PB96-964013
EPA/ROD/R04-96/270
August 1996
EPA Superfund
Record of Decision:
Cecil Field Naval Air Station,
Operable Unit 2rFL
6/24/1996
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 4
345 COURTLAND STREET, N.E.
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30365
2 4
4WD-FFB
CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Captain Frank T. Bossio
Commanding Officer
Naval Air Station Cecil Field
P.O. Box 108 (Code 00)
Cecil Field, Florida 32215-0108
SUBJ: Cecil Field Naval Air Station,
Record of Decision for Operable Unit-2
Dear Captain Bossio:
• The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has received and
reviewed the final Record of Decision (ROD) for Operable Unit 2
(OU-2) . EPA concurs with the Navy's decision as set forth in the
ROD dated September 27, 1995. This concurrence is contingent
with the understanding that the proposed action is intended to
reduce risk to human health and the environment, and should
additional work be required to achieve this risk reduction, the
Navy is liable for this action if any is required.
Prior to designation for closure, NAS Cecil Field was listed
on the National Priorities List as Cecil Field Naval Air Station
and the Installation Restoration Program for 18 sites was funded
and underway. These 18 sites were grouped by usage and waste
type to form eight operable units. OU-2 is made up of sites 5
and 17. At Cecil Field there are numerous areas of soil,
sediment and groundwater contamination. The role of this ROD in
the NAS Cecil Field overall site strategy is to remediate
groundwater and sediment contamination associated with sites 5
and 17. OU-2 is located near the flightline and future
development of the groundwater is not expected. However,
remedial action was deemed necessary because groundwater at Cecil
Field is considered Class II and has the potential for
development; and the risk associated with groundwater exposure
exceeded both the cancer and noncancer guidance values and
several analytes were present at concentrations that exceeded
maximum contaminant levels (MCLs).
This ROD consists of multiple selected remedies for the
groundwater and sediments associated with OU-2. The alternatives
-------
for remedial action were fully described in the Proposed Plan
dated July 1995. Alternatives and the selected remedy presented
in the ROD do not differ from those presented in the Proposed
Plan. No comments were received from the general public
regarding the ROD.
EPA appreciates the opportunity to work with the Navy on
these sites and other sites at Cecil Field. Should you have any
questions, or if EPA can be of any assistance, please contact
Ms. Deborah Vaughn-Wright, of my staff, at the letterhead address
or at (404) 347-3555, extension 2058.
Sin
mley Meiburc
Deputy Regional Administrator
cc: Mr. James Crane, FDEP
Mr. Eric Nuzie, FDEP
Mr. Michael Deliz, FDEP
Mr. Steve Wilson, SDIV
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
OPERABLE UNIT 2
NAVAL AIR STATION CECIL FIELD
JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA
UNIT IDENTIFICATION CODE: N60207
CONTRACT NO.: N62467-89-D-0317/090
SEPTEMBER 1995
SOUTHERN DIVISION
NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING COMMAND
NORTH CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA
29419-9010 '' " - - :_^; -..;;;
, J «.,..-,
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
OPERABLE UNIT 2
NAVAL AIR STATION CECIL FIELD
JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA
Unit Identification Code: N6020D
Contract No. N62467-89-D-0317/090
Prepared by:
ABB Environmental Services, Inc.
2590 Executive Center Circle, East
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Prepared for:
Department of the Navy, Southern Division
Naval Facilities Engineering Command
2155 Eagle Drive
North Charleston, South Carolina 29418
Alan Shoultz, Code 1875, Engineer-in-Charge
September 1995
-------
CERTIFICATION OF TECHNICAL
DATA CONFORMITY (MAY 1987)
The Contractor, ABB Environmental Services, Inc., hereby certifies that, to the
best of its knowledge and belief, the technical data delivered herewith under
Contract No. N62467-89-D-0317/031 are complete and accurate and comply with all
requirements of this contract.
DATE:
September 27. 1995
NAME AND TITLE OF CERTIFYING OFFICIAL:
Rao Angara
Task Order Manager
NAME AND TITLE OF CERTIFYING OFFICIAL:
Allan M. Stodghill, P.G.
Project TechnicaluLead
(DFAR 252.227-7036)
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Record of Decision ., -
Operable Unit 2
Naval Air Station Cecil Held . .
Jacksonville, Rorida
Chapter Title Page No.
1.0 DECLARATION FOR THE RECORD OF DECISION 1-1
1.1 SITE NAME AND LOCATION 1-1
1.2 STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE 1-1
1.3 ASSESSMENT OF THE SITE 1-1
1.4 DESCRIPTION OF THE SELECTED REMEDY 1-1
1.4.1 Source Control '• '. . . . 1-1
1.4.2 Risk Reduction 1-2
1.5 STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS 1-3
1.6 SIGNATURE AND SUPPORT AGENCY ACCEPTANCE OF THE REMEDY 1-3
2.0 DECISION SUMMARY 2-1
2.1 SITE NAME, LOCATION, AND DESCRIPTION 2-1
2.2 SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES 2-5
2.3 HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION 2-12
2.4 SCOPE AND ROLE OF OPERABLE UNIT 2-13
2.5 SITE CHARACTERISTICS • 2-13
2.6 SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS 2-25
2.7 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES '. 2-28
2.7.1 Sediment Alternatives Analyzed 2-28
2.7.2 Groundwater Alternatives Analyzed ...... 2-31
2.8 SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES 2-33
2.9 SELECTED REMEDIES 2-33
2.9.1 Site 5 Sediment 2-44
2.9.2 Site 5 Groundwater 2-44
2.9.3 Site 17 Groundwater 2-44
2.10 STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS 2-45
2.11 DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES ,2-45
REFERENCES
etc ou:> i
/.:-:\v CM ws
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Record of Decision
Operable Unit 2
Naval Air Station Cecil Field
Jacksonville. Florida
Figure . Title , Page No.
2-1 General Location Map 2-2
2-2 Site Locations and Approximate Locations of Wetlands Southwest NAS
Cecil Field Area 2-3
2-3 Site 5, General Features 2-A
2-4 Site 17, General Features _•-... 2-6
2-5 Site 5, Maximum Areal Extent of Soil .Removal, Interim Remedial
Action 2-10
2-6 Site 17, Maximum Areal Extent of Soil Removal, Interim Remedial
Action 2-11
2-7 Site 5, Surface Soil Contamination -.2-15
2-8 Site 17, Surface soil Contamination 2-16
2-9 Site 5, Subsurface Soil Contamination 2-18
2-10 Site 17, Subsurface Soil Contamination . 2-19
2-11 Site 5, Groundwater Contamination 2-20
2-12 Site 17, Groundwater Contamination 2-22
2-13 Site 5, Organics in Sediment 2-23
2-14 Site 17, Organic Compounds in Surface Water and Sediment ...... 2-24
LIST OF TABLES
Tables Title Page No.
2-1 Findings and Conclusions from Previous Investigations 2-8
2-2 Cancer and Noncancer Risks Posed by Domestic Use of Site 5 Groundwater
to an Adult Resident 2-26
2-3 Site 5 Ecological Assessment Summary 2-27
2-4 Cancer and Noncancer Risks Posed by Domestic Use of Site 17
Groundwater to an Adult Resident 2-29
2-5 Site 17 Ecological Assessment Summary 2-30
2-6 Explanation of Evaluation Criteria 2-34
2-7 Comparative Analysis of Contaminated Sediment Remedial Alternatives 2-35
2-8 Comparative Analysis of Groundwater Remedial Alternatives 2-38
2-9 Synopsis of Potential Federal and State"Location-Specific ARARs . . 2-46
2-10 Synopsis of Potential Federal and State Chemical-Specific ARARs . . 2-48
2-11 Synopsis of Potential Federal and State Action-Specific ARARs . . . 2-51
-------
ARAR
bis
/J-HCH
CERCLA
CFR
CNO
ECPCs
FAC
FS
IAS
IRA
IROD
mg/kg
mg/-?
NAS
NCP
O&M
OU
OX
PAH
PCB
RA
RAOs
RI
ROD
SARA
SVOC
TCE
TRPH
USEPA
UV
UV/OX
VOC
yd3
GLOSSARY
applicable or relevant and appropriate requirement
below land surface
beta-hexachlorocyclohexane
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act
Code of Federal Regulations
Chief of Naval Operations
ecological contaminants of potential concern
Florida Administrative Code
feasibility study
Initial Assessment Study
interim remedial action
Interim Record of Decision
micrograms per liter
milligrams per kilogram
milligrams per liter
Naval Air Station
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Contingency Plan
operations and maintenance
Operable Unit
oxidant or oxidation
polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon
polychlorinated biphenyl
risk assessment
remedial action objectives
remedial investigation
Record of Decision
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
semivolatile organic compound
trichloroethene
total recoverable petroleum hydrocarbons
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ultraviolet
ultraviolet light and oxidation
volatile organic compound
cubic yard
crc
-------
1.0 DECLARATION FOR THE RECORD OF DECISION
1.1 SITE NAME AND LOCATION. Operable Unit (OU) 2 is located in an undeveloped
area of the western part of the main base of Naval Air Station (NAS) Cecil
Field, Jacksonville, Florida. OU 2 consists of two sites, Site 5, Oil Disposal
Area Northwest, and Site 17, Sludge Disposal Pit Southwest. Site 5 is located
approximately 1,000 feet west of Lake Fretwell and immediately east of Perimeter
Road. Site 17 is located approximately 3,700 feet south of Site 5. approximately
1,600 feet west of Rowell Creek, and immediately east of Perimeter Road. These
sites are grouped as an OU because of their close proximity to each other and the
flightline and because of the similarity of wastes and disposal practices.
1.2 STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE. This decision document .-presents the
selected remedial actions for OU 2, which were chosen in accordance with the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA),
as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA),
and the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP,
40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 300). This decision is based "on the
Administrative Record for OU 2.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and the State of Florida concur
with the selected remedies.
1.3 ASSESSMENT OF THE SITE. Actual or threatened releases of hazardous
substances from these sites, if not addressed by implementing the response
actions selected in this Record of Decision (ROD), may present an imminent and
substantial endangerment to public health1,' welfare, or the environment.
1.4 DESCRIPTION OF THE SELECTED REMEDY. Selected remedies address source
control and risk reduction. Remedial activities will address the following
media: soil, sediment, and groundwater.
1.4.1 Source Control The selected remedy for source control at OU 2 was
addressed in two September 1994 interim RODs (IRODs) . Both interim actions are
currently ongoing and are the final actions for soil at each site. At Site 5
approximately 16,300 cubic yards (yd3) of contaminated soil will be excavated and
biologically treated in an engineered biocell under controlled conditions (see
IROD, Oil Disposal Area Northwest, Site 5, OU 2, NAS Cecil Field, Jacksonville,
Florida, September 1994). At Site 17, approximately 9,900 yd3 of contaminated
soil has been excavated and is being thermally treated onsite (not necessarily
at Site 17, but .within the limits of the facility) in a low temperature thermal
desorption unit (see IROD, Oil and Sludge Disposal Area Southwest, Site 17, OU
2, NAS Cecil Field, Jacksonville, Florida, September 1994).
The interim remedial action (IRA) at Site 5 was initiated in March 1995, will
cost approximately $3,000,000, and will be completed in the'fall of 1997. The
interim remedial action at Site 17 was initiated in February 1995, will cose
approximately 51,900,000, and will be completed in fall of 1995.
Cl'C on;' KOII
/.:;•/' U:< •"., . 1-1
-------
1.A.2 Risk Reduction Risk-reduction alternatives selected for Sites 5 and 17
include sediment excavation and treatment at Site 5 and groundwater treatment at
both sites. The selected alternatives for each site include:--
Site 5, Sediment treatment, Excavation and Biological Treatment:
• excavate approximately '300 yd3 of sediment from the drainage ditch
south of Site 5,
excavate the sediment to a depth of approximately 2 feet,
• sample and analyze the excavation area to identify the extent of
excavation needed,
. • treat the sediment at the existing biological treatment -facility,
backfill the ditch to grade with clean soil, and
institute temporary land-use restrictions.
Site 5, Groundwater treatment, Air Sparging or In Sicu Air Stripping and
Biological Treatment:
conduct a performance test of two alternatives, air sparging and in
situ air stripping and biological treatment;
install the alternative that performs more effectively after the
interim remedial action is completed;
• after the alternative is selected, install remediation wells and
associated treatment units and hardware to treat organic contaminants
in the groundwater;
if "required, discharge treated water into an infiltration basin;
monitor treatment to measure effectiveness; and
institute controls and restrict all usage of groundwater from the
surficial aquifer.
Site 17, Groundwater treatment, Natural Attenuation:
• after completion of the interim remedial action, install temporary
monitoring wells and sample" the shallow groundwater for the contami-
nants of concern and intrinsic bioremediation parameters to reassess
groundwater conditions and the contaminant plume;
based on analytical groundwater results, establish a monitoring and
modeling program to assess the effectiveness of naturally occurring
biodegradation, including monitoring wells in the contaminant plume and
downgradient of the contaminant plume;
-------
institute controls and restrict all usage of the groundwater from the
surficial aquifer during the life of remedial action;
evaluate, on a scheduled basis, the effectiveness of natural attenua-
tion; and
if needed, remediate within the contaminant plume those areas where
contaminant concentrations are significantly higher than average
concentrations using air sparging or in situ air stripping and biologi-
cal treatment..
(For. this ROD, natural attenuation means intrinsic bioremediation. Groundwater
on the surficial aquifer at Site 17 will be aggressively monitored for the
degradation of contaminants by microorganisms.) The Site 5 sediment alternative
is estimated to cost $236,000 and take 4 months to implement. .The Site 5
groundwater alternative is estimated to cost $1,650,000 and take 4 years to
complete. The Site 17 groundwater alternative is estimated to cost $232,000 and
take 15 years to complete. The estimated 15-year period for Site 17 is based on
observed trichloroethene (TCE) concentrations and -literature-based TCE
degradation rates. Details of degradation time are presented in Appendix'H of
the OU 2 Feasibility Study (FS).
1.5 STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS. The selected remedies are protective of human
health and the environment and are cost-effective. The selected remedies for
Site 5 comply with Federal and State requirements that are .legally applicable or
relevant and appropriate to the remedial actions. The nature of the selected
remedy for Site 17 is such that contaminant concentrations, in groundwater may
remain above regulatory standards during the remedial action. As a result,
applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements will not be met as a near-
term goal. Therefore, compliance with groundwater standards will be a long-term
cleanup goal. These remedies utilize permanent solutions and alternative
treatment technologies to the maximum extent practicable and satisfy the
statutory preference for remedies that employ treatment that reduces toxicity,
mobility, or volume as a principal element. Because this remedy will result in
hazardous substances remaining onsite above health-based levels, a review will
be conducted within 5 years after the commencement of remedial actions to ensure
that the remedies continue to provide adequate protection of human health and the
environment.
1.6 SIGNATURE AND SUPPORT AGENCY ACCEPTANCE OF THE REMEDY.
Stephen M. Wilson, P.E. / .Date
Base Realignment and Closure
Environmental Coordinator
CCC OU7.HOO
/-MVO95".".
-------
2.0 DECISION SUMMARY
2.1 SITE NAME. LOCATION. AND DESCRIPTION. NAS Cecil Field is located 14 miles
southwest of Jacksonville, Florida. The majority of Cecil Field is located
within Duval County; the southernmost part of the facility in located in northern
Clay County (Figure 2-1).
Land surrounding NAS Cecil Field is used primarily for forestry with some light
agriculture and ranching. Small communities and scattered dwellings are in the
vicinity of NAS Cecil Field; the closest abuts the western edge of the facility.
The closest incorporated municipality, Baldwin, is approximately 6.4 miles
northwest of the main facility entrance. The nearest base housing to 01) 2 is
located approximately 3,000 feet northeast of Site 5.
NAS Cecil Field was established in 1941 and provides facilities, services, and
material support for the operation and maintenance of naval weapons, aircraft,
and other units of the operation forces as designated by the Chief of Naval
Operations (CNO). Some of the tasks required to accomplish this mission over
past years included operation of fuel storage facilities, performance of aircraft
maintenance, maintenance and operation of engine repair facilities and test cells
for turbo-jet engines, and support of special weapons systems.
OU 2, consisting of Site 5, Oil Disposal Area Northwest, and Site 17, Sludge
Disposal Pit Southwest, is located in the western part of NAS Cecil Field. The
sites are located west of the Lake Fretwell (Site 5) and Rowell Creek (Site 17)
and immediately east of the western part of Perimeter Road (Figure 2-2). This
area is primarily flat and covered with vegetation ranging from open grassy
fields to heavily wooded areas. Site 5 is approximately 3,500 feet north of Site
17. Two other sites, 3 and 4, are locate'd'between Sites 5 and 17.
Site 5. Site 5 is located approximately 2,500 feet north of the intersection of
Perimeter Road and the Lake Fretwell access road. Perimeter Road forms the
western boundary of the site. It is an undeveloped site, having no electrical,
water, stormwater, or sewer facilities or access in the immediate area. The
northern and eastern boundaries of the site are forested and are not defined by
physical features. A small drainage ditch forms the southern boundary of the
site. The location of the former pit, used for disposal of waste oil, is shown
on Figure 2-3.
The former disposal area was approximately 0.5 acre, which included the unlined
pit and the adjacent access areas. The pit was reported to be approximately 100
feet by 200 feet or approximately 0.2 acre in size. The pit area is now filled
in and covered with grass and some sapling trees. The area of investigation is
approximately 7 acres and includes areas north and south of the drainage ditch
and west of Perimeter Road.
The primary surface feature at Site 5 is the drainage ditch. The ditch drains
a wetland area located approximately 200 feet west of Perimeter Road (Figure 2-
3). The wetland occupies a large part of the area between Perimeter Road and
Yellow Water Creek and extends northward to Normandy Boulevard. Water in the
Site 5 drainage ditch flows eastward (from the west side of Perimeter Road) along
the south side of the site, empties into another wetland area (east of Site 5),
and eventually into Lake Fretwell.
-------
. // OLF
WWTEHOUSE
YELLOW WATER
WEAPONS AREA
P«re«l 2
NAS CECIL FIELD BOUNDARY
Pt'lKl'CO *C4J)
NAS CECIL FIELD
OUVAL COUNTY
AY COUNTY
JACKSONVILLE, crrr_ .LIMITS. _
CECIL FIELD
•OCX
6500 13000
SCALE: 1 INCH = 13000 FEET
Sourc«: Southern Division. Novot FodlHws CnginMring Command. 1988
FIGURE 2-1
GENERAL LOCATION MAP
RECORD OF DECISION
OPERABLE UNIT 2
NAS CECIL FIELD
JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA
-------
ouonnc
W*1ER CRTtK
4PPROX. 5.000 ttCT WtST
Of PCRWCTER ROAO
SITE 17
LEGEND
Approximclfl location
of wttland area
Arm of innstigalkxi
SCALE: 1 INCH = 1500 fEET
FIGURE 2-2
SITE LOCATIONS AND
APPROXIMATE LOCATIONS OF WETLANDS
SOUTHWEST NAS CECIL FIELD AREA
RECORD OF DECISION
OPERABLE UNIT 2
NAS CECIL FIELD
JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA
-------
SCALE: 1 INCH = ISO FEET
IEOEND
——• Areo of Investigation
— Dralnogt ditch
Tr«« lint
-,, Land »urfae« tliwrittn In lit)
^_^- /U -^. (Hallonol G«odlllc Vjrtlcal
Ootum of 1929)
H\»?0\(MO>00\JKK-NP\M-il-«
FIGURE 2-3
SITE 6, GENERAL FEATURES
RECORD OF DECISION
OPERABLE UNIT 2
NAS CECIL FIEID
JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA
-------
Site 5 is relatively flat with no prominent hills or depressions. The ground
surface slopes primarily to the south toward the drainage ditch. The eastern
side of the site slopes toward the eastern wetland. The area immediately west
of Perimeter Road slopes toward the drainage ditch to the south.
^ •
At Site 5, groundwater flow is from the northwest to the southeast. Vertical
hydraulic gradients are downward in the northwestern part of Site 5, becoming
upward in the vicinity of the drainage ditch. Groundwater from Site 5,
therefore, discharges to the drainage ditch, which is topographically and
hydraulically downgradient of the disposal pit.
Site 17. Site 17 is located approximately 1,000 feet south of the intersection
of Perimeter Road and the Lake Fretwell Access Road (Figure 2-2). This site is
also undeveloped. Perimeter Road forms the western boundary of the site. The
northern, eastern, and southern boundaries of the site are forested and are not
defined by physical features. The location of the former pit, used for disposal
of waste oil, is shown on Figure 2-4. Aerial photographs show the disposal pit
to be nearly square, being approximately 130 feet long on its northern, eastern,
and southern sides and approximately 100 feet long on its western side. The
initial assessment survey (IAS) states that the pit was 3 to 4 feet deep. The
area evaluated during the investigation included approximately 3.8 acres centered
on the former pit location.
The area of Site 17 is relatively flat with no prominent hills or depressions.
Site 17 is covered by grass and trees. A wetland is located east of che sice
(approximately 420 feet east of Perimeter Road).
Runoff of surface water from Site 17 is primarily to the east and south following
the topography. Runoff is directed to a low area, the wetland east of the site.
Discharge from this low area enters Rowell Creek.
At Site 17 the groundwater flow direction is east to southeast. The vertical
hydraulic gradient is upward.
2.2 SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES. A brief history of Sites 5 and 17
is presented below.
Site 5. The Site 5 pit was an unlined, shallow excavation, and as reported in
. the IAS, 1985, used in the 1950s for the disposal of waste oil. Oil-stained soil
and a. petroleum odor were noted at Site 5 in 1985 and again in 1988, indicating
that the site may have been used some time after the 1950s. The 15- by 20-foot
area of oil-stained soil, void of vegetation, was noted during the remedial
investigation (RI) and is located in the southern half of the former pit area.
Extensive historical information concerning waste disposal practices at the site
including specific source(s) and volumes for the waste material dumped there, the
actual period of operation of the site, or the exact operation processes, is not
available. Reportedly, bowsers (small trailer-mounted tanks) or drums were
tipped over, allowing liquid waste to flow into the pit. Wastes were allowed to
evaporate or percolate into the sandy soil. Other wastes (possibly solvents,
paints, and strippers) may have been mixed with the oil prior to disposal, as
this was a common practice at the time.
etc o;u KOO
/.ivv o-.'•?•: 2-5
-------
SITE 17
FORMER PIT
LOCATION
-Easterly extent of.wtlland area
(lagged, not wetlond limit
SCALE: 1 INCH = 100 FEET
LEGEND
• 70-
Arto of Investigation
trit lint
Land turfaci tltvollen In f««t
(Notional Ctodllte VtMlcal
Odium el 1929)
M:\iS?0\IXO>00\KP-JII(\l»-il-95
FIGURE 2-4
SITE 17, GENERAL FEATURES
RECORD OF DECISION
OPERABLE UNIT 2
NAS CECIL FIELD
JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA
-------
A review of available historical aerial photographs indicates that a pit,
containing liquid, was present in November 1969. The outline of this disturbed
area remains fairly constant in 1970, 1972, and 1973 phot-ographs, but the
circular pit with.liquid is no longer visible. In 1972 to 1973 the site had
begun to revegetate.
Site 17. The Site 17 disposal pit was reported to be approximately 0.4 acre in
size. Like the Site 5 disposal pit, the Site 17 pit was unlined. The liquids,
reportedly waste fuels and oils possibly mixed with solvents, paints, and/or
paint thinners, were transported to the site via bowsers or 55-gallon drums and
emptied into the pit. The liquids were then allowed to evaporate or soak into
the ground. Both stained soil and a petroleum odor were noted during the RI
investigation.
Site 17 was used for a 2- or 3-year period in the late 1960s or ea'rly 1970s for
the disposal of" waste liquids. A review of available historical aerial
photographs indicates that no visible disturbance is evident at the site in
photographs predating 1970. The 1970 photograph shows the basic outline (as
evidenced by disturbed areas) of the site. Photographs from 1972 and 1973 show
the presence of a pit that is partially filled with liquid and has disturbed
access areas around all sides. Aerial photographs from 1975 and later show that
Site 17 had become progressively more vegetated.
Sources for the liquid wastes dumped at the site are the fuel farm, aircraft
intermediate maintenance department, the squadrons, and public works department.
Estimates regarding the quantities of material potentially disposed of at the
site are not available. During the site's period of operation, it is estimated
that hundreds of gallons of these types of wastes could have been disposed of at
the site. Following closure of the site, the pit was filled in and covered with
soil.
Investigation of the disposal areas at Sites 5 and 17 began in the 1980s. Each
investigation's findings, conclusions, and recommendations are given in
chronological order in Table 2-1, Findings and Conclusions from Previous
Investigations.
Analytical data evaluation indicated that free product at Site 5 and petroleum-
and solvent-contaminated soil in and around each disposal pit were the sources
of contamination to the groundwater and could either directly or indirectly pose
risk to human health and the environment. An initial remedial action (IRA) was
developed and implemented for each site. The interim RODs for OU 2 were approved
in September 1994.
The IRAs of OU 2 are intended to abate the source of contamination. . The IRAs
include soil removal and treatment, • The maximum areal extent of soil to be
removed at each site is shown on Figures 2-5 and 2-6. It is anticipated that the
maximum depth of excavation will be about 8 feet below land surface (bis) . It
should be noted that groundwater may be encountered at 1 to 8 feet bis, depending
on seasonal conditions. The IRA is ongoing at each site and includes:
Site 5:
excavation and separation of petroleum- and solvent-contaminated soil
and free-product-saturated soil,
ore cniy.nnri
AS-.V (>••> ••••,
-------
Table 2-1 .
Findings and Conclusions from Previous Investigations
Record of Decision
Operable Unit 2
Naval Air Station Cecil Reid
Jacksonville, Florida
Previous Study
Hydrogeologlc Assessment
and Groundwater Monitor-
ing Plan
(Geraghty & Miller, 1983)
As-Built Groundwater Mon-
itoring Network (Geraghty
& Miller, 1984)
Year-End Groundwater
Monitoring Report
(Geraghty & Miller, 1985)
Initial Assessment Study
(IAS)
(Envlrodyne Engineers,
1985)
RCRA Facility Investigation
(RFI)
(Harding'Lawson Asso-
ciates, 1988)
Tasks Completed
Sites 5 and 17 were not Included in
the study, which addressed Sites 1, 2,
3, and 4.
1. Installed groundwater monitoring
wells, Including a Site 17 well.
2. Performed first quarterly sampling.
3. Compared results to primary and
secondary drinking water standards.
Summarized quarterly well sampling.
1 . Performed records search.
2. Performed onslte survey.
3. Estimated waste quantities.
4. Performed site ranking.
5. Made recommendations for future
study.
Sites 5 and 17
1, Performed site reconnaissance.
2. Performed geophysical survey, mag-
netometer and very low frequency.
3. Installed monitoring wells (2 wells at
Site 5 and 2 wells at Site 17).
4. Collected groundwater samples.
5. Collected surface water and sediment
samples and two composite soil sam-
ples (Site 5 only).
Findings
No sampling completed.
1. No organic constituents were detected in
samples from wells at Site 17.
2. Metals sampled were below primary and
secondary standards.
1. No organic constituents were detected in
samples from wells at Site 17 during four
quarters ot sampling.
2. Metals In Site 17 well samples were, below
primary and secondary standards.
1. -Summarized available historical information
for Sites 5 and 17.
2. Identified waste oil and possibly solvents,
paints, and paint thinners as waste types.
3 Waste quantity estimates for Sites 5 and 17
could not be made.
Site 5
1, Soil: ethylbenzene and methylene chloride,
maximum 22 //g/kg; PCBs, maximum of 580
//g/kg.
2. Sediment: methylene chloride (43 //g/kg).
3. Groundwater: bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate,
naphthalene, and 2-methyl naphthalene, '
maximum 13//g/f; lead 49 //g//
Site 17
. Groundwater: no "hazardous constituents
detected."
Recommendations
1 . Place a surf icial well upgradlont of sites to
establish background water quality (well
was Inadvertently located at Site 17).
2. Do quarterly sampling for one year.
Continue quarterly sampling of
upgradient well (at Site 17).
No specific recommendations made for
the study's upgradient location (Site 17).
1. Investigation recommended at Sites 5 and
17.
2. Site 5 Install two surficlal monitoring
wells, collect two soil samples, and collect
one surface water and one sediment sam-
ple In creek at site.
3. Site 17 Install one monitoring well and
resample existing well (from Geraghty &
Miller study). Soil sampling not recom-
mended.
1. Site S Further Investigation to define
extent of hazardous constituents detect-
ed.
2. Site 17 No further action recommended.
See notes at end of table.
-------
o O
CT T.
2
CO
tb
Table 2-1 (Continued)
Findings and Conclusions from Previous Investigations
Record of Decision
Operable Unit 2
Naval Air Station Cecil Field
Jacksonville, Florida
Previous Study Tasks Completed
RI/FS Workplan for 1. Summarized existing data,
OUs 1, 2, and 7 2. Defined RI/FS objectives.
(ABB-ES, 1991) 3. Developed sampling approach to
achieve RI/FS objectives. .
Technical Memoran- 1. Completed 1991 field program.
dum for Supplemental 2. Summarized contamination detected
Sampling (ABB-ES, In soil, sediment, surface water, and
1 992a) groundwater.
3. Identified additional Information re-
quired to characterize site contami-
nation.
Findings ]
Findings are summarized in Chapter 4.0 of 1.
Remedial Investigation Report. 2.
3.
1. Findings are discussed in Chapter 4.0, 1.
•Nature and Extent of Contamination,
Remedial Investigation Report. 2.
2. Hazardous constituents detected in
soil and groundwater at both sites. 3.
3. Horizontal and vertical extent of con-
taminants not fully characterized at
either site.
4. Data gathered not sufficient to
. complete a Baseline Risk Assessment.
5. Free product detected in area of
former pit.
Recommendations
Well Installation and sampling at Sites 5 and 17.
Soil sampling at Sites 5 and 17.
Surface water and sediment sampling at Site 5.
Complete screening program to characterize extent
of detected contaminants In soil and groundwater.
Complete confirmatory sampling, based on results
of screening program.
Finalize number and location of confirmatory sam-
ples (per media) with agency approval.
Noles: RCRA = Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.
j/g/kg = mlcrogram per kilogram.'
PCBs = polychlorlnated blphenyls.
fjg/t * mlcrograms per liter.
RI/FS » Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study.
OU = operable unit.
ABB-ES = ABB Environmental Services, Inc.
-------
50
100
SCALE: 1 INCH = 100 FEET
- ~— — — Proposed rwTMdiol Kmit
— • • —• Orainage dilrt
7rae Orw
> ~~ • ^ Cifimoftd SO part per minion
total recoverable petroleum hydrocarbon
• contour
FIGURE 2-5
SITE 5, MAXIMUM AREAL EXTENT
OF SOIL REMOVAL, INTERIM
REMEDIAL ACTION
RECORD OF DECISION
OPERABLE UNIT 2
NAS CECIL FIELD
JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA
f:ec_pv.-2.Roo
nsvv OH H'j
2-10
-------
SITE 17
FORMER PIT
LOCATION
PropoMd nnwiSial limit
Estimated 50 perl per million
total recowcble petroleum hydrocarbon
contour
SCALE: 1 INCH = 100 FEET
FIGURE 2-6
SITE 17, MAXIMUM AREAL EXTENT
OF SOIL REMOVAL, INTERIM
REMEDIAL ACTION
RECORD OF DECISION
OPERABLE UNIT 2
NAS CECIL FIELD
JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA
-------
transport of free product and formerly free-product-saturated soil to
an offsite treatment and disposal facility,
treatment of- petroleum- and solvent-contaminated soil onsite in an
engineered biological treatment cell, • •
collection and analysis of samples from the open excavation to verify
the attainment of the cleanup criterion of 50 mg/kg total recoverable
petroleum hydrocarbons (TRPH), and
backfilling the excavation with, the treated soil.
Site 17:
excavation of contaminated soil, to a depth 8 feet bis and approximate-
ly 7 feet below the current water table,
processing the contaminated soil through an onsite thermal .desorption
treatment unit,
stockpiling treated soil while soil excavation is in process,
analyzing samples collected from the excavation to verify the.
attainment of the cleanup criterion of 50 mg/kg TRPH, and
backfilling the excavated area with the treated soil.
The interim Temedial action at Site 5 was initiated in March 1995, will cost
approximately $2,000,000, and will be completed in the fall of 1997. The interim
remedial action at Site 17 was initiated in February 1995, will cost
approximately $1,900,000, and will be completed in fall of 1995. These cost
estimates reflect costs to date.
2.3 HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION. The following documents were
completed and released to the public:
DOCUMENT RELEASE DATE
Final Remedial Investigation Report May, 1995
Final Baseline Risk Assessment Report May, 1995
Final Feasibility Study July, 1995
Proposed Plan August, 1995
A public meeting was held on July 25, 1995, to present the results of the RI and
the baseline Risk Assessment (RA) , the alternatives of the FS, and the preferred
alternatives and to solicit comments from the community. A 30-day comment period
was held from July 17 through August 17, 1995. No comments were received during
the public comment period.
Public notices of the availability of the Proposed Plan were placed in the Metro
section of the Florida Times Union on July 16 and 23, 1995. A notice was also
placed in the local editions of the Florida Times Union (i.e., the Clay,
Southside, and Westside editions) on July 19, 1995. These local editions target
ci;c our ROD
-------
the communities closest to NAS Cecil Field. The Proposed Plan and other
documents are available to the public at the Information Repository. Charles D.
Webb Wesconnett Branch of the Jacksonville Library, 6887 103rd Street,
Jacksonville, Florida.
2.4 SCOPE AND ROLE OF OPERABLE UNIT. Investigations at Site 5 indicated the
presence of free product, soil, sediment, and groundwater contamination from past
disposal practices. The Site 5 interim remedial action is addressing soil and
free product. The purpose of this remedial action is to remediate sediment and
groundwater that pose a risk to human health and the environment.
Investigations at Site 17 indicated the presence of soil and groundwater
contamination from past disposal practices. The Site 17 interim remedial action
is addressing soil. The purpose of this remedial action is to remediate
groundwater that poses a risk to human health and the environment:.
The following remedial action objectives (RAOs) were established .for OU 2.
RAO 1: Protect human health from potable water use of groundwater at Site? 5 and
17 that contains concentrations of volatile organic compounds (VOCs),
semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs), pesticides, and inorganics above
drinking water-based applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements
(ARARs) or risk assessment RAOs.
RAO 2: Protect ecological receptors from exposure to sediment that contains
concentrations of PCBs above guidance concentrations and TRPH that are
demonstrated to pose a toxic effect at Site 5.
Remedial actions proposed by this ROD will, address the principal threats posed
by conditions at the sites.
2 .5 SITE CHARACTERISTICS. Contaminant sources, detections, fate and transport,
contaminated media, and geologic and hydraulic conditions of OU 2 are discussed
in Chapters 3.0, 4.0, and 5.0 of the OU 2 RI report. These site characteristic
data are summarized in the following paragraphs.
Contaminant Sources. The OU 2 contaminant sources are the wastes deposited in
disposal pits and areas adjacent to the pits. At Site 5, the source generally
consists of the contaminated soil in the pit and adjacent areas and the free
product. Contaminated surface soil was detected over much of the area of
investigation, including areas away from the disposal pit. At Site 17, the
contaminated soil in and adjacent to the pit is the source. There are no known
upgradient contaminant sources at either site with respect to groundwater flow.
Surface Soil. Site 5 surface soil contaminants included SVOCs, particularly
polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), TRPH, pesticides, one polychlorinated biphenyl
"T(PCB) (Aroclor-1260), and inorganics. VOCs were detected, but in relatively low
concentrations, and appeared to be randomly distributed. SVOCs, pesticides, and
inorganics were detected over much of the area, of investigation. Most detections
and the highest concentrations, however, were detected in an? area north of the
disposal pit and not in the pit proper. TRPH was detected over most of che area
of investigation. Arochlor-1260 was detected primarily in tthe pit and adjacent
areas, with the greatest concentration being detected at a location just north
a >.: our- no
-------
of the drainage ditch. The distribution of surface soil contamination is shown
on Figure 2-7. Maximum and average contaminant concentrations illustrated on
Figure 2-7 were as shown below.
Parameter
Total VOCs
Total SVOCs
TRPH
DDT
Aroclor-1260
Beryllium
Cadmium
Manganese
Notes : ttg/kg = mic
Maximum we/kg
38 J
11,390
28,000 (mg/kg)
48 J
2,200 J
290
810
75.300 J
•rograms per kilo
Average Max Cone . Sample
8
2,110
1,440
17
441
280
785
19.700
gram.
CEF-5-SS7
CEF-5-SS23
CEF-5-SS4
CEF-5-SS1
CEF-5-SS4
CEF-5-SS27
CEF-5-SS19
CEF-5-SS20
J = estimated. - •
mg/kg — milligrams per kilogram.
DDT = dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane.
At Site 17 VOCs were detected in surface soil east and south of the pit. Highest
concentrations were of the solvents acetone and 2-butanone.. SVOCs were detected
over much of the area of investigation, though many detections were of phthalate
esters, which are common laboratory contaminants. Phenolic compounds, were
detected in the eastern part of the pit and the eastern part of the area of
investigation. TRPH was detected in•the pit and immediately adjacent areas.
PCBs were not detected in the surface soil. Inorganics were detected over most
of the area of investigation and appear to be naturally occurring.
The distribution of surface soil contamination is shown on Figure 2-8. Maximum
and average contaminant concentrations illustrated on Figure 2-8 were as shown
below.
Parameter Maximum (yg/kg)
Total VOCs 6,600 J
Total SVOCs 1,110 J
TRPH 210 (mg/kg)
Average
1,420
233
76
Max Cone. Sample
CEF-17-SS8
CEF-17-SS3
CEF-17-SS8
Risks to human health or the environment posed by contaminants in the surface
soil at OU 2 are discussed in Section 2.6, Summary of Site Risks.
Subsurface Soil. VOCs in the subsurface soil at Site 5 include solvents and
petroleum-related contaminants. The greatest VOC concentrations were detected
within the disposal pit and west and north of the disposal pit. SVOCs were
detected in the disposal pit, the areas immediately adjacent to the pit, and
along the north, side of the drainage ditch. SVOCs were also detected in the
northernmost part of the area of investigation. This northern location appears
to be contamination separate from that detected in the disposal pit area and is
included in the IRA. TRPH was detected over much of the area of investigation.
Highest TRPH concentrations, however, are. associated with the disposal pit.
Pesticides were detected at perimeter locations of the area of investigation and
appear to be randomly distributed. Aroclor-~L260 was detected in the southern
part of the area of investigation, extending from just north of the disposal pit
to the drainage ditch. Concentrations greater than 1 part per million were
detected in the western part of the disposal pit and at one location north of the
-------
-5-SS2K\V
NOTE: Contours were developed based
on corrfirmoforY soil samples colleded
from 0 to 0.5 foot below land surface
CEF-5-SS*
' Surface soil sample and designation
Area of investigation
_ Drainage ditch
Tree line
. ^_ Two! rvcowrobw pclroreurn nraroconwns
Potychlorinaled biphenrls, Arador-1260
greater than 100 microgrcms per diagram
4l4'-0ichloraphtnyf trichlorotlhone
delected
greater than SO milligrams per kilogram
Semhrolatile organic compounds
greater than 6,000 micrograms per kilogram
VoiafiK organic compounds
greater than 10 microgrcms per kilogram
Inorganics (manganese, beryllium, and cadmium) \_
value
delected at greater than 2 limes background
FIGURE 2-7
SITE 5, SURFACE SOIL CONTAMINATION
RECORD OF DECISION
OPERABLE UNIT 2
NAS CECIL FIELD
JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA
ci-c oi';'.i;o
AS'-V ')'•• '.•':
-------
SITE 17
FORMER PIT
LOCATION
SCALE: 1 INCH = 100 FEET
NOrt: Contours were developed based
on confirmatory soil samples collected
from 0 to 0.5 foot below land surface.
No inorganics of concern were
detected in surface soil greater Irian 2 times
.background value.
LEGEND
,ttM7-SS3 , . , . . . . .
Surface soil sample and designation
Area of investigation
Tree fine
Total recoverable petroleum hydrocarbons
greater then 50 milligrams per kilogram
Sentfvolofile oraonic compounds
detected
Volatile organic compounds
greater than 100 micrograras per kilogram
FIGURE 2-8
SITE 17, SURFACE SOIL CONTAMINATION
H \ 95JQ\C£07CO\Jt.'- -
-------
drainage ditch. Inorganics were detected throughout the area of investigation
at concentrations not significantly different from background concentrations.
The distribution of subsurface soil contamination at Site 5 is shown on Figure
2-9. Maximum and average concentrations of contaminants illustrated on Figure
2-9 were as shown below.
Parameter
Total VOCs
Total SVOCs
TRPH
DDT
Aroclor-1260
Maximum (yE/ke)
72,900 J
122,000
28,000 J
11 J
1,500 J
Average
Max Cone. Sample
12,200 BOR-5-6
23,300 ' BOR-5-6
5.320(mg/kg) CF-5-BR10S
7.8 CF-5-MS19S
622 BOR-5-1
VOCs in the subsurface soil at Site 17 include solvents and petroleum-related
contaminants, with the greatest concentrations being detected within the disposal
pit and immediately east of the disposal pit. The distribution of SVOCs and TRPH
is similar to that of VOCs, with greatest contaminant concentrations generally
•occurring in the eastern area of the disposal pit. Pesticides were detected at
relatively low concentrations and appear to be randomly distributed. PCBs were
not . detected in the subsurface soil at Site 17. Inorganics were detected
throughout the area of investigation; only thallium was detected at concentra-.
tions significantly different from background concentrations. (Thallium was not
detected in background samples.) The distribution of subsurface soil contamina-
tion is shown on Figure 2-10. Maximum and average concentrations of contaminants
illustrated on Figure 2-10 were as shown below.
Parameter
Total VOCs
Total SVOCs
TRPH
Pesticides
Maximum (MS/kg)
78,000
87,600
25,000 (mgAg)
10
Average
5 , 170
' ' 12,700
3,550
2.8
Max Cone. Sample
BOR-17-2
CF-17-BR10S
BOR-17-1
BOR-17-1
Risks to human health or the environment posed by contaminants in the surface
soil at OU 2 are discussed in Section 2.6, Summary of Site Risks.
Groundwater. Contamination at Site 5 and 17 is limited to the surficial aquifer,
generally to the upper 25 feet of the aquifer.
Approximately 300 gallons of free product were detected at Site 5. The free
product is located in the northeastern part of the disposal pit (Figure 2-11).
Monitoring well CEF-5-6S is located in the eastern part of the product. Analysis
and evaluation indicate that the product is either weathered kerosene or jet fuel
containing 26 milligrams per liter (mg/j?) PCBs.
VOCs and SVOCs detected in Site 5 groundwater included solvents and petroleum-
related contaminants. VOCs, SVOCs, and TRPH were detected from the disposal pit
area southward to the drainage ditch. (Acetone was detected at low concentra-
tions in samples from two monitoring wells located south of the drainage ditch).
Groundwater data indicated several inorganics at concentrations in excess of
drinking water standards. Groundwater samples, however, were turbid and those
concentrations were associated with particu.late matter and not the groundwater
ci c oij? nna
ASVV O'l !>'.,
2-17
-------
HCIC:Caitoun «n dncloptd bostd
on wiift iiuwfy ttM sorapfffs c-ontcfto
from 2 to « M tp.fc.fcxl surfoa.
No jnornanfcs of conctm vin
in aosurfact cad al creafor than 2 tiftm th«
}
50
100
SCALE: I INCH = 100 FEET
kiphwjh, Aroclor-1260
Sf greater than 100 micrograira per Uogrom
IrictiloroeltxnM
5GEHD
Areo of imesfigcfion
_ . . ^ . . — Oroinoje oUcti
(^v^-vv^v^~^v tree SM
Trfo) ncm«iul)l« pdrohura hydncorbent CT-5-KS19S Subnirfoce nil
"* ' mm ' mm ' *** grecfer than SO milligratm per blogram • jomph pnd
. ,, . desgndion
^ ^ _ vMnuvoloiui ofj^^K cotnpounds
gfcoier ifioft 0,000 imcro^ronu ptf Itnoflruin
•• •• mm mm vv Voiciite oryonic oontpovods
greoter than 100 microgrorm ptr kilogfom
FIGURE 2-9
SITE 5, SUBSURFACE SOIL CONTAMINATION
RECORD OF DECISION
OPERABLE UNIT 2
NAS CECIL FIELD
JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA
ccc on:; MOI.I
-------
7
j
3 I *--£~siTEr7
r t f FORUFI
j
SITE 17 ~—*
FORMER PIT J
LOCATION
»
N
A
NOTt: Contours were developed based
on confirmatory soil samples collected
from 2 to 6 (c«t belo* kind surface.
Mo inorganics of concern were
detected in surface soil greater than 2 limes
background value.
Subsurface soil sample and designation
Area of investigation
Tree fine
Total recoverable petro!euni hydrocarbons
greater than SO milligrams per kilogram
Semivolatile organic compounds
detected
Volatile organic compounds
greater (ban 100 miaogroms per kilogram
Pesticides greater than I microgrom
per kilogram
50
100
SCALE: 1 INCH = 100 FEET
FIGURE 2-10
SITE 17, SUBSURFACE SOIL CONTAMINATION
"Spy. 0<07QO'. .'vwv 09-21-95
REPORT OF DECISION
OPERABLE UNIT 2
NAS CECIL FIELD
JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA
CCC OU2.ROD
ASW.O9.aS
2-19
-------
MOTE: Contain an taMd on 1993 anxmtafcr
onoMtcol mutts irom nwosortng VMS scfttntd m Int
wriad wte.
raped (UB-C. 1»4b).
Ana of inwsEgotion
ttstetti defected
Totol rtcovcrobw pcfrowuni
greater Dion 5 miaigrann ptr Utr
compounds
grtaler ttran 10 micrograms per Her
Area of free product
•oniiortnQ vcH QUO dtsiQnoliofl
^ •_ ^ ^ ^ Volotil« organic compounds
dctecicd
SCALE: 1 INCH = tOO FEET
^ II
FIGURE 2-11
SITE 5, GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION
RECORD OF DECISION
OPERABLE UNIT 2
NAS CECIL FIELD
JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA
-------
itself. Additional groundwater samples were collected, using quiescent sampling
methods and inorganic concentrations vere below drinking water standards or
similar to background concentrations. Details of the quiescent sampling results
are presented in a letter to the regulatory agencies, dated September 22, 1995.
Pesticides were detected at two locations, one in the pit and associated with tire
free product (from monitoring well CEF-5-6S) and one just southeast and
downgradient of the free product (from monitoring well CEF-5-5S) . PCBs were not
detected in the groundwater. Several inorganics were detected in the groundwa-
ter, with only one upgradient sample concentration posing a human health risk.
The distribution of groundwater contamination is shown on Figure 2-11. Maximum
and average contaminant concentrations illustrated on Figure 2-11 were as shown
below. Except where noted, concentrations are in micrograms per liter (fig/Ji).
Parameter
Total VOCs
Total SVOCs
TRPH
Pesticides
Maximum (vK/t) Average
. 1,320 J 610
1,460 417
21(ng/je) 9.3
0.33 J 0.27
Max Cone . Sample
CEF-5-4S r
CEF-5-4S
CEF-5-6S
CEF-5-6S
The greatest concentrations of VOCs and SVOCs in the groundwater at Site 17 were
detected in the disposal pit area and immediately east of the disposal pit. VOCs
and SVOCs were detected a maximum distance of approximately 130 feet southwest
of the pit. TRPH was detected in several wells, but at relatively low
concentrations. One pesticide, beta-hexachlorocyclohexahe (/3-HCH), was detected
in three groundwater samples and appears to be randomly distributed. PCBs were
not detected in the groundwater. Several inorganics were detected in the
groundwater, but pose no risk. The distribution of groundwater contaminants is
shown on Figure 2-12. Maximum and average contaminant concentrations illustrated
on Figure 2-12 were as listed below.
Parameter Maximum ttg/l Average Max Cone. Sample
Total VOCs 28,000 J 4,040 CEF-17-24S
Total SVOCs 60,600 J 10,900 CEF-17-24S
Risks to human health or the environment posed by contaminants in the groundwater
at OU 2 are discussed in Section 2.6, Summary of Site Risks.
Surface Water and Sediment. Surface water and sediment samples were collected
from the drainage ditch at Site 5. VOCs and inorganics were detected in the
surface water at concentrations such that the contaminants pose no risks. VOCs,
SVOCs, TRPH, pesticides and PCBs, and inorganics were detected in the sediment
samples. The greatest number of detections and greatest concentrations were in
sediment collected immediately downgradient of the disposal pit area. The
presence of pesticides, PCBs, and TRPH pose ecological risks. Sediment sample
results are given on Figure 2-13.
One surface water and two sediment samples were collected from the wetland east
and topographically downgradient of Site 17. SVOCs and inorganics were detected
in the surface water sample. Low concentrations of VOCs, SVOCs, pesticides, and
inorganics were detected in the sediment samples. These contaminants pose no
risks. Sample results are given on Figure 2-14. '
ci c_ou:> HOU
A-..v7.'.-.:-:•;, 2-21
-------
7
i
•M^'-^^s'irct? ~"
FORMER PIT
LOCATION
» -0-
^
CEF-17-19SV
4. CEF-17-13S
* A.*
CEF-17-16S
•^
r
l._J
hOUi Contours on bead on 1993 groindmter
onojyficd results from monfloring wells screened in the
upper turficxil wefli.
sn DM RtrMdial Inm69o1i
-------
-------
ccr-ulws
* "-••-. \
* CEr-17-20l-~ , f*Ctr-l7-6S
f-
xccr-i7-iti
Jccr-17-iT.o
I «Crf-|7-SO-2
* CEf-17-SW/SO
SCDlMfNT ^U
2-fl= (4J> MJ) 2«iP
4Uf>e C3TJ> »7JI PHT
00€= (O.S5J) W.7JI P=
or Art WATCH .
c IMI \
f
CEf-17-150
^
ctr-tT-Ki
f -) 7-16S ^NO: Ctr - J 7-lED
cer-17-171
I !
N
(I
IECQB
^Ctr-17-I2CU_.
t(: I INCH • oo r((t
BGURE2-M
STTE T7, ORCAWC COUPOUHDS IN SURFACE
WATER AND SED1MEKT
.^•--^.^ RECORD OF Of CISIOH
"*" ""$•<•. OPERABLC OHIT 7
-------
2.6 SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS. The risk assessment completed for OU 2 identifiedX
human health risk at both sites and ecological risks at Site 5. /
At Site 5, the calculated incremental cancer risks and noncancer hazards
associated with surface soil, subsurface soil, surface water, and sediment wefe
all acceptable per USEPA guidance of 1 in 10,000 to 1 in 1,000,000 (10"* to 10'6
for carcinogenic endpoints and a hazard index of less than 1 for noncarcinogenic
endpoints) . The cancer risk derived for domestic use of the groundwater from the
surficial aquifer (ingestion of groundwater and inhalation of VOCs while
showering with groundwater) by an adult was 3 in 10,000 (3X10"*). The risk was
due primarily to 0-HCH. A hazard index of 10 was associated with domestic use
of groundwater by an adult. The noncarcinogenic hazard is due primarily to the
ingestion of the SVOCs 4-methylphenol and naphthalene and the VOC acetone. Risks
posed by inorganics indic'ated only arsenic from the groundwater sample from well
CEF-5-14I poses a human health incremental cancer risk of 8 in 100/000 (8X10'5).
Arsenic was detected at a concentration of 4.4 Mg/^, well below the drinking
water standard of 50 fJ-g/%- Monitoring well CEF-5-MW-14I is located in the
northwest part of Site 5, approximately 280 feet from and upgradient of the
former disposal pit. Human health risks posed by contaminants at Site 5 are
given in Table 2-2, Cancer and Noncancer Risks Posed by Domestic Use of-Site 5
Groundwater to an Adult Resident.
Potential risks for'ecological receptors at Site 5 were evaluated for ecological
contaminants of potential concern (ECPCs) in surface soil, surface water,
sediment; and groundwater. A summary of these risks is presented in Table 2-3,
Site 5 Ecological Assessment Summary.
Risks for soil invertebrates and plants were evaluated based on the results of
laboratory toxicity testing of surface soil samples from Site 5 with earthworms •
(£isenza jfoetida) and-one plant species,' lettuce (Lactuca sativa) . With the -
exception of soil from station CF5-SS-4, no risks associated with exposure to
surface soil were identified for terrestrial wildlife, soil invertebrates, or
plants. At station CF5-SS-4, significant worm mortality and reduced lettuce seed
germination rates were observed. It is likely that elevated TRPH or Aroclor-1260
concentrations (28,000 and 2.2 milligrams per kilogram [mg/kg], respectively)
contributed to the observed effects in the surface soil laboratory toxicity
tests.
Evaluation of contamination in surface water and sediment is based on collection
of analytical samples from the drainage ditch and wetland adjacent to Site 5.
At each sampling station, surface water and sediment samples were analyzed to
determine the extent and type of contamination; additionally, sediment samples
were submitted for laboratory toxicity testing with two organisms (the water flea
[Ceriodaphnia dubia] and the amphipod [tfyalella azteca), and samples of the
benthic macroinvertebrate community-were collected. The results of the three
analyses were analyzed in a weight-of-evidence approach to identify and
characterize risks for aquatic receptors.
Review of analyses of the benthic macroinvertebrate sampling results indicate
little impairment of the benthic community at the Site 5 tributary. However,
evaluation of the sediment toxicity test data suggests that certain organisms may
be affected by exposure to sediment. The data suggest that the responses may be
associated with elevated concentrations of Aroclor-1260, 4,4'-DDT, or TRPH
emanating from Site 5.
cnc oi.i7.noo ,
ASW 09.95 • P-f-'ij
-------
Table 2-2
Cancer and Noncancer Risks Posed by Domestic Use of Site S Grpundwater
to an Adult Resident
Record of Decision
Operable Unit 2
Naval Air Station Cecil Field
Jacksonville. Rorida
Chemical
Concentration
Total Cancer Risk1
(Percent of Total)
Total Noncancer Hazard Index2
(Percent of Total)
Acetone
Benzene
2-Hexanone
Toluene
Trichloroethene
Bis(2-ethylhexyf)phthalate .
2,4-dimethylphenol
2-methylnaphthalene
•4-melnyl phenol
Naphthalene
Alpha-chlordane
Beta-hexachlorocyclohexane
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic3
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Potassium
Selenium
Sodium
Vanadium
Total Route-Specific Cancer
8,500
16
60
180
16.6
66.7
38.5
116
508
226
0.15
4.5
504,000
29.4
•4.4
187
3-2
3
25,300
187
35,600
108
4,230
68
0.31
3,260
6.8
9,990
314
and Noncancer Risk:
NA
8 x 10" (2.9%)
NA
NA
SxlO"6 (1%)
1 x 10'6 (3.9%)
NA
NA
NA
NA
2x10* (<1%)
1 xlO" (33.9%)
NA
NA
NC
NA
2x10" (57.1%)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
3x10"
2 (8.8%)
2 (5.8%)
NA
4x-lDJ(<1%)
7x10'' (<1%)
9x10'J(<1%)
5x10'2(<1%)
NA
3 (10.8%)
2x10-1 (<1%)
7x10'2 (<1%)
NA
14 (53.8%)
2x10 (<7.7%)
NC
7 x 10'2 (< 1%)
2x10'' (<1%)
2x10''
NA
1 (3.8%)
NA
NA
NA
3x10'2(<1%)
NA
4x10'3(<1%)
NA
1 (4.6%)
26
1 Cancer risk values are-rounded to one significant figure.-- Percent was calculated before rounding.
2 Hazard index values are rounded to one significant figure. Percent was calculated before rounding.
3 Arsenic was detected in one sample collected from a location upgradient of Site 5. Sample was collected in May 1995,
after the field phase of the remedial investigation.
Example: 2 X 10" is equal to 2 in 10,000.
Notes: fjg/t = micrograms per liter.
NA = not applicable.
% = percent of total risk or hazard.
< = less than.
NC = not calculated.
ci.c ou;> KOD
A::AV Of. :••:,
-------
Table 2-3
Site 5 Ecological Assessment Summary
Record of Decision
Operable Unit 2
Naval Air Station Cecil Field
Jacksonville, Florida
Receptor
Medium
Surface Soil
Surface Water
Sediment
Future Groundwater
Discharge
Terrestrial and wetland wildlife None None
Terrestrial plant PCB. TRPH NA
Soil invertebrate PCB, TRPH NA
Benthic macroinvertebrates NA None
None NA
NA NA
NA NA
PCB. 4,4'-DDT. TRPH1 ' None'
1 Drainage ditch only.
3 Wetland and drainage ditch.
Notes: None = no effect.
NA = not applicable.
PCB = polychlorinated biphenyl.
TRPH = total recoverable petroleum hydrocarbon.
DDT = dichlorodipheny! trichloroethane.
crc_ou?.i:.oo
AfAV O9 «•')
-------
At Site 17, the calculated cancer risks and noncancer hazards associated with
surface soil, subsurface soil, surface water, and sediment were all acceptable
per USEPA guidance. The cancer risk derived for domestic use of the groundwater
from the surficial aquifer by an adult was 2 in 1,000 (2 X 10"3) , greater than
90 percent of which is due to the VOC methylene chloride. A hazard index of -3b
was associated with domestic use of groundwater by an adult. Approximately 37
percent of the hazard index can be attributed to the presence of the VOC
methylene chloride. Other contaminants contributing to the hazard index are the
SVOCs 2,4-dimethylphenol, 2-methylphenol, 4-methylphenol, and phenol and the VOC
benzene. Inorganics were assessed as posing risks. Evaluation of inorganic
concentrations indicated no risks are posed by inorganics. Human health risks
posed by contaminants at Site 17 are given in Table 2-4, Cancer and Noncancer
Risks Posed by Domestic Use of Site 17 Groundwater to an Adult Resident.
Potential risks for ecological receptors were evaluated for ECP.Cs in surface
soil, surface water, and sediment at Site 17. A summary of these risks is
presented in Table 2-5. Results indicate that there are no ecological risks at
Site 17.
2.7 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES. This section provides a narrative of each
alternative evaluated. A detailed tabular assessment of each alternative can be
found in Table 8-1 of the FS. Alternatives were developed for sediment at Site
5 and groundwater at Sites 5 and 17. Soil at both sites is being addressed by
ongoing interim remedial actions that are intended to be the final actions for
soil at each site. No other media contain contaminants above risk-based levels.
2.7.1 Sediment Alternatives Analyzed Three sediment alternatives were analyzed
for Site 5. They include SD-1, No Action; SD-2, Excavation and Biological
Treatment; and SD-3, Excavation and Offsite Disposal. No sediment alternatives
were developed for Site 17.
SD-1 No-Action. Evaluation of the no action alternative is required by law.
This alternative will leave the site the way it exists today. Ecological risks
from the sediment would not be immediately improved as SD-1 relies on natural
degradation and dispersion processes that will occur over several years.
Contamination would be left in place with potential for movement to other surface
water bodies, such as Lake Fretwell. Site conditions would be reviewed once
every 5 years, and future remedial actions would not be prevented.
Capital costs to implement SD-1 are $0. The present worth of operations and
maintenance (O&M) cost, based on 5 percent for 30 years, is $154,000.
SD-2 Excavation and Biological Treatment. This alternative involves excavating
approximately 330 yd3 of sediment and treating it in the biological treatment
cell constructed for the interim remedial action for Site 5 soil. Up to the top
2 feet of sediment would be removed along the length of the drainage ditch.
Sampling would be used to identify the extent of excavation needed. Once in the
treatment cell, the sediment will be placed in windrows and monitored for
biological activity. Nutrients will be added, the proper moisture content
•maintained, and the optimum oxygen level will be kept by mechanically turning the
windrow when necessary. The treatment goal is to reduce TRPH concentrations in
the sediment from the current average concentration of 490 mg/kg to 50 mg/kg.
-------
Cancer and
Table
Noncancer Risks Posed by
to an Adult
2-4
Domestic Use
Resident
of Site 17 Ground water
•
Record of Decision
Operable Unit 2
Naval Air Station Cecil Reid
Jacksonville, Florida •
Chemical
Benzene
1 ,2-Dichloroethene
Methylene chloride
Trichloroethene
bis(2-Ethylhexy1)phthalate
2,4-Dimethylphenol
2-Methytphenol
4-Methylphenol-
Naphthalene
Phenol
beta-Hexachlorocyclohexane
Aluminum
Arsenic
Calcium
Chromium
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Potassium
Sodium
Vanadium
Total Route-Specific Cancer
Concentration
to/*)
14.6
12
24,000
14.4
6
953
3,830
692
21.1
5,550
0.03
201,000
6.2
62,900
104
9,050
38.9
3,330
221
3,230
20,500
54.6
and Noncancer Risk: • "
Total Cancer Risk'
(Percent of Total)
7x10* (<1%)
NA
2x10J (95.4%)
2x10*(<1%)
IxlO"6 (<1%)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
6x10"' (<1%)
NA
1 x 10"4 (5.4%)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2x10'3
Total Noncancer Hazard Index'
(Percent of Total)
i (4.6%)
4x10'2 (<1%)
1 x 10' (37%)
6x10'3 (<1%)
8x10' (<1%)
1 (4.6%)
2 (7.4%) .
4 (13.5%)
1x10'2(<1%)
3x10"' (1%)
NA
6 (19.5%)
6x10'v (2%)
NA
6x10'' (2%)
NA
NA
NA
1 (4.2%)
NA
NA
2x10'' (1%)
40
1 Cancer risk values are rounded to one significant figure. Percent was calculated before rounding.
9 Hazard index values are rounded to one significant figure. Percent was calculated before rounding.
Example: 2 X 10"* is equal to 2 in 10,000.
Notes: pg/l - micrograms
< = less than.
NA = not applicable
% = percent of total
per liter.
risk or hazard. .
CtC OUP.HOO
ASW O!> !•'.!
-------
Table 2-5
Site 17 Ecological Assessment Summary
Record at Decision
Operable Unit 2
Naval Air Station Cecil Field
Jacksonville, Florida
Receptor
Medium
Surface Soil
Surface Water
Sediment
Future Groundwater
Discharge
Terrestrial wildlife
Terrestrial plant
Soil invertebrate
Benthic macroinvertebrates
None
None'
None
NA
NE
NA
NA
NE
NE
NA
NA
None
NA
NA
NA
NA
1 Slight reduction of lettuce seed germination believed to be associated with a nonecological contaminants of potential concern
(ECPC) stressor.
Notes: NA = not applicable.
None = no effect.
NE = not evaluated.
'c on? HOD
-.w os H'.i
-------
Treatment time is estimated to be 90 days. The drainage ditch will be backfilled
with clean material. Once treated, the sediment will be used as fill material
for industrial applications.
Two major ARARs are associated with SD-2. The first is Chapter 62-775, Florida
Administrative Code (FAC) , Florida Soil Thermal Treatment Facilities Regulations,
which establishes the 50 mg/kg cleanup level. The second is Executive Order
11990, 40 CFR Part 6, Protection of Wetlands. Excavation of sediment would
destroy some wetland habitat, but cleanup would improve wetland over the long
term. SD-2 is expected to be in compliance with all ARARs. No treatability
study was performed on sediment; however, a treatability study was performed on
Site 5 soil with similar contaminants which concluded that soil could be
bioremediated to reach the cleanup goal.
The. estimated time for design, construction, and implementation is 4 months.
The estimated capital costs are $199,000, and the estimated O&M cost is $37,000.
.The estimated total cost is $236,000 over an estimated 4-month field implementa-
tion period. The cost to construct the treatment cell (currently under
construction) is estimated to be $700,000.
SD-3 Excavation and Offsite Disposal. This alternative involves excavating
approximately 330 yd3 of sediment and disposing of it in an off site landfill.
For cost estimating purposes, it was assumed the sediment would be transported
to a Subtitle C facility. Excavation and backfill would be the same as described
Ln SD-2. The major ARAR associated with SD-3 is Executive Order 11990, 40 CFR
Part 6, Protection of Wetlands. The same issues described in SD-2 apply. SD-3
is expected to be in compliance with all ARARs. No treatability study was
performed.
The estimated time for design and construction is 1 month. The estimated capital
costs are $327,000. There are no O&M costs associated with SD-3.
2.7.2 Groundwater Alternatives Analyzed Six groundwater alternatives have been
developed to address groundwater contaminants at each site. At Site 5,
contaminants" have migrated to the southeast approximately 300 feet from the
disposal pit (source) area. At Site 17, contaminants have migrated to the. east
approximately 130 feet from the eastern edge of the pit. Groundwater alterna-
tives evaluated include GW-1, No Action; GW-2, Natural Attenuation; GW-3, Air
Sparging; GW-4, Groundwater Extraction and Treatment by Air Stripping and Carbon
Adsorption; GW-5, Groundwater Extraction and Treatment by UV/OX; and GW-6, In
Situ Air Stripping/Biological Treatment.
GW-1 No-Action. Evaluation of the no action alternative is required by law.
This alternative will leave the site the way it exists today. Site conditions
would be reviewed once every 5 years", and future remedial actions would not be
prevented.
Capital costs to implement GW-1 are $0. The present worth of O&M costs, based
on 5 percent for 15 years, is $104,000.
GW-2 Natural Attenuation. This alternative consists of a monitoring and modeling
program Co determine the effectiveness of naturally occurring biodegradation.
A series of monitoring wells would be installed and initially sampled quarterly.
Some monitoring wells will be installed within the plume to characterize
-------
contaminant concentrations. Others will be located downgradient of the plume,
beginning at the plume's leading edge and outward to monitor possible contaminant
migration and to help determine if additional enhancement is, .needed. Analyses
will be performed for. chemicals of concern (to monitor degradation rates) and
other parameters (to monitor for biological activity) including dissolved oxygen,
sulf ate/sulf ide , total and dissolved iron, methane/ethene , oxidation/reduction
potential, pH, temperature, conductivity, alkalinity, nitrate, carbon dioxide,
and chloride. GW-2 would also include implementation of land-use restrictions
or other institutional controls to prevent exposure to and use of groundwater as
a potable water supply. In the short term, this alternative would not comply
with chemical -specific ARARs; however, GW-2 is expected to comply with all ARARs
in the long term. Until ARARs are met, use of groundwater will be restricted.
The estimated time for design and construction is 6 months. The estimated time
of operation is 15 years. The estimated capital costs are $20,000. The
estimated present worth of O&M costs, based on 5 percent for 15 years, is
$212,000. The estimated present worth total cost is §232,000.
GW-3 Air Sparging. This alternative would reduce risks by treating groundwater
in situ. Air sparging involves pumping air through wells into the groundwater.
Organic compounds are removed from the groundwater by transferring them into the
gas phase. The gas is then extracted from the vadose zone (soil above the water
table), passed through granular activated carbon, and vented to the atmosphere.
Contamination would also be reduced by introducing oxygen to the subsurface soil
and groundwater to increase biological activity.
Remediation under this alternative would proceed until remedial action objectives
(including target cleanup levels) are met. The target cleanup levels identified
would be in compliance with chemical- specific ARARs. It is possible that health
risk-based RAOs will be met before all of -the individual target cleanup levels
have been reached. The alternative would comply with location and action-
specific ARARs.
The estimated time for design and construction is 8 months. The estimated time
of operation is 4 years. The estimated capital costs are $1,083,000. The
estimated present worth of O&M costs, based on 5 percent for 4 years, is
$555,000. The estimated present worth total cost is $1,633,000.
GW-4 Groundwater Extraction and Treatment by Air Stripping and Carbon Adsorption.
Groundwater would be pumped from the shallow aquifer using three to five
extraction wells. Extracted groundwater would be treated with an air stripper
to remove volatile organic compounds. Semivolatile organic compounds and
pesticides would be removed using carbon adsorption. Treated groundwater would
be discharged into a specially designed infiltration basin, which would allow the
clean groundwater to eventually filter back into the aquifer. Compliance with.
ARARs is the same as GW-3.
The estimated time for design and construction is 8 months. The estimated time
of operation is 6 years. The estimated capital costs are $1,533,000. The
estimated present worth of O&M costs, based on 5 percent for 6 years, is
$1,482,000. The estimated present worth total cost is $3,015,000.
GW-5 Groundwater Extraction and Treatment by UV/OX. Groundwater would be pumped
from the shallow aquifer using three to five extraction wells. Extracted
Cl:C OUS.HOO
-------
groundwater would be treated with ultraviolet light (UV) and an oxidant (OX)
(e.g., hydrogen peroxide) to destroy contaminants. Treated groundwater would be
discharged into a specially designed infiltration basin, which would allow the
clean groundwater to filter back into the aquifer. Compliance with ARARs is the
same as GW-3. • •
The estimated time for design and construction is 8 months. The estimated time
of operation is 6 years. The estimated capital costs are $1,575,000. The
estimated present worth of O&M costs, based on 5 percent for 6 years, is
$1,304,000. The estimated present worth total cost is $2,879,000.
GU-6 In Situ Stripping and Biological Treatment. Vertical wells would be in-
stalled that circulate groundwater through the well, and air would be introduced
to strip volatile organic compounds and promote biological breakdown of other
contaminants. Stripped volatile organics are collected from the .upper portion
of the well and treated as necessary prior to release to the atmosphere. This
is an innovative technology which poses the risk of not reaching cleanup goals.
This alternative would eventually achieve chemical-specific ARARs for VOCs such
as benzene and methylene chloride through in situ air stripping. If would
further achieve removal of SVOCs through biodegradation in groundwater. This
alternative would not reduce the concentrations of inorganic contaminants such
as aluminum, antimony, arsenic, iron, and manganese, except through natural
.biological, chemical, and physical processes which may be modified by in sicu air'
stripping. Groundwater and biological monitoring will be used to model
degradation to assess compliance with ARARS. Biological monitoring will include
dissolved oxygen, carbon dioxide, sulfate/sulfide, total and dissolved iron,
oxidation and/or reduction potential, pH, temperature, conductivity, and nitrate.
Location and action-specific ARARs would be met.
The estimated time for design and construction is 8 months. The estimated time
of operation is 4 years. The estimated capital costs are $1,082,000. The
estimated present worth of O&M costs, based on 5 percent for 4 years, is
$555,000. The estimated present worth total cost is $1,632,000.
2.8 SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES. This section evaluates and
compares each of the alternatives with respect to the nine criteria outlined in
Section 300.430(s) of the NCP. These criteria are categorized as threshold,
primary balancing, or modifying. Table 2-6 gives an explanation of the
evaluation criteria.
A detailed analysis was performed on the alternatives using the nine evaluation
criteria in order to select a site remedy. The following is a summary of the
comparison of each alternative's strength and weakness with respect to the nine
evaluation criteria. Table 2-7 presents the evaluation of contaminated sediment
remedial alternatives. Table 2-8 presents the evaluation of contaminated
groundwater remedial alternatives.
•2.9 SELECTED REMEDIES. Three remedies were selected to supplement the ongoing
interim remedial actions at OU 2: one for the sediment at Site 5 and one each
for the groundwater at Site 5 and at Site 17.
Crc OII2.HOO
A:>-.V os :•'•. 2-33
-------
Table 2-6
Explanation of Evaluation Criteria
Record of Decision
Operable Unit 2
Naval Air Station Cecil Reid
Jacksonville, Rorida
Criteria
Description
Threshold Overall Protection of Human Hearth and the Environment. This criterion evaluates
the degree to which each alternative eliminates, reduces, or controls threats, to human health and
the environment through treatment, engineering methods, or institutional controls (e.g., access
restrictions).
Compliance with State and Federal Regulations. The alternatives are evaluated
for compliance with environmental protection regulations determined to be applicable or relevant
and appropriate to the site conditions.
Primary Long-Term Effectiveness. The alternatives are evaluated based on their ability to
Balancing maintain reliable protection of human health and the environment after implementation.
Reduction of Contaminant Toxicity, Mobility, and Volume. Each alternative is
evaluated based on how it reduces the harmful nature of the contaminants, their ability to move
through the environment, and the amount of contamination.
Short-Term Effectiveness. The risks that implementation of a particular remedy may pose to workers and
nearby residents (e.g., whether contaminated dust will be produced during excavation), as well as the
reduction in risks that results by controlling the contaminants, is assessed. The length of time needed to
implement each alternative is also considered.
Implementability. The technical feasibility and administrative ease (e.g., the amount of coordination with
other government agencies that is needed) of a remedy, including availability of necessary goods and ser-
vices, is assessed. 1
Cost The benefits of implementing a particular alternative are weighed against the cost of implementa-
tion.
Modifying U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and Rorida Department of Environmental Protection
(FDEP) Acceptance. The final Feasibility Study and the Proposed Plan, which are placed in the Information
Repository, represent a consensus by the Navy, USEPA and FDEP.
Community Acceptance. The Navy assesses community acceptance of the preferred alternative by giving
the public an opportunity to comment on the remedy selection process and the preferred alternative and
then responds to those comments.
cro_OD? ROD
AfAV (M :'•'.•
-------
§8
CO
O'l
Table 2-7
Comparative Analysis of Contaminated Sediment Remedial Alternatives
Record of Decision
Operable Unit 2
Naval Air
Station Cecil Field
Jacksonville, Florida •
Criterion
Alternative SD-1: No Action
Alternative SD-2: Excavation and Onsite Biological
Treatment
Alternative SD-3: Excavation
and Offslte Disposal
Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
How risks are eliminated,
reduced, or controlled.
Short-term or cross-
media effects.
Compliance with ARARo
Chemical-, location-, and
action-specific ARARs.
Long-Term Effectiveness
Magnitude of residual
risk
Adequacy of controls
Reliability of controls
Alternative SD-1 would not eliminate, reduce,
or control the risk to ecological receptors.
No short-term or cross-media adverse effects
are expected. x
SD-1 would not comply with ARARs.
'
and Permanence
Removal or treatment processes would not be
used to address site contamination during the
Implementation of the no action alternative;
therefore, no reduction of risk to ecological
receptors would be achieved.
Implementation of Alternative SD-1 would
provide no Immediate and long-term source
control at Site 5.
No control of contaminants Is provided.
Based on past site Investigations, site condi-
tions are expected to remain unchanged.
Five-year site reviews would be used to assess
change In site conditions over time to ensure
long-term effectiveness and permanence.
Alternative SD-2 would provide an Increased level
of protection to the environment because risks via
direct contact or ingestlon of contaminants at the
site are minimized. Worker health and safety re-
quirements would be maintained.
Cross-media contamination through volatilization
during excavation and handling may occur,
SD-2 would comply if 50 parts per million (ppm)
total recoverable petroleum hydrocarbon (TRPH)
level can be achieved and effects to wetland are
minimized.
The reduction in risk at Site 5 would be permanent
because contaminated sediment would be
removed and treated. Actual risk associated with
hazardous constituents in sediment Is reduced
through treatment for destruction of TRPH con-
stituents.
Implementation of Alternative SD-2 would provide
Immediate and long-term source control at Site 5
that would meet the RAO for sediment.
Biological treatment Is reliable for petroleum
wastes; however, treatment time may be longer
than expected If sediment differs from anticipated
conditions. Biological treatment Is not expected to
be reliable for PCBs.
'
Analysis Is the same as that
for Alternative SD-2.
Analysis Is the same as for
Alternative SD-2.
SD-3 would comply If effects
to wetland are minimized.
Analysis Is similar to Alterna-
tive SD-2 with the additional
risk reduction from reducing
exposure to PCBs. Sediment
would not be treated.
Analysis Is the same as Alter-
native SD-2.
*
Land disposal Is reliable at
Isolating wastes to prevent
migration and exposure but
requires perpetual mainte-
nance.
See notes at end of table.
-------
Table 2-7 (Continued)
Comparative Analysis of Contaminated Sediment Remedial Alternatives
Record of Decision
Naval
Operable Unit 2
Air Station Cecil Field
Jacksonville, Florida
Criterion
Alternative SD-1: No Action
Alternative SD-2: Excavation and Onsite Biological
Treatment
Alternative SD-3: Excavation and
Offslte Disposal
Reduction of Mobility. Toxicity, and Volume
Treatment process and
remedy.
Amount of hazardous ma-
terial destroyed or treated.
Reduction of mobility,
loxicity, or volume through
treatment.
Irreversibility of treatment. >.
Type and quantity of treat-
ment residuals.
Short-Term Effectiveness
Protection of community
during remedial action.
Protection of workers dur-
ing remedial actions.
Environmental effects.
Time until RAOs are
achieved.
Removal, containment, or treatment processes
would not be provided.
No hazardous material would be destroyed or
treated.
No treatment occurs.
No treatment occurs.
No treatment residuals would be produced.
Protection of the public would not be necessary
if this alternative were Implemented. No risk to
human health Is posed by the sediment.
Exposure to monitoring personnel would be
minimal.
No adverse environmental effects would be
caused.
This alternative will not meet the RAOs in the
near future. RAOs may be met after decades of
natural remedial processes.
Soil would be treated by microorganisms to de-
stroy TRPH contaminants. PCBs are not treated.
An estimated 330 yd3 of contaminated sediment
would be treated,
SD-2 would achieve a permanent reduction In
toxiclty, mobility, and volume of TRPH contami-
nants In sediment. PCBs would not be signifi-
cantly treated.
Biological treatment Is Irreversible.
Surplus water generated would be sent to the
wastewater treatment plant. Treated soil would
be disposed of as fill on Naval Air Station (NAS)
Cecil Field property.
Dust control would be required during excavation
of sediment. Fact sheets and posters providing
Information to the public regarding the remedial
action would be distributed.
Worker, exposure would be more extensive than
for SD-1, but they would be required to follow an
approved health and safety plan.
The existing habitat and populations In and adja-
cent to the drainage ditch would be removed and
destroyed. Several years may be required for
conditions to be fully restored. Releases to air.
are expected to have minimal environmental • •
effect.
Approximately 4 months are necessary to meet
the RAOs for Site 5.
Contaminants are contained In a per-
mitted facility, but not treated.
Analysis Is the same as that for Alter-
native SD-2 except that contaminants
are contained, not treated.
No treatment occurs.
No treatment occurs.
Decontamination water would be
treated at the NAS Cecil Reid
wastewater treatment plant.
Analysis Is the same as for Alternative
SD-2.
Analysis Is the same as for Alternative
SD-2.
Analysis Is the same as for Alternative
SD-2.
Approximately 1 month Is necessary
to meet the RAOs for Site 5.
See notes at end of table.
-------
ro
CO
Table 2-7 (Continued)
Comparative Analysis of Contaminated Sediment Remedial Alternatives
Record of Decision
Naval
Operable Unit 2
Air Station Cecil Field
Jacksonville, Florida
Criterion
Implementability
Ability to construct technolo-
gy.
Reliability of technology.
Ease of undertaking
additional remedial action, If
necessary,
Monitoring considerations.
Coordination with other reg-
ulatory agencies.
Availability and capacity of
treatment, storage, and dis-
posal services.
.•*•
Availability of technologies,
equipment, and specialists.
Cost
Total present worth (includ-
ing contingency).
Notes: ARARs « applicable
Alternative SD-1: No Action
No construction necessary.
Monitoring technology Is well devel-
oped.
Would provide no Impediment to addi-
tional remediation.
Five-year site reviews would be re-
quired.
Coordination with USEPA and FDEP
necessary.
Treatment, storage, and disposal
services are not requlrnd for this
alternative.
-
Monitoring equipment, services, and
personnel are readily available.
$154,000
or relevant and appropriate requirements.
PCBs = polychlorlnated blphenyls.
RAO « remedial action objective.
yd3 = cubic yard.
Alternative SD-2: Excavation and Onslte Biological
Treatment
Materials for construction of a biological treatment
area are available and easily constructed onslte
and are available when the Initial remedial action -
Is complete.
Treatment standards for contaminated sediment
would be met by biological mechanisms.
SD-2 would provide no Impediment to additional
remediation. Sediment could be reprocessed until
treatment TRPH standards are met.
Air monitoring would be conducted as appropriate
during excavation. Medical monitoring of workers
within the exclusion zone would be required.
Coordination with NAS Cecil Field personnel re-
quired for duration of remedial activities. Coordi-
nation with USEPA and FDEP necessary.
Offsite treatment, storage, or disposal services are
not required for Implementation of this alternative.
Treatment is to occur in an onsite biological treat-
ment pad. Disposal Is to occur at a location on
NAS Cecil Field properly, as '(III,
Construction contractors, equipment, and laborato-
ries are available.
$236,000
USEPA * U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Alternative SD-3: Excavation
and Offsite Disposal
Materials for excavation, trans-
port, and disposal of sediment
are readily available.
Land disposal reliably reduces
migration and exposure.
SD-3 would provide no impedi-
ment to additional remedial
actions, If necessary.
Analysis Is the same as for
Alternative SD-2.
Analysis Is the same as for
Alternative SD-2.
Availability of permitted TSD
facilities for treatment of con-
taminated sediment would be
required at the time of remedi-
al action. Local vendors han-
dle nonhazardous wastes only.
Availability of vendors who ac-
cept sediment with PCBs In
Florida Is limited.
Analysis Is the same as for
Alternative SD-2.
$327,000
FDEP « Florida Department of Environmental Protection,
TSD = treatment, storage, and disposal.
-
-------
Is
ro
6
CD
Table 2-8 .
Comparative Analysis of Groundwater Remedial Alternatives .
Record of Decision
Operable Unit 2
Naval Air Station Cecil Field
Jacksonville, Florida
Criterion
Overall Protection
How risks are
eliminated,
reduced, or
controlled.
Short-term or
cross-media ef-
fects.
Compliance with
ARARs
Chemical-, loca-
tion-, and action-
specific ARARs.
See notes at end
Alternative OW-1:
No Action
Alternative GW-2:
Natural Attenuation
Alternative GW-3:
Air Sparging
Alternative GW-4:
Air Stripping and Car-
bon Adsorption
Alternative GW-5:
UV/OX
Alternative GW-6:
In Situ Stripping and
.Biological Treatment
of Human Health and the Environment
Alternative GW-1 would
not provide an
Increased level of pro-
tection to human
health because risks
via Ingestlon of con-
taminated groundwater
would not be reduced.
Worker health and
safetyirequlrements •
would be maintained.
No short-term adverse
effects are expected to
occur during Imple-
mentation of this alter-
native. No cross-media
contamination would
occur with this alter-
native.
Would not comply with
maximum contaminant
levels (MCLs) and
Florida Petroleum Con-
tamination Site Clean-
up Criteria until natural
mechanisms reduce
concentrations or
groundwater Is reclassl-
fied as GW-III.
of table.
Risks via Ingestlon
of contaminated
groundwater would
be reduced over
time through
natural attenuation.
Worker health and
safety require-
ments would be
maintained.
Analysis Is the
same as for
Alternative GW-1.
Analysis Is the
same as for Alter-
native GW-1.
Risks via Ingestlon of
contaminated ground-
water would be re-
duced through air
sparging treatment.
Worker health and
safety requirements
would be maintained.
No sho/Merm adverse
effects are expected to
occur during Imple-
mentation of this alter-
native. Contamination
would be volatilized
from groundwater into
soil vapor; however,
vapors would be col-
lected and treated.
GW-3 would comply.
Analysis Is the same as
or less than that for
Alternative GW-3. Risks
would be reduced by
extraction and air strip-
ping and carbon treat-
ment.
No short-term adverse
effects are expected to
occur during Implemen-
tation of this alternative.
Contamination would be
volatilized from
groundwater during air
stripping; however, off-
gases would be collect-
ed and treated.
GW-4 would comply.
'
Analysis Is the same as
or less than that for Al-
ternative GW-3. Risks
would be reduced by
extraction and ultra-
violet light and oxida-
tion (UV/OX) treatment.
No short-term adverse
effects are expected to
occur during Imple-
mentation of this alter-
native. No cross-media
effects would be an-
ticipated.
GW-5 would comply.
Risks via Ingestlon of
contaminated
groundwater would
be reduced through
stripping and bio-
degradation. Worker
health and safety re-
quirements would be
maintained.
No short-term ad-
verse effects are ex-
pected to occur dur-
ing Implementation
of this alternative.
Volatilized contami-
nants would be cap-
tured and treated.
GW-6 would comply.
•
-------
> o
in ^
< O
Table 2-8 (Continued)
Comparative Analysis of Groundwater Remedial Alternatives
Record of Decision
Operable Unit 2
Naval Air Station Cecil Field
Jacksonville, Florida
Criterion
Long-Term Effectiveness
Magnitude of residual
risk.
Adequacy of controls.
Reliability of controls.
-
.•*•
Alternative GW-1:
No Action
and Permanenca
If future residential land
use exposure scenarios
become a reality, hu-
man health risk would
exceed acceptable lev-
els. Natural processes
would eventually
reduce risk to accept-
able levels.
No controls are imple-
mented.
No controls are Imple-
mented.
Alternative GW-2:
Natural Attenuation
Institutional controls
would reduce risk
as long as they are
enforced. Natural
processes would
eventually reduce
risk to acceptable
levels.
Controls would ade-
quately prevent use
of groundwater for
drinking purposes.
Controls are reliable
as long as legal re-
quirements are en-
forced.
Alternative GW-3:
Air Sparging
The risk at OU 2
would be permanent-
ly reduced to accept-
able levels.
Air sparging Is an
Innovative alternative
' and Is believed to be
'an adequate control
for remediation of
sites with volatile
contaminants and
petroleum wastes.
Air sparging Is not
well demonstrated.
Alternative GW-4:
Air Stripping and
Carbon Adsorption
Analysis is the same
as for Alternative GW-
3.
Groundwaler extrac-
tion and treatment
provides adequate
controls to prevent re-
leases and attain ob-
jectives.
Groundwater extrac-
tion and treatment
systems are generally
reliable but some-
times fail to meet
target cleanup levels.
Alternative GW-5:
UV/OX
Analysis Is the
same as for Alter-
native GW-3.
Analysis Is the
same as for Alter-
native GW-4.
Analysis Is the
same as for Alter-
native GW-4.
Alternative GW-6:
In Situ Stripping and
Biological Treatment
Analysis Is the same
as for Alternative
GW-3.
In Situ Stripping
and Biological Treat-
ment Is an Innova-
tive alternative and
Is believed to be an
adequate control for
remediation of sites
with volatile contam-
inants and petro-
leum wastes.
. In Situ Stripping
and Biological Treat-
ment Is not well
demonstrated.
*
Reduction of Mobility, Toxlclty, and Volume
Treatment process and
remedy.
See notes at end o( table
No treatment occurs.
I
No treatment oc-
curs.
Groundwater would
be treated by micro-
organisms to destroy
organic contami-
nants. Volatilized
contaminants would
be treated by the
vapor phase carbon
or Incineration.
Groundwater contam-
inants would be treat-
ed by air stripping
and carbon adsorp-
tion. Contaminants
would be destroyed
during vapor treat-
ment or carbon re-
generation.
\
t
Groundwater con-
taminants would
be destroyed by
UV/OX.
Analysis Is the same
as for Alternative
GW-3.
'.
-------
Table 2-8 (Continued)
Comparative Analysis of Groundwater Remedial Alternatives
Record of Decision
Operable Unit 2
Naval Air Station Cecil Field
Criterion
Reduction of Mobility.
Amount of hazard-
ous material de-
stroyed or treated.
Reduction of mobil-
ity, toxicity, or vol-
ume through treat-
ment.
Irreversibility of
treatment.
Type and quantity
of treatment residu-
als.
•'* ,
Alternative GW-1:
No Action
Toxicity, and Volume
No contaminants
would be treated.
Natural biological
mechanisms may
destroy some haz-
ardous materials.
No reduction.
No treatment
occurs.
No treatment resid-
uals would be gen-
erated.
Alternative GW-2:
Natural Attenuation
(continued)
Analysis Is the
same as Alternative
GW-1,
No reduction.
No treatment
occurs.
No treatment resid-
uals would be gen-
erated.
Jacksonville, Florida
Alternative GW-3:
Air Sparging
•
Approximately 5.6 million
gallons of contaminated wa-
ter would be treated by this
alternative.
Mobility, toxicity, and vol-
ume of contamination would
be reduced through treat-
ment.
Biological treatment Is irre-
versible. 'Vapor treatment by
incineration is Irreversible.
Vapor treatment by carbon
Is Irreversible If carbon Is
thermally regenerated.
A limited amount of ash or
vapor-phase carbon would
be produced during treat-
ment of vapors and would
be handled by an offslte
vendor: Decontamination
water would be treated at
the NAS Cecil Field
wastewater treatment plant.
Alternative GW-4:
Air Stripping and
Carbon Adsorption
Analysis is the same as
for Alternative GW-3.
Analysis Is the same as
for Alternative GW-3. •.
Analysis is the same as
for Alternative GW-3.
Analysis Is the same as
for Alternative GW-3.
Liquid-phase carbon and
Iron sludge would also
be handled by an offsite
vendor.
Alternative GW-5:
UV/OX
Analysis Is the
same as for Alter-
native GW-3.
Analysis Is the
same as for Alter-
native GW-3.
Treatment by
UV/OX Is Irrevers-
ible.
Treatment gener-
ates only Iron
sludge, which
would be handled
by an offslte ven-
dor.
Alternative GW-6:
In Situ Stripping and
Biological -Treatment
Analysis Is the same
as for Alternative
GW-3.
Analysis Is the same
as for Alternative
GW-3.
Analysis Is the same
as for Alternative
GW-3.
Analysis Is the same
as for Alternative
GW-3.
*
Short-Term Effectiveness
Protection of com-
munity during re-
medial action.
No effects on the
public would be an-
ticipated. Fact
sheets and posters
providing Informa-
tion to the public
regarding the reme-
dial action would be
distributed.
Analysis Is the
same as for Alter-
native GW-1.
(
Analysis Is the same as for
Alternative GW-1.
See notes at end of table.
Analysis is the same as
(or Alternative GW-1.
•
i
Analysis Is the
same as for Alter-
native GW-1.
Analysis Is the same
as for Alternative
GW-1.
.
-------
Table 2-8 (Continued)
Comparative Analysis of Groundwater Remedial Alternatives
Record of Decision
Operable Unit 2
Naval Air Station Cecil Reid
Criterion
Alternative GW-1:
• No Action
Alternative GW-2:
Natural Attenuation
Jacksonville, Florida
Alternative GW-3:
Air Sparging
Alternative GW-4:
Air Stripping and
Carbon Adsorption
Alternative GW-5:
UV/OX
Alternative GW-6:
In Situ Stripping and
Biological Treatment
Short-Term Effectiveness (continued)
Protection of workers
during remedial ac-
tions.
No construction would
occur onslto. Workers
would follow an approved
health and safety plan
during monitoring.
Environmental effects. No environmental effects
Time until remedial
action objectives are
achieved.
Itnplementabllity
Ability to construct
technology.
.• * :
Reliability of
technology.
Ease o( undertaking
additional remedial
action, il necessary.
See notes at end of
would be expected.
Fifteen years.
No construction neces-
sary.
•
Monitoring technology Is
well established.
GW-1 would not hinder
additional treatment If
necessary.
page.
Analysis Is the
same as for Alter-
native GW-1.
Analysis Is the
same as for Alter-
native GW-1.
fifteen years.
No construction
necessary.
Enforcement and
monitoring tech-
nology Is well es-
tablished.
Analysis Is the
same as for Alter-
native GW-1.
Workers would be re-
quired to follow an ap-
proved health and
safety plan. During
construction, workers
within the exclusion
zone would be
dressed In modified
Level D protection and
would be on a special
medical monitoring
program.
Some disturbance of
existing vegetation
would be necessary to
Implement this alter-
native.
Four years.
Materials for con-
struction and services
are readily available.
Air sparging technolo-
gy should be reliable
for volatile and easily
biodegradable con-
taminants, although it
Is not well demonstrat-
ed. May not be reli-
able for pesticides.
Analysis Is the same
as for Alternative GW-
t.
Analysis is the same as
for Alternative
GW-2.
Analysis is the same as
for Alternative
GW-3.
Six years.
.
Materials for con-
struction and services
are readily available.
Treatment technology Is
reliable; however, ex-
traction sometimes
does not reach desired
remedial end points.
•
Analysis is the same as
for Alternative GW-1.
Analysis Is the
same as for Alter-
native GW-3.
Analysis Is the
same as for Alter-
native GW-3.
Six years.
Materials for con-
struction and ser-
vices are readily
available.
Analysis Is the
same as for Alter-
'• native GW-4.
Analysis Is the
same as for Alter-
native GW-1.
Analysis Is the same
as for Alternative
GW-3.
Analysis Is the same
as for Alternative
GW-3.
Four years.
Materials for con-
struction and servic-
es are readily avail-
able.
Analysis Is the same
as for Alternative
GW-3.
Analysis Is the same
as for Alternative
GW-1.
-------
> n
c/v n
?,n
6 O
tfl C
in N
LI 31
O
O
fo
i.
ro
Table 2-8 (Continued)
Comparative Analysis of Groundwater Remedial Alternatives
Record of Decision
Operable Unit 2
Naval Air Station Cecil Reid
Jacksonville, Rorida
Criterion
Alternative GW-1: No
Action
Alternative GW-2:
Natural Attenuation
Alternative GW-3:
Air Sparging
Alternative GW-4:
Air Stripping and
Carbon Adsorption
Alternative GW-5:
UV/OX
Alternative GW-6:
In Situ Stripping
and
Biological Treat-
ment
Implementabillty (continued)
Monitoring
considerations.
Coordination with other
regulatory agencies.
Availability and capacity
ol treatment, storage,
and disposal services.
. V
Availability ot technolo-
gies, equipment, and
specialists.
Ability to obtain
approvals from other
agencies.
See notes at end of table.
Sampling and analysis
would occur every 5
years to support the 5-
year review report.
Coordination with MAS
Cecil Reid personnel
and the base reuse
committee required
for long-term adminis-
tration. USEPA, FDEP,
county, and city would
. be notified of actions
being conducted.
No services required.
Monitoring services
and equipment are
available.
Approval from State
and USEPA required.
Lack of physical con-
trols may make ap-
proval more difficult.
(
Sampling and anal-
ysis would occur
quarterly for the first
year and annually
after the first year.
Analysis Is the same
as for Alternative
GW-1.
No services re-
quired.
Monitoring services,
equipment, and ad-
ministrative services
are readily available.
Analysis Is the same
as for Alternative
GW-1.
Air monitoring would be
conducted for the vapor
treatment system.
Groundwater and soil gas
would be monitored to
evaluate progression of
cleanup.
Analysis Is the same as
, for Alternative GW-1.
;
Capacity and facilities are
available to handle vapor
treatment system residu-
als.
Equipment and materials
are readily available. Air
sparging vendors are
available to provide exper-
tise.
Approval from State and
USEPA Is required. Inno-
vative and less demon-
strated technology may
make approval more diffi-
cult.
i
Air monitoring
would be conducted
for the vapor treat-
ment system.
Groundwater would
be monitored to
evaluate progression
of cleanup.
Analysis Is the same
as for Alternative
GW-1.
Capacity and facili-
ties are available to
handle vapor treat-
ment system residu-
als and spent liquid-
phase carbon.
Equipment, materi-
als, and treatment*.'
specialists are readi-
ly available.
Approval from State
and USEPA's
required. Difficulty
obtaining approval
Is not anticipated,
Groundwater
would be moni-
tored to evaluate
progression of
cleanup.
Analysis Is the
same as for Alter-
native GW-1.
Capacity and
facilities are
available to han-
dle spent Iron fil-
ters.
Analysis Is the
same as for Alter-
native GW-4.
Analysis Is the
seme as for Alter-
native GW-4.
Analysis Is the
same as for Alter-
native GW-3.
Analysis Is the
same as for Alter-
native GW-1.
'••
Capacity and facil-
ities are available
to handle vapor
treatment system
residuals. ,
.
Only a couple of
vendors offer these
types of wells.
Analysis Is the
same as for Alter-
native .GW-4.
.
-------
o o
Table 2-8 (Continued)
Comparative Analysis of Groundwater Remedial Alternatives
Record of Decision
Operable Unit 2
Naval Air Station Cecil Field
Jacksonville, Rorlda
Criterion
Alternative GW-1:
No Action
Alternative GW-2:
Natural Attenuation
Alternative GW-3:
Air Sparging
Alternative GW-4:
Air Stripping and
Carbon Adsorption
Alternative GW-5:
UV/OX
Alternative GW-6:
In Situ Stripping and
Biological Treatment
Coet
Total present worth,
(Including contingency)
$104,000
$232,000
$1,633,000
$3,015,000
$2,879,000
$1,632,000
Notes: UV/OX « ultraviolet light and oxidation.
ARARs = applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements.
OU = operable unit.
NAS = Naval Air Station.
USEPA = U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. '
FDEP = Rorlda Department of Environmental Protection.
-------
2.9.1 Site 5 Sediment The selected sediment alternative is SD-2, Excavation and
Biological Treatment. SD-2 is estimated to cost $236,000 and take 4 months to
implement. SD-2 was selected because there will be a reduction in the toxicity,
mobility, and volume o'f contaminants through treatment that will occur entirely
onsite eliminating the need to transport untreated contaminants offsite.
2.9.2 Site 5 Groundwater The selected Site 5 groundwater alternative is either
GW-3, Air Sparging, or GW-6, In Situ Air Stripping and Biological Treatment. The
soil excavation sequence of the ongoing interim remedial action at Site 5
requires the groundwater remediation system be installed in stages. A
combination of GW-3 and GW-6 provides an opportunity to evaluate the performance
of two similar innovative technologies. Initially, an air sparging well and an
in' sicu stripping well will be installed. These wells will be monitored for
performance and ease of operation and maintenance while the excavation proceeds.
Whichever technology performs the best will be installed in later stages to
remediate the entire groundwater plume. The Navy estimates that either of the
preferred alternatives would cost $816,500 over 4 years.
The more aggressive alternatives GW-3 and GW-6 were selected for Site 5 to pre-
vent the continued release of contaminants from groundwater to the .nearby
drainage .ditch (GW-2 does not meet this objective). GW-4 and GW-5 meet this
objective, but require aboveground facilities and associated financial, labor,
and energy resources to treat both water and volatilized organics.
2.9.3 Site 17 Groundwater The selected Site 17 groundwater alternative is GW-2,
Natural Attenuation. Upon completion of the IRA, additional monitoring wells
will be installed. Some will be installed within the plume to characterize
conditions after the IRA. Other wells will be installed downgradient of the
plume to monitor possible plume migration. Groundwater will be sampled and the
results analyzed for several parameters, including certain chemicals of concern
to monitor degradation rates and other parameters to monitor for biological
activity. These include dissolved oxygen, sulfate/sulfide, total and dissolved
iron, methane/ethene, oxidation/reduction- potential, pH, temperature,
conductivity, alkalinity, nitrate, carbon dioxide, and chloride. If necessary,
groundwater will be treated onsite at those locations where chemicals of concern
exist at concentrations above the ambient levels of the plume. Natural
attenuation will be used for those locations where chemical concentrations are
at or.below ambient concentrations of the plume.
Natural attenuation was selected at Site 17 because evaluation of measurements
made and data collected during the site investigations indicate that this process
is currently active. Evidence indicates a high probability that intrinsic
bioremediation will work at this site. However, in the absence of conclusive
evidence, the site will be aggressively monitored to provide analytical data to
support the effectiveness of the intrinsic bioremediation. The plume is not
currently discharging to a surface water body or any other receptor, nor would
it be expected to discharge in the near future. While the goal of cleanup is to
reach drinking water criteria, it is noted that land at Site 17 is undeveloped
with a shallow depth to groundwater (0 to 4 feet bis). The shallow depth to
groundwater would inhibit future residential development and the associated
possibility of using contaminated groundwater as a potable water supply.
Additionally, the site's location, immediately west of the east-west runway,
makes future residential use of the land a low probability. -.' In the event the
site would be developed for residential use, a community water distribution
system is located within 6,000 feet of Site 17. This system draws water from a
cr.c_ou:' HOD
-------
deep aquifer (approximately 400 feet bis) which is separated from the contaminat-
ed surficial aquifer groundwater.
The natural attenuation remedy will allow some contaminant concentrations in the
surficial aquifer groundwater to remain above regulatory standards during the
life of or for some period of the remedial action. As a result, institutional
controls will be implemented for land and groundwater use at Site 17, All use
of groundwater at Site 17 will be restricted.
The Navy estimates that the natural attenuation alternative would cost §232,000
over approximately 15 years.
2.10 STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS. The remedial alternatives selected for OU 2 are
consistent with CERCLA and the NCP. The selected remedies provide-protection of
human health and the environment, attain ARARS, and are cost-effective. Tables
2-9 through 2-11 list and describe Federal and State ARARs that the selected
remedies will attain. The selected remedies utilize permanent solutions and
alternative treatment technologies to the maximum extent-practicable, and satisfy
the statutory preference for remedies that employ treatment that reduces
toxicity, mobility, or volume as a principal element. The selected remedies also
provide flexibility to implement additional remedial measures, if necessary, to
address RAOs or unforeseen issues.
2.11 DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES. The remedial action plan has not
changed significantly from that described in the Proposed Plan.
a:c ou;> ROD
AS\V of> :>;,
-------
oo
a> C
s
ro
CD
Table 2-9
Synopsis of Potential Federal and State Location-Specific ARARs
Record of Decision
Operable Unit 2
Naval Air Station Cecil Field
Jacksonville, Florida
Federal or State
Standards and
Requirements
Endangered Species
Act (50 CFR Part 402)
Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act (40
CFR Part 302)
National Environmen-
tal Policy Act (NEPA)
(40 CFR Part 6)
Protection of
Wetlands, Executive
Order 11 990 (40 CFR
Part 6) /t
Requirements Synopsis
This act requires action to avoid Jeopardizing the continued
existence of federally listed endangered or threatened species.
Requirements Include notification to the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (USEPA) and minimization of adverse effects to
such endangered species because of planned activities.
This rule requires that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services
(USFWS), National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), and related
State agencies be consulted when a Federal department or
agency proposes or authorizes any control or structural modifi-
cation of any stream or other water body, Also requires adequate
provision for protection of fish and wildlife resources.
This rule requires an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or a
"functional equivalent" for Federal actions that may Impact the hu-
man environment. Also requires that Federal agencies minimize
the degradation, loss, or destruction of wetland, and preserve and
enhance natural and beneficial values of wetland and floodplalns
under Executive Orders 11990 and 11988.
Requires Federal agencies to avoid, to the extent possible, the
adverse Impacts associated with the destruction or loss of
.wetland and to avoid support of new construction In wetland If a
practical alternative exists.
Consideration in the Remedial Response Process
Applicable. Table 5-2 lists the rare, endangered, and threatened flora and fauna
at Operable Unit (OU) 2 at Naval Air Station (NAS) Cecil Reid. Implementation of
remedial alternatives at OU 2 could potentially Impact species Identified In Table
5-2. Requirements of this rule must be met prior to Implementation of any
remedial alternative at OU 2.
Applicable. Should a remedial alternative Involve the alteration of a stream or
other body of water, the USFWS, NMFS, and other related agencies must be
consulted before that body of water Is altered. If alterations to the drainage ditch
at Site 5 are necessary to Implement remedial alternatives, the requirements of
this rule would need to be met.
Applicable. A Federal action may be exempted from an EIS If a functionally
equivalent study is performed under the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act. . Wetland has been Identified and classified
adjacent to OU 2 (see Chapter 1.0). If the Implementation of any remedial
alternative would impact this wetland, the Intent of NEPA (I.e., that degradation,
loss, or destruction of wetland should be minimized) requires consideration for
any remediation of the drainage ditch at Site 5 where wetland was contiguous.
Applicable. Remedial alternatives selected for OU 2 that Involve the alteration of
the wetland systems Identified at OU 2 may not be selected unless a deter-
mination is made that no practicable alternative exists. If no practicable
alternative exists, potential harm must be minimized and action taken to restore
and preserve the. natural and beneficial values of the wetland. \
See notes at end of table. . ' ..
-------
> o
•-. rl
o 2
ro
i.
-j
Federal or State
Standards and
Requirements
Protection of Flood-
plains, Executive
Order 11988
Chapter 17-312, FAC,
Florida Dredge and
Fill Activities
Chapter 17-611, FAC,
Wetlands Application
Regulations
Synopsis of Potential
Table 2-9 (Continued)
Federal and State Location-Specific ARARs
Record of Decision
Operable Unit 2
Naval Air Station Cecil Field
Jacksonville, Florida
Requirements Synopsis
Federal agencies are required to reduce the risk of flood loss, to
minimize Impact of floods, and to restore and preserve the natural
and beneficial values of floodplalns.
Establishes permit requirements (or dredging, filling, excavating,
or placing material In or over waters of the State.
Sets requirements for discharge of domestic wastewater to
wetland.
Consideration in the Remedial Response Process
Applicable. The potential effects of any action will be evaluated to ensure, that the
planning and decision making reflect consideration of flood hazards and
floodplain management, including restoration and preservation of natural,
undeveloped floodplalns.
To be considered. The substantive requirements of the permitting process should
be considered when developing and Implementing remedial activities at OU 2 that
Involvd Rowell Creek or the drainage ditch that leads to Lake Fretwell.
Applicable. This rule addresses the discharge of domestic wastewater to wetland.
The discharge limits established are for carbonaceous biological oxygen demand,
total suspended solids, nitrogen, and phosphorus. This rule may bo applicable
for remedial alternatives that would result In discharges to wetland where these
limits may be approached.
Notes: ARARs • applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements.
CFR ° Code of Federal Regulations. . '
FAC = Florida Administrative Code.
-------
Table 2-10
Synopsis of Potential Federal and State Chemical-Specific ARARs
Record of Decision
Operable Unit 2
Naval Air Station Cecil Field
Federal or State Standards
and Requirements
Clean Water Act (CWA),
Ambient Water Quality
Criteria (40 CFR Part 131)
CWA, Toxic Pollutant Efflu-
ent Standards (40 CFR
Part 129)
Occupational Safety and
Health Act (OSHA),
Occupational Safety and
Health Regulations (20
CFR Part 1910, Subpart Z)
Safe Drinking Water Act
(SDWA), Maximum
Contaminant Level Goals
(MCLGs) (40 CFR Part
141)
SDWA, National Primary
Drinking Water Standards,
Maximum Contaminant
Levels (MCLs) (40 CFR
Part 141)
SDWA, National Secondary
Drinking Water Standards
(40 CFR Part 143)
Jacksonville, Florida
Requirements Synopsis
Federal Ambient Water Quality Criteria (AWQC) are nonenforceable,
health-based criteria for surface water used In setting discharge limits
for NPDES permits. AWQC provide levels of exposure from drinking
the water and consuming aquatic life that are protective of human
health. AWQC also provide acute and chronic concentrations for
protection of freshwater and marine organisms.
This regulation establishes the concentration of a toxic pollutant In
navigable waters and states that a discharge from a site to navigable
water shall not result In adverse Impacts to aquatic life or to consumers
of aquatic life.
Establishes permissible exposure limits for workplace exposure to a
specific listing of chemicals.
Establishes drinking water quality goals at levels of no known or antici-
pated adverse health effects with an adequate margin of safety. These
criteria do not consider treatment feasibility or cost elements.
Establishes enforceable standards for specific contaminants that have
been determined to adversely affect human health. These standards
are protective of human health for Individual chemicals and are
developed using MCLGs, available treatment technologies, and cost
data.
Establishes welfare-based standards for public water systems for
specific contaminants or water characteristics that may affect the
aesthetic or economic qualities of a public water supply.
Consideration In the Remedial Response Process
Relevant and appropriate. Because of the potential discharge of surface
runoff and groundwater at Site 5 to the drainage ditch and Lake Fretwell,
AWQC are relevant and appropriate for consideration as criteria to evaluate
conditions In the Site 5 drainage ditch and possible drinking water effects
as a result of leaching from soil to groundwater.
Relevant and appropriate. This rule Is a potential ARAR for remedial
alternatives that Include discharge of treated groundwater or surface water
to a surface water body (e.g., Rowell Creek or the drainage ditch that leads
to Lake Fretwell). These standards may be Incorporated Into NPDES
permits where applicable for the proposed discharge of surface water.
Applicable. Standards are applicable for worker exposure to OSHA haz-
ardous chemicals during remedial activities. During Implementation of
remedial alternatives for OU 2, these requirements are ARARs.
t
Relevant and appropriate. MCLGs greater than zero are relevant and
appropriate standards for groundwater or surface water that Is currently or
potentially a source of drinking water. Currently, the groundwater at OU 2
is not used as a drinking water supply, and surface water near OU 2 Is
classified as Class III water for recreation and propagatlonal uses only.
MCLGs may be used for evaluating leaching of contaminants from soil to
groundwater. MCLGs would riot be ARARs under a future land use scenario
that prevents' use of groundwater as a drinking water source.
Relevant and appropriate. MCLs established by the SDWA are relevant and
appropriate standards where the MCLGs are not determined to be ARARs.
MCLs apply to finished water of public water supply systems and are
considered relevant and appropriate for groundwater or surface vifater that
Is currently or potentially a drinking water source. Currently, the ground-
water at OU 2 Is not used .as a drinking water supply and surface water near
OU 2 Is classified as Class III water for recreation and propagatlonal uses
only. MCLs may be used for evaluating leaching of contaminants from soil
to groundwater. MCLs would not be ARARs under a future land-use
scenario that prevents use of groundwater as a drinking water source.
To be considered. Secondary MCLs (SMCLs) are nonenforceable limits
Intended as guidelines for use by States In regulating water supplies.
•
See notes at end of table.
-------
Table 2-10 (Continued)
Synopsis of Potential Federal and State Chemical-Specific ARARs
Federal and State Standards
and Requirements :
Toxic Substances Control Act
(TSCA), Polychlorinated bl-
phenyl (PCB) requirements
(13 USC 2601-2629, 40 CFR
Part 761)
Chapter 17-302, Florida Ad-
ministrative Code (FAC),
Florida Surface Water Quality
Standards (FSWQS)
Chapter 17-520, FAC, Rorlda
Water Quality Standards
Chapter 17-550, FAC, Florida
Drinking Water Standards
.
..,.
Chapter 17-650, FAC, Rorlda
Water Quality Based Effluent
Limitations
Record of Decision
Operable Unit 2
Naval Air Station Cecil Field
Jacksonville, Florida
Requirements Synopsis
Authorizes USEPA to establish regulations governing chemical
substances or mixtures that present an unreasonable risk of Injury to
human health and the environment. Establishes requirements for
marking, storing, disposing of, recording, cleaning spills, and reporting
wastes containing PCBs.
Defines classifications of surface water and establishes water quality
standards (WQS) tor surface water within each classification. The
State's antldegradatlon policy Is also established In this rule,
-
Establishes the groundwater classification system for the State and
provides qualitative minimum criteria for groundwater based on the
classification.
Established to Implement the Federal SDWA by adopting the national
primary and secondary drinking water standards and by creating addi-
tional rules to fulfill State and Federal requirements.
All activities and discharges, except dredge and fill, must meet effluent
limitations based on technology or water quality.
Consideration In the Remedial Response Process
Relevant and appropriate. Because disposal of PCB wastes occurred prior
to TSCA, wastes at Site 5 are not specifically regulated by TSCA. If soil or
sediment containing PCBs Is excavated for treatment, storage, or disposal,
then these regulations will be relevant and appropriate.
Relevant and appropriate. Surface water near OU 2 (e.g., Rowell Creek and
Lake Fretwell) Is classified by the Rorlda Department of Environmental
Protection (FDEP) as Class III water and as such Is designated for recre-
ation, propagation, and management of fish and wildlife and Is not used as
a drinking water resource. Remedial alternatives that address surface water
contamination or Include an option for discharge of treated groundwater or
surface water to surface water will consider FSWQS. These standards may
also be relevant and appropriate for groundwater remediation If no MCL
exists, groundwater discharges to surface water and contaminants are
affecting aquatic organisms, or other health-based standards are not
available.
Relevant and appropriate. The classification system established In this rule
defines potable water sources. The groundwater at OU 2 Is classified as G-
II and Is suitable for potable water use and has a total dissolved solids
content of less than 10,000 milligrams per liter (mg/J).
Applicable. Drinking water standards are commonly considered applicable
regulations for aquifers and related groundwater classified as a current or
potential potable water supply source. Drinking water standards should be
considered ARARs during a CERCLA cleanup for groundwater or surface
water that Is currently or potentially a source of drinking waterv
Relevant and appropriate. All activities and discharges, other than dredge
and fill activities, are required to meet effluent limitations based on
technology (technology, based effluent limit) and/or water quality (water
quality based effluent limit), as defined by this rule. The substantive
permitting requirement established in this rule may be a potential relevant
and appropriate requirement for remedial actions where treated water Is
discharged to a surface water body (e.g., Rowell Creek or Lake Fretwell).
' See notes at end of (able.
-------
b o
(O C
Table 2-10 (Continued)
Synopsis of Potential Federal and State Chemical-Specific ARARs
Record of Decision
Operable Unit 2
Naval Air Station Cecil Field •
Jacksonville, Rorlda
Federal and State Stan-
dards and Requirements
Requirements Synopsis
Consideration In the Remedial Response Process
tn
O
Chapter 17-770, FAC, Flori-
da Peiroleum Contaminat-
ed Site Cleanup Criteria,
February 1990
Chapter 17-775, FAC, Flori-
da Soil Thermal Treatment
Facilities Regulations,
December 1990
Florida Groundwater
Guidance Concentrations
Establishes a cleanup process to be followed at all petroleum-con-
taminated sites, Cleanup levels for G-l and G-ll groundwater are
provided for both the gasoline and kerosene and mixed product
analytical groups.
Establishes criteria for the thermal treatment of petroleum or product-
contaminated soil. The rule further outlines procedures for excavating,
receiving, handling, and stockpiling contaminated soil prior to thermal
treatment In both stationary and mobile facilities.
Establishes risk-based groundwater concentrations for use as screen-
Ing values and potential cleanup criteria for chemicals that do not have
an established Florida MCL
Applicable. This Is an applicable requirement because Oil 2 Includes
petroleum-contaminated sites discharging to G-ll groundwatdr.
Relevant and appropriate. The soil cleanup values established In this rule for
total recoverable petroleum hydrocarbons (TRPHs), volatile organic com-
pounds (VOCs), volatile organic halocarbons (VOHs), polynuclear aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs), and metals may be relevant and appropriate require-
ments for contaminated soil and sediment and may be applicable If thermal
treatment Is used.
To be considered. These guidance concentrations are not promulgated
standards that must be met. The concentrations will be considered and
compared to site-specific, risk-based cleanup concentrations,
Notes: ARARs «= applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements.
CFR = Code of Federal Regulations.
NPDES = National Pollution Discharge Elimination System.
OU = operable unit.
USC = U.S. Code.
USEPA = U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
CERCLA « Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act.
-------
Table 2-11
Synopsis of Potential Federal and State Action-Specific ARARs
Federal and State Standards and
Requirements
Clean Air Act (CAA), New Source
Performance Standards (NSPS)
(40 Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR) Part 60)
CAA, National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS) (40
CFR Part 50)
''
Clean Water Act (CWA), National
Pollution Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) (40 CFR Parts
T 22 and. 125)
CWA, National Pretreatment
Standards (40 CFR Part 403)
Department of Transportation
Rules for Transportation of Haz-
ardous Materials (49 CFR Parts
107. 171. 173, 178, and 179).
See notes at end of table.
Record of Decision
Operable Unit 2
Naval Air Station Cecil Field
Jacksonville, Rorida
Requirements Synopsis
This regulation establishes NSPS for specified sources, including
Incinerators. This rule establishes a partlculate emission standard
of 0.08 grains per dry standard cubic foot corrected to 12 percent
carbon dioxide for sources.
This regulation establishes primary (health-based) and secondary
(welfare-based) standards for air quality for carbon monoxide,
lead, nitrogen dioxide, partlculate matter, ozone, and sulfur oxides
emitted from a major source of air emissions.
,
This regulation requires NPDES permits specifying the permissible
concentration or level of contaminants In the effluent for the dis-
charge of pollutants from any point source into waters of the
United States.
This regulation sets pretreatment standards through the National
Categorical Standards for the General Pretreatment Regulations
for the Introduction of pollutants from nondomestic sources into
POTWs to control pollutants that pass through, cause Interference,
or are otherwise Incompatible with treatment processes at a
POTW.
This regulation establishes the procedures for packaging, labeling,
and transporting of hazardous materials.
t
t
Consideration In the Remedial Response Process
Relevant and appropriate. Because NSPSs are source-speclflo
requirements, they are not generally considered applicable to
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act (CERCLA) cleanup actions. However, an NSPS may bo
applicable for an Incinerator or may be a relevant and appropriate
requirement If the pollutant emitted and the technology employed
during the onslte cleanup action are sufficiently similar to the
pollutant and source category regulated.
Relevant and appropriate. Site remedial activities must comply
with NAAOS. The most relevant pollutant standard Is for partlculate
matter less than 10 microns In size (PMIO) as defined In 40 CFR
Section 50.6. The PM,0 standard Is based on the detrimental
effects of paniculate matter to the lungs of humans. The PM18
standard for a 24-hour period Is 150 mlcrograms per cubic me-
ter (/yg/m3) of air, not to be exceeded more than once a year.
Remedial construction activities such as excavation will need to
Include controls to ensure compliance with the PM,« standard. The
attainment and maintenance of primary and secondary NAAQS are
required to protect human health and welfare (wildlife, climate,
recreation, transportation, and economic values). These standards
are applicable during remedial activities, such as soil or sediment
excavation, which may result in exposure to hazardous chemicals
through dust and vapors.
Relevant ahd appropriate. Onslte discharge from a CERCLA site
must meet only the substantive NPDES requirements; administra-
tive permit requirements are waived, consistent with CERCLA
Section I21(e)(1). Remedial alternatives for Operable Unit (OU) 2
may include a provision for discharge of treated groundwater to
Rowell Creek or the drainage ditch leading to Lake Fretwell.
Applicable. If groundwater or surface water is discharged to a
POTW as a part of a remedial alternative for OU 2, the discharge
must meet local limits Imposed by the POTW. A discharge from a
CERCLA site must meet the POTW's pretreatment standards In the
effluent ,to the POTW. Discharge to a POTW Is considered an
offslte activity and Is, therefore, subject to both the substantive and
administrative requirements of this rule.
Applicable. These requirements will be applicable for transport of
hazardous material from the site for laboratory analysis, treatment,
or disposal.
i
-------
Table 2-11 (Continued)
Synopsis of Potential Federal and State Action-Specific ARARs
Federal and State Standards
and Requirements :
Occupational Safety and Health
Act (OSHA), General Industry
Standards (29 CFR Part 1910)
OSHA, Recordkeeplng, Report-
ing, and Related Regulations
(29 CFR Part 1904)
OSHA, Safety and Health Stan-
dards, (29 CFR Part 1926)
Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA), Hazard-
ous Waste Management
System (40 CFR Part 260)
RCRA, Identification and Listing
of Hazardous Waste (40 CFR
Part 261, 261. 1-261. 33)
RCRA, Standards Applicable to
Generators of Hazardous Waste
(40 CFR Part 262, Subparts A •
0,262.10-262.44)
RCRA, Standards Applicable to
Transporters of Hazardous
Waste (40 CFR Part 263,
Subparts A - C, 263.10-263.31)
Record of Decision
Operable Unit 2 .
Naval Air Station Cecil Field
Jacksonville, Florida
Requirements Synopsis
This regulation requires establishment of programs to ensure worker
health and safety at hazardous waste sites, Including employee'
training requirements.
This regulation provides recordkeeplng and reporting requirements
applicable to remedial activities.
This regulation specifies the type of safety training, equipment, and
procedures to be used during site investigation and remediation.
This regulation sets forth procedures that the USEPA will use to make
Information available to the public, and sets forth rules that treatment,
storage, and disposal (TSD) facilities must follow to assert claims of
business confidentiality with respect to Information submitted to the
USEPA pursuant 40 CFR Parts 261-265.
This regulation defines those solid wastes that are subject to regula-
tion as hazardous wastes under 40 CFR Parts 262-265. The applica-
bility of RCRA regulations to wastes found at a site Is dependent on
the solid waste meeting one of the following criteria: (1) the wastes
are generated through an RCRA-llsted source process, (2) the wastes
are RCRA-llsted wastes from a nonspecific source, or (3) the waste Is
characteristically hazardous due to Ignltabllity, corroslvity, reactivity,
or toxlclty.
These regulations establish standards for generators of hazardous
wastes that address: accumulating waste, preparing hazardous
waste for shipment, and preparing the uniform hazardous waste
manifest. These requirements are Integrated with U.S. Department of
Transportation (USDOT) regulations.
This regulation establishes procedures for transporters of hazardous
waste within the United States If the transportation requires a
manifest under 40 CFR Part 262.
Consideration In the Remedial Response Process
Applicable. Under 40 CFR 300,38, requirements apply to all
response activities under the National Oil and Hazardous Substances
Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). During the Implementation of any
remedial alternative at OU 2, these regulations must be attained.
Applicable. These requirements apply to all site contractors and
subcontractors and must be followed during all site work. During the
Implementation of any remedial alternative at the site, these regula-
tions must be attained.
Applicable. All phases of the remedial response project should be
executed In compliance with this regulation. During the Implementa-
tion of any remedial alternative at the site, these regulations must be .
attained.
Relevant and appropriate. This regulation creates no substantive
cleanup requirements.
Relevant and appropriate. Contaminated soil at OU 2 could be clas-
sified as an RCRA hazardous waste. Historical records do not
suggest soil would be a listed waste, and soil contamination does
not Indicate soil would be characteristically hazardous; however.
specific testing must be conducted to evaluate this possibility.
Residuals from treatment methods may also be classified as RCRA
hazardous wastes and must also be tested for RCRA hazardous char-
acteristics.
Applicable. If an alternative Involves the offslte transportation of
hazardous wastes, the material must be shipped In proper containers
that are accurately marked and labeled, and the transporter must
display proper placards. These rules specify that all hazardous
waste shipments- must be accompanied by an appropriate manifest.
Applicable. If a remedial alternative Involves offslte transportation of
hazardous waste for treatment, storage, or disposal, these require-
ments must be attained.
See notes at end of table.
-------
Table 2-11 (Continued)
Synopsis of Potential Federal and State Action-Specific ARARs
Federal and State Standards
and Requirements
RCRA, Standards for Owners
and Operators of Hazardous
Waste Treatment, Storage, and
Disposal Facilities (TSDF) (40
CFR Part 264)
RCRA, General Facility Stan-
dards (40 CFR Subpart B,
264.10-264.18)
RCRA, Preparedness and Pro- .
vention (40 CFR Part 264,
Subpart C)
RCRA, Contingency Plan and
Emergency Procedures (40
CFR Subpart D, 264.30-264.37)
RCRA, Manifest System,
Recordkeeplng, and Reporting
(40 CFR Part 264, Subpart E)
RCRA, Use and Management
of Containers (40 CFR Part 264,
Subpart'lV
RCRA, Solid Waste Land Dis-
posal Requirements (40 CFR
Part 258)
Record of Decision
Operable Unit 2
Naval Air Station Cecil Reid
Jacksonville, Florida
Requirements Synopsis
This regulation establishes minimum national standards that define
the acceptable management of hazardous wastes for owners and
operators of facilities that treat, store, or dispose of hazardous
wastes.
This regulation establishes general facility requirements including
general waste analysis, security measures, inspections, and training
requirements. Section 264.18 establishes that a facility located in a
100-year floodplaln must be designed, constructed, and maintained
to prevent washout of any hazardous wastes by a 100-year flood.
This regulation outlines requirements for safety equipment and spill-
control for hazardous waste facilities. Facilities must be designed,
maintained, constructed, and operated to minimize the possibility of
an unplanned release that could threaten human health or the
environment.
This regulation outlines the requirements for procedures to be
followed In the event of an emergency such as an explosion, fire, or
other emergency event.
This regulation outlines procedures for manifesting hazardous waste
for owners and operators of onslte and offsite facilities that treat,
store, or dispose of hazardous waste.
This regulation sets standards for the storage, of containers of
hazardous waste.
This regulation sets forth requirements for disposal of waste within a
solid waste landfill, ft also sets forth construction and monitoring
requirements of Subtitle D landfills.
Consideration in the Remedial Response Process
Applicable. If a remedial alternative for Site 5 sediment or OU 2
groundwater treatment residuals Involves the management of RCRA
hazardous wastes, this rule would be applicable at an' offsite
treatment, storage, or disposal unit. This regulation Is relevant and
appropriate for onsite non-RCRA hazardous wastes.
Applicable. If a treatment facility Is constructed onslte, these
requirements would be applicable for hazardous wastes and relevant
and appropriate for nonhazardous wastes.
Applicable. Safety and communication equipment should be
Incorporated Into all hazardous waste aspects of the remedial
process and local authorities should be familiarized with site
operations. This regulation Is relevant and appropriate for any non-
hazardous waste work.
Relevant and appropriate. These requirements are relevant and
appropriate for remedial actions Involving the management of
hazardous waste.
Applicable. These regulations apply If a remedial alternative Involves
the offsite treatment, storage, or disposal of hazardous waste. For
remedial a'ctlons Involving onslte treatment or disposal of hazardous
waste, these regulations are relevant and appropriate.
Relevant and appropriate. Remedial action Implemented at OU 2
may Involve the storage of containers that may contain RCRA
hazardous waste. The onslte staging of study-generated RCRA
wastes should meet the intent of this regulation. These requirements
are applicable for containerized RCRA hazardous wastes at CERCLA
sites and may be considered relevant and appropriate for wastes not
classified as hazardous.
Applicable. This rule stipulates that no free liquids, no hazardous
wastes, and no reactive wastes may be disposed of within a Subtitle
D landfill. These requirements are applicable if soil and wastes are
disposed of at a 'Subtitle 0 landfill.
See notes at end of table.
-------
Table 2-11 (Continued)
Synopsis of Potential Federal and State Action-Specific ARARs
•
Federal and State Standards
and Requirements :
Chapter 62-2, Florida Adminis-
trative Code (FAC), Rorlda Air
Pollution Rules, September
1990
Chapter 62-4, FAC, Florida
Rules on Permits
Chapter 62-522, FAC, Ground-
water Permitting and Monitor-
ing Requirements
Chapter 62-532, FAC, Florida
Water Well Permitting and Con-
struction Requirements !
Chapter 62-660, FAC, Florida
Industrial Wastewater Facilities
Regulations
Chapter 62-730, FAC, Florida
Hazardous Waste Rules
Chapter 62-736, FAC, Florida
Rules on Hazardous Waste
Warning Signs
Chapter 62-775, FAC, Florida
Soil Thermal Facilities Regula-
tions
Record of Decision
Operable Unit 2
Naval Air Station Cecil Reid
Jacksonville, Florida
Requirements Synopsis
This rule establishes permitting requirements for owners or operators
of any source that emits any air pollutant. This chapter also estab-
lishes ambient air quality standards for sulfur dioxide, PM10, carbon
monoxide, and ozone.
This rule establishes procedures for obtaining permits for sources of
pollution.
This rule establishes permitting and monitoring requirements for
Installations discharging to groundwater.
This rule establishes the minimum standards for the location, con-
struction, repair, and abandonment of water wells. Permitting
requirements and procedures are also established In this rule.
This rule sets minimum treatment standards for effluent based on
water quality considerations and technology. -
•*
This rule adopts by reference appropriate sections of 40 CFR and
establishes minor additions to these regulations concerning the
generation, storage, treatment, transportation, and disposal of
hazardous wastes.
This rule requires warning signs at NPL and Rorlda Department of
Environmental Protection (FDEP)-ldentlfied hazardous waste sites to
Inform the public of the presence of potentially harmful conditions.
This rule establishes criteria for the thermal treatment of petroleum-
or petroleum product-contaminated soil. Guidelines for management
and treatment of soil to levels that prevent future contamination of
other soil, groundwater, and surface water are provided. Chapter 17-
775.300, FAC, provides permitting requirements for soil thermal
treatment facilities. This section states that soil must be screened or
otherwise processed In order to prevent soil particles greater than 2
Inches In diameter from entering the thermal treatment unit. This
rule further outlines procedures for excavating, receiving, handling,
and stockpiling contaminated soil prior to thermal treatment In both
stationary and mobile facilities.
Notes: ARARs = applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements. USEPA = U.S.
Consideration In the Remedial Response Process
Applicable. Standards for PM,0 would be applicable during remedia-
tion. Engineering controls and monitoring to control dust would be
required.
Applicable. The substantive permitting requirements must be met
during a CERCLA remediation.
Applicable. This rule should be considered when discharge to
groundwater Is a possible remedial action. The administrative
permitting requirements would be waived under a CERCLA cleanup.
Applicable. The substantive requirements of this rule are applicable
for any remedial alternative at OU 2 that Involves the construction,
repair, or abandonment of monitoring, extraction, or Injection wells.
Relevant and appropriate. This rule may be a relevant and appropri-
ate requirement for any remedial alternative at OU 2 that Involves
discharge of treated water to surface waters of the State If surface
water standards are not available or are not sufficiently protective.
Relevant and appropriate. The substantive requirements of this rule
are relevant and appropriate requirements for any remedial alterna-
tive that involves treatment of nonhazardous waste at OU 2. This
rule is applicable for hazardous wastes at OU 2.
Applicable. This requirement is applicable for sites which are on the
NPL or which have been identified by the FDEP as potentially
harmful.
Applicable. This requirement Is applicable to treatment alternatives
that employ thermal treatment technologies. It may be relevant and
appropriate for other treatment alternatives.
Environmental Protection Agency.
POTW = publicly owned treatment work. NPL = National Priority List.
-------
REFERENCES
ABB Environmental Services, Inc. (ABB-ES), 1991, Remedial Investigation/
Feasibility Study Workplan, NAS Cecil Field, Operable Units 1. 2, and 7:
prepared for Southern Division, Navy Facilities Engineering Command
(SOUTHNAVFACENGCOM).
ABB-ES, 1992, Technical Memorandum for Supplemental Sampling, Operable Units 1,
2, and 7, NAS Cecil Field: prepared for SOUTHNAVFACENGCOM.
ABB-ES, 1994, Naval Air Station Cecil Field, Jacksonville, Florida, Interim
Record of Decision, Oil Disposal Area Northwest, Site 5, Operable Unit 2,
Tallahassee Florida: prepared for SOUTHNAVEFACENGCOM. ''
ABB-ES, 1994, Naval Air Station Cecil Field, Jacksonville, Florida, Interim
Record of Decision, Oil and Sludge Disposal Area Southwest, Site 17,
Operable Unit 2, Tallahassee Florida: prepared for SOUTHNAVEFACENGCOM.
ABB-ES, 1995, Naval Air Station Cecil Field, Jacksonville, Florida, Baseline
Risk Assessment Report, Operable Unit 2, Tallahassee, Florida: prepared
for SOUTHNAVFACENGCOM.
ABB-ES, 1995, Naval Air Station Cecil Field, Jacksonville, Florida, Feasibility
Study, Operable Unit 2, Tallahassee, Florida: prepared for
SOUTHNAVFACENGCOM.
ABB-ES, 1995, Naval Air Station Cecil Field, Jacksonville, Florida, Remedial
Investigation, Operable Unit 2, Tallahassee, Florida: prepared for
SOUTHNAVFACENGCOM.
ABB-ES, 1995, Naval Air Station Cecil Field, Jacksonville, Florida, Proposed
Plan for Remedial Action, Operable Unit 2, Oil Disposal Area Northwest
(Site 5)- and Oil and Sludge Disposal Pit Southwest (Site 17), Tallahassee,
Florida: prepared for SOUTHNAVFACENGCOM.
Envirodyne Engineers, 1985, Initial Assessment Study, NAS Cecil Field.
Geraghty & Miller, 1983, Hydrogeologic Assessment and Groundwater Monitoring
Plan, NAS Cecil Field, Jacksonville, Florida.
Geraghty & Miller, 1984, As-built Groundwater Monitoring Network.
Geraghty & Miller, 1985, Year-End Report of Groundwater Monitoring.
Harding Lawson Associates, 1988, RCRA Facility Investigation, NAS Cecil Field.
CEC_OU2 ROD
ASW 09.9'i R(!f-1
------- |