (from Table 3.9).
 RfD.       Reference dose for oral exposure (mg/kg/day)  (from Table 3.9).
 SAR       Sediment adherence rated mg/cm'/day) (USEPA. 1992b).
 SSA       Exposed skin surface area (3,120 cm2 for a base worker; 3,715 cm2 for an older child laged 6 to 15
           years]) (USEPA. 199la; 1989O.
TEF       Toxicrty equivalency factor for carcinogenic polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs); not applicable
          for other constituents.
UC,       Unit conversion  1 (10*  mg/kg).
UC,       Unit conversion  2 (10^ Ucm3).
WExD<    Wading exposure dose  from dermal contact (mg/kg/day).
WExD0    Wading exposure dose  from incidental ingestion (mg/kg/day).
TFO 704011\Dn.lOOM«.A«r-»4

-------
                                           TABLE 2-16
          EQUATIONS AND SAMPLE CALCULATIONS FOR WADING EXPOSURE
                    SITE FT-5, FIRE PROTECTION TRAINING AREA NO. 2
                         HOMESTEAD AIR RESERVE BASE, FLORIDA
                                           (Page 2 of 2)
 Sample calculation - Bromodichlorometfiane. cancer effects, base worker:


 WExD. =» (0.0020 mo/L) x (0.005 L/hrl x (25 vrs) x (12 davs/vr) x (8 hrs/davl
                       (70kg) x (25.550 days)

       = 1.3x 10 • mo/kg/da y

 WExDj = (0.0020 mo/L) x (3.120cm2) x (5.8x 10'3cm/rir) x (lO'H/em*) x (25 vrs) x (12 davs/vr) * (8 hrs/dav)
                      (70 kg) x (25,550 days)

       = 4.9 x 10'* mg/kg/day

 ELCR   - 1(1.3 x IQ-'mg/kg/day) x (0.062 kg-day/mg)! + 1(4.9 x 10"* mg/kg/day) x (0.062 kg/day/mg)]


       = 3.8 x ia»


 Sample Calculations  - ohenarrthrene.  non-cancer effects, child:

 WExD. = (0.28 mo/ka) x (5 mo/dav) x (9 vrst x (12 davs/vr)
            (38 kg) x (3.285 days) x (10* mg/kg)

       = 1.2 x 10'* mg/kg/day


WExDd = (0.28 mo/kol x (3.715 cm2) x (1 mo/cm^/dav) x (0.03) x (9 vrs) x (12 davs/vr)
                  (38 kg) x (3.285 days) x (10* mg/kg)

       = 2.7 x 10"* mg/kg/day

HI     = 1.2 x 10'* mo/ka/dav   +      2.7 x 10*moykQ/dav
         3 x 10J mg/kg/day           3 x 102 mg/kg/day

      = 9.4 x 10-7

-------
 CSF. Use of the 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 CSFs for the carcinogenic contaminants of concern are contained in Table 2-17.

 As an interim procedure until more definitive Agency guidance is established. Region IV
 has adopted a toxicity equivalency factor (TEF) methodology for evaluating the carcinogenic
 risks from PAHs.   This  methodology relates the relative potency of each individual
 carcinogenic PAH to the potency of benzo(a)pyrene, the most carcinogenic PAH.  The TEFs
 for the PAHs are also presented in Table 2-17.

 Other COPCs, including other PAHs and metals, may cause health problems other than
 cancer. Reference doses (RfDs) have been developed by EPA for indicating the potential for
 adverse health effects from exposure to contaminants of concern exhibiting non-carcinogenic
 effects. RfDs, which are expressed in units of (mg/kg-day)-1, are estimates of lifetime daily
 exposure  levels for humans, including sensitive individuals, that are believed to be safe by
 EPA.  RfDs 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 RfDs. The RfDs for the noncarcinogenic contaminants of concern are
 provided in Table 2-18.

 2.9.5      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
current and future land use scenarios at Site FT-5/OU-1 exceed EPA's and FDEPs target risk
range for protection of human health.

2.9.5.1    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 1 in 1,000,000 chance of developing cancer as a result of
site-related exposure over an estimated 70 year lifetime.  EPA has established a target risk
                                         28

-------
                                                                           TABLE 2-17
                                         CANCER SLOPE FACTORS, TUMOR SITES AND USEPA CANCER CLASSIFICATIONS
                                                               FOR CONSTITUENTS OF CONCERN.
                                                        SITE FT-6, FIRE PROTECTION TRAINING AREA NO. 2
                                                               Homestead Air Reserve Base, Florida
              Constituent
                                                     CSF (mg/kg/day)M
 Oral      Adjustod(a]   Inhalation   TEF
                                                    Tumor site
                                  Oral
                                      Inhalation
                                      USEPA
                                   Classification
              VOCs
              Benzene
              Bromodchloromethane
              Methylene Chloride

              BNA.S
              Benzotaianthracene*
              Benzo(b)fluoranthene*
              Benzo(k)fluoranthene*
              Benzo(a)pyrene
              Butylbenzylphthalate
              Carbozole
              Chrysene*
              Dlbenzo(a,h)anthracene*
              lndeno(1.2,3-c,d)pyrene*
              Pentachlorophenol
2.9E-02
6.2E-02
7.5E-03
5.8E-01
5.8E-01
5.8E-01
5.8E+OO
  NA
2.0E-02
6.8E-02
5.8E+OO
5.8E-01
1JJE-01
2.9E-02
6.2E-02
7.5E-03
  IAP
  IAP
  IAP
  IAP
  IAP
  IAP
  IAP
  IAP
  IAP
 1.3E-01
2.9E-02
  NA
1.6E-03
6.1E-01
6.1E-01
6.1E-01
6.1E+00
NA
NA
6.1E-02
6.1E+OO
6.1E-01
NA
0.1
0.1
0.1
1
-
_
0.01
1
0.1
—
leukemia
  Kv&r
  ttver
                       NA
                       NA
                       NA
                     stomach
                       NA
                       NA
                       NA
                       NA
                       NA
                 liver, adrenal gland
   leukemia
     NA
   lung, liver


     NA
     NA
     NA
respiratory tract
     NA
     NA
     NA
     NA
     NA
     NA
A
B2
B2
                                        B2
                                        B2
                                        B2
                                        B2
                                        C
                                        B2
                                        B2
                                        B2
                                        B2
                                        82
Pesticides
4.4'-DDD
4.4'.DDE
Heptachlor
Inorganics
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium VI
Lead
Nickel
References:
la]

2.4E-01
3.4E-01
9.1E+00

1.75E+00
NAP
NAP
NA
NAP

2.7E-01
3.8E-01
1.5E+01

1.8E+00
NAP
NAP
NA
NAP

NA
NA
9.1E+00

1.5E+01
6.1E+00
4.2E+01
NA
8.4E-01

liver
Ih/er
liver

skin
NA
NA
NA
NA

NA
NA
Irver

respiratory tract
respiratory tract
lung
NA
respiratory tract

B2
B2
B2

A
B1
A
B2
A
ATSDR. 1991c; IRIS, 1992; USEPA, 1992a,b.
The CSF adjusted to an absorbed dose was used to assess dermal exposure. The adjusted CSF was derived according
to
                             USEPA (1989a) methodology by dMdlng the oral CSF by the constituent-specific oral absorption efficiency (Table 3-8).
               *             The oral and Inhalation CSF was converted to an equivalent concentration of benzo(a)pyrene following the Interim
                             USEPA Region IV guidance on the toxlclty equivalency factor (TEF) methodology for carcinogenic PAHs (USEPA, 1992a).
                             Not applicable; the TEF Is relevant only for the carcinogenic PAHs.
               IAP           Inappropriate to adjust the oral CSF for carcinogenic PAHs to evaluate dermal exposure (USEPA, 1989a).
               mg/kg/day     Milligrams per kilogram  per day.
               NA           Not available.
               PAHs         Potynudear aromatic hydrocarbons
               TEF          Toxlclty equivalency factor for carcinogenic PAHs
               NAP           Not applicable since It is carcinogenic by Inhalation only.
DOC.1003\Tabl8 2-17 REV. JUNE-1-B2 KK

-------
                                                     TABLE  2-18
                           REFERENCE  DOSES  FOR  CONSTITUENTS OF  CONCERN,
                            SITE  FT-5, FIRE  PROTECTION  TRAINING AREA  NO. 2
                                        Homestead Air Reserve Base, Florida
  Constituent
                             Oral RfD
                            (mg/kg/day)
Adjusted RfD*
 (mg/kg/day)
Inhalation RfD
 (mg/kg/day)
  VOCs

  Acetone
  Benzene
  Bromodichlorome thane
  2-Butanone
  Ethylbenzene
  Methylene Chloride
  Toluene
  1,1,1-Trichloroe thane
  Xylene
 Acenaphthene
 Acenaphthykne
 Anthracene
 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
 Butylbenzylphthalate
 Carbozole
 Dibenzofuran
 Diethylphthalate
 Fluoranthene
 Fluorene
 2-Metbylnapbthylene
 Naphthalene
 Pentachlorophenol
 Phenanthtene
 Pyrene

 Pesticides
 4,4'-DDD
 4.4'-DDE
 Heptachlor epoxide

 Inorganics
                                l.OE-01
                                    NA
                                2.0E-02
                                6.0E-02
                                l.OE-01
                                6.0E-02
                                2.0E-01
                                9.0E-02
                               2.0E+00
                                6.0E-02
                                3.0E-02
                                3.0E-01
                                3.0E-02
                                2.0E-01
                                   NA
                                3.0E-02
                                8.0E-01
                                4.0E-02
                                4.0E-02
                                6.0E-02
                                4.0E-02
                                4.0E-03
                                3.0E-02
                                3.0E-02
                               3.0E-02
                               3.0E-03
                               7.0E-04
                               13E-05
      l.OE-01
         NA
      2.0E-02
      6.0E-02
      l.OE-01
      6.0E-02
      2.0E-01
     9.0E-02
     2.0E+00
     5.4E-02
     2.7E-02
     2.7E-01
     2.7E-02
     2.0E-01
         NA
     2.7E-02
     8.0E-01
     3.6E-02
     3.6E-02
     6.0E-02
     2.7E-02
     3.6E-03
     3.0E-02
     2.7E-02
     2.7E-02
     3.0E-03
     6.0E-04
     7.8E-06
         NA
      l.OE-04
         NA
      3.0E-02
      2.9E-01
      9.0E-01
      1 .OE-01
      3.0E-01
         NA
         NA
         NA
         NA
         NA
         NA
         NA
         NA
         NA
         NA
         NA
     6.0E-O2
     3.7E-04
     3.7E-O4
         NA
         NA
         NA
         NA
         NA
         NA
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium (foof)
Cadmium (water)
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper0
Iron
Lead
Manganese (food)
Mercury
Nickel
Vanadium
Zinc
NA
3.0E-04
7.0E-02
l.OE-03
5.0E-04
5.0E-03
6.0E-02
3.7E-02
NA
NA
1.4E-01
3.0E-04
2.0E-02
7.0E-03
3. OE-01
NA
2.9E-04
5.0E-03
2.0E-05
l.OE-05
l.OE-04
2.0E-02
2.2E-02
NA
NA
7.0E-05
5.0E-05
9.0E-03
7.0E-05
9.0E-02
NA
NA
1.4E-O4
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.1E-04
9.0E-05
NA
NA
NA
Notes
c
NA
The RfD adjusted to an absorbed dose was used to assess dermal exposure.  The adjusted RID was derived according to
USEPA (1989a) methodology by multiplying the oral RfD by the constituent-specific oral absorption efficiency (from Table
3-9).
n-Hexane is used as a surrogate for Cg to C2Q hydrocarbons.
Based on current drinking-water standard.
Not available.
References:  ATSDR, 1991d; IRIS, 1992; USEPA, 1992a.

-------
 range  for DOD and  Superfund cleanups of between lxl(H(l  in  10,000)  and IxlO'6.
 However, the state of Florida's target risk is IxlO'6.

 The formula used for calculating cancer risk is shown below:

                               Risk   =     GDI x CSF

 where:       Risk  =      a unitless probability of an individual developing cancer
              GDI   =      chronic daily intake averaged over 70 years (mg/kg)
              CSF   =      cancer slope factor, expressed as (mg/kg-day)-'

 Potential current site risk for a base worker exposed to surficial soils results in a total site
 excess  lifetime cancer risk of IxlO'5.

 The excess lifetime cancer risk for a hypothetical future adult and child resident exposed to
 groundwater  are  3x10~4 and 2xlO'4,  respectively. The excess lifetime cancer risks for
 hypothetical future adult and child residents exposed to soil at the site are IxlO'3 and 2xlO'3,
 respectively. The cancer risk for the hypothetical future adult and child resident exceeds the
 upperend for the risk range deemed protective of human health by USEPA and the FDEP.

 Hazards due to non-carcinogenic chemicals:  for compounds which cause toxic effects
 other than cancer, EPA compared the exposure point concentration of a contaminant found at
 the site with a reference does 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 calculating the
 HQ is shown below:

                        Non-cancer HQ      =      CDI/RfD

 where        GDI          =     chronic daily intake
              RfD          =     reference dose

 GDI and RfD are expressed in the same units (mg/kg-day)-1 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
                                        29

-------
 which a given population may reasonably be exposed.  In general, EPA considers an HI of
 1.0 to be the maximum acceptable hazard.

 The HI for a current base worker exposed to surficial soils is 0.005.  The HI for  the future
 adult  and child residents exposed to groundwater at Site FT-5/OU-1  are  10 and 40,
 respectively. The HI for the future adult and child resident exposed to soils are 0.2 and 1,
 respectively.

 The non-cancer HI for hypothetical future adult and child resident exposure to groundwater
 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 USEPA
 benchmarks (0.2 and 1 for the adult and child, respectively).

 2.9.5.2    Total Risk. The total site risk for the current base worker exposed to surficial
 soils and to  surface water and sediments is IxlO'5 and HI of 0.005.  These risk values for
 potential exposure do not exceed the USEPA risk benchmark of 10^4 for cancer risk and 1 for
 non-cancer risk; however, they do exceed the FDEP benchmark of 10'6.  The risk for
 hypothetical  future adult resident exposure to groundwater and soil is IxlO'3 and a total site
 HI  of 10. The cancer risk for soil and groundwater exceed USEPA and FDEP  health-based
 levels.  The non-cancer risk also exceeds the USEPA  benchmark of 1.  Hypothetical future
 cancer and non-cancer risk were calculated for a young child (age 0 to 6 years) exposed to
 groundwater and soils and for an older child (aged 6 to 15 years) exposed to surface water
 and sediments.  The calculated cancer and non-cancer risks for the young child and the older
 child were  added to obtain the total site risk for a hypothetical child resident. The total site
 risk for future child exposure to groundwater, soil, surface water, and sediment is 2 x 10'3
 and an HI of 30. Both risks exceed USEPA and FDEP health based levels.

 2.9.5.3    Risk from Lead Exposure.  Based on the results from the USEPA LeadS model,
 the  lead concentrations in soil and  groundwater at Site  FT-5/OU-1 are unlikely to cause
 adverse effects for young children.

 2.9.6     Chemicals of Concern and Remedial Goal Option

COCs contribute significantly to a use scenario for a  receptor that (a) exceeds a 10~4 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
                                        30

-------
 less than IxlO6 or their non-carcinogenic HQ is less than 1. For this site, the relevant RGOs
 are for TPH and PAHs.

 RGOs are risk-based cleanup levels: they are developed by combining the intake levels to
 each chemical receptor from all appropriate routes of exposure (i.e., inhalation, ingestion,
 and dermal) and pathways within a scenario and rearranging the site specific GDI equations
 used in the risk characterization to solve for the concentration term.  RGOs are developed for
 each medium, each land use, and each receptor type.

 The RGOs are presented  here in tabular form and include  cleanup  levels for the 1(H,  10'5,
 and 10'6 levels for each COC, 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 2-21.

 2.9.7      Uncertainties in the Risk Assessment

 The risk estimates presented in the BRA are conservative  estimates of the risks associated
 with current and hypothetical future exposure to media at the site.  Actual risks are almost
 certainly lower than those presented. Further, there  is considerable uncertainty inherent in
 the risk assessment process.  Sources of uncertainty can be summarized as follows:

 Environmental sampling may not fully identify constituent distribution.

 Exposure doses calculated for hypothetical future scenarios do not take into account natural
 attenuation processes  that will reduce constituent  concentrations and  the likelihood of
 exposure.

 Toxicity values and other toxicologic information used to calculate risks are associated with
 significant uncertainty; most information has been developed using laboratory animals
 exposed to  high doses.

 Sufficient toxicological data may not be available for all detected constituents. As a result,
 surrogate compounds were used to evaluate PAHs and petroleum hydrocarbons.

Non-carcinogenic risks associated with potential lead exposure were evaluated differently
from other COCs in the risk assessment.
                                         31

-------
                  TABLE 2-19
   RISK BASED REMEDIAL GOAL OPTIONS FOR SOIL
BASED ON POTENTIAL CURRENT BASE WORKER EXPOSER
   SITE FT-S, FIRE PROTECTION TRAINING AREA NO. 2
       HOMESTEAD AIR FORCE BASE, FLORIDA
                  (Page 1 of 2)
Constituents

VOCs
Acetone
Bromodichloromethane
2-Butanone
Eihylbenzene
Meihylene chloride
SVOCs
Acenaphthene
Acenaphlhylene
Anthracene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Butylbenzylphthalate
Carbazole
Chrysene
Dibenzofuran
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
n-Hexane*
Indeno( 1 ,2,3-c,d)pyrene
2-Methylnaphthalene
Naphthalene
Pentachlorophenol
Phenanathrene
Pyrene
EPCss
THI:

12
0.16
0.15
16
0.18

35
4
77
160
140
90
100
56
12
58
160
13
19
360
35
2,900
64
92
49
16
340
250
Non-Cancer Risk-Based
0.1

260,000
--
790,000
230,000
--

78,000
44,000
440,000
-
--
--
--
44,000
520,000
—
--
44,000
-
48,000
48,000
160,000
--
29,000
17,000
«
44,000
44,000
1

2,600,000
-
7,900,000
2,300,000
••

780,000
440,000
4,400,000
--
--
--
--
440,000
5,200,000
—
--
440,000
-
480,000
480,000
1,600,000
--
290,000
170,000
--
440,000
440,000
RGOs
10

26,000,000
--
79,000,000
23,000,000
--

7,800,000
4,400,000
44,000,000
--
--
--
--
4,400,000
52,000,000
—
--
4,400,000
-
4,800,000
4,800,000
16,000,000
--
2,900,000
1,700,000
--
4,400,000
4,400,000
Cancer
| 0.000001

„
1,200
—
--
7,500

..
--
--
160
160
160
1 16 |

-
3,700
1,600
--
1 16 |

--
-
160
--
--
28
-
--
Risk-Base
0.00001

__
12,000
--
--
75,000

..
--
--
1,600
1,600
1,600
160
--
--
37,000
16,000
-
160
-
--
--
1,600
--
—
280
—
--
RGOs
0.0001

._
120,000
-
--
750,000

..
--
--
16,000
16,000
16,000
1,600
--
--
370,000
160,000
~
1,600
-
--
--
16,000
--
—
2,800
—
--

-------
                                                               TABLE 2-19
                                             RISK BASED REMEDIAL GOAL OPTIONS FOR SOIL
                                         BASED ON POTENTIAL CURRENT BASE WORKER EXPOSER
                                            SITE FT-5, FIRE PROTECTION TRAINING AREA NO. 2
                                                 HOMESTEAD AIR FORCE BASE, FLORIDA
                                                               (Page 2 of 2)
Constituents
Pesticides

4,4'-DDD
4,4-DDE

Inorganics
EPCss
Non-Cancer Risk-Based RGOs
 0.34
 0.034
Cancer Risk-Base RGOs
THI:
0.1 1
10

0.000001
0.00001
0.0001

                                                150
                                                110
        1,500
        1,100
15,000
11,000
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Cobalt
Chromium
Copper
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Vanadium
Zinc
7,300
8.6
48
1.4
36
10
8,400
980
140
0.022
7.8
7.8
91
6,400,000
160,000
210,000
120,000
250,000
120
--
4,100
1,100,000
64,000,000
1,600,000
2,100,000
1,200,000
2,500,000
1,200
-
41,000
11,000,000
640,000,000
16,000,000
21,000,000
270,000 2,700,000 27,000,000
12,000,000
25,000,000
12,000
13,000,000 130,000,000 1,300,000,000
410,000
110,000,000
 Concentrations are given in milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg)
 Risk-based RGOs which are less than the current EPCss are indicated with a cell border
          RGO not available or not applicable
 '         n-Hexane is a surrogate for petrolem hydrocarbons
 EPCss    Exposure point concentration in surficial soil (from G&M, 1994b)
 RGO     Remedial goal option
 TCR     Target cancer risk
 THI      Target hazard index
 Source:   Geraghty and Miller, 1994b

-------
                                                                 TABLE 2-20
                                              RISK BASED REMEDIAL GOAL OPTIONS FOR SOIL
                                      BASED ON HYPOTHETICAL FUTURE ADULT RESIDENT EXPOSURE
                                             SITE FT-S, FIRE PROTECTION TRAINING AREA NO. 2
                                                  HOMESTEAD AIR FORCE BASE, FLORIDA
                                                                 (Page 1 of 2)
Constituents
EPCss
Non-Cancer Risk-Based RGOs
                             Cancer Risk-Base RGOs
                                        THI:
                         0.1
           1
  10
VOCs

Acetone                     12
Benzene                    0.21
Bromodichloromethane        0.16
2-Butanone                   0.8
Eihylbenzene                 3.3
Methylene chloride           0.21
Xylenes                     2.5.

SVOCs

Acenaphthene                61
Acenaphthylene                4
Anthracene                   190
Benzo(a)anthracene            190
Benzo(b)fluoranthene          210
Benzo(k)fluoranthene          120
Benzo(a)pyrene               150
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene           72
Butylbenzylphthalate           52
Carbazole                   66
Chrysene                    210
Dibenzofuran                25
Dibenzo(aji)anthracene        24
Fluoranthene                 440
Fluorene                    82
n-Hexane'                   680
Indeno(l,2,3-c,d)pyrene        81
2-Methylnaphthalene          34
Naphthalene                 64
Pentachlorophenol            21
Phenanathrene                410
Pyrene                     320
                        5,000    50,000      500,000
                        15,000    150,000    1,500,000
                        4,300    43,000      430,000

                        100,000   1,000,000    10,000,000
                         1,600     16,000
                         910      9,100
                         9,100     91,000
                         910
                         1,000
                         910

                         1,000
                         1,000
                         3,000

                         580
                         330

                         910
                         910
          9,100
          10,000
          9,100

          10,000
          10,000
          30,000

          5,800
          3,300

          9,100
          9,100
                    160,000
                    91,000
                    910,000
91,000
100,000
91,000

100,000
100,000
300,000

58,000
33,000

91,000
91,000
0.000001      0.00001
                                                                        24
                                                                        19
                                               120
   2.3
   0.54
                                                           240
                                                           190
                                      1,200
23
5.4
          0.0001
                                                  2,400
                                                  1,900
                          12,000
2.3
2.3
2.3
0.23
23
23
23
2.3
230
230
230
23
58
23
~
0.23
580
230
2.3
5,800
2,300
| 23
230
54

-------
                                                                TABLE 2-20
                                             RISK BASED REMEDIAL GOAL OPTIONS FOR SOIL
                                     BASED ON HYPOTHETICAL FUTURE ADULT RESIDENT EXPOSURE
                                            SITE FT-S, FIRE PROTECTION TRAINING AREA NO. 2
                                                  HOMESTEAD AIR FORCE BASE, FLORIDA
                                                                (Page 2 of 2)
Constituents
EPCss
Non-Cancer Risk-Based RGOs
     Cancer Risk-Base RGOs
                                       THI:
                                   1
                      10
0.000001
0.00001
0.0001
Pesticides

4,4'-DDD
4,4-DDE
Heptachlor epoxide

Inorganics
 0.34
 0.034
 0.26
                                              2.6
                                              1.8
               26
               18
                                             0.022
              0.22
              260
              180
               2
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Vanadium
Zinc
4,500
6
29
0.86
24
1.3
7.6
4,900
330
81
0.021
6.6
6.9
48
--
--
3,100
3,800
2,000
4,900
2.7
--
90
19,000
--
~
31,000
38,000
20,000
49,000
27
-
900
190,000
..
| 0.93
310,000
26,000
3,800
380,000
200,000
490,000
270
190,000
9,000
1,900,000
..
9.3 93
260,000 2,600,000
38,000 380,000
--
1,900,000 19,000,000
-.
-- --
 Concentrations are given in milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg)
 Risk-based RGOs which are less than the current EPCss are indicated with a cell border
          RGO not available or not applicable
 1         n-Hexane is a surrogate for petrolem hydrocarbons
 EPCss    Exposure point concentration in soil (Table 3.3)
 RGO     Remedial goal option
 TCR     Target cancer risk
 THI      Target hazard index
 Source:   Geraghty and Miller, 1994b

-------
                                                                 TABLE 2-21
                                              RISK BASED REMEDIAL GOAL OPTIONS FOR SOIL
                                       BASED ON HYPOTHETICAL FUTURE CHILD RESIDENT EXPOSURE
                                             SITE Fr-5, FIRE PROTECTION TRAINING AREA NO. 2
                                                   HOMESTEAD AIR FORCE BASE, FLORIDA
                                                                 (Page 1 of 2)
Constituents

VOCs
Acetone
Benzene
Bromodichloromethane
2-Butanone
Ethylbenzene
Melhylene chloride
Xylenes
EPCss
THI:

12
0.21
0.16
0.8
3.3
0.21
2.5
Non-Cancer Risk-Based RGOs
0.1 1

670 6,700
..
..
2,500 25,000
610 6,100
..
13,000 130,000
10 I

67,000
-
-
250,000
61,000
' -
1,300,000
Cancer Risk-Base
0.000001 0.00001

—
19 190
13 130
-
..
88 880
—
RGOs
0.0001

	 •
1,900
1,300
-
—
8,800
--
SVOCs

Acenaphthene                61
Acenaphthylene               4
Anthracene                  190
Benzo(a)anthracene           190
Benzo(b)fluoranthene          210
Benzo(k)fluoranthene          120
Benzo(a)pyrene              150
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene          72
Butylbenzylphthalate          52
Carbazole                   66
Chrysene                   210
Dibenzofuran                25
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene        24
Fluoranthene                440
Fluorene                    82
n-Hexane*                   680
Indeno(l,2,3-c,d)pyrene         81
2-Methylnaphthaiene           34
Naphthalene                 64
Pentachlorophenol             21
Phenanathrene               410
Pyrene                     320
300
160
1,600
 160
1,300
 160
 190
 190
3,000
1,600
16,000
 1,600
13,000
 1,600

 1,900
 1,900
 4,000

 1,100
 670

 1,600
 1,600
30,000
16,000
160,000
 16,000
130,000
 16,000

 19,000
 19,000
 40,000

 11,000
 6,700

 16,000
 16,000
1.2
1.2
1.2
0.12
12
12
12
1.2
120
120
120
12
                                                            12
                                              0.78
7.8
39
12
390
120
..
0.12
1.2
3,900
1,200
12 I
            120
78

-------
                                                                 TABLE 2-21
                                              RISK BASED REMEDIAL GOAL OPTIONS FOR SOIL
                                       BASED ON HYPOTHETICAL FUTURE CHILD RESIDENT EXPOSURE
                                             SITE FT-5, FIRE PROTECTION TRAINING AREA NO. 2
                                                   HOMESTEAD AIR FORCE BASE, FLORIDA
                                                                 (Page 2 of 2)
Constituents
EPCss
Non-Cancer Risk-Based RGOs
                          Cancer Risk-Base RGOs
Pesticides

4,4'-DDD
4,4-DDE
Heptachlor epoxide

Inorganics
                                       THI:
                          0.1
             1
10
 0.34
 0.034
 0.26
0.000001
0.00001
0.0001
                                              2.4
                                              1.7
                                             0.027
                                    24
                                    17
                                   0.27
                          240
                           170
                            3
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Vanadium
Zinc
4,500
6
29
0.86
24
1.3
7.6
4,900
330
81
0.021
6.6
6.9
48
.
—
450
—
—
450
230
—
—
780
0.67
—
21
2,200
--
--
4,500
-
--
4,500
2,300
—
--
7,800
6.7
--
210
22,000
--
-
45,000
--
-
45,000
23,000
--
-
78,000
67
--
2,100
220,000
-
| 0.51
--
27,000
4,100
--
--
--
--
--
-
200,000
--
"""
--
1 5.1 |

270,000
41,000
—
--
--
--
--
--
2,000,000
—
~~
-
51
—
2,700,000
410,000
-
--
—
-
-
-
20,000,000
-
"
 Concentrations are given in milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg)
 Risk-based RGOs which are less than the current EPCss are indicated with a cell border
          RGO not available or not applicable
 '         n-Hexane is a surrogate for petrolem hydrocarbons
 EPCss    Exposure point concentration in soil (Table 3.3)
 RGO     Remedial goal option
 TCR     Target cancer risk
 THI      Target hazard index
 Source:   Geraghty and Miller, 1994b

-------
 There is  considerable  uncertainty associated with the toxicity of mixtures.  The risk
 assessment assumes that toxicity is additive; the mixture of constituents present has neither
 synergistic nor antagonistic interaction; and  that all of the constituents have the  same
 mechanism of action in the same target organ to produce the same toxic endpoints.

 The use of conservative assumptions and models and the conservatism built  into the  RfDs
 and CSFs are believed to result in an overestimate of risk.  Therefore, actual  risk may be
 much lower than the estimates presented in the BRA but are unlikely to be greater.

 2.9.7.1    Ecological Risks. Conditions at OU-1 provide little usable or preferred habitat
 for terrestrial species.  Limited vegetation is available for  food or cover and  the shallow
 depth of soil  to bedrock restricts the activities  of burrowing animals. While avian species
 may visit the site, it is highly unlikely that they would derive a significant portion of their
 diet from the limited resources available. The  potential water hazards to aquatic life  from
 groundwater contaminants being transported and discharged to surface water bodies (i.e., the
 OU-1  drainage canal or the Boundary Canal) are considered low due to dilution and mixing.
 The limited distribution of contaminants in the canal sediments also indicated a low potential
 for ecological effects to aquatic organisms.

 Four state threatened plant species (pine fern, brake fem, southern shield fern, and tetrazygia)
 were identified along the drainage ditch  comprising the south and east boundaries of Site
 FT-5/OU-1.   The  occurrence of special  status species is of concern due to their limited
 numbers and precarious state of existence. However, in view  of the  limited extent of soil and
 sediment contamination at Site FT-5/OU-1, it is  unlikely that contamination is  present in the
 areas inhabited by these threatened species.

 2.10       DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES

 The USAF initially considered seven alternatives in the Feasibility Study (FS) to address the
 soil and groundwater contamination identified at OU-1.  The  seven alternatives  were
 screened based on the criteria of effectiveness, implementability, and cost.  Four of the most
 promising  alternatives were carried forward through complete evaluation.  These  four
 alternatives were then evaluated against the nine  CERCLA criteria requirements for selecting
a remediaJ alternative. These nine criteria include effectiveness, implementability, cost,  state
acceptance, community acceptance, long-term effectiveness  and permanence, reduction of
mobility, toxicity, or volume through treatment, compliance with ARARs, short term
                                         32

-------
 effectiveness, and overall protection of human health and environment.  A summary of the
 four alternatives is presented below while each is described in greater detail in the FS.

 It should be noted that estimated costs for some of the alternatives presented herein differ
 from those presented in  the September 1994 Final Feasibility Study Report. These costs
 differences arise primarily from the reduced  cost of disposal to a municipal landfill (where
 applicable) with respect to the cost of disposal in a RCRA hazardous waste disposal facility.

 2.10.1     Alternative 1  - No-Action with Groundwater Monitoring of Contaminants
           for Migration and Attenuation

 The No-Action Alternative  is evaluated  as  required by the  National Oil and  Hazardous
 Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), the regulation implementing  CERCLA, for
 comparison with  other  alternatives.  Semiannual  groundwater  monitoring  would  be
 conducted for two years  under the No Action Alternative on  six existing monitor wells to
 monitor migration  and attenuation of groundwater contaminants.  After  the two  year
 monitoring program is completed, review of the site would be performed to evaluate the
 contaminant migration and attenuation.  Per CERCLA, site reviews every 5 years would be
 conducted as part of this alternative since COCs exceeding USEPA target risk ranges would
 remain on-site. The groundwater monitoring  program may be discontinued after the 5-year
 site review, if contamination is below health-based levels.

 The present-worth cost of this alternative is estimated at $522,000 with capital costs  of
 $27,000 and an annual operation and maintenance (O&M) cost of $29,500.

 2.10.2     Alternative 2  - Access  Restrictions for  Groundwater, Use Restrictions for
          Soil,  and  Groundwater  Monitoring  of Contaminant  Migration and
          Attenuation

This alternative includes access restrictions that would prevent placement of potable wells in
the contaminated groundwater beneath OU-1.  Groundwater monitoring would be  conducted
to monitor the migration and natural  attenuation of the contaminant plume.  Zoning
restrictions by deed  would also be utilized to prevent schools, playgrounds, hospitals, and
residential units from being built at OU-1 to limit exposure to adults and children.  This
alternative would also prevent the practice  of continued disposal  of rubble at the site.
Groundwater monitoring would be performed semiannually for  2 years followed by a review
to  evaluate contaminant migration and attenuation to below  levels of concern. Natural
                                        33

-------
 attenuation is expected to degrade the contaminants below levels of health and environmental
 concerns within 2-5 years. Review of the site would be conducted at least every 5 years to
 ensure that  the remedy continues to provide  adequate protection of human health and the
 environment.

 The present-worth cost of this alternative is estimated at $330,000 with capital costs of
 $55,000 and an annual O&M cost of $58,800. The  reduction in estimated  costs compared
 with  those reported in the Feasibility Study  are attributed to the reduced  duration of the
 groundwater monitoring program.

 2.10.3    Alternative 3 - Access Restriction for Groundwater, Use Restriction for Soil,
          Treatment of Rubble and  Topsoil,  and Groundwater Monitoring of
          Contaminant Migration and Attenuation

 This alternative would include all the factors previously discussed in Alternative 2 with the
 addition of treatment and disposal of the rubble pile and topsoil. The rubble pile, along with
 the top 6 inches of weathered bedrock would be excavated and treated onsite or transferred to
 a recycling  facility where it would be burned.  Five year site review is included because
 contaminated (above EPA target levels) soils would remain onsite.

 The present-worth cost of this alternative is  estimated at $7,150,00 with capital costs of
 $6,655,000 and an annual cost O&M cost of 58,800.

 2.10.4    Alternative 4 • Access Restrictions for Groundwater, Use Restrictions for
          Soil,  Treatment  and/or Disposal  of Rubble Pile and  Topsoil, and
          Groundwater Monitoring of Contaminant Migration and Attenuation

This alternative includes institutional controls which include all factors previously discussed
in Alternative 2, as well as disposal and potential treatment of the rubble pile, treatment of
the  topsoil, and groundwater monitoring.  The soil disposal option includes excavating the
rubble pile and the top 6 inches of native material (referred to as topsoil).  Due to the
difference in nature of the rubble pile and the topsoil, they will be handled separately. The
                                        34

-------
 rubble pile, which likely consists only of construction debris, a non-hazardous waste, will be
 disposed at a municipal waste landfill without any restrictions.  The topsoil which showed
 low levels of PAHs, will require additional characterization prior to disposal.  If after further
 characterization the topsoil is found to be chemically impacted, it will be treated by  thermal
 desorption. It has been assumed that the topsoil will require treatment while the rubble pile
 will be disposed at a municipal waste landfill. Engineering fill, imported from offsite, would
 be backfilled to replace topsoil.

 The  present-cost of this alternative  is estimated  at $3,161,316 with capital costs of
 52,509,570 and O&M costs of $70,000.

 2.10.5     Alternative 5 - Treatment and/or Disposal of Rubble, Topsoil, and Hot Spot
           Soils; In-Situ Biotreatment  and  Air  Sparging  of Groundwater;  and
           Groundwater Monitoring.

 This alternative includes treatment and /or disposal of the rubble pile and topsoil as described
 in Alternative 2.  Some of the native oolite will also be excavated to provide source removal
 in some highly contaminated areas (i.e., hot spots).  This alternative also includes in-situ
 biotreatment of the groundwater via air sparging at the site. Groundwater  monitoring is
 included to monitor the effectiveness of the alternative during and after treatment.

 Bioremediation of the groundwater would be accomplished by installing air sparging wells to
 supply the necessary oxygen to enhance bioremediation.  The air sparging wells would be
 installed at the perimeter of the groundwater plume, to prevent the spreading of the existing
 plume.  The resulting rise in groundwater elevation in the vicinity of the  well could be  used
 to aid in hydraulic containment.  Groundwater monitoring would occur both during and after
 biological treatment, to monitor the effectiveness of this alternative.

 The present-worth cost of this alternative is estimated at  $4,629,610 with capital costs of
 $2,911,186 and annual O&M costs of $58,800.

 2.11      SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES

An evaluation and comparison  of the alternatives are  presented in Table 2-22.   The
comparison is  based on the nine key criteria required under the National Contingency Plan
and CERCLA  Section 121 for use in evaluation of remedial  alternatives by USEPA.  The
nine criteria are as follows:
                                        35

-------
                                                                                                                  TABLE 2-22

                                                                                  COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES FOR SITU l-T-5
                                                                                                                  (Page I of 4)
              Criteria
                                                   Alternative 1
                                                  No Action with
                                              Croundwaler Monitoring
                                                    Alternative 2
                                                Access Restrictions for
                                            atcr
	Monitoring	
Overall Protecliveness

Human Health Protection
 -   Direct Contact/
    Soil Ingcsiion
    Groundwater Ingcstion for Existing
    Users
    (Jroundwaicr Ingcsiion for Kuturc
    Users
Environmental Protection




Compliance with ARARs

Chemical-Specific





Location-Specific


Action-Specific
Only current completed exposure
pathway is that or base worker cutting the
grass. Excess cancer risk is
conservatively estimated at IxlO*.
No risk of ingesting contaminated
groundwatcr. Ground water beneath site
is not used as a potable water supply.

Potential exists for ingcstion of
carcinogenic PAIIs contaminated
groundwatcr if future residential wells
arc located near present contamination.

Some potential exists lor contamination in
rubble pile, topsoil, and bedrock to reach
groundwatcr. Docs not restrict migration
of current groundwatcr contamination.
Benzene was delected in a ground water
sample collected from one well at a
concentration just above slate MCI, of I
ug/L. This alternative docs not actively
reduce concentration of benzene.

The Biscaync Aquifer is a sole source
aquifer.  Non-degradation policy applies

There arc no action-specific ARARs
associated with this alternative.
                                        Same as Alternative I.
                                                                               Same as Alternative I
Access restrictions provide protection
against locating future wells in
contaminated groundwatcr.
                                                                                Same as Alternative I.
Same as Alternative I.  Access
restrictions reduce risks (o human health
until natural processes reduce benzene
concentration in groundwatcr to MCLs.
Same us Alternative 1.
                                                                                Same as Alternative I.
                                        Thermal treatment of rubble pile and
                                        topsoil permanently destroys large
                                        percentage of PAH contamination,
                                        Excess cancer risk (o current worker
                                        and potential future resident is reduced
                                        to within acceptable  levels by either
                                        treatment or engineered controls.

                                        Same as Alternative  I.
                                                                                                                        Same as Alternative 2.
                                        Reduces potential for constituents ot
                                        concern to reach groundwaicr.
                                        Groundwater contamination docs not
                                        appear to be migrating.
                                                                                 Some as Alternative 2.
                                        Same as Alternative I.
                                                                                                                        Same as Alternative 3.
                                                                                                                                                               Same as Alternative 1.
                                                                                                                                                               Same as Alternative 2.
                                                                                                                                                               Same as Alternative 3.
                                                                                                                        Same as Alternative 2.
                                                                                Same as Alternative 1.
                                                                                                                        TCLP analysis of samples from nibhlc      Same as Alternative 3.
                                                                                                                        pile would likely meet LDRs.
                                       Thermal treatment ul rubble pile and
                                       topsoil and in situ hioircattiu'iii ul
                                       groundwatcr permanently destroys IIW
                                       of the f'All contamination at the site
                                       Exccss cancer risk to airienl worker
                                       and potential future resident is cxpccU'
                                       to be insignificant after rcincdi.ihon

                                       Same as Alternative I
                                       IVrmancnlly (educes usk u> less llun
                                       1x10* by treating all cnvitomncnlu)
                                       media of concern.
                                       Significantly reduce* amccntiLihons ul
                                       constituents of concern in all
                                       environmental media of concern.
                                       Would likely meet MCLs soona ilun
                                       the other alternatives.
                                                                                                                      Same as Alternative  1
                                                                                                                      Same as Alternative 3

-------
                                                                                                                   TABLE 2-22

                                                                                  COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OK REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES FOR SITE FI-5
                                                                                                                   (Page 2 of 4)
              Criteria
                                                   Alternative 1
                                                   No Action with
                                              Groundwater Monitoring
                                                    Alternative 2
                                                Access Restriclluns fur
                                        Gruundwaler, Use Restriction fur Soils
                                             and Groundwuter Monitoring
                                                    Alternative 3
                                        Access Restrictions for Groundwuter,
                                        Use Restrictions for Soils, Treatment
                                              of Rubble and Topsoil, and
                                              Croundwater Monitoring
                                                                                           Alternative 4
                                                                                      Access Restrictions for
                                                                                (Croundwater, Use Restrictions Cur
                                                                                Soils, Treatment und/or Disposal of
                                                                                      Rubble and Topsoil, and
                                                                                     Ground water Monitoring	
                                                                                         Alternative 5
                                                                              Thtrnial Treatment and/or l)i*pos;il
                                                                              (if Rubble, Topsoil, and Hot Spot Soils,
                                                                             In Situ Biolreatmenl of Groundwuter,
                                                                                 and GroundwatiT Monitoring
Other Criteria and Guidance
Long-Term KfTcctivencss and
Permanence

Magnitude of Residual Risk
 -   Direct Contact/
    Soil Ingest ion
    Groundwaier Ingcstion for Existing
    Users
    Groundwatcr Ingesiion for Future
    Users
Adequacy and Reliability of Controls
 Need for 5-Year Review
                                       There are no TBCs applicable 10 soil
                                       comaiiiinaiionatSiieFr-5. The 17-177U
                                       regulations for total PAHs in groundwuter
                                       will not be met for many years.
PAH contamination in soil is fairly
persistent. However, current access to
site is limited.
No risk of ingesting benzene-
contaminated ground water because the
groundwatcr is not used as potable water.

Potential exists for ingestion of
contaminated groundwater if future wells
ore located within contaminated
groundwater.

No controls over contamination.  No
reliability.
                                        Review would be required to ensure
                                        adequate protection of human health and
                                        the environment is mainuuned.
                                        Concentrations of PAHs above health-
                                        based levels for future hind use scenario
                                        would remain onsite.
                                                                               Same as Alternative I.
                                                                                                                        Same as Alternative I
                                                                                                                                                               Same as Alternative I
Current access to site is limited by normal
base operations.  Potential future access
is limited by institutional controls.  Risk
would be low because exposure
pathways are eliminated.

Same as Alleinative I.
Access restrictions provide protection
against locating future wells in
contaminated zone.
Future well placement controls required
for 10 years until the contaminated
groundwaier naturally  mitigates.

Same as Alternative 1.
Same as Alternative 2. In addition, a
large percentage of the PAH
contamination is removed from the site
and permanently destroyed.
                                                                                                                        Same as Alternative 1.
                                                                                                                        Same as Alternative 2.
                                                                                                                        Same as Alternative 2.
                                                                                                                        Same as Alternative I.
                                                                                                                        Same as Alternative 3.
                                                                                                                                                               Same as Alternative 1.
                                                                                                                                                               Same as Alternative 2.
                                                                                                                                                               Same as Alternative 2.
                                                                                                                                                               Same as Alternative  I.
                                                                                                                                                              hi siltt biurcmcdiaiioii ol Ik-dunk ami
                                                                                                                                                              groundwatcr will likely reduce ilie
                                                                                                                                                              concentration of constituent of concern
                                                                                                                                                              to below guidance levels within a few
                                                                                                                                                              years.
                                                                                                                      Residual mk is luw  The cunceniralions
                                                                                                                      of constituent!) of Concern are
                                                                                                                      significantly rcJuccd.
                                                                                                                                                                                                      Same as Alicmaiivc  I
                                                                                                                      Permanently reduces risk to less than
                                                                                                                      1x10* by in situ biotreatment.
                                                                                                                      Hydraulic cuntainiiicMi must l>e
                                                                                                                      maintained during gioundwater
                                                                                                                      bioremediaiion.

                                                                                                                      None required.

-------
                                                                                                                TABLE 2-22

                                                                                 COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES FOR SITE KI'-S
                                                                                                                (Page 3 of 4)
             Criteria
                                                  Alternative 1
                                                 No Action with
                                            Ground water Monitoring
                                                   Alternative 2
                                               Access Restrictions for
                                       Ground water, Use Restriction for Soils,
                                            and Groundwater Monitoring
                                                   Alternative 3
                                       Access Restrictions For Groundwalcr,
                                       Use Restrictions for Soils, Treatment
                                             of Rubble and Topsoil, and
                                             Groundwater Monitoring
                                                 Alternative 4
                                            Access Restrictions for
                                       Groundwater, Use Restrictions for
                                       Soils Treatment and/or Disposal of
                                            Rubble and Topsoil, and
                                      	Groundwater Monitoring	
                                                 Alternative 5
                                      Thermal Treatment and/or Disposal
                                     of Rubble, Topsoil, and Hot Spot Soils,
                                     In Situ Biolreatmenl of Groundwater,
                                         and Groundwuter Monitoring
Reduction of Toxicily, Mobility, or
Volume Through Treatment

Amount Destroyed or Treated
Reduction of Toxicily, Mobility, or
Volume

Irreversible Treatment
Type and Quantity of Residuals
Remaining After Treatment
Short-Term Effectiveness

Community Protection

Worker Protection




Environmental Impacts


Time to Complete Action
None.





None.


Not applicable.





Not applicable.
No risk to community.

No risk to workers.
None.


Not Applicable.
None.






None.


Not applicable.






Not applicable.
Same as Alternative 1.

Same as Alternative 1.




None.


Not Applicable.
About 60 to 80 percent uf the VOCs and   Same as Alternative 3.
PAHs in the soils is expected to be
removed from the site and destroyed by
thermal desorption.
Toxicily and volume ol contaminants in    Same as Alternative 3.
rubble and topsoil reduced.
                                                                                                                     Thermal desorption permanently
                                                                                                                     removes VOCs and BNAs front lopsoil.
Treated topsoil is suitable for
replacement, road base, asphalt
batching, etc.
Same as Alternative I.

Workers will potentially be exposed to
VOCs via inhalation during excavation
Protective clothing will eliminate
potential risk.

None.
 Excavation and disposal of rubble and
 topsoil could be completed within 6
 months. Natural attenuation of
 chemicals in groundwater to below slate
 and federal MCLs could take 1 to 5
 years.
                                                                                                                                                           Same as Alternative 3.
                                                                                                                                                           Same as Alternative 3.
Same as Alternative  I.

Same as Alternative  I.
                                       Same as Alternative 3.
                                     Same as Alternative 3  In addition, I he
                                     majority of the VOCs and BNAs in the
                                     aquifer materials and groundwaier are
                                     expected to be removed and destroyed
                                     by the in silu biorcmediaiion.

                                     To*icily and volume of cuni;iintii;int> in
                                     all soils and  groundwaicr reduced.

                                     Thermal dcsorptiun permanently
                                     removes VOCs and BNAs from lupMiil.
                                     In situ bioremediaiion of grounthvutcr
                                     permanently destroys ihc uxidi/.uble
                                     orgunics.

                                     Treiiieii tnp.soil i-, .suiKihlL' Im
                                     replacement, road b;tic, asphalt
                                     batching, etc.  Residua) nitrates iinj
                                     other biotesiduals may he left in the
                                     groundwatet.
Same as Alternative  1

Same as Alternative  3.
                                     Potential changes' to aquifer during
                                     biorcmcdiation.

                                     Six months to remove and treat rubble
                                     and topsoil  About two years to treat
                                     bedrock and groundwaier.

-------
                           TABLE 2-22
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OK HliMtRlAL ALTERNATIVES FOR SITE FT-5
                          (P«Ce4of4)
Criteria
Implonicntabtlity
Ability lo Cons I rue I and Operate





Flexibility of Action




Ability lo Monitor Effectiveness

Ability lo Obtain Approvals
Availability of Services, Equipment, and
Materials

Availability of Technologies
Cost
Capital Cost
Annual O&M Costs
Present Worth Cosl
Alternative 1
No Action with
Groundwater Monitoring

Not Applicable.





Noi Applicable.




Proposed monitoring will provide notice
before significant exposure occurs.
No approvals necessary.
No special services, equipment, or
materials required.

None required.

$27,000
$29,500-58.800
$522.000
Alternative 2
Access Restrictions fur
Groundwater, Use Restriction
for Soils, and
Groundwater Monitoring

Access and use restrictions require
cooperation of local regulatory agencies.




The type and duration of access and use
restrictions cmi be relatively easily
modified.


Same as Alternative 1.

Same as Alternative 1.
Same as Alternative 1.


None required

$55,000
$29,500-58,800
S330.0UO
Alternative 3
Access Restrictions Tor
Groundwater, Use Rest He (ions fur
Soils,
Treatment of Rubble and Topsoil, and
Groumlwaler Monitoring

iixcavutkin and transportation ol 'nibble
and soils is easily implcincntable.




The volume and type of soil excavated
and treated is easily changed. On-siie
or off-site treatment units arc available


Same as Alternative 1

Same as Alternative 1.
Conventional excavation and
transportation equipment readily
available.
Thermal desurption is readily available

$6.7 million
$58.800
$7.2 million
Alternative 4
Access Restrictions fur
Groundwater, Use Restrictions fur
Soils, Treatment and/or Disposal of
Rubble and Topsoil, and
Groundwater Monitoring

Same as Alternative 3.





Same as Alternative 3




Same as Alternative 1.

Same as Alternative 1.
Same as Alternative 3.


Same as Alternative 3

U5 million
570,000
$3.2 million
Alternative 5
Thermal Treatment and/or Disposal
of Rubble, Topsoil, and
Hot Spot Soils, In Situ Bioircatnicnl of
(iroundwatcr, and Grounduater
Monitoring

Cotisituction and upeMiliun ol* in siti<
bioircatmcnt system is moderately
difficult to implement. Hydraulic
control must be established, Labuulury
studies, (feasibility study, and modeling
is required before final design
System can be designed in allow M»me
flexibility in the type ami ammrnt ol'
nutrients applied to the ground Some
flexibility can be designed into the air
sparging system.
Same as Alternative 1

Same as Alternative 1.
In situ biotreatmcnt system requites
specialists lo install, operate, and
monitor.
Vendors available

$2.9 million
$5K,8UO • 265,200
$-1.7 million

-------
     •  Overall protection of human health and the environment.
     •  Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements.
     •  Long-term effectiveness and permanence.
     •  Reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume.
     •  Short-term effectiveness.
     •  Implementability.
     •  Cost.
     •  State acceptance.
     •  Community acceptance.

 2.11.1     Overall Protection of Human Health and Environment

 Alternative 1  does not reduce the potential excess cancer risk to humans, nor does it provide
 adequate protection to the environment. Alternative  2  utilizes institutional controls to
 prevent exposure to contaminated soils/bedrock and groundwater which reduces the potential
 excess cancer risk, while  providing limited  protection  to the environment via natural
 attenuation. Alternatives 3 and 4 significantly reduce the mass of contaminants in the nibble
 and topsoil, which decreases the mass of constituents of potential concern in the soil which
 could reach the groundwater, and implements institutional controls to prevent  access to
 constituents of potential concern until  natural processes decrease the concentrations to below
 health-based levels of concern.  These alternatives provide some environmental protection by
 eliminating a primary source of COCs. Alternative 5 reduces the potential excess cancer risk
 to adults and  children by destroying  the  organic constituents  of concern in  both soil and
 groundwater.  This alternative also provides protection to the environment by  treating both
 media of concern.

 2.11.2 Compliance with ARARS

 The important ARARs applicable at Site FT-5 are  the state  and federal MCLs and the
 nondegradient policy for groundwaters of the state. Alternatives 1, 2, 3 and 4 do not actively
 provide for groundwater treatment. It is expected that Alternatives 1 and 2 will meet ARARs
 within 2 to 5 years because the benzene in the groundwater is expected to naturally attenuate
 within that time frame. Similarly, the  limited presence of PAHs in groundwater at Site FT-5
 (detected at 1.5 times the MCL of 10  \ig/L in one sample) would also continue to naturally
 attenuate.  As discussed in  Section 2.6.2.4, PAH concentrations  in groundwater showed
marked decrease in concentration  between 1990 and  1993 sampling events.  Alternatives 3
                                         36

-------
  and 4 will result in accelerated attenuation of the COCs in the groundwater.  Alternative 5
  (off-site thermal  treatment and in-situ biotreatment) actively treats the groundwater; the
  concentrations of benzene is expected to decrease to below detection limits fairly rapidly
  (within 1 year).

  2.11.3 Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence

  Alternatives 3 and 4 permanently destroy the  constituents  of concern in the rubble and
  topsoil. Alternative 5 permanently destroys the constituents of concern in the rubble, topsoil,
 bedrock, and groundwater.

 2.11.4  Reduction of Mobility, Toxicity, or Volume Through Treatment

 Alternatives 3 and 4 permanently  reduce  the toxicity and volume of the constituents of
 concern in the rubble and topsoil, as well as reducing the mass of COCs that are mobilized
 into the groundwater.  Alternative 5 (off-site thermal treatment and in-situ biotreatment)
 permanently reduces the toxicity and volume of the constituents of concern in the rubble,
 topsoil, weathered bedrock, and groundwater.

 2.11.5 Short-Term Effectiveness

 None of the remedial alternatives are expected to cause significant risk to the community or
 workers during construction and implementation.  Alternatives 1  and 2 will meet ARARs
 within 2 to 5 years, while Alternatives 3 and 4  will result in accelerated attenuation; and
 Alternative 5 actively treats groundwater. Alternative 5 is expected to reduce groundwater
 benzene concentrations to below detection limits within  1 year.   There is essentially no
 significant environmental impact from any of the alternatives.

 2.11.6 Implementability

 Alternatives 1,  2, 3, and 4 are easily implementable.  The in-situ biotreatment in Alternative
 5 requires laboratory tests and a treatability test before final design. In addition, computer
 modeling must be performed during design to determine the optimum air sparging system
capable of maintaining hydraulic control.   Pilot-scale testing is also recommended to
determine the optimal system configuration and potential adverse effects (such as well and
aquifer clogging).
                                         37

-------
 2.11.7 Cost

 Alternatives  1  and 2 are the least costly alternatives with present worths estimated at
 $522,000 and 5330,000, respectively. Alternative 2 assumes groundwater monitoring would
 be performed semi-annually for two years and would have the additional administrative costs
 associated  with establishing the institutional controls.  Alternative 3, which includes
 treatment of the rubble and topsoil, costs approximately $7.2 million to implement and
 results in a significant reduction of the contamination at the site. Alternative 4 (similar to
 Alternative 3 but disposal of rubble and treated topsoil is  to a municipal  landfill) costs
 approximately $3.2 million  to implement, and also results in a significant reduction of
 contamination at the site.  Alternative 5, which includes disposal and/or thermal treatment of
 the rubble  and topsoil and  in-situ biotreatment of the bedrock and groundwater costs
 approximately $4.7 million to implement.

 2.12   SELECTED REMEDY

 Based upon consideration of the requirements of CERCLA,  the detailed evaluation of the
 alternatives and public comments, the U.S. Air Force in concurrence with the USEPA and
 the State of Florida has determined that Alternative 2 - Access Restriction for Groundwater,
 Use Restriction  for Soil, and Groundwater  Monitoring of Contaminant Migration and
 Attenuation is the most appropriate course of action for Site FT-5/OU-1.

 This alternative would achieve substantial risk reduction by controlling human exposure to
 contaminants.  The groundwater will be monitored semiannually for two years to assess the
 migration and/or attenuation of contaminants.  At the five year review, EPA, FDEP, and the
 USAF will  evaluate the need for further action.  This alternative would be protective,
 cost-effective, and would attain all Federal and State requirements. The selected remedy has
 been accepted  by the state and  community  concerns have been addressed in  the
 "Responsiveness Summary" of this ROD.

The present-worth cost  of this alternative is estimated at $330,000 with capital  costs of
$55,000 and an annual O&M cost of $58,800.

In accordance with CERCLA requirements for sites where contaminants remain  in place
above EPA Target Levels, five year  reviews of the site will be performed.  If after the five
year review, the selected remedy has not effectively reduced contaminant levels to a quality
                                        38

-------
 that assures protection of human health and the environment, the EPA, FDEP, and Air Force
 will evaluate the need for further action.

 2.13   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 and groundwater
 are reduced and controlled through access restriction for groundwater use restrictions for
 soils, and groundwater monitoring.

 The selected remedy is expected to meet ARARs within 2 to 5 years because the benzene in
 the groundwater is expected to naturally attenuate within that timeframe.  Similarly, the
 limited presence of PAHs in groundwater at Site FT-5 would also continue to naturally
 attenuate.

 Under current land use conditions, the COCs in the soil and groundwater pose an acceptable
 risk to humans.  Access restrictions would ensure that future exposure pathways for future
 residents are not completed under this alternative.

 Monitoring, maintenance, and control would be required under this alternative because the
 contaminated  soil would remain onsite  and COCs  in groundwater may remain  above
 health-based levels for many years.

 This Alternative utilizes institutional controls to prevent exposure  to contaminated
 soils/bedrock and groundwater. The effectiveness of this alternative is subject to 5-year site
 review.

 This alternative does not actively reduce the mobility, toxicity, or volume of the COCs in the
 soil or groundwater.

 Cooperation between the USAF, USEPA, FDEP, and Dade County would  be required to
enact the access and use restriction.

The selected remedy is cost effective because it has  been determined to provide overall
effectiveness proportioned to its costs. The present net worth is estimated at $330,000.
                                        39

-------
 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, use restrictions would
 limit exposure until concentrations of COCs are below levels of concern.

 2.14   DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES

 The PP  was released  for public comment on November  1,  1994.  The PP identified
 Alternative 2,  Access Restriction for  Groundwater,  Use Restriction  for Soil, and
 Groundwater Monitoring  of Contaminant  Migration and Attenuation,  as the preferred
 alternative for  remedial action at Site FT-5/OU-1. Alternative 5 of the ROD (listed as
 Alternative 7 of the September 1994 Final Feasibility Study Report) was excluded from the
 November 7, 1994 Proposed Plan. The public was provided an opportunity for comment on
 this alternative  upon its inclusion  in the ROD.  Incorporation of this alternative is not
 considered a significant change.

 Alternative 3 of the ROD is a slight modification of the September 1994 Feasibility Study's
 Alternative 4, and was presented under the nine-point criteria evaluation in the Proposal Plan
 and ROD.

 Responses to comments received during the November-December 1994 public comment
 period are presented in the attached Responsiveness Summary. The public comment period
 was reopened for thirty  days (from March  14, 1995 to April 12, 1995) to provide the public
 with an opportunity to comment on the addition of Alternative 5. A public notice was placed
 in the South Dade News Leader on March 14, 1995, informing the public of the re-opening
 of the public comment  period for OU-1.  No comments were received during this second
public comment period.
                                       40

-------
Homestead Air Reserve Base, Florida
Operable Unit No. 1
Site FT-5, Fire Protection Training Area No. 2

Responsiveness Summary for the
Record of Decision

-------
                         RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY

                                   FOR THE

                            RECORD OF DECISION
 The responsiveness summary serves three purposes.  First, it provides regulators with
 information about the community preferences regarding both the remedial alternatives and
 general concerns about Operable Unit No. 1, Homestead ARB.  Second, the responsiveness
 summary documents how public comments have been considered and integrated into the
 decision making process.  Third, it provides EPA with the opportunity to respond to each
 comment submitted by the public on the record.

 The Remedial Investigation/Baseline Risk Assessment Report and the  Proposed Plan for
 Homestead ARB Site FT-5/OU-1 were released to the  public in April and November 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 November 8, 1994 to December 23, 1994, as part of
 the community relations plan of Operable Unit 1.  Additionally, a public meeting was held on
 Tuesday, November 29,  1994, at 7:00 pm, at South Dade High School. A public notice was
 published in  the Miami  Herald and  the South Dade  News  Leader on  Tuesday,
 November 22,  1994. At this meeting, the USAF, in coordination  with EPA 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.

A second public comment period was opened for thirty days from March 14, 1995 to April
 12, 1995. This comment period  was reopened to provide the public  with an opportunity to
comment on the addition of(Alternative 5 to the Record of Decision.  No comments were
received during the second 30-day public comment period.

-------
 Summary of Comments Received During The Public Comment Period

 Comments received during the November-December 1994  public comment period and
 November 29, 1994 public meeting are summarized below.  No comments were received
 during the second (March-April 1995) public comment period.

 Comment:   The Tropical Audubon Society would like to raise several concerns about the
 redevelopment plans for Homestead Air Force Base.

 First, there are serious pollution control concerns. Redevelopment of the Air Force Base may
 include several public and private organizations doing work much like what the Air Force did
 at the base.  That is, the same hazardous wastes of aviation and related industry may be in use
 - complicated by the new regulatory job of watching multiple polluters.  Damage to fuel
 storage tanks at the base during Hurricane Andrew suggests the risks of developing anything
 other than clean industry in a potential hurricane path, especially on a wetlands site.  New
 construction runs the risks of stirring up pollution sites created in the past and building land
 structures that change erosion patterns and cause pollutants  to leach out of pollution sites.

 Secondly, there are concerns about the integrity of the ecological setting. Any development
 should preserve mangrove stands along the canals, preserve habitats for species affected by
 land use changes and pollution, and preserve wilderness features in a bulk fuel storage site
 and fuel pump houses.

 There is groundwater contamination at least in a bulk fuel storage site and at fuel pump
 houses.

 Pollutants - including  DDT and  other pesticides, metals, and polycyclic  aromatic
 hydrocarbons - are at potentially harmful levels in surface water, sediment, and fish at the
 base canals particularly the Boundary Canal.

 Response:   Redevelopment of Homestead Air Force Base is currently underway and
 includes approximately  one-third of the base having been  transferred to the 482nd Fighter
Wing (Air Reserve) and the remaining  two-thirds transferred to  the Air Force Base
Conversion Agency (AFBCA) for transfer of the property.  The AFBCA has conducted a
screening process to allow federal, state, and other eligible parties to submit expressions of
interest for reuse of the property.  Redevelopment of the base will include aviation activities
due to the mission of the 482nd Reserve Fighter Wing. Public and private interests which

-------
 may ultimately reside on the base will be required to comply with the same environmental
 laws and regulations as other related industry in the state of Florida.

 Disposal  and reuse of Homestead ARB is intimately linked  to the environmental
 investigations, restoration, and compliance activities which are currently being carried out in
 accordance with state and  federal regulations.  Sites which have been identified as being
 contaminated are being scheduled for remedial action and/or are being restricted for future
 use and development. Homestead ARB has been actively investigating potential sources of
 contamination at the base since 1982. An extensive parameter list of target compounds has
 been analyzed for in a variety of media ranging from soil/rock, groundwater, surface water,
 and sediments, in order to determine the impacts of contaminants on human health and the
 environment.  Cleanup  and closure of the various  sites  are being conducted under  the
 guidance of the USEPA-Region IV and the state of Florida.  HARB has identified the base
 canal systems as  OU-9 which presently encompasses the Boundary  Canal and many of the
 interior canals at the base and are presently being evaluated in accordance with CERCLA.
 The objectives of HARBs environmental restoration program, as defined in the BRAC
 Cleanup Plan, are to:

 •      Address areas of concern that were a result of Hurricane Andrew.

 •      Reconstruct the resources and facilities required  to go  forward with an effective
       environmental restoration program such as files, reports, buildings, etc.

 •      Protect human health and the environment.

 •      Comply with existing statutes and regulations.

 •      Meet new commitments specified in the revised Federal Facilities Agreement (FFA)
       and consent agreements with the FDEP.

 •      Complete RIs as soon as practicable for each OU or other IRP site.

•      Identify all potential source areas.

•      Establish areas of no  suspected contamination.

-------
 •      Initiate removal actions, where necessary, to control, eliminate, or reduce risk to
        manageable levels.

 •      Characterize  risks associated with releases  of hazardous substances, pollutants,
        contaminants, or hazardous wastes.

 •      Develop, screen,  and select remedial actions (RAs) that reduce risk in a manner
        consistent with statutory requirements.

 •      Commence with RAs for the IRP sites as practicable, with special consideration for
        the impacts on the Everglades and the Biscayne Bay ecosystems.

 The  base has undergone an  extensive survey  of sensitive  habitats,  wetlands,  and
 identification of threatened  and endangered species which are known to periodically or
 permanently  inhabit the base.   No special designation species were identified at  Site
 FT-5/OU-1.  Furthermore, previous usage of the site has rendered it in a developed, no longer
 natural condition such that the site is predominated by weedy species.

 Groundwater contamination  has been identified at various  locations throughout  the base
 including the bulk fuel storage area and the fuel pump houses. These sites are actively being
 evaluated for remedial action and/or groundwater monitoring to limit the exposure to human
 health and the environment.  These petroleum contaminated sites are being evaluated in
 accordance  with  the  Florida  Department of Environmental  Protection,  Petroleum
 Contaminated Site Criteria Section 62-770 (formerly  17-770) Florida Administrative Code
 (FAC).

 Comment:    In the technical report on the fire training area, no mention was made as to the
 presence of metal associated with aircraft (aluminum, magnesium, etc.), found in the top  soil.
 An aircraft fuselage was used at the site for fire training purposes.

 Response:    Field investigations have been performed at OU-1 from 1984 to 1993 in order
 to identify the nature and extent of contamination as a result of past practices.  Numerous soil
 and groundwater samples have been collected and analyzed for volatile organic compounds,
base  neutral  and acid extractable  compounds,  inorganic   metals,  cyanide,  and
pesticides/PCBs. A regulatory review of the contaminant levels indicated that total PAHs
and benzene exceeded state and federal levels in one well.  No metals were found above
health-based levels.  Furthermore, a baseline risk assessment was  performed in which the

-------
 risks to potential receptors were quantified.  The risk for both current and potential future
 land use scenarios were above  levels considered protective of human health  and the
 environment by USEPA and FDEP.  Seven remedial alternatives were evaluated based on the
 COC  in accordance with the CERCLA screening procedures and a preferred alternative
 selected. This information is documented in the administrative record and available for
 public inspection.

 Comment:    Suggest the rubble pile be removed and contaminated soil be cleaned up and
 disposed.

 Response:    Seven remedial alternatives, including disposal of the rubble pile and top soil,
 were evaluated based on the chemicals and media of concern. These seven alternatives were
 screened based on the criteria of effectiveness, implementability, and cost.  Four of the most
 promising alternatives were then carried forward and even further evaluated against the nine
 criteria of CERCLA. Factors concerning the disposal of the rubble pile include long term
 liability and disposal costs.  The  selected alternative (Access  restriction for soil and
 groundwater monitoring of contaminant migration and attenuation) does achieve substantial
 risk reduction by controlling exposure by human contact and provides for groundwater
 monitoring to assess the migration and attenuation of contaminants.

 Comment:    I'm not pleased that the site would be only checked for 5 years. The rate of
 movement is unknown and what if it will not go away for 50 years or more.

 Response:     Based on the knowledge of the  site contaminants, it is believed that the
 concentrations  of benzene and PAHs will naturally decrease (attenuate) below levels of
 concern within this timeframe. In addition, long-term monitoring, maintenance, and control
 would be required due to the fact that contaminants will remain on site.  A review of the site
 will continue at least every 5 years or until the levels of contaminants are at levels considered
 protective of human health and the environment.

 Comment:   It would cost less to clean the  site today than  5-10  or 30 years from now.
We really need to look more to the future than  we have to the past.

Response:    The USAF, USEPA, and FDEP have analyzed the alternatives and identified
key trade-offs  among them. Furthermore, the long term  effectiveness and related
considerations were evaluated. Based on a review of these factors the Base Closure Team

-------
 has determined that access restriction for soil and groundwater monitoring of contaminant
 migration and attenuation is the most appropriate method of remedial action for this site.

 Comment:   The BRAC Committee EPA RI/BRA should clean the area in question up.  In
 five years the chemicals could spread. Please save our neighborhood and family.

 Response:   The key  elements to satisfy CERCLA remedial action include overall
 protection of human health and the environment, compliance with state and federal
 regulations, long-term effectiveness and permanence, reduction of mobility, toxicity,  or
 volume through treatment, short-term effectiveness, implementability, cost, state acceptance,
 and community acceptance. Access restrictions reduce the level of exposure to humans and
 groundwater monitoring will assess the migration and attenuation of contaminants.  With the
 flat groundwater gradient at the  base, contaminants are not expected to migrate off site.
However, the monitoring  program, will track the rate  of migration  and contaminant
concentrations and if corrective measures are required, they could be implemented to reduce
the threat to human health and the  environment due to migration.

-------
                   RECORD OF DECISION BRIEFING
          OPERABLE UNIT NO. 4, MOTOR POOL OIL LEAK AREA
               HOMESTEAD AIR RESERVE BASE, FLORIDA


     Operable Unit No.  4,  identified as  the  Motor Pool Oil Leak
Area,  is  located in  the  west  central  portion  of  Homestead Air
Reserve Base (formerly Homestead Air Force Base) . The Motor Pool  is
primarily  used   for  cleaning,  servicing  and  repairing  utility
vehicles.    In operation  since  the  Base  was reactivated in the
1950's,  the  Motor   Pool   Area  is   mostly  asphalt   covered  and
surrounded  on all  four sides  by  a  drainage  ditch  system.   The
selected remedy  includes institutional controls, including access
restrictions that would prevent placement of potable  wells in the
contaminated  groundwater   beneath  the  unit;  deed   restrictions
limiting  the  use  cf the  property  to non-residential   dwelling
purposes,   including  the rrevertion  of  schools,  playgrounds and
hospitals  from being built at the site; and groundwater monitoring.
This  remedial  action   is  protective  of  human  health  and  the
environment, complies with  Federal and State requirements that are
legally applicable or relevant and  appropriate  to  the  remedial
action and is  cost  effective.

-------
             UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

                               REGION IV

                         345 COURTLANO STREET. N.E.
                          ATLANTA. GEORGIA 3O365

                             SEP  7 1995
 4WD-FFB

 Certified Mail
 Return Receipt Requested

 Mr.  Alan K.  Olsen
 AFBCA/DR
 1400 Key Boulevard
 Arlington, Virginia  22209

 SUBJ:   Record of Decision for Operable Unit 1
        Fire  Protection Training Area No. 2      /'
        Homestead Air Force Base NPL Site
        Homestead Air Reserve Base,  Florida

 Dear Mr.  Olsen:

     The  U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)  Region IV
 has  reviewed the'above referenced decision document  and concurs
 with the  selected final remedy for remedial action at Operable
 Unit Operable  Unit l,  Fire Protection Training Area  No.  2,  as
 supported by the previously completed Remedial Investigation,
 Baseline  Risk  Assessment and Feasibility Study Reports.

     The  selected remedy includes institutional  controls,
 including access restrictions that  would prevent placement  of
potable wells  in the contaminated groundwater beneath the unit;
deed restrictions limiting the use  of the property to non-
residential  dwelling purposes,  including the prevention of
 schools,  playgrounds and hospitals  from being built  at the  site;
and groundwater  monitoring.   This remedial action  is protective
of human  health  and the environment,  complies with Federal  and
State requirements that are legally applicable or  relevant  and
appropriate  to the remedial action  and is cost effective.
                                                         Punted on Recycled P.ipr

-------
     It is understood that the selected remedy for Operable
Unit 1 is the final remedial action to address all media
potentially affected by past disposal practices at this unit

                              Sincerely,
cc:
                              Patrick M.  Tobin
                              Deputy Regional Administrator

     Mary Bridgewater, AFBCA
     Capt.  Ed Miller, AFCEE
     Robert Johns, DERM
     Glenn Kaden, AFCEE c/o AFBCA/ OL-Y
     Eric Nuzie, FDEP
     Humbert o Rivero, AFBCA/OL-Y  (Homestead Air Reserve Base)

-------