EPA Superfund Record of Decision · RE: Final Record of Decision (ROD) signature page. Operable...

EP A/ROD/R04-99/019 1999

EPA Superfund Record of Decision:

HOMESTEAD AIR FORCE BASE EPA ID: FL7570024037 OU 18, 26, 28, 29 HOMESTEAD AIR FORCE BASE, FL 03/15/1999

16FB

Homestead Air Foree Base, Florida

Prepared for Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence Brooks Air Force Base, Texas Preliminary Assessment/Remedial Design Contract

Final Record of Decision OU 18, OU 26, OU 28, and OU 29

Contract F41624-97-D-8017

October 1998

MONTGOMERY WATSON

FINAL

RECORD OF DECISION

FOR

OU 18, OU 26, OU 28, and OU 29

Homestead Air Force Base, Florida

October 1998

Prepared for:

Air Force Center for Eii\ iroiunental Excellence Brooks Air Force Base, Texas

Contract F41624-97-D-8017 Delivery Order 010

Prepared by:

Montgonien \\ atson 3501 N. Causeway Bh d., Suite 400

Metaiiie, Louisiana 70002

CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED

4WD-EEB

Albert Eowas Director of Air Force Base Com ersion Agenc> 1400 North Moore Street. Suite 2300 Aiiington. VA 22209-2802

SUBJ: Record Of Decision - Operable Units IS. 26. 28. and 29: Homestead Air Force Base NPE Site: Homestead. Florida

Dear Mr. Eowas:

The U.S. Em ironmental Protection Agenc> (EPA) Region IV has re\ iewed the subject decision document and concurs with the selected remedies for the remedial actions at Operable Units (OU) 18. 26. 28. and 29 at the fonner Homestead Air Force Base (HAEB). These remedies are supported b> the pre\ iousK completed Remedial hwestigation. Eeasibilit\ Stud>. and Baseline Risk Assessment Reports. The selected remedies consist of:

OU-18 Remo\ e existing asphalt-containing sediments and some abo\ e grade fill along the Boundan Canal, place them on top of OU-18. regrade the site, and install a \ egetated co\ er o\ er the site. Install fence and warning signs. Restrict land access and use. Eong-term management and groundwater monitoring.

OU-26 Remo\ e contaminated soils. Dispose in RCRA Subtitle D landfill. Backfill exca\ ated area. Regrade and re\ egetate.

OU-28 Remo\ e contaminated soils. Dispose in RCRA Subtitle D landfill. Backfill exca\ ated area. Regrade and re\ egetate.

OU-29 Remo\ e contaminated soils. Dispose in RCRA Subtitle D landfill. Backfill exca\ ated area. Rearade and re\ ieaetate.

The detemiination to implement these courses of action at these sites are consistent with the Comprehensi\ e Eiwironmental Response. Compensation, and Liabilit\ Act (CERCLA) as amended b> the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) and the National ContingencN Plan (40 CER 300).

One point on OU-18 merits clarification. On April 21. 1998. EPA Region IV issued a Memorandum titled "Assuring Land Use Controls at Eederal Eacilities." The content of that memorandum deals with land use controls for properties which are not imminentK being transfeired to a non-federal entit>. To date, our focus in implementing this polic> at Homestead Air Eorce Base has been on that part which will remain as Homestead Air Resen e Station. Howe\ er. because of the indefinite length of time before OU-18 and other similar areas outside of the cantonment area that reK on land use controls are transfeired b> deed to a non-federal entit\ . EPA belie\ es that our April 21. 1998. polic> on land use controls should appK until such transfer occurs. Therefore, we are concuiring with the subject OU-18 Record Of Decision (ROD) conditioned upon the de\ elopment of a Land Use Control Assurance Plan (LUCAP) for the non-cantonment portion of Homestead Air Eorce Base and a Land Use Control Implementation Plan (LUCIP) for OU-18. To expedite this process, we suggest de\ elopment of a LUCAP similar to the one which has been negotiated bet^veen the Homestead Air Resen e Station. Elorida Department of Em ironmental Protection, and EPA.

Thus. EPA's concuirence with the Record of Decision (ROD) for OU-18 is conditioned on the express understanding that the Air Eorce is committed to reaching an agreement with EPA Region IV and the Elorida Department of Em ironmental Protection (EDEP) that complies with EPA's April 21. 1998 Memorandum titled "Assuring Land Use Controls at Eederal Eacilities." We reiterate, as we ad\ ised Air Eorce Regional Em ironmental Otfice representati\ es in our meeting on Ma> 21. 1998. our concuirence with this particular ROD is based on the understanding that the Air Eorce is committed to entering a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) consistent with the abo\ e-referenced Land Use Control (LUC) PolicN. Eurthermore. once such an MOA is in place, the Homestead Air Eorce Base BRAC Cleanup Team (BCT) will be expected to craft specific pro\ isions for Land Use Controls as part of the resulting Land Use Control Implementation Plan for OU-18. that will prohibit unrestricted propei1\ reuse.

As agreed upon at the Ma> 21. 1998. meeting with the Homestead Air Reser\ e Station, we continue to hold the expectation that final details will be worked out within 90 da> s after the date of this concuirence. resulting in an MOA that fulK complies with the LUC policN. As emphasized at that meeting, and counter to the statement in the Air Eorce Regional Em ironmental Office's letter dated June 1. 1998. we remain steadfast in our position that in the e\ ent an MOA is not reached within 90 da> s. we resen e the right to reconsider this remed>. and will not be willing to concur on future Homestead RODs that reK in whole or in part on Land Use Controls unless and until an agreement is in effect.

EPA appreciates the level of effort that was put forth in the documents leading to this decision. EPA looks forward to working with HAFB as we move towards final cleanup of the National Priorities Eist (NPE) site.

If you have any questions, please call me at (404) 562-8651, or Doyle T. Brittain at (404) 562-8549.

Sincerely,

Richard D. Green, Director Waste Management Division

cc: Thomas J. Bartol, HAFB/AFBCA John Mitchell, HAEB/AFRES Jim Woolford, EPA/EERO Jorge Caspary, EDEP Hugh Vick, Gannett Fleming

D.Brittain/dtb:4WD-EEB:28549:02-ll-99:HAFB991-OU18ETAL.ROD

D.BRITT. E.BOZEMAN J.JOHNSTON. R.GREEN DODRS

PI'M FFE WDv

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE AIR FORCE BASE CONVERSION AGENCY

Decembers, 1998

AFBCA/DD Homestead 29050 Coral Sea Blvd., Box 36 Homestead ARB, Florida 33039-1299

US EPA, Region 4, 4WD-FFB Atlanta Federal Center 61 Forsyth St Atlanta, GA 30303-8960 ATTN: Mr. Doyle Brittain

Florida Department of Environmental Protection Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 ATTN: Mr. Jorge Caspary

Dade County Department of Environmental Resources Management Industrial Waste Section 33 SW 2nd Avenue, Suite 800 Miami, Florida 33130-1540 ATTN: Mr. James Carter

RE: Final Record of Decision (ROD) signature page. Operable Units 18, 26, 28, and 29, Former Homestead AFB, Florida

Attached for insertion into the final referenced ROD is a signature page signed by our director. Please process the final document for your agency's concurrence/approval. If you need new documents, please let me know and I will send them. The final document we sent on October 22, 1998 is valid except for the signature page that goes before page 1-1. If possible, your expedited processing will be appreciated. As you know, we want to begin the remedial action as soon as possible. I will be forwarding a remedial action work plan for this work soon. We greatly appreciate all the hard work that has gone into making this four site ROD a reality. Your concurrence is requested by January 13, 1999. If you have any questions, please contact me at (305) 224-7233.

THOMAS J. BARTOL BRAC Environmental Coordinator Homestead Operating Location

Attaclunent: Signature page for Ol^ 18.26.28.29 ROD

ee: .AFBCA DD. .Andrew Mendoza HQ .AFRC CEVV. Carlton Crenshaw HQ .AFCEE ERB. Greg Keefe Gannett Eleniing. Hugh Viek (2) 482 SPTG CEV. Jolm Mitehell B.AH. Phil Lee

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Date

Florida Department of Environmental Protection Date

[•T-Director, Air Force Convmien Agency /.

Date

F: .AFCEE HOMESTE.AD DO-OOlO DELI\"ER.-\BLE DR.-\FT FIN.AL (;)U-1S..R(;)D RODISTOC.DOC mdjdg md Hc^mestead .AFB - (;)us IS. 26. 2S and 29 Recc^rd (d'Decisic^n

S 21 9S Re\'. 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Page

1.0 SITE N.AAIE. LOCATION. AND DESCRIPTION 1-1

1.1 SITE N.AMES 1-1 1.2 LOC.ATION .AND GENERAL DESCRIPTION I-I 1.3 SITE DESCRIPTIONS 1-2

1.3.1 OIU8 - Old Contractor Storage .Ai*ea and Eonner Construction Debris Landfill 1-3

1.3.2 01^26 - Building 745. .Aii'craft Eabrication Eacility 1-3 1.3.3 01^28 - Building 750. Propulsion (Engine) Maintenance

Eacility 1-4 1.3.4 01^29 - Building 760. .Avionics .Aerospace Ground Equipment

Shop and Tactical Electronic Wartare System Shop 1-4

2.0 SITE .AND REGITL.ATORV HISTORY 2-1

2.1 REGITL.ATORV HISTORY 2-1 2.2 SITE HISTORY 2-3

3.0 COMMITNITY P.ARTICIP.ATION HISTORY 3-1 4.0 SCOPE .AND ROLES OE THE RESPONSE .ACTION 4-1 5.0 SUMM.ARY OE SITE CH.AR.ACTERISTICS 5-1

5.1 INVESTIG.ATION SUMM.ARY 5-1 5.1.1 Ol^18 - Old Contractor Storage .Ai*ea and Eonner Construction

Debris Landfill 5-1

5.1.1.1 Confiimation Siimpling 5-1 5.1.1.2 Remedial Investigation 5-2 5.1.1.3 Contamination Summaiy 5-2

5.1.2 01^26 - Building 745. .Aii'craft Eabrication 5-3

5.1.2.1 Confiimation Siimpling 5-4 5.1.2.2 l^ST Investigation 5-4 5.1.2.3 Interim Removal .Action .Activities 5-4 5.1.2.4 Remedial Investigation 5-5 5.1.2.5 Contamination SummaiT 5-6

Q:.^M11 BB JDG . J 30 <38 Honie>1ead AFB - Cîis 18.26.28 and 2<3 Record ol'Dedsion 1 Rev. 0

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Page

5.1.3 01^28 - Building 750. Propulsion (Engine) Maintenance Facility 5-8

5.1.3.1 l^ST OWS Investigations 5-8 5.1.3.2 Remedial Investigation 5-9 5.1.13.3 Contamination Summaiy 5-9

5.1.4 01^29 - Building 760. .Avionics .Aerospace Ground Equipment Shop and Tactical Electronic Wartare System Shop 5-10

5.1.4.1 UST OWS Investigations 5-10 5.1.4.2 Remedial Investigation 5-11 5.1.4.3 Contamination Summaiy 5-11

5.2 CONT.AMIN.ANT F.ATE .AND TR.ANSPORT 5-12 5.3 B.ASELINE RISK .ASSESSMENT(BR.A) 5-13

5.3.1 Human Health 5-13

5.3.1.1 Selection of Contaminants of Potential Concern (COPCS) 5-14

5.3.1.2 Exposure .Assessment 5-15 5.3.1.3 Exposure Point Concentrations 5-17 5.3.1.4 Estimating Chemical Intiikes 5-18 5.3.1.5 Toxicity .Assessment 5-19 5.3.1.6 Risk Characterization 5-19

5.3.2 Ecological Risk .Assessment 5-21

5.3.2.1 Ecological Habitat Review 5-22 5.3.2.2 Chemicals of Potential Ecological Concern

(COPECs) 5-24 5.3.2.3 Exposure .Assessment 5-25 5.3.2.4 Risk Evaluation 5-25

5.3.3 SummiUT of Human Health and Ecological Risks 5-28

5.4 PRELIMINARY REMEDI.ATION GOALS 5-29 5.4.1 Human Health iind Envii-onmental Risks Identified by BR.A 5-30 5.4.2 PRGs Based on FDEP Cleanup Goals 5-31

Q:.^M11 BB B(:iD18T(X'.D(:iC MG JDG .. A 30 <38 Honie>1ead AFB - Cîis 18.26.28 and 2<3 Record ol'Dedsion H Rev. 0

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Page

5.4.3 PRGs Based on Site-Specil'ic Risk .Assessment 5-32 5.4.4 SummaiA ofPRGs 5-33

6.0 REMEDI.AL .ALTERN.ATIYES 6-1

6.1 REMEDEYL .ACTION OBJECTIVES 6-1

6.1.1 IdentLfication of .Applicable or Relevant and .Appropriate Requii'ements (.AR.ARs) 6-1

6.1.1.1 Chemical-Specific .AR.ARs 6-3 6.1.1.2 Location-Specific .AR.ARs 6-4 6.1.1.3 .Action-Specific .AR.ARs 6-6 6.1.1.4 Identification of Remedial Objectives 6-6

6.2 .ALTERN.ATIVE DEVELOPMENT .AND SCREENING PROCESS

6.2.1 Detailed .Analysis Criteria 6-9

6.2.1.1 Overall Protection of Human Health iind the Envii-onment 6-10

6.2.1.2 Compliance with .AR.ARs 6-10 6.2.1.3 Long-tenn Eflectiveness and Permanence 6-10 6.2.1.4 Reduction of TMV Tlu'ough Treatment 6-10 6.2.1.5 Shoi1-Tenn Eflectiveness 6-II 6.2.1.6 Implementability 6-11 6.2.1.7 Cost " 6-11

6.3 .ALTERN.ATIVES .ADDRESSING OV 18 SOILS .AND SEDIMENTS 6-12

6.3.1 Description of .Alternatives 6-12 6.3.2 Detailed .Analysis of .Alternatives .Addressing OIH8 Soils and

Sediment 6-15 6.3.3 CompiU'ative .Aialysis Of .Alternatives .Addressing OIH8 Soils

and Sediments 6-16


6.3.3.2 Compliance with .AR.ARs 6-16 6.3.3.3 Long-Tenn Eflectiveness iind Pennanence 6-17 6.3.3.4 Reduction of TMV tlu'ough Treatment 6-17

Q:.^M11 BB B(:iD18T(X'.D(:iC MG JDG ... A 30 <38 Honie>1ead AFB - Cîis 18.26.28 and 2<3 Record ol'Dedsion HI Rev. 0

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Page

6.3.3.5 Shoil-Tenn Eftectiveness 6-18 6.3.3.6 Implementability 6-18 6.3.3.7 Cost " 6-18

6.3.4 Proposed .Alternative for OIU8 Soils and Sediments 6-19

6.4 .ALTERN.ATIVES .ADDRESSING 01^26 SOILS 6-19

6.4.1 Description of .Alternatives 6-19 6.4.2 Detailed .Analysis of .Alternatives .Addressing 01^26 Soils 6-21 6.4.3 CompiU'ative .Analysis Of .Alternatives .Addressing 01^26 Soils 6-21


6.4.3.2 Compliance with .AR.ARs 6-21 6.4.3.3 Long-Tenn Eftectiveness iind Pennanence 6-22 6.4.3.4 Reduction of TMV tlu'ough Treatment 6-22 6.4.3.5 Shoil-Teim Eftectiveness 6-22 6.4.3.6 Implementability 6-23 6.4.3.7 Cost " 6-23

6.4.4 Proposed .Alternative for 01^26 Soils 6-23

6.5 .ALTERN.ATIVES .ADDRESSING 01^26 GROfTNDW.ATER 6-24

6.5.1 Description of .Alternatives 6-24 6.5.2 Detailed .Analysis of .Alternatives .Addressing 01^26

Groundwater 6-26 6.5.3 CompiU'ative .Analysis Of .Alternatives .Addressing 01^26

Groundwater 6-26

6.5.3.1 Overall Protection of Human Health iind the Emii'onment 6-26

6.5.3.2 Compliance with .AR.ARs 6-27 6.5.3.3 Long-Tenn Eftectiveness iind Pennanence 6-27 6.5.3.4 Reduction of TMV tlu'ough Treatment 6-28 6.5.3.5 Shoil-Tenii Eftectiveness 6-28 6.5.3.6 Implementability 6-28 6.5.3.7 Cost " 6-29

Q:.^M11 BB JDG . J 30 <38 Honie>1ead AFB - Cîis 18.26.28 and 2<3 Record ol'Dedsion Rev. 0

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Page

6.5.4 Proposed .Alternative for 01^26 Groundwater 6-30




6.6.3.2 Compliance with .AR.ARs 6-33 6.6.3.3 Long-Tenn Eftectiveness iind Pennanence 6-33 6.6.3.4 Reduction of TMV tlu'ough Treatment 6-33 6.6.3.5 Shoil-Tenn Eftectiveness 6-33 6.6.3.6 Implementability 6-34 6.6.3.7 Cost 6-34





6.7.3.2 Compliance with .AR.ARs 6-37 6.7.3.3 Long-Tenn Eftectiveness iind Pennanence 6-37 6.7.3.4 Reduction of TMV tlu'ough Treatment 6-38 6.7.3.5 Shoil-Tenii Eftectiveness 6-38 6.7.3.6 Implementability 6-38 6.7.3.7 Cost " 6-38


6.8 SELECTED REMEDIES SUMM.ARV 6-39 6.9 ST.ATITORV DETERMIN.ATIONS 6-40

Q:.^M11 BB JDG J 30 <38 Honie>1ead AFB - Cîis 18.26.28 and 2<3 Record ol'Dedsion ^ Rev. 0

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section

7.0 RESPONSIVENESS SUMM.VRV

8.0 REEERENCES

Page

7-1

8-1

Q:3M11 BB JDG Honie>1ead AFB - Cîis 18. 26. 28 and 2<3 Record ol'Dedsion VI

dA0<)8 Rev. 0

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF T.ABLES

T.ABLE 5-1 SITMMARV OF COPCs IDENTIFIED IN THE HIAI.AN HE.ALTH RISK ASSESSMENT AT OIN 18. 26. 28. .AND 29

T.ABLE 5-2 SIAIM.ARV OF THE RESITLTS OF THE B.ASELINE RISK ASSESSMENT T.ABLE 5-3 SIAIM.ARV OF COPECs IDENTIFIED IN THE ECOLOGICAL HE.ALTH

RISK .ASSESSMENT .AT OIN 18. 26. 28. .AND 29 T.ABLE 5-4 PRELIMINARY REMEDI.ATION GOALS FOR CONT.AMIN.ANTS OF

CONCERN .AT HOMESTE.AD .AEB T.ABLE 6-1 SIAIM.ARV OF POTENTI.AL CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC AR.ARs TBCs.

HOMESTE.AD .AEB T.ABLE 6-2 SIAIM.ARV OF POTENTI.AL LOC.ATION-SPECIEIC .AR.ARs. HOMESTE.AD

.AEB T.ABLE 6-3 POTENTI.AL .ACTION-SPECIFIC .AR.ARs TBCs. HOMESTE.AD AEB T.ABLE 6-4 DETAILED .AN.ALVSIS OF .ALTERN.ATIVES .ADDRESSING OIH8 SOILS

.AND SEDIMENTS. HOMESTE.AD AEB. EE.ASIBILITV STITDV T.ABLE 6-5 .ACTION-SPECIFIC .AR.ARs TBCs HOMESTE.AD .AEB T.ABLE 6-6 DETAILED .AN.ALVSIS OF. .ALTERN.ATIVES .ADDRESSING 01^26 SOILS

.AND SEDIMENTS. HOMESTE.AD AEB. EE.ASIBILITV STITDV T.ABLE 6-7 DETAILED .AN.ALVSIS OF .ALTERN.ATIVES .ADDRESSING 01^26

GROITNDW.ATER. HOMESTE.AD .AEB. EE.ASIBILITV STITDV T.ABLE 6-8 DETAILED .AN.ALVSIS OF .ALTERN.ATIVES .ADDRESSING 01^28 SOILS.

HOMESTE.AD .AEB. EE.ASIBILITV STITDV T.ABLE 6-9 DETAILED .AN.ALVSIS OF .ALTERN.ATIVES .ADDRESSING 01^29 SOILS.

HOMESTE.AD .AEB. EE.ASIBILITV STl^DV

Q:.^M11 BB JDG Honie>1ead AFB - Cîis 18. 26. 28 and 2<3 Record ol'Dedsion Vll

dA0<)8 Rev. 0

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF FIGl^RES

FIGURE I-1 FIGURE 1-2

FIGURE 1-3 FIGURE 1-4 FIGURE 1-5 FIGURE 1-6 FIGURE 1-7 FIGURE 5-1

FIGURE 5-2 FIGITRE 5-3

FIGITRE 5-4

FIGURE 5-5 FIGITRE 5-6

FIGURE 5-7

EIGURE 5-8

EIGl^RE 5-9

EIGURE 5-10

LOCATION MAP TOPOGRAPHIC M.AP OF HOMESTE.AD .AFB .AND SITRROITNDING .ARE.A. HOMESTEAD AFB. FLORIDA LOC.ATIONS OF Ol^ SITES OUI8 SITE DLAGR.AM OIT26 SITE DLAGR.AM OIT28 SITE DLAGR.AM OIT29 SITE DLAGR.AM OIH8 CONFIRM.ATION SAMPLING LOC.ATIONS .AND RESITLTS OIH8 RI S.AMPLING LOC.ATIONS OIH8 CONT.AMIN.ANTS EXCEEDING FDEP INDITSTRI.AL CLE.AN-ITP GO.ALS CRITERIA IN SITE MEDIA OIT26 CONFIRM.ATION S.AMPLING LOC.ATIONS .AND RESITLTS OIT26 RI S.AMPLING LOC.ATIONS OIT26 CONT.AMIN.ANTS EXCEEDING FDEP INDITSTRI.AL CLE.AN-ITP GO.ALS CRITERIA IN SITE MEDIA OIT28 (FORMERLY BITLDING 750): RI S.AMPLING LOC.ATIONS OIT28 (FORMERLY BITLDING 750): CONT.AMIN.ANTS EXCEEDING FDEP INDITSTRI.AL CLE.AN-liP GO.ALS CRITERIA IN SITE MEDIA OIT29 (FORMERLY BITLDING 760): RI S.AMPLING LOC.ATIONS OIT29 (FORMERLY BITLDING 760): CONT.AMIN.ANTS EXCEEDING FDEP INDITSTRI.AL CLE.AN-liP GO.ALS CRITERIA IN SITE MEDIA

Q:.^M11 BB JDG Honie>1ead AFB - Cîis 18. 26. 28 and 2<3 Record ol'Dedsion Vlll

dA0<)8 Rev. 0

ACRONYM LIST

ACC .AFB .AFRC AOC .ARARs .ARB AST BCT BRA BR.AC BTEX CERCLA

COI COPC COPEC DC.AD DCB DCE DDD DDE DDT DERM

DERP DOD EPA E.AC EDEP EDER EEA ES HI HQ MRS IE IRA IRP ETTD MCE mg kg

.Ail* Combat Command

.Ail* Eorce Base

.Ail* Eorce Resei*\ e Command

.Ai*ea of Concern

.Applicable or Rele\ant and .Appropriate Requii*ements

.Ail* Reser\ e Base

.Abo\eground Storage Tank BR.AC Cleanup Team Baseline Risk .Assessment Base Realignment iind Closure Benzene. Toluene. Ethylbenzene. Xylenes Comprehensive Envii*onmental Response. Compensation, iind Liabilit\ .Act Chemical of Interest Chemicals of Potential Concern Chemical of Potential Ecological Concern Dade County .Aviation Department Dichloro benzene Dichloroethene Dichloro-Diphenyl-Dichloroethane Dichloro-Diphenyl-Dichloroethylene Dichloro-Diphenyl-Trichloroethane Metropolitiin Dade County Department of Envii*onmental Resources Miinagement Defense Envii*onmental Restoration Program Department of Defense IfS. Envii*onmental Protection .Agency Elorida .Administrative Code Elorida Department of Envii*onmental Protection Elorida Department of Envii*onmental Regulation federal facilities .Agreement feasibility Study Hazard Index Hazard Quotient Hazard Rmiking System Intake factor Interim Remo\al .Action Installation Restoration Program Low Temperature Tliennal Desoiption Maximum Contaminant Level milligriims kilo grmn

Q:.^M11 BB JDG Honie>1ead AFB - Cîis 18. 26. 28 and 2<3 Record ol'Dedsion IX

dA0<)8 Rev. 0

ACRONYM LIST

mg 1 milligriuns liter NCP National Oil and Substances Pollution Contingency Plan NFA No Fuilher Action NPDES National Pollutant DischiU'ge Elimination System NPL National Priorities List OIT Operable Vn'iX OHM OH Materials OWS Oil Water Separator P.AH PoKnuclear .Ai'omatic H\drocarbon PCB Polychlorinated Biphenyl PCE Tetrachloroethene ppb piU'ts per billion ppm piU'ts per million PRO Preliminaiy Remedial Goal PSC Potential Source of Contamination R.AB Restoration Ad\isoi*\ Board RAO Remedial Action Objectives RBC Risk-Based Concentration RCRA Resource Conservation and Recoveiy Act RFA RCRA Eacility Assessment RI Remedial Investigation RIO Reference Dose RL Reporting Limit RME Reasonable Maximum Exposure ROD Record of Decision SAC Strategic Aii* Command S.ARA Superfiind .Amendments and Reauthorization .Act SF Slope Eactor SI Site Inspection SVOC Semivolatile Organic Compound TAG Tactical .Aii* Command TCE Trichloroethene TEFs Toxicity Equivalency Eactors TFW Tactical Training Wing TMV Toxicity. Mobility, iind Volume TRPH Total Recoverable Petroleum Hydrocarbon TTW Tactical Training Wing UCL l^pper Confidence Limit Pg l^g micrograms kilogram Pg L micrograms liter l^SACE IfS. .Aimy Corps of Engineers

Q:3M11 BB B(:iD18T(X'.D(:iCMG JDG Honie>1ead AFB - Cîis 18. 26. 28 and 2<3 Record ol'Dedsion

-1A0<)8 Rev. 0

ACRONYM LIST

l^S.AF Ihiited States .Air Force l^ST Ihidergi'ound Storage Taiik VOC Volatile Oi'giinic Compound \V-C WoodwiU'd-Clvde

Q: .^M11 BB RC^Dl 8 RC^Dl 8T(X'.D(X' nuljcle A 30 <38 Honie>1ead AFB-(X'> 18.26. 28.ajKl 2<3 Record of Decision Rev.CI

DECLARATION STATEMENT FOR THE RECORD OF DECISION

FOR OPER.ABLE l^NIT NOs. 18. 26. 28 AND 29

SITE NAME AND LOCATION

Operable Ihiit Nos. 18. 26. 28. and 29

Homestead .Air Eoree Base. Florida

ST.ATEMENT OE BASIS AND PURPOSE

Tills deeision doeument presents the seleeted remediiil aetions forthe Operable Ihiits (OIN) 18. 26. 28. iind 29 at Homestead .Air Eoree Base (.AEB). Florida. The remedial aetions were ehosen in aeeordiinee with the Comprehensive Environmental Response. Compensation, iind Liability .Aet (CERCL.A). as iimended by Superfund .Amendments and Reauthorization .Aet (S.AR.A). iind to the extent praetieahle. the National Oil iind HaziU'dous Suhstiuiees Pollution Contingeney Pliui (NCP). This deeision is based on the administrative reeord for this site. The State of Florida, the IfS. Environmental Proteetion .Ageney (EP.A). iind the IfS. .Air Eoree (l^S.AE) eoneur with the seleeted remedy presented in this Reeord of Deeision (ROD).

ASSESSMENT OE SITES

.Aetual or tlu'eatened releases of hiiziu'dous suhstiuiees from the Ol^ sites, if not addressed by implementing the response aetions seleeted in this ROD. may present iui imminent iind suhstiuitial endiuigemient to puhlie health. welTu'e. or the environment. Tlie risks identified in the Remedial Investigation (RI) forOlN 18. 26. 28. iind 29 iii*e presented below:

Operable l^nit Human Risk Environmental Risk

OU 18 EE E

OU 26 EE —

OU 28 E E

OU 29 E —

" = Risk values did not exeeed EP.A eriteria E = Risk values exeeed EP.A eriteria E = Contiimiiiiint eoneentrations exeeeded risk-based Florida Depiulment of Environmental

Proteetion(EDEP) industrial soil eleiuiup goals.


DESCRIPTION OF SELECTED REMEDIES

Remedies have been selected which address the principiil risks identified at each Ol^ site. Tlie selected remedies will allow for Homestead .APB to meet its overall objective of protecting humiin health iind the environment tlu'ougli the process of identifying, investigating, cleiining up. iind closing contiiminated sites.

The remedial alternatives selected for each site iii*e summiuized below:

Operable l^nit Media Remedial Alternative

OU18 Soil Sediment GUI8-3: Soil Cover

OU26 Soil OU26-4S: Remove and Landfill

Groundwater OU26-3G: Intrinsic Remediation

OU28 Soil OU28-4: Remove and Landfill

OU29 Soil OU29-4: Remove and Landfill

The selected alternative to address soil risks at Om 26. 28 and 29 is to "remove iind hindtlll" the contiimination. This altemative includes:

• Excavation iind removal of contaminated soils

• Backl'illing excavated iU'eas with uncontiiminated till

• Tninspoiling contiiminated soils to a solid wii.ste liindtlll for disposal

• Lead-contiiminated soils at site 01^28that iii*e detemiinedtobe chimicteristicalK hiiziu'dous will be encapsulated stabilized prior to disposal in a solid wii.ste liindtlll

.At Gin8. the "soil cover" alternative has been selected to address risks associated with soil iind sediment contiimination. This altemative includes:

• Removing existing asphaltic sediments iind the site fill material along the ciinal

• Placing removed sediments iind fill materiiil on top of the site

• Re-gi*iiding the site

• Placing a vegetated soil cover over the site

Q: .^M11 BB 18 RC^D 18T(X'.D(X' nulj(to Honit->1t-ad AFB-(X'> 18.26. 28.ajKl 2<5 Record of Decision

dA0<)8 Rec.Ci

The "intrinsic remediation" altemative has been selected to address risks associated with groundwater contiimination at 01^26. Intrinsic remediation includes:

• Evaluation of biodegradation reduction of contiimimints over time

• Long-tenn groundwater monitoring for chemicals of concem

• Restriction of groundwater use at the site

• Long-tenn niiinagement iind health iind siilet\ o\ ersight for construction projects in the iii*ea

STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS

The selected remedies iii*e protective of huniiin health iind the environment, comply with Federal iind State requirements that iii*e legally applicable or releviint iind appropriate to the remedial action, iind iii*e cost etTective. Tliese remedies utilize pemiiinent solutions iind alternative treatment or resource recoveiy teclinologies. to the maximum exient practicable. However, because treatment of the principal threats at the OVh was not found to be practicable, these remedies do not satisfy the statutoiy preference for treatment as a principal element.

Because the remedies for OVh 18 soils sediments iind 26 groundwater will result in hiiziu'dous substiinces reniiiining on site above heiilth-based levels, a review will be conducted within five yeiU's of commencement of remedial action to ensure that the remedies continue to provide adequate protection of huniiin health iind the environment.

Because the selected remedy for soil at Ol^s 26. 28 iind 29 will not result in hiiziu'dous substiinces remaining on site above health-lmsed levels, the five-yeiu* review will not apply to these actions for Ol^s 26. 28. iind 29.


1.0 SITE NAME, LOCATION, AND DESCRIPTION

The following sections provide descriptions of OVh 18. 26. 28. iind 29.

1.1 SITE NAMES

This ROD is for the following Homestead .ATB Om:

• Ol^ 18 - Old Contractor Storage .Ai*ea iind Fonner Construction Debris Landfill

• 01^26 - Building 745. .Aircraft Fabrication Facility

• 01^28 - Building 750. Propulsion (Engine) Maintemince Facility

• 01^29 - Building 760. .Avionics .Aerospace Ground Equipment Shop iind Tactical Electronic WiuTu'e System Shop

Section 1.3 provides site specific descriptions of the Ol^s.

1.2 LOCATION AND GENERAL DESCRIPTION

The four Ol^s iii*e located at Homestead .ATB. which is located in southern Dade County. Elorida.

approximately 25 miles southwest of Miiimi iind 7 miles eii.st of the town of Homestead (Eigure 1-1).

The main Base covei's approximately 2.916 acres. There iii*e approximately 700 pei'sonnel cuiTently

working at the Base: about half iii*e militiuy pei'sonnel iind half iii*e civiliiin employees. .An .Additional

200 to 300 Reservists iii*e at the Base for training, but iii*e not ftill-tinie employees. Tlie neiU'by city

of Homestead has iin approximate population of 18.700. Elorida City is home to approximately 5.500

residents (Homestead Chiiniber of Commerce 1994). The population for the greater Miiimi iU'ea is

reported to be 1.9 million (Miiimi Chiiniber of Commerce 1994).

The topography at Homestead .AEB iind associated OVh is relatively tlat. Miiny of the trees iind

buildings previously on the Base were destroyed in 1992 by Humciine .Andrew. The

Q:.^M11 BBR(:iD18R(:iD18T(X'.D(XnKlj<le . . J30<)8 Honie>1ead AFB-(X'> 18.26.28.ajKl 2<3 Record of Decision 1" 1 Rev.CI

tliglitline. support buildings iind hiingiU's. iind several otTice-txpe buildings have been repaired or

rebuilt since the humciine. The Base is suirounded by a security fence.

A series of ciinals fonn the Boundiuy Ciinal system that drains most of the Base. Tlie Boundiuy Ciinal

empties into the stonn water reservoir at the southea.st comer of the Base. Water in the Boundiuy

Ciinal iind reservoir consists of stomi water iind is not used as a potable water source. The Boundiuy

Ciinal has essentially two major elements, the West-South iind North-Eii.st segments. .A dike is present

along the outside biink of the Boundaiy Ciinal to minimize off-Base runoff from entering the ciimil.

The Outtiill Ciinal tlows straiglit east from the stonn water reser\ oir iind empties into Biscii\ne Bii\.

The total length of the Outtall Ciinal is approximately 10.400 feet (2.0 miles). In addition to the

excavated canal, an eiulhen bank is constructed on both sides. Control structure S20G is located

along Outtall Ciinal. approximately 1.4 miles eii.st of the reservoir. .According to the South Florida

Water Miinagement District (SFWMD). this structure controls the tlow of the Outtall Ciinal to

minimize salt water intmsion from Biscii\ne Bay. Watermovement tlu'ougli the structure is controlled

by a vertical lift gate. Tlie gate is 25 feet wide iind ciin be lifted to provide a maximum opening of at

leii.st 10 feet in heiglit (l^S.ACE 1963). The width of the Outtall Ciinal ranges from approximately 35

to 50 feet. The total depth of the ciinal including the biink ranges from 10 to 20 feet.

The Base is suiTounded by residential iU'eas to the north and southwest, iind Tiniihind and phint

nurseries on the other boundiu'ies. Figure 1-2 shows Homestead .AFB iind suiTounding iU'ea.

1.3 SITE DESCRIPTIONS

The following sections provide site specific descriptions for the four OIN discussed in this ROD.

Figure 1-3 shows the locations of the OIN within Homestead .AFB.

Q:.^M11 BBR(:iD18R(:iD18T(X'.D(XnKlj<le . - J30<)8 Honie>1ead AFB-(X'> 18.26.28.ajKl 2<3 Record of Decision \.-Z Rev.CI

1.3.1 01^18 - Old Contractor Storage Area and Former Construction

Debris Landfill

Ol^ 18 consists of the fonner Old Contractor Storage .Ai*ea iind Fonner Construction Debris Liindfill.

Gins occupies iin iii*ea of approximately 2.5 acres neiu* the comer of Bikini Bouleviu'd iind

Schweinfiiil Road at the noilhea.stem edge of the Base (Figure 1-4). .According to Homestead

pei'sonnel. OIH8 had been used by contractors since the eiU'ly 1980s for storage of viu'ious materials

(including pipes, equipment, paint ciins. iind tools) iind for the disposal of crushed asphalt. The

surface consists of crushed asphalt with some siind iind gravel.

Surface drainage flows to a swale located along the site's southeii.st edge. The swale drains to the

southwest. The southern iind southwest edge of the Ol^ is bounded b\ gjuss. brush, iind small trees,

wliile the north iind west sides iii*e bounded b\ ciinals. Tlie west edge is bounded b\ a ciimil between

the site iind the fonner Fiimily Ciinip Grounds access road. The north edge of the site runs up against

the Boundiuy Ciinal.

.Althougli there have been no reported spills for this iU'ea. housekeeping had been poor, iind

contractors appciU'ed to have routinely left unusable debris when leavingthe site. .Ai'eas of oil staining

iind paint spillage were noted througliout the iU'ea during a June 1993 visual inspection. Beginning

in 1995. piles of excavation material have been placed onto the site by Bii.se contractoi's.

1.3.2 OU26 - Builclmg 745, .Aircraft Fabrication Facility

01^26. which includes Building 745 - .Aircnift Fabrication Facility, occupies about 1.5 acres in the

ea-st-central portion of the Base (Figure 1-5). .Accordingto Homestead .AFB pei'sonnel. the building

had been used for mainteniince of aircraft skin iind hydraulics. Building 745 has been piulially repaired

since Humciine .Andrew. The building is unoccupied iind will likely be demolished as piii1 of reuse

activities. There iii*e cuiTently no pliins to occupy the facility. .Asphalt parking iind driveways iii*e

located to the northwest, southwest, iind southeii.st. Grassy iU'eas iind a drainage ciinal iii*e located to

the northeast. Three transfomiers were

Q:.^M11 BBR(:iD18R(:iD18T(X'.D(XnKlj<le . - J30<)8 Honie>1ead AFB-(X'> 18.26.28.ajKl 2<3 Record of Decision f "3 Rev.CI

repoiledly stored in a fenced iii*ea on the east side of Building 745. No leiiks were reported iu'ound

the tninsfonnei's.

A covered concrete stab labeled Building 746 is located southea.st of Building 745. Building 746 was

used to store contained gas cylinders. Two tTinunable materials storage cabinets were located south

of Building 746 iind contained paints, solvents, iind driveway sealer during a 1993 visual inspection.

1.3.3 OU28 - Builclmg 750, Propulsion (Eiigme) Mamteiiaiice Facility

01^28. which includes Building 750 - Propulsion (Engine) Miiintemince Facility, occupies

approximately 4 acres immediately northea.st of 01^26 (Figure 1-6). 01^28 had been used for jet

engine teiu-down. rebuilding, inspection iind repair since approximately 1950. The site topography

gently slopes to the north to a drainage swale at the northwest portion of the site iind to the southeii.st

towiU'ds a drainage swale at the southeii.st portion of the building. The site driveways iind parking

iU'eas iii*e covered with asphalt. Small iU'eas to the sides iind reiu* of the building iii*e grass covered.

.An oil water sepimitor (OWS) and sump were located in the southwest portion of the site, iind tlve

underground storage tiinks (l^STs) associated with electroplating operations at the facility were

located at the northwest comer of the building by Bikini Bouleviu'd. Building 744. iin aboveground

storage tiink (.AST), iind Building 743. iin emergency electrical generation building. iii*e located at the

south side of the site.

1.3.4 OU29 - Builclmg 760, .Avionics .Aerospace Gromicl Equipment Shop and Tactical

Electronic \\ aiTare System Shop

01^29. which consists of fomier Building 760 and suiTounding iU'ea. is located northeii.st of the

intei'section of Bikini iind St. Niizaire Bouleviu'ds (Figure 1-7). Building 760 was demolished due to

diimage from Humcane .Andrew. The site cuiTently consists of a niixlure of asphalt or concrete paved

iU'eas iind a grassy iU'ea covering the fomier building footprint. NeiU'by 01^28 is located southwest

iind across St. Niizaire Blvd. from 01^29.

Q:.^M11 BBR(:iD18R(:iD18T(X'.D(XnKlj<le . . J30<)8 Honie>1ead AFB-(X'> 18.26.28.ajKl 2<3 Record of Decision 1 "4 Rev.CI

Building 760 was used as im Avionics Aerospace Ground Equipment shop, a Tactical Electronic

WaiTu'e System shop, iind housed viu'ious associated testing shops based oil available records. .An

OWS had been located at the southea.st comer of Building 760. Et^luent from the OWS dischiU'ged

to the north into the Siinitiuy sewer that mns iilong Bikini Bouleviu'd. .A 2.000-gallon steel l^ST was

also located adjacent to the southwest side of Building 760. The tank was reportedly used to store

diesel fuel used to power a generator or boiler that was located inside Building 760.

Q:.^M11 BBR(:iD18R(:iD18T(X'.D(XnKlj<le . . J30<)8 Honie>1ead AFB-(X'> 18.26.28.ajKl 2<3 Record of Decision 1Rev. CI

HOMESTEAD AFB

0 1020 40 (0 N tlUIS L_1_J \ 1 I

April 29. 1998 9;13-.41 a.m. Drawmp: T;\H0MESTED\C3M11BB\TSKM22\FI-1TMZ2.DWG (TSSM)

Homeste»d Air Force Btie TTHE lOCATlON MAP no 1-1

LEGEND

OU SITES

OUlS a Old Contracfor Sôraga Af 3 and rormtr Conx^ruction Dabrfs LondftH

Oy2B = Bidg. 745, Aircraft Fabrtcolion

Olt29 = Wdg. 750, Propulsion (Engiftt) Molntoocnc* Fccllity

pU29 =r BIdg, 760, Avionics Aorospoca ' Ground EquipmonI Shop,

Tocflcol Eloctronlc Warfora Syafanr^ Shop

April 29. Iffi 12:40:39 p.m. T;\HOMCSTCI)\C5MttN\TOOI\n"3W)01.DWG |TSW)

Xrrla: iASC.OWC

I N

1500 750 0 1500 SCALE \H FEET

Homealead Air Forct Baia mc LOCATIONS OF OU SITES na 1-3

LEGEND

m

DRAIHACE SWALE

SfTC gOVHDARY

Am CONOtnOHER

SLOfE

OU26

Q ZS SO

MWOXttUTE SOt£ W Fccr

OU20 SITE DIAGRAM

i-r>

I r LEGEND

_ ORAMACC SWALt

sue BOUNDARY

— SLOfE

FORUCR EXCAVATIOH AREA

FORMER UNOIMROVW STORAGE TANK LOCATION

1^ \ CULVERT LOCATION

NUHAI m.

i,.l, o<l-uilCWrC V«»K • :i_zzi_£zz2\

H(»m«*Ui4 *U- Fnrp* 0U28

SITE DiAGRAH

OU29

MOP

50 0 50 5

SCALE tN FEET

LEGEND

C3

DRAINAGE SWALE

SITE BOUNDARY FOR Rl PURPOSES

- REMOVCD BUILDING

SLOPE

FORMER EXCAVATION AREA

FORMER CML/WATER SEPARATOR

FORMER UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK LOCATION

CULVERT LOCATION

A^N 2f, im 2:1«.'04 p.m, Dr«wlrvf: r:\HOM£STEO\C3Wt tn\RO01\ri-7I900I.0WC (TSSW) Xr#f»: Oi<>MM.DWC V=S(TE

Homeiieftd Air Forc» Bms9 mi 0U29 SITE DIAGRAM

2.0 SITE AND REGULATORY HISTORY

The following sections describe the regulator iind site histoiy related to Homestead .AFB iind

associated Ous.

2.1 REGULATORY HISTORY

The Installation Restoration Progj'iim (IRP) is the l^SAF's vehicle for implementing the Defense

Environmental Restoration Program (DERP). The DERP was developed by the Depiulment of

Defense (DOD) to meet the requirements of CERCLA in accordance with the NCP. In 1986. DERP

was expiindedto incoiporate the requirements of S.ARA. The progj'iim goals of the IRP iii*e consistent

with the progj'iim goals of DERP: to identify, investigate, clemi up iind close contiiminated sites.

In 1987. Executive Oi'der 12580 delegated the lead agency responsibilities for CERCLA S.ARA to

the Secretiuy of Defense to ciiny out environment restoration at militiuy tacilities. Ihider DERP. the

activities iii*e Ciuried out consistent with CERCL.A §120 iind in consultation with the EP.A DERP also

gives DOD the authority to enter into agreements with federal iind state agencies iind local

go\ eninients for assistiince in ciiny ing out ein ironmental restoration progriinis.

The IRP was initiated at Homestead .AEB in 1983 iind a Records Seiuvli was completed for the Base.

Beginning in 1986. a series of more detailed investigations were completed at viuious locations on

the Base. In accordiince with S.AR.-A the EP.A prepiii*ed a final Hiizard Riinking System (HRS)

scoring package for Homestead .AEB. Tliis led to the final listing of Homestead .AEB on the National

Priorities List (NPL) on .August 30.1990.

.As a result of the NPL listing, the l^S.AE entered into a federal Eacilities .Agreement (EE.A) with the

EP.A iind the Elorida Depiulment of Eiivironmental Protection (EDEP. fomierly the Elorida

Depiulment of Eiiviroiimental Regulation, or EDER) on May 25. 1990. The EE.A required the

identified GIN to be investigated underthe EE.A. GIN 18. 26. 28 iind 29 were identified as potential

sources of coiitiimination (PSC) iind iii*e included in this RGD.

Q:.^M11 BBR(:iD18R(:iD18S02.D(X' nuljcle - . J2<)<)8 Honie>1ead AFB - CÛs 18.26.28. ajid 2<3 Record ol'Dedsioii 2-1 R£\'.0

In 1992. due to dmnage caused by Humciine .Andrew, sixty-two (62) on-Base sites and four (4)

otT-Base sites were designated as units iii*eas of concern (.AOCs) by the l^S.AF. the EP.A. the FDER

(now the EDEP). iind the IfS. .Anny Coips of Engineei's (l^S.ACE). Subsequent to this listing, two

more on-Base units (Munitions Storage .Ai*ea iind Jet Engine Test Cell) were added. Tliese units were

identified to be evaluated for the potential of a release that would have resulted from Humciine

.Andrew or specific wa.ste hiindling activities at the sites. In July 1993. a Resources Conservation iind

Recoveiy .Act (RCR.A) Facility .Assessment (RF.A) was conducted by W-C at the 68 sites .AOCs

(\V-C 1994). The RE.A included record seiuvhes. personal interviews, iind site inspections. .As a result

of the RE.A iind tniiisfereiice of ceilain sites to the Base l^ST OWS Progi'iiiii. 31 sites were eliminated

from fuilher consideration. The remaining 37 units were recommended for Coiifiniiatioii Siimpling

due to their potential for a release ofhiiziu'dous constituents to the environment identified in the RE.A.

Siimpling for the 37 units was conducted from .April 1994 through July 1994. which included the

Siimpling of the suilace soil, subsurtace limestone, iind groundwater. .As a result of Coiifiniiatioii

Siimplingiind agreements reached during subsequent Base Realignment iind Closure (BR.AC)Cleiinup

Teiini (BCT) meetings, of the 37 sites. 15 sites required no fiiilher action. 10 sites were rea-ssigned

to be addressed in other progriinis. 6 sites were recommended for iin RE iind 6 were recommended

for fuilher investigation as expiinded Site Investigation (SI) sites in accordiince with

CERCL.A S.AR.A.

ConcuiTent to the Coiifiniiatioii Siimpling Prognim. investigations in conjunction with the Base

l^ST OWS Remediation Progriini were completed at Building 750 iind Building 760. iind at OWS

206 (iieiu* Building 200). .As a result of the presence of chlorinated Volatile Organic Compounds

(VOCs) detected during the investigations at Buildings 750 iind 760. these sites were designated as

01^28 iind 01^29. respectively, to be investigated under CERCL.A. OWS 206 was designated to be

addressed as iin expiinded SI specific to the OWS eftluent.

The RI sites addressed in this ROD have had work completed in conjunction with the Base

l^ST OWS Remediation progriini. .As a result of data generated from the Confimiation

Q:.^M11 BBR(:iD18R(:iD18S02.D(X' nuljcle - - J2<)<)8 Honie>1ead AFB - CÛs 18.26.28. ajid 2<3 Record ol'Dedsioii 2-2 R£\'.0

Siunpling Progj'iiin. Interim Removal Actions (IRAs) were phinned iind executed for 01^22. 01^26.

iind 01^27 in conjunction with the RI.

2.2 SITE HISTORY

The hind now occupied by Homestead AFB was originally developed by Piin .Americiin .Air Femes.

Inc.. iind used for pilot training. In September 1942. the CiU'ibbeiin Wing Headqiuulers took over the

air field, iind Homestead .Air Field was activated. Homestead .Anny .Air Field was initially used by the

.Amiy Tninspoil Comniiind for dispatching aircnift overseas. However, in 1943. the Second

Operational Training Ihiit begiin using the aiiTield to train the tninspoil pilots and crews.

In October 1945. the base was placed on inactive status due to exiensive diimage caused by a

humciine in the previous month iind iinticipated post-wiu* reductions in militiuy activities. The Base

property was turned over to Dade County. Crop dusters used the runways iind a few small industrial

iind commercial industries used the buildings. The Dade County Port .Authority niiinaged the Base

until 1953. when the federal goveniment reacquired it along with the suiTounding property.

By 1955. the Homestead hicility had been rebuilt as a Strategic .Air Comniiind (S.AC) Bii.se.

Homestead .AFB. iind in Febriuuy. the first operational squadron iiiTi\ed. The Base was fomialK

reactivated in November of the siime yeiu*. During I960, modifications were made to the tacility to

accommodate B-52 aircnift.

.A Base comniiind chiinge from S.AC to the Tactical .Air Comniiind (T.AC) occuired in July 1968. Tlie

4351st Tactical Figliter Wing(TFW). which few F-IOOs. was the new host unit until October 1970.

In October 1970. the 31st TFW. which tlew F-4s. retumed from Southeii.st .Asia beciime the host unit

for Homestead .AFB. In 1981, the 31st TFW was reiiiimed the 31st Tactical Training Wing (TTW).

but was chiinged back to the 31st TFW in October 1984. The 31st TFW was re-designated again in

1991 to the 31st Figliter Wing. In 1993. Homestead .AFB was reassigned under the newly fomied .Air

Combat Comniiind (.ACC).

Q:.^M11 BBR(:iD18R(:iD18S02.D(X' nuljcle - - J2<)<)8 Honie>1ead AFB - CÛs 18.26.28. ajid 2<3 Record ol'Dedsioii 2-3 R£\'.0

On August 24. 1992. Homestead .AFB was struck b\ Humciine .Andrew. .ApproximateK 97 percent

of the Base tacilities were rendered unusable. .As a result of the humciine. most of the previous 33

temints vacated the Base, iind niiiny of the dmnaged buildings were demolished iind removed.

Following Huiricane .Andrew, the Base was operated b\ a small contingent of Base pei'sonnel from

September 1992 until .April 1994. Duringthis period, the administration of environmental progj'iims

at Homestead .AFB cluinged to reflect a cluinge in Base command structure from .ACC to the .Air

Force Base Conversion .Agency (.AFBC.A). On .April 1. 1994. approximately one-third of the Base

officiiilly beciime Homestead .Air Reseive Base (.ARB). Cuirently. the 482nd Figliter Wing of the

.AFRC utilizes approximately this portion of the Base for daily operations iind training. Most of the

remainder of the Base is cuirently under iin interim short-tenn lease to Dade County iind is being

considered for property tninsfer to the Metropolitiin Dade County .Aviation Depiulment (DC.AD) in

accordiince with the l^S.AF BR.AC progj'iim. Some piuvels have been triinsfeired to govemmental iind

private agencies, such as the IfS. Depiulment of Labor for a job training progj'iim. Dade County for

a homeless assistiince shelter. Florida Power iind Light, a credit union, iind a biink. Sites OIH8.

01^26. 01^28. iind 01^29 iii*e intended to be triinsfeired to Dade County for industrial commercial

use.


3.0

COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION HISTORY

The .Air Force has a public piulicipation progj'am at Homestead .ATB to promote public undei'stiinding

of the cleanup process iind its results, iind ensure that the community's concerns iii*e solicited,

considered, iind thorouglily addressed. Tlie backbone of this progj'iim is the Community Relations

Pliin which a.ssessed the public's level of knowledge, interest, iind inlbmiation needs by conducting

community interviews iind reseiuvhing of the local social, demographic, economic, iind political

infomiation. The Community Relations Pliin recommended compatible public involvement strategies

that include a Restoration .Advisoiy BoiU'd (R.AB). newslettei's iind tact sheets. Infomiation

Repositories, iind public meetings at project milestones.

R.ABs are a joint creation of the DOD and the EP.A iind iii*e a vehicle for community input during

environmental restoration. .A R.AB was fomied for the Homestead .ATB in October 1993 and meets

routinely. Community members of the R.AB exchiinge infomiation iind discuss restoration issues with

the BCT which includes representatives from the l^S.AF. EP.A. iind the EDEP. CuiTently. there iii*e

seven community members on the Homestead .ATB R.AB.

R.AB meetings provide opportunities for direct public participation. Presentation topics include

cuirent investigations, results, pliins forthe environmental restoration progj'iim. iindthe cuirent issues

iind decisions tacingthe BCT. .All R.AB meetings iii*e open to the public iind include a public comment

period forthe audience members to ask questions iind express opinions and concems.

Newsletters iind Eact sheets update the community membei's on the cuirent issues iind environmental

investigation iind or remediation activities. Newsletters iii*e published four times a yeiu*. iind tact

sheets iii*e published when needed to provide more detail on specific activities iind at major milestones

in the eiivironmental restoration process at Homestead .ATB.


The public has access to cuirent iind historical infomiation about environmental restoration activities

at Homestead .ATB tlu'ougli the Inlbnnation Repositoiy located at Homestead AFB. Included in the

repositoiT iii*e teclmical documents such as investigation iind remedial action reports, workphins. iind

R.AB meeting minutes iind hiindouts.

The l^S.AT has kept the public inlbnned of iind involved in the decision-niiiking process for

environmental restoration activities at Ol^s 18. 26. 28. iind 29tlii*ouglithe R.AB. newslettei's. iind tact

sheets. .Additionally, a Proposed Pliin was distributed in {to be completetf) that detailed site

investigations iind the prefeired remedial alternatives for the OVh. There was a thirty-day public

comment period during which the public had the opportunity to review the decisions iind submit

comments iind concerns. .A public meeting was also held on {to be completetf) to present the site

investigation iind prefeired remedial altematives. Submitted comments from the Proposed Pliin public

comment period iind public meeting iii*e addressed in the Responsiveness Sumniiuy. Section 7.0 of

this ROD.

Q:.^M11 BBR(:iD18R(:iD18S02.D(X' nuljcle - - J2<)<)8 Honie>1ead AFB - CÛs 18.26.28. ajid 2<3 Record ol'Dedsioii Ji-Z R£\'.0

4.0

SCOPE AND ROLES OF THE RESPONSE ACTION

.All RFAwas completed in 1994 which identified the four sites discussed in this ROD for investigation

either as part of the Conllnnation Siimpling Progj'iim iind or Base l^ST OWS Remediation Progj'iim.

Based on the initial investigation, these sites were designated as OVh. iind iin RI iind Feasibility Study

(FS) was completed for OIHS. 01^26. 01^28. and 01^29 under CERCLA. To date. 31 OVs and 2

iU'eas of concem have been designated as PSCs to be investigated. In general, the investigation of the

sites have been conducted independently of each other.

This ROD addresses remedial actions for four Ol.h\

• Ol^ 18 - (Soil Sediment Contiimination)

• Ol^ 26 - (Groundwater iind Soil Contiimination)

• Ol^ 28 - (Soil Contiimination)

• Ol^ 29 - (Soil Contiimination)

Contiiminated soils at Ol^s 18. 26. 28 iind 29 pose the principal tlu'eat to human health iind the

environment due to potential risks from ingestion or demial contact with contiimiiiiints in the soils.

In addition, there is a potential tlu'eat of soil contiimination migrating into the underlying

groundwater.

Contiiminated groundwater at 01^26 also poses a principal threat to huniiin health. The identified

potential risk is associated with construction worker demial contact with trichloroethene (TCE) in

groundwater.

The puipose of this response (e.g.. the proposed remedial actions described in Section 6.0) is to

prevent risks associated with cuiTent or Riture exposure to the coiitaminated soils iind groundwater,

iind to be protective of huniiin health iind the environment.

Q:.^M11 BBR(:iD18R(:iD18S02.D(X' nuljcle . . J2<)<)8 Honit->1t-ad AFB - 18.26.28. ajid 2<5 Record of Dedsioii 4-1 R£\'.0

5.0

SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS

The following sections describe known or suspected contamination, location(s) of potential

contiimination. iind potential routes of contiimimint migration for Ol^s 18. 26. 28. iind 29.

5.1 INVESTIGATION SUMAURV

5.1.1 01^18 - Old Contractor Storage .Area and Fornier Construction Debris

LandfiU

Coiifinnation Siimpling iind iin RI were completed at OIU8. The following sections sumniiuize the

results of each activity.

5.1.1.1 Coiifinnation Sanipluig

.A prelimimuy investigation was completed at OIU8 as piii1 of the Coiifinnation Siimpling Prognini

in 1994 (\V-C 1996ii). Investigative activities included collection of surtace soil siimples. subsurtace

soil siimples. iind groundwater siimples (Figure 5-1).

Siimpling at OIU8 indicated no signitlciint VOC contiimination in the groundwater, surtace soil or

subsurtace. PoKiiucleiU'iiromatic hydrociU'bons (P.AHs) were, however, detected at signitlciint levels

in the surtace soils, iind at less signitlciint concentrations in the subsurtace iind groundwater. Total

P.AH concentrations ranged from 1.074 nig kg to 2.291 nig kg in the surtace soil, with detections in

the subsurtace siimples generally being one to two orders of magnitude lower. Total P.AHs

concentrations in the groundwater were reported at 17 pg L iind 42 pg L. Pesticides and viu'ious

inorganic compounds (includingcyiinide iind metals) were also detected in the surtace soil, subsurtace

iind groundwater Siimples. In piuliculiu*. iU'senic was detected above the FDEP industrial soil cleiinup

goal (10 nig kg) in the subsurtace at a concentration of 26 nig kg.

Q:.^M11 BBR(:iD18R(:iD18S02.D(X' nuljcle . . J2<)<)8 Honit->1t-ad AFB - 18.26.28. ajid 2<5 Record of Dedsioii ^"t R£\'.0

5.1.1.2 Remedial In\ estigation

Surtace soil siimples collected during the RI conrinned that relatively higli concentrations of total

P.AHs (up to 567.2 mg kg) iii*e present in iii*eas most likely to receive site runotT. Subsuilace soil

siimples collected during the Confinnation Smnpling indicated that relatively higli concentrations of

total P.AHs iind individual pesticides iii*e present in the site subsurtace. mainly in the northeastern

portion of the site where the thickness of crushed asphalt, mixed with fill soils, was obseived to be

greatest. Subsurtace smnples from RI soil borings showed relatively low concentrations of VOCs.

total P.AHs. individual semivolatile orgiinic compounds (SVOCs) iind pesticides in subsurtace

throughout the site (see Figures 5-2 iind 5-3). Sixleen metals were detected above the background

concentrations.

Groundwater siimpling from wells installed during Cont'imiation Siimpling iind the RI indicated that

relatively low concentrations of total P.AHs. individual SVOCs. iind pesticides iii*e present in site

groundwater. Benzo(ii)pyrene was detected above the FDEP groundwater guidiince criteria in one

RI groundwater siimple. .Vll other iinaKles were reported below FDEP groundwater guidiince criteria.

RI surtace water iind sediment siimpling upstreiini. adjacent to. iind downstreiini of the site in the

Boundaiy Ciinal indicated no contiimination above the EDEP Class III freshwater guidiince criteria

for the surtace water. In sediment. P.VHs. SVOCs. iind pesticides were detected with the higliest

concentrations in siimples adjacent to the site. The detections of P.VHs in the sediment adjacent to

the site iii*e expected since crushed asphalt from the site surtace was obseiv ed to be slougliing into

the ciinal along the western portion of the site. Relatively higli concentrations of iU'senic. up to 21.4

mg kg. were also reported in sediment siimples.

5.1.1.3 Coiitaiiiuiatioii Sumnian

The following discussion sumniiu'izes media impacted by contiimiiiiints potentially a.ssociated with

out 8:

Q:.^M11 BBR(:iD18R(:iD18S02.D(X' nuljcle . - J2<)<)8 Honie>1ead AFB - CÛs 18.26.28. ajid 2<3 Record ol'Dedsioii ^-2 R£\'.0

• Surface Soils - Surtace soils. primiU'ily along the southern edge of the site, contain

concentrations of several individual P.AH compounds that exceed the FDEP industrial soil

cleiinup goals. These smnples iii*e located in iii*eas most likeK to receive runoflTrom the

site iind iii*e considered to be accumulation iii*eas. Two pesticides, aldrin iind heptachlor

epoxide, exceeded their respective FDEP industrial soil cleiinup goals in four surtace soil

siimples.

• Subsurface Samples - Subsurtace siimples had reported concentrations of PAH

compounds that exceeded their respective EDEP industrial soil cleiinup goals. The P.AH

detections at depth iii*e consistent with the presence of crushed asphalt, mixed with siind

iind gj'iivel. observed to a depth of 11-feet in this iU'ea of the site. Benllium niiU'ginally

exceeded its EDEP industrial soil cleiinup goiil in one of the subsurtace siimples.

• Grouiicinater - Benzo(ii)pyrene was detected above the EDEP groundwater criteria in

one RI siimple. .All other detected iinaKles were reported at concentrations below the

groundwater guidance criteria.

• Seciuiieiit - P.AHs iind iU'senic were detected in sediment. The P.AHs are likely due to

crushed asphalt, a source of P.AHs. obseived in the sediment. Sediment siimples collected

downgradient of the site had reported concentrations of contiimiiiiints that were one to

two ordei's of magnitude lower tliiin siimples adjacent to the site.

• Surface Water - Contiimiiiiints detected in surtace water did not exceed the EDEP Class

HI freshwater guidiince criteria.

5.1.2 OU26 - Building 745, .Aircraft Fabrication

Conrimiation Siimpling. a l^ST investigation. Interim Removal .Actions (IR.As). iind iin RI were

completed at 01^26. The following sections sumniiu'ize the results of each activity.

Q:.^M11 BBR(:iD18R(:iD18S02.D(X' nuljcle . - J2<)<)8 Honie>1ead AFB - CÛs 18.26.28. ajid 2<3 Record ol'Dedsioii R£\'.0

5.1.2.1 Confinnation Sanipluig

Confimiation Siunpling groundwater iuid subsurtace smnples (\V-C 1996a) indicated the presence of

significiint levels ofhalogenated VOCs (cis-DCE. 1.2-DCE. PCE. TCE. iind vinyl chloride) as shown

on Eigure 5-4. In suilace soil smnples. PAHs. pesticides, iind polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) were

detected. The total P.AH concentrations ranged from 2.02 mg kg to 24.62 mg kg. .Ai*oclor-1254 was

detected at 1.400 pg kg. and 4.4'-DDD. 4.4'-DDE. 4.4'-DDT. aldrin. endrin ketone, and heptachlor

epoxide were detected at concentrations ranging from 0.5 pgkgto 25 pg kg. Eleven metals were

detected above background concentrations including: iU'senic at 123 mg kg. chromium at 86 mg kg.

iind lead at 506 mg kg.

5.1.2.2 UST Investigation

The two steel l^STs noilhea.st of Building 746 were removed by OHM Coip. in 1994. The soils were

excavated, with sidewall siimples being field-screened for orgiinic vapors, until all field-screening

results were below 10 piuls per million (ppm). Eive monitoring wells siimpled in the iii*ea showed low

concentrations of cis trans-1.2-DCE iind TCE.

5.1.2.3 Iiiteruii Reiiio\ al .\ctioii .\cti\ities

IR.As were completed concuiTently with the R1 activities to remove iU'senic iind PCB surtace soil

coiitiimination detected at the southeii.st comer of Building 745. iind at the location of the niimmable

locker immediately southwest of Building 746. Concentrations of iU'senic which exceed the EDEP

industrial soil cleiinup goal were left in the excavation sidewalls due to the inability to excavate under

the building foundation. Monitoring wells were also installed iind siimpled in the center of the

excavations. PCBs were nondetect in the groundwater. Eor the monitoring well installed in the

excavation iU'ea neiuTlie comer of Building 745. iU'senic was detected at a concentration of 190 pg L.

OHM reported that the IR.As were complete iind no further action was required.

Tracer studies were also done to detemiine the dischiU'ge points of floor drains located within

Building 745. The tracer study indicated that pipes within the building were dischiU'ging

Q:.^M11 BBR(:iD18R(:iD18S02.D(X' nuljcle . . J2<)<)8 Honit->1t-ad AFB - 18.26.28. ajid 2<5 Record of Dedsioii ^-4 R£\'.0

directK to the ainal noilheast of Building 745. iind also indicated the location of a sump discharge

at the southeast comer of the building. Sediment iind soil smnples (collected above the water line) in

the ciinal were collected at each discharge point, iind the contents of the sump were siimpled.

Relatively higli levels of VOCs were detected in the ciimil sediments collected where the tloor drains

dischiU'gedto the ciinal. Additionally. P.AHs were detected in the sediment at the dischiU'ge points iind

in the siimple of sludge collected from the sump within the piping system. The tloor drain system was

subsequently plugged iind is no longer in use.

5.1.2.4 Remedial Iii\ estigatioii

Surtace soil siimples collected from RI soil borings showed low concentrations of benzene, toluene,

ethylbenzene. iind xylenes (BTEX) compounds in some siimples. in addition to totiil P.AHs. individual

SVOCs. iind individual pesticides. Fourteen metals were detected above background concentrations

in the RI surtace soil siimples. Mercuiy iind lead were detected above FDEP industriiil soil cleiinup

goals in iin isolated iU'ea south of Building 745 neiu* the fomier lead-acid batteiy storage room

(Figures 5-5 iind 5-6).

Subsurtiice siimples from RI soil borings west of Building 745 showed low concentrations of the siinie

chlorinated VOCs which were detected in the siinie iU'ea during Continuation Siimpling. Nine metals

were detected above background concentrations in the RI subsurtace siimples. However, all

detections from the subsurtace siimples were below FDEP industrial soil cleiinup goals.

Groundwater screening tlu'ougliout the site during Continuation Siimpling iind the RI indicated that

signitlcant concentrations of chlonnated VOCs iii*e present in site groundwater, particuliuly west of

Building 745. Groundwater siimpling from monitoring wells in this iU'ea indicated that relatively higli

maximum concentrations of TCF (1.600 pg L). PCF (3 pg L). I.2-DCF (470 pg L). iind vinyl

chlonde (7 pg L) iii*e present in the iU'ea of maximum detections from the groundwater screening.

These maximum concentrations occur in shallow well SM60-M\VH. The most likely source of the

VOCs is historic leiikage from the underground pipe connected to the tloor drain system. The

groundwater screening results indicated that the VOC plume does not exiend to the ciinal adjacent

to the site.

Q:.^M11 BBR(:iD18R(:iD18S02.D(X' nuljcle . . J2<)<)8 Honit->1t-ad AFB - 18.26.28. ajid 2<5 Record of Dedsioii R£\'.0

A deep monitoring well was instiilled adjacent to the shiillow well with the higliest chlorinated VOC

concentrations. Tliis deep well was smnpled during the RI iind showed a reported TCE concentration

of 5 pg L. The groundwater contamiiKints that were reported abo\ e the FDEP groundwater guidiince

criteria iii*e shown on Figure 5-6.

Surtace water iind sediment siimples were collected in the adjacent ciinal upstremn. adjacent to. iind

downstreiim of the tloor drain iind sumpdischiu'ge points. The higliest concentrations of contiimiiiiints

were in sediment iind surtace water at the industrial tloor drain discharge point. Elevated

concentrations of chlorobenzene iind BTEX were the priniiuy contiimiiiiints found in sediment at this

location. Low concentrations of these compounds were detected in surtace water at this location iind

the Siunpling location immediately downstreiim. Elevated concentrations of SVOCs were also

detected in this siimple iind in upstreiun iind downstreiim sediment siunples. Several pesticides were

detected in all sediment siimples at relatively higli concentrations. Several metiils were detected above

background concentrations in sediment iind surtace water siunples. However, all contiimiiiiints

reported in surtace water were below the EDEP Class III freshwater guidiince criteria..

5.1.2.5 C'ontainuiation Suimnan

The following discussion sumniiii'izes media impacted by contiuniiiiint releases associated with Ol^

26:

• Surface Soils - Surtace soils neiurthe southwestem iind eii.stem portions of Building 745.

iind at the southem comer of Building 746. contain concentrations of one P.AH iind tlii*ee

metals that exceed the EDEP industrial soil cleiinup goals. One Siunple had reported

concentrations of lead iind mercuiy that exceeded their respective EDEP industrial soil

cleiinup goals. This iU'ea is located adjacent to a piii1 of Building 745 that was used for

lead-acid batteiy storage, which may explain the presence of these metals. Concentrations

of iU'senic from two soil boring surtace soil siunples exceeded the 10 mgkg EDEP

industrial soil cleiinup goal. These siunples were located in the iU'ea where the IR.A was

completed to remove ai'senic reported during

Q:.^M11 BBR(:iD18R(:iD18S02.D(X' nuljcle . , J2<)<)8 Honie>1ead AFB - CÛs 18.26.28. ajid 2<3 Record ol'Dedsioii ^-6 R£\'.0

Confimiation Sampling. Benzo(a)p\Tene marginalK exceeded the FDEP industrial soil

cleanup goal in two surface soil samples.

Subsurface - No contaminants were detected in subsurface samples above respective

FDEP industrial soil cleanup goals.

Groundnater- Chlorinated VOCs were reported at concentrations exceeding EDEP

groundwatr guidance criteria and or federal maximum contaminant limits (MCLs)

in three of the site monitoring wells sampled during the RI. TCE. 1.2-DCE. and PCE

were reported in monitoring wells SM60-M\V1 and Ol^26-M\VlD at elevated

concentrations.Vinyl chloride was also detected in monitoring well SM60-M\V1. Tlie

high concentrations of chlorinated VOCs reported in shallow monitoring well

SM60-M\V1 are consistent with leak-age from the tloor drain discharge line which

exits Building 745 near the monitoring well location.

Sedunent - Contaminants in sediment included: 1.4-dichlorobenzene. P.VHs

(benzo(a)anthracene.benzo(a)pyrene. benzo(b)tluoranthene. dibenzo(a.h) anthracene,

and indeno( 1.2.3 )pyrene). arsenic, and lead. 1.4-Dichlorobenzene was reported only

in the sediment sample at the discharge point for the tloor drain discharge line

(SD-04). The highest concentration of arsenic was reported at the furthest

downgradient location (SD-01). Lead was reported at relatively high concentrations

in three of six samples. .Vll three samples are located adjacent to Building 745 in the

area where the tloor drain and sump discharged to the canal.

Surface \\ ater - Lead was reported at a maximum concentration of 44.*7g L in the

surtace water at the site. None of the contaminants reported in surface water

exceeded EDEP Class III freshwater guidance criteria.

Q:.^M11 BBRC^DlSRCiDlSSO.VDCiC nuljda . _ J 20 <38 Hoiiie>1ead AFB-CÛs 18.26.28. and 20 Record ol'Decisioii ' Rev.O

5.1.3 OU28 - Buildmg 750, Propulsion (Eiigme) Mamtenance Facility

.AJI OWS and sump investigation. l^ST investigation, and an RI were completed at 01^28. The

following sections summarize the results of each activity.

5.1.3.1 UST/OWS Investigations

Preliminaiy investigations at 01^28 were completed as part of the Base l^ST OWS Remediation

Program. Tlie tn e electroplating l^STs northwest of Building 750 and the OWS and sump southeast

of Building 750 were removed.

0\\ S and Sump ln\ estigation

Tlie OWS and sump were removed in 1994. .At this time the tloor drains in the building and on the

concrete pad were grouted. The sump and separator were removed and were found to be constructed

of concrete. .A groundwater and subsurtace investigation was completed at the sump separator area

in 1994 based on the results of the excavation work. PCE. TCE. P.AHs. and metals were detected in

the groundwater during the investigation.

.Additionally, an etBuent dischargenvestigation was completed to confirm the separator and sump

dischargepoints. Tlie results of the investigation contlrmed that the buried pipe between the separator

and sump did discharge to a drainage swale to the southeast. Sampling at the discharge point showed

detections of P.AHs. TRPH. arsenic, and cadmium.

Ihiclergrouiicl Storage Tanks 750-1. 2.3. and 4 ln\ estigation

Eour concrete l^STs fonnerly located at the northwest corner of Building 750 were removed in 1994.

Intluent piping was grouted in-place at the excavation boundaiy . Excavation sidewall and soil boring

samples were collected for analysis. No VOCs were detected and metals concentrations were below

the established cleanup standard. The borings were completed as shallow monitoring wells.

Samplingof the monitoring wells indicated no VOC or cyanide contamination in or lead, were below

their respective groundwater. .Additionally, detected metals, except for lead were below their

respective

Q:.^M11 BBRC^DlSRC^DlSSO.VDCiC nuljda . o J 2<3 <38 Hoiiie>1ead AFB-(:3U> 18.26.28. and 2<3 Record of Decision ^-8 Rev.O

maximum contaminant levels (MCLs). From the investigation it was concluded that there was no

evidence of a discharge from the l^STs to suirounding site media.

5.1.3.2 Remedial In\estigation

In the southem. eastern, and northern portions of Site 01^28. P.AHs. pesticides, and metals (lead and arsenic)were reported as concentrations that exceed the FDEP industrial soil cleanup goals (Figures

5-7 and 5-8). P.AH exceedances were reported primarily in surtace soil samples near the eastern and

northern portions of Building 750. However, some marginal exceedances of benzo(a)pyrene and

benzo(a) anthracene were reported in surtace soil samples south of Building 750 near the .AST

(Building 744). Lead and arsenic were detected above FDEP soil cleanup goals in surtace soil

suiToundingthe .AST(Building 744). Maximum concentrations detected were 20.200 mg kg and 23.6

mg kg. respectively. .A possible explanation for the high lead concentrations is lead-based paint

tlakingfrom the .AST. Lead also exceeded the EDEP industrial soil cleanup goal in one surtace soil sample near the eastern comer of Building 750. One pesticide, heptachlor epoxide, was reported at

a concentration marginally exceeding the EDEP industrial soil cleanup goal in a surtace soil sample

collected east of Building 750.

Subsurface sampling indicated low levels of VOCs. P.AHs. and metals. However, reported

concentrations were below the EDEP soil cleanup goals.

Groundwatersampling indicated chlorinated VOCs (TCE. PCE. and 1.2-DCE) are present above

EDEP groundwater guidance criteria and or federal MCLs. Tlie groundwater sampling indicates that

the exient of contamination is contnied to the fonner OWS area. .Additionally, metals were detected

below EDEP groundwater guidance criteria and federal MCLs. Eon did. however, exceed the EDEP

secondaiy water quality standard.

5.1.3.3 Containuiation Suimnan

Tlie following discussion summarizes mediampacted by contaminant releases associated with Ol^

28:

Q:.^M11 BBRC^DlSRC^DlSSO.VDCiC nuljda . Q J 20 <38 Hoiiiedead AFB-(!3U> 18.26.28. and 20 Record of Decisioii Rev.O

• Surface Soils - P.AHs exceeded FDEP industrial soil cleanup goals near the southern,

eastern and northern portions of Building 750. Additionally, lead and arsenic

exceeded the FDEP industrial soil cleanup goals in the surtace soils suirounding the

large upright AST. Lead also exceeded the EDEP industrial soil cleanup goals in

surtace soil near the eastern comer of Building 750.

• Subsurface Samples - Subsurtace sampling indicated low levels of VOCs. P.AHs. and

metals. Concentrations of the contaminants were below EDEP industrial soil cleanup

goals.

• Grouiidnater- Chlorinated VOCs (including TCE) were reported at concentrations

exceeding the EDEP groundwater guidance criteria and or federal MCLs. Groundwatersamples with VOC concentrations that exceeded applicable criteria were

located in the area of the removed OWS.

5.1.4 OU29 - Buildmg 760, .\vioiiics .\erospace Ground Equipment Shop and

Tactical Electronic \\ arfare System Shop

.An OWS removal and investigation. l^ST investigation, and an RI were completed at 01^29. The

following sections summarize the results of each activity.

5.1.4.1 UST/0\\ S Investigations

Preliminaiy investigations at siteOl^29 included investigation and removal of the l^STs and OWSs

at the site.

0\\ S Remo\ al and In\ estigation

Tlie OWS was removed in 1994.and the intluent and et^luent piping were sealed at the excavation

boundaries. Subsurtace samples of target compounds were reported as either nondetect or below EDEP industrial soil cleanup goals. Groundwater sampling indicated contamination with TCE. PCE.

and vinvl chloride.

Q:.^M11 BBRC^DlSRC^DlSSO.VDCiC nuljda - 1 -1 20 <38 Hoiiie>1ead AFB-CÛs 18.26.28. and 20 Record of Decision ^ - 1U Rec.O

UST No. 760-1 Investigation

In 1994. the l^ST was excavated and removed. Subsurtace investigation of the l^ST area showed

detections of total recoverable petroleum hydrocarbons (TRPH) and lead. TRPH was reported at

concentratbns below the acceptable FDEP clean soil criteria. Results of the subsequent groundwater

investigation indicated the presence of chlorobenzene. benzene. 1.4-dichlorobenzene. and

naphthalenes. Concentrations of benzene and chlorobenzene exceeded the FDEP groundwater

guidancecriteria and or the federal MCL. Resampling in 1996 indicated that these contaminants no

longer exceeded the stated criteria.

5.1.4.2 Remedial In\ estigation

Surtace soils near the southern, eastern, and northern portions of fonner Building 760 contained

concentrationsof P.AHs and one pesticide (heptachlor epoxide) that exceeded the EDEP industrial soil cleanup goals (Figures 5-9 and 5-10). .Additionally, a marginal exceedance ofbenzo(a)pyrene was

reported in the surtace soil sample north of fonner Building 760. Tlie locations of the surtace soils with P.AH concentrations that exceeded cleanup goals are consistent with areas that would have

received runotT from the site.

Subsurtacesamples collected from borings near the fonner OWS excavation indicated that relatively

low concentrations of BTEX. P.AHs. and pesticides are present. Tlhrteen metals were reported above

backgroundconcentrations in the subsurtace samples. However, detected anal\1es were reported

below the EDEP industrial soil cleanup goals.

Tlie groundwater screening indicated that signitlcant concentrations of BTEX and chlorinated VOCs

were present in the area of the fonner OWS. Groundwater samples from existing monitoring wells

nearthe center of the fonner OWS excavation area contained concentrations of TCE. 1.2-DCE. and

vinyl chloride which exceeded the EDEP groundwater guidance criteria and or federal MCLs.

5.1.4.3 Containuiation Suimnan

Tlie following discussion summarizes media impacted by contaminant releases associated with 01^29:

Q:.^M11 BBRC^DlSRC^DlSSO.VDCiC nuljda . . . J 20 <38 Hoiiiedead AFB-(!3U> 18.26.28. and 20 Record of Decisioii ^-1 1 Rev.O

• Surface Soils - PAHs and heptachlor epoxide exceeded FDEP industrial soil cleanup

goals near the eastern, southern, andioilhem portions of fonner Building 760. Tlie

locationsof the surtace soil with PAH concentrations exceeding FDEP industrial soil

cleanupgoals are consistent with areas that would have received runoff from the site.

• Subsurface Samples - Contaminants detected in the subsurtace were reported below

the EDEP industrial soil cleanup goals.

• Grouncinater- Chlorinated VOCs (including TCE) were reported at concentrations

exceeding the EDEP groundwater guidance criteria and or federal MCLs.

Groundwatersampling results indicated that contamination is concentrated in the area

of the removed OWS and has not migrated from this area.

5.2 CONTAMINANT FATE AND TRANSPORT

Contaminant fate and transport modeling was completed as part of the RI to evaluate tjietential

for site-related COPCs in groundwater to be transported to nearby surface water the Base canal

system. Tins activity included evaluating contaminant migrationechanisms: characteristics of the

contaminant: and the relationship between groundwater and surface water in the canal system.

Volatilization to the atmosphere and adsoiption to soil are the dominant tate processes forganic

compounds detected in soils. VOCs are highly volatile, while P.VHs and pesticides are moderately

mobile. Metals are not volatile and are expected to remain absorbed to soil. Volatile organic

compounds detected in groundwater are generally considered mobile and are susceptible to

movement through the groundwater. P.VHs and pesticides are generally not mobile in groundwater.

.Additionally, metals are not considered to be mobile in groundwater.

Modeling of tate and transport of contaminants in the groundwater indicated that contaminants will

not travel the estimated 30 to 1.000 feet to the nearest canals at

Q:.^M11 BBRC^DlSRC^DlSSO.VDCiC nuljda - 1 -> -1 20 <38 Hoiiie>1ead AFB-CÛs 18.26.28. and 20 Record of Decision ^-12 Rec.O

concentrationsabove the EPA Region III Risk-Based Concentrations (RBCs) or FDEP groundwater guidance concentrations at any of the sites (\V-C 1997a).

5.3 BASELINE RISK ASSESSMENT(BR.\)

A BRA was completed to assess the potential impacts to human health and the environment associatedwith current or future exposures to chemicals of potential concern (COPCs) present at the sites. Tlie results of the risk assessment were used to:

• Estimate the magnitude of potential human health and environmental risk associated with site-related chemicals

• Identify the primaiy contaminants contributing to the risk

• Assess whether coirective action was wairanted at the site

• Help support the decision whether to remediate and. if necessaiy . select a remedial alternative

5.3.1 Human Health

Tlie steps in the BRA process are:

1. Selection of COPCs

2. Exposure assessment

3. Calculation of exposure point concentrations

4. Estimating chemical intakes

5. Toxicity assessment

6. Risk characterization

Q:.^M11 BBRC^DlSRCiDlSSO.VDCiC nuljda "IT -1 20 <38 Hoiiie>1ead AFB-CÛs 18.26.28. and 20 Record of Decision ^-13 Rec.O

5.3.1.1 Selection of C'ontainuiants of Potential Concern (COPC's)

COPCs considered for the OVh were chemicals that may have been released from waste sources at the site: were detected in surtace soil, subsurtace rock fill, sediment, surface water, and or groundwater at the sites: and may be significant contributors to human health risks.

COPCs for each site were selected using the following screening criteria:

• Chemical data evaluation: Data were considered usable for risk assessment puiposes ifthe data were unqualitled or were estimated ("J" qualifier). Rejected data were not used in the risk assessment. Chemicals that can be attributed to laboratoiy or field contamination were not considered COPCs.

• Detection frequency: Chemicals that were detected infrequently (e.g.. approximately 5 percent or less) and did not exceed human health screening values were not considered COPCs.

• Essentialnutrients: Essential nutrients (i.e.. calcium, iron, magnesium, potassium, and sodium) which did not exceed recommended daily allowances (RD.As) were not considered COPCs.

• Background:Chemicals that were detected at concentrations within background levels were not considered COPCs. Site chemicals (i.e.. inorganic chemicals in all media and P.AHs and pesticides in surtace soil and surtace water) were considered to be signitlcantly above background if the maximum concentration detected at the site exceeded two times the mean of the background concentrations.

• Comparisonto human health screening values: Chemicals that were detected at concentrations below human health-based screening levels for residential exposures at target risk levels of 1 x Iff for carcinogens and 0.1 for noncarcinogenswere not considered COPCs in accordance with EP.A Region IV guidance (EP.V 1995b). Maximum detected concentrations at a site were compared to EPA RBCs (EPA 1995a). FDEP cleanup goals (FDEP 1994.

Q:.^M11 BBRC^DlSRCiDlSSO.VDCiC nuljda . . . J 20 <38 Hoiiiedead AFB-(!3U> 18.26.28. and 20 Record of Decision ^-14 Rec.O

1995). and DERM cleanup goals (DERM 1995). where available. Rthe maximum

detected concentration exceeded the lowest (i.e.. most conservative) screening

value, the chemical was considered to be a COPC.

• Other considerations: .According to EP.A Region IV guidance (EP.A 1995b). any

chemical eliminated as a COPC by any of the above criteria should be included in

the BR.A if it is a parent compound or transfonnation product of any other

chemicalthat was retained as a COPC. .Any chemicals with detection limits above

RBCs should be retained as COPCs. .Also, any member of a chemical class (e.g..

carcinogenic P.AHs)that has other members selected as COPCs should be retained

in the BR.A.

• .Availabilityof EP.A toxicity criteria: Chemicals that do not have EP.A established

toxicity lactors. but that could potentially contribute to risks (e.g.. lead) were

considered COPCs. Tliese chemicals could not be evaluated quantitatively in the

risk assessment: however, their potential impacts to site risks were evaluated

qualitatively.

Tlie COPCs identified in the human health risk assessment for Ol^s 18. 26. 28. and 29 are

summarized in Table 5-1.It should be noted that in previous sections of this ROD. site media have

been refeired to as surtace soil and subsurtace soil and subsurtace limestone rock. In the human health

BR.A. exposure media were surtace soil and total soils (which includes surtace soil and subsurtace

limestone rock). Tlie total soils designation is applicable for potential exposure patterns of

construction workers, who are assumed to come in contact with the entire soil column during

excavation activities. Tlierefore. the tenn total soils was used for the selection of COPCs and the

human health BR.A.

5.3.1.2 Exposure .Assessment

Eor this risk assessment, the exposure assessment involved detennining intake lactors for each

respective receptor which resulted in estimates of both average and the reasonable maximum

exposure (RME). .Average exposure variables represent the most likely estimates

Q:.^M11 BBRC^DlSRC^DlSSO.SDCiC nuljda . . . J 20 <38 Hoiiiedead AFB-(!3U> 18.26.28. and 20 Record of Decision ^ - 1 ̂ Rec.O

of exposure for an individual with nonnal activity patterns. RME exposure variables represent the

highest exposure that would reasonably be expected to occur at a site.

Potentially Exposed Populations

Potential health risks were evaluated forall present and potential future on-site receptors based on

present and reasonable future land uses. Receptors evaluated for each site included occupational

workers, nonresident recreational adults trespassers, and hypothetical future construction workers.

Potential receptors for site-related chemicals and the potentially complete pathways through which

they might be exposed are summarized below:

Occupational Receptors

• Incidental ingestion of surtace soil and surface water

• Dennal contact with surtace soil and surtace water

• Inhalation ofairbome particulate matter from surface soil and volatile emissions

from surface water

Hypothetical Future Construction \\ orkei's

• Incidental ingestion of total soil, sediment, groundwater, and surtace water

• Dennal contact with total soil, sediment, groundwater, and surtace water

• Inhalation of airborne particulate matter from total soil and sediments: inhalation

of volatile emissions from sediments, groundwater, and surtace water

Q:.^M11 BBRC^DlSRCiDlSSO.VDCiC nuljda - 1 /- -1 20 <38 Hoiiie>1ead AFB-CÛs 18.26.28. and 20 Record of Decision ^ - t O Rec.O

Nonresident Adult Recreational Receptor/Trespasser

• Incidental ingestion of surtace soil and surface water

• Dennal contact with surtace soil and surtace water

• Inhalation of airborne particulate matter from surtace soil and volatile emissions

from surface water

5.3.1.3 Exposure Pouit C oncentrations

Soil. Sediment. Surface \\ ateiv and Groundwater

For each COPC detected in surtace soil, total soil, sediment, surtace water, and groundwater samples,

the arithmetic mean and 95 percent upper contldence limit (l^CL) of the mean concentrations (based

on assumed lognonnal distribution) were calculated using anal\lical results. In accordance with EPA

guidance (EPA 1989). the RME concentration is either the 95 percent upper confidence limit on the

mean or the maximum detected concentration, whichever is lower. If the data set was composed of

six or fewer samples, the maximum detected concentration was used as the RME value.

In calculating exposure point concentrations in the risk assessment, one-half the sample reporting

limits (RLs) were used to represent the concentration of COPCs that were not detected (ND) in a

particularsample. but that were detected in at least one other sample in the set. However, according

to EP.A guidance (EP.A 1989). one-halfthe RLfora given nondetect sample was not used if it caused

the calculated average concentration to exceed the maximum detected concentration in that sample

set.

In accordance with EP.A Region IV guidance (EP.V. 1995b). the exposure point concentrations of

carcinogenic P.AHs in each medium were adjusted by their respective toxicity equivalency factors

(TEEs) relative to benzo(a)pyrene. Calculated average and RME concentrations of the carcinogenic

P.VHs were converted to equivalent concentrations of benzo(a)pyrene by multiplying by the

appropriate TEEs.

Q:.^M11 BBRC^DlSRCiDlSSO.VDCiC nuljda - 1 "7 -1 20 <38 Hoiiiedead AFB-(!3U> 18.26.28. and 20 Record of Decisioii ^"1 / Rev.O

Exposure point concentrations used to evaluate dennal soil, sediment, surface water, and

groundwatercontact were adjusted to account for the percentage of dennal absoiption. Tlie dennal

adjusted concentrations were calculated by multiplying the average and RME concentrations by the

absorbed fraction (surtace soil, total soils, and sediments) or the permeability coetTicient (surtace water and groundwater).

.\ir

Screening-levelair emissions and dispersion models recommended in EPA's Soil Screening Guidance

(EPA 1996) were used to estimate concentrations of airborne volatile and particulate emissions of

COPCs from surtace soil, total soil, and sediments. Tlie modeled air concentrations were used to

estimate occupational worker, construction worker, and recreational trespasser exposures to these

media via inhalation.

.An EP.A box model (EP.A 1988) was used to estimate volatile emissions from groundwater to

evaluate construction worker exposures to shallow groundwater (in excavation trenches) if

hypotheticalfuture excavations intercept the water table. Volatile emissions from surtace water were

also estimated, using the same model, for occupational worker, construction worker, and

recreational trespasser exposures.

5.3.1.4 Estiinatuig Chemical Intakes

ming the exposure point concentrations of COPCs in soils, sediment, surtace water, and

groundwater, the potential human intake of those chemicals via each exposure pathway was

estimated. Intakes are expressed in tenns of milligrams of chemical per kilogram of body weight per

day (mg kg-day). Intakes were estimated using reasonable estimates of body size, inhalation rates,

ingestion rates, dennal absoiption rates, soil matrix etTects. and frequency and duration of exposure. Intakes were estimated for both average and RME conditions.

Tlie general equation for calculating intake in tenns of mg (kg-day) is (EP.V 1989):

chemical c one. *conta ct rate * e.\po>iure frequency * e.\po.-nire d uration intake =

body wei^h t * averaîn^ time

Q:.^M11 BBRC^DlSRC^DlSSO.VDCiC nuljda - 1 O -1 20 <38 Hoiiie>1ead AFB-CÛs 18.26.28. and 20 Record of Decision ^ - 10 Rec.O

Omittingchemical concentrations from the intake equation yields a pathway-specitlc "intake factor

(in mg kg-day per unit media concentrations)". Since the exposure pattern resulting in exposure to

various COPCs is the same, the intake tactor (IF) can be calculated by multiplying it by the

concentrationof each chemical to obtain the pathway-specitlc intake of that chemical. Intake factors

were calculated separately for each receptor and exposure pathway.

5.3.1.5 Toxicity .Assessment

EP.A toxicity factors were used to assess potential health risks resulting from the estimated chemical

intakes. Toxicity factors are expressed either as a reference dose (RfT)) or a slope factor (SF). Tlie

RIT) is the daily dose of a noncarcinogen that is unlikely to result in toxic effects to humans over a

lifetime of exposure. SFs and the EP.A weight-of-evidence classification are used to estimate potential

ciU'cinogenic risks. Tlie SE is used to estimate the upper-bound probability of an individual developing

cancer as a result of exposure to a potential carcinogen. Tlie weight-of-evidence classification is an

evaluation of the quality and quantity of carcinogenic potency data for a given chemical.

5.3.1.6 Risk Characterization

Risk characterization combines the outputs of the exposure and toxicity assessments to develop

quantitative estimates of risks associated with assumed exposures to noncarcinogenic and

carcinogenic COPCs released from theiite. Both average and RME risks were calculated for each

site.

Noncarcinogenic Risks

Tlie potential for noncarcinogenic effects was characterized by comparing estimated chemical intakes

with chemical-specific RfT)s. Chemical intake is the chemical concentration in the exposure medium

multipliedby the pathway-specific intake factor. Tlie ratio of the estimated intake to the RfT) is called

a hazard quotient (HQ), which was calculated as follows (EP.A 1989):

Q:.^M11 BBRC^DlSRCiDlSSO.VDCiC nuljda - 1 O -1 20 <38 Hoiiiedead AFB-(!3U> 18.26.28. and 20 Record of Decision ^ - f 9 Rec.O

Chemical 1 n take(mg kg - day Koncancer Hazard (duo tient =

~ FyD(mg kg - day

For each receptor categon (i.e.. occupational workers, future construction workers, and recreational

receptors trespasser).HQs were summed for all chemical intakes and all relevant exposure pathways

to yield a total hazard index (HI). .AJI HI equal to or less than I indicates that adverse

noncarcinogenicJiealth elTects are not expected to occur even to sensitive individuals over a lifetime

of exposure. .AJI HI above I indicates a potential cause for concern for noncarcinogenic health elTects

and the need for further evaluation of assumptions about exposure and toxicity (for example. elTects

of several dilTerent chemicals are not necessarily additive, although the HI approach assumes

additivity).

Tlie HI provides a rough measure of potential toxicity, but it is conservative and dependent on the

quality of the experimental evidence. Since the HI does not define dose-response relationships, its

numericalvalue cannot be construed as a direct estimate of the magnitude of risk (EP.A 1986a). Tlie

His calculated for receptors at sites OIH8 through 01^29 are summarized in Table 5-2.

Carcinogenic Risks

Potential carcinogenic elTects are characterized in tenns of the excess probability of an individual

developingcancer over a lifetime as a result of exposure to a potential carcinogen. Excess probability

means the increased probability over and above the nonnal probability of getting cancer (i.e..

backgroundrisk). which in the Ihiited States is I in 3 (.Ajnerican Cancer Society 1990). Excess

lifetime cancer risks were calculated by multiplying the average daily chemical intake by the cancer

SE (EP.A 1989). which is the risk per unit chemical intake:

Risk = chemical intake (mg kg -day) x SF (nig kg-day)''

Eor each receptor categoiy at each site, cancer risks were calculated separately for each carcinogen

and each exposure pathway, and the resulting risks were summed to yield a total upper-bound

estimate of cancer risk due to multiple exposures. This is a conservative

Q:.^M11 BBRC^DlSRC^DlSSO.VDCiC nuljda - -1 20 <38 Hoiiie>1ead AFB-CÛs 18.26.28. and 20 Record of Decision ^-20 Rec.O

approach that can result in an ailitlcially elevated estimate of cancer risk, especially if several

carcinogens are present (EPA 1986b).

Tlie following guidance was considered in order to interpret the signitlcance of the cancer risk

estimates. In the NCP (EP.A 1990). EP.A states that: "Eor known or suspected carcinogens,

acceptable exposure levelsare generally concentration levels that represent an excess upper-bound

lifetime cancer risk to an individual of between 1 x I'Oand 1 x lOV* Tliese values are equivalent to

a 1 in 10.000 to 1 in 1.000.000 chance of getting cancer from the exposure. DERM however strives

to attain risk levels at or below thelO'*' level. Tliese risk levels are exiremely low and would not be

measurable or discernible (compared to the background cancer risk of 1 in 3) in individuals or even

in a large population. Eor example, a risk level of 1 in 10.000(1 x It)) would increase an individual's

chance of getting cancer from the backgrounrisk of 1 in 3 to 1.0001 in 3. Tlie excess cancer risks

(average and RME) for the various receptors at OIUS through 01^29 are summarized in Table 5-2.

Qualitative .Assessment of Exposures to Lead

Lead exposures were not addressed in the quantitative risk assessment because EP.A withdrew the

RIT) for lead in 1989. primarily due to the lack of a discernible threshold dose and the numerous

sources of lead in the environment. Cuirent EP.A guidance (EP.A. 1994b) recommends an interim soil

lead concentration of 400 mg kg for sites characterized as residential. .Additionally. EDEP has a soil

cleanup goal of 1.000 mg kg for industrial sites (EDEP 1995).

Lead was detected at 01^26 and 01^28 at concentrations that exceeded the EDEP cleanup goal of

l.OOOmg kg for industrial exposures. .At 01^26. lead was detected in the surtace soil hot spot sample

at a concentration of 2.210 mg kg. .At 01^28. lead was detected in five surtace soil concentrations

ranging from 1.230 mg kg to 20. 200 mg kg.

5.3.2 Ecological Risk .Assessment

Tlie objective of the ecological risk assessment component of the BR.A is to estimate the potential

ecological risk associated with the exposure of identified receptor populations and

Q:.Miill BBRC^DIS RC^DISSO.VDC^C nuljda - -> 1 -1 -^0 <38 Hoiiie>1ead AFB - (X's 18.26.28. and 2<3 Record of Decision ^-21 Rec.O

communities to COPCs. Procedures and the methods used for the performance of the ecological

evaluation of the OVh are provided in the Final RI Report (\V-C 1997a). Tlie focus for the

evaluations is on those ecological receptors identified as potentially utilizing the unit (transients) and

not necessarily those restricted to the unit (residents).

Tlie scope of the ecological risk assessment included:

• Evaluation of the ecological habitat and identification of receptor species including

any rare, threatened or endangered species or critical habitats

• Identification of the chemicals of potential ecological concern and existing exposure

pathways

• Estimation of the ecological effects (i.e.. toxicity) of the COPCs and qualitative

characterization of the nature and exient of ecological risk or threat

5.3.2.1 Ecological Habitat Re\ie>\

OU18

Tlhck stands of cane-elephant grass and silk reed cimcênnisetuf)} purpureuf)} imd Neyraudia

reynmidiana) cover the perimeter of the site and hea\'\ infestations of Brazilian PeppeKS'C/?/>n/.v

terebinthifoihis) are located along the northeast perimeter. Tlie interior of the site contains a mixed

pattern of cane, overgrown weedy areas, and barren, crushed asphalt areas. This unit has been

characterizedas Cane Brake Tlhcket based on the vegetative cover present and appears to be capable

of supporting a viable ecological community (i.e.. the unit contains exploitable habitat). Both aquatic

and terrestrial communities were identified for OIU8.

OU26

Tliis unit has been characterized as Ih'ban Grassland based on the vegetative cover present and

appears to be incapable of supporting even a small viable teirestrial community. .Although 01^26

contains no exploitable teirestrial habitat, the small drainage canal (a

Q:.Miill BBRC^DIS RC^DISSO.VDC^C nuljda - -1 -^0 <38 Hoiiie>1ead AFB - (X's 18.26.28. and 2<3 Record of Decision ^-22 Rec.O

100-foot length within 01^26) may provide forage for ecological receptors. Wading birds were

observed as were small fish within the canal. Tluis. semi-aquatic and aquatic ecological communities

are identified as potentially present within 01^26. Potential ecological receptors were identified based

on the character of the canal community and on the potential trophic relationship among those organisms either predicted or observed within the 01^26 drainage canal

Except for birds (loggerhead shrikes, mockingbirds, and doves) roosting on powerlines at the site and

insects, no other animal groups were observed in the unit during the activities in January and

Februaiy. 1996. However, wading birds (great blue heron, little blue heron, and yellow-crowned night

heron), turtles (unidentified), and small fish (unidentified) were observed in the drainage canal along

the northeast edge of 01^26.

OU28

Tliis unit has been characterized as Ih'ban Grassland based on the vegetative cover present and

appearsto be capable of supporting a small but viable ecological community: i.e.. contains exploitable

habitat .Although 01^28 is in close proximity to Boundaiy Canal, there is no watenvay for access to

the teirestrial grassland sections, and overland migrations are highly unlikely due to the hairier Bikini

Boulevard presents. Tluis. only a teirestrial ecological community was identified as being present

within 01^28. Potential terrestrial ecological receptors were identified based on the character of the

vegetative community, the unavailability of water, and the potential trophic relationship among those

organisms either predicted or observed within the unit. Fauna observed at 01^28 during RI SI

activities in Januaiy and Februaiy 1996 were limited to birds (doves, loggerhead shrikes, kestrels, and

meadowlarks). anoles (lizards), and insects.

OU29

01^29 is classified as an Ih'ban Grassland, but it ditfers from the other Ih'ban Grassland units by containingomamental trees and shrubs and not having an abandoned building. Given the presence

of trees and shrubbeiy. arboreal community components (e.g.. the tree frogs, exotic anoles. squiirels. birds) could be found within the tree line less than 50 feet from the canal.

Q:.Miill BBRC^DIS RC^DISSO.VDC^C nuljda - ->1 -1 -^0 <38 Hoiiie>1ead AFB - (X's 18.26.28. and 2<3 Record of Decision - " Rec.O

01^29 appears to be capable of supporting a small but viable ecological community: i.e.. contains

exploitable habitat.

Only a teirestrial ecological community was identitled as being present within 01^29. Potential

terrestrial ecological receptors were identified based on the character of the vegetative community,

the availability of water, and on the potential trophic relationship among those organisms either

predicted or observed within the unit.

Suimnan of Ecological Habitats

In the ecological risk assessment, habitats at each site were observed to determine potential receptors

that could be exposed to site contaminants. Tlie table below summarizes the habitat and ecological

receptors identified at each site which could potentially be impacted directly through inhalation,

ingestion, skin contact, or directly through ingestion of contaminants in the food chain.

Ecological Habitat

Operable l^nlt Characterization Receptors

ijUlS C ane Brake Thicket with a viable ecological Teirestrial and Aquatic (e.g. alligators, coot. coininunit)' marsh wren, small fish, turtles, raccoon)

OV 26 Urban Grassland incapable of supporting a Aquatic (e.g. marsh wren, small fish, turtles. viable teirestrial coninuuiit\'. Able though to raccoon) support an aquatic coninuinit\' based on the location of canals at tlie site

0V2S Urban Grassland capable of supporting a small Teiresti'ial (e.g. .American robin, dove, mouse. but viable teirestrial communit)' slu'ew. opossum)

OV29 Urban Grassland with oniamental trees capable Teiresti'ial (e.g. .American robin, dove, mouse. of supporting a small but viable teirestrial slii'ew. opossum) communit)'

5.3.2.2 Chemicals of Potential Ecological Concern (COPEC's)

Chemicals of interest (CGI) were identified based on consideration of unit-specific anal\lical data.

anal\licaldata from adjacent areas and background forthe chemicals, unit-specific waste management

activity information, and waste management activity information from

Q:.Miill BBRC^DIS RC^DISSO.VDC^C nuljda - -> 1 Hoiiie>1ead AFB - (X's 18.26.28. and 2<3 Record of Decision - " Rec.O

adjacent areas. Chemicals detected in surtace soil, surtace water, and sediments were screened against

ecotoxicological benchmarks.

If a CGI exceeded both the background concentration and the applicable screening criteria, it was

classified as a chemical of potential ecological concern (COPEC). U' no screening criteria was

identified and its concentration exceeds 2 times background, it was considered a COPEC but

evaluated in qualitative tenns.

.AJI additional screening of the chemicals was perfonned considering the ingestion exposure pathway.

Tins involved an evaluationof potential consequences of vertebrates ingesting contaminated media

(soil, sediment, or water) to detennine if chemical concentrations wairant inclusion as ingestion

pathway COPECs. Euilhennore. chemicalsvhose concentrations increase along the food chain, or

more concisely, with increasing trophic levels of the foodweb were also selected as COPECs.

Table 5-3 summarizes the COPECs selected.

5.3.2.3 Exposure .Assessment

Exposure assessment consists of defining exposure factors and assumptions used to estimate the potential ecological risks. Two exposure scenarios were considered, direct and indirect. Direct

exposure consists of contact between the contaminated media and an organism (e.g.. dennal.

respiratoiy . and or ingestion of the contaminated media) while indirect exposure results from the

ingestion of contaminant that has accumulated in biological tissues of the receptor's forage (e.g.. plants, fish, insects, or small mammals). Exposure scenarios to ecologically relevant receptors of

concern were developed based on the receptor's potential for exposurand its relevance within the

ecological community.

5.3.2.4 Risk Ex aluation

Based on the ecological evaluation, the following conclusions were made:

Q:.Miill BBRC^DIS RC^DISSO.VDC^C nuljda - - -1 30 <38 Hoiiie>1ead AFB - (X's 18.26.28. and 2<3 Record of Decision ^-2^ Rec.O

OU18

OU26

A potential risk due to direct exposure of high molecular weight PAHs was

identified for sensitive, rare, or endangered species of plants within OIU8.

No other significant ecologically relevant direct exposure risks were identified

within the soils or sediments of OIU8.

Soil concentrations of thechemicals of potential ecological concern were not found

to pose any unacceptable risks to the ecological receptors of concern.

Sediment concentrations of the chemicals of potential ecological concern were not

foundto pose any unacceptable risks to the relevant ecological receptors of concern.

Groundwatertransport of the chemicals of interest within OIU8 is predicted to have

no significant ecologically relevant effects on the canal system biota or ecology as

none of the concentrations exceed ecotoxicological screening concentrations.

While there is insufficient ecotoxicological data available for a quantitative assessment

of the potential risk to the ecologically relevant amphibians and reptilian receptors of

concern utilizing OIU 8. there does not appear to be any observable impact on these

populations, based on site-specific observations.

Potential direct exposure risks are identified for strictly aquatic receptors. Tliese risks

are not considered ecologically relevant due to limited utilization of the drainage canal

by Base-wide biota.

No indirect exposure risks were identified for ecologically relevant receptors of

concern utilizing the drainage canal within 01^26

Q:.Miill BBRC^DIS RC^DISSO.VDC^C nuljda - -1 30 <38 Hoiiie>1ead AFB - (X's 18.26.28. and 2<3 Record of Decision - " ̂ O Rec.O

OU28

Groundwater transport of the chemicals of interest within 01^26 is predicted

to have no signitlcant ecologically relevant etTects on the canal system biota

or ecology as none of the concentrations exceed ecotoxicological screening

concentrations.

While there is insutTicient ecotoxicological data available for a quantitative

assessment of the potential risk to the ecologically relevant amphibians and

reptilian receptors of concern utilizing 01^26. there does not appear to be any observable impact on these populations, based on site-specitlc observations.

No direct-exposure ecologically relevant risks were identified for chemicals detected

within surface soil of 01^28.

Elevated soil concentrations of cadmium may pose an ecologically relevant risk to

transient omnivorous mammals. Tins risk, however, is present under background

conditions and. therefore, is considered to be overestimated.

Soil concentrations of lead may pose an ecologically relevant risk to transient

herbivorous birds. Tlie lead is highly localized in exient.

Groundwatertransport of the chemicals of interest within 01^28 is predicted to have

no significant ecologically relevant efTects on the canal system biota or ecology as


Wliile there is insufTicient ecotoxicological data available for a quantitative assessment


concern utilizing 01^28. there does not appear to be any observable impact on these


Q:.Miill BBRC^DIS RC^DISSO.VDC^C nuljda - ->"7 -1 30 <38 Hoiiie>1ead AFB - (X's 18.26.28. and 2<3 Record of Decision ^ - 2 / Rec.O

OU29

• No direct-exposure ecologically relevant risks were identified for chemicals detected

within surface soil of 01^29.

• Elevated soil concentrations of cadmium may pose an ecologically relevant risk to

transient omnivorous mammals. Tins risk, however, is present under background

conditions and. therefore, is considered to be overestimated.

• Groundwatertransport of the chemicals of interest within 01^29 is predicted to have

no significant ecologically relevant efTects on the canal system biota or ecology as


• \Mhle there is insufTicient ecotoxicological data available for a quantitative assessment


concern utilizing 01^29. there does not appear to be any observable impact on these


5.3.3 Suiiiinan of Human Health and Ecological Risks

Tlie results of the human health risk assessment indicate that there are potential unacceptable risks at three of the Ol^ sites. Tlie following table and Table 5-2 summarize the results of the BR.A for

human health. For OIU8. potential unacceptablfeuman health risk was identified due to ingestion

and dennal contact with P.AHs detected in the surface soil. Tlie P.AHs were also identified as a

potential ecologicalrisk to sensitive plants. Site 01^26 showed a potential for unacceptable human

health efTects due to construction worker dennal exposure to TCE in groundwater and construction

worker ingestion of lead and mercuiy in surface soil. 01^28 showed a potential unacceptable

ecologicalrisk due to high concentrations of lead in surface soil. .At site 01^29. although no potential unacceptablehuman health or ecological risks were identified, several P.AHs were detected in surface

soil samples of concentrations above the EIDEP industrial soil cleanup goals. .Additionally,

concentrationsof P.AHs. lead, and arsenic that also exceeded the EDEP industrial soil cleanup goals were detected in surface soils at

Q:.Miill BBRC^DIS RC^DISSO.VDC^C nuljda - ->0 -1 -^0 <38 Hoiiie>1ead AFB - (X's 18.26.28. and 2<3 Record of Decision ^-2o Rec.O

sites 01^26 and 01^28. although no unacceptable human or ecological risks were associated with

these detections. Since FDEP considers the industrial soil cleanup goals as risk based (1 X 10"'' excess cancerrisk). all areas at the sites with FDEP industrial soil cleanup goal exceedances were included

in the ES for consideration of remedial alternatives.

SUMMARY OF HI ÛN HEALTH RISKS

(!)ccupational (ronstruction Recreational INer

Site Risk T\pe Worker Worker Trespasser

GUIS Hazard Index' 0.3 2.1 0.1

(rancer Risk- 4 X 10^ 4 X I(r^ 2 X 10 -*

OU26 Hazard Index O.I 3.8 I).1)4

(rancer Risk 2 X 10- 2 X 10' 6 X 10'

OU26-Hot-Spot Hazard Index 1.3 3.4 (1.5

(rancer Risk I X 10' 2 X 10 5 X 10"

0U2S Hazard Index 0.2 0.4 0.09

(rancer Risk 2 X 10- 3 X 10" 1 X 10-

OU29 Hazard Index O.I 0.3 I).1)4

(rancer Risk 5 X 1 (>' S X I(r" 2 X l(r^

'The acceptable EPA hazard index is less than 1 - The acceptable EPA risk- range is 1 x lb(1 in 1().()()()} to 1 x Kt (1 in 1.()()().()()()} •Risk calculated for a "hot-spot" of mercur\' in surface soils at site (!)IT26. Numbers in bold exceed the acceptable hazard index or carcinogenic risk range.

.Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from the GIN. if not addressed by

implementing the response action selected in this ROD. may present an imminent and substantial endangennent to public health, welfare, or the environment.

5.4 PRELIMINARY REMEDIATION GOALS

Preliminaiy remediation goals (PRGs) are recommended, concentrations of individual chemicals for

specific medium and land use combinations at CERCL.A sites. Tliere are two primaiy sources of

chemical-specific PRGs:

• Concentrations based on chemical-specific .AR.ARs

• Concentrations based on risk assessment

Q:.Miill BBRC^DIS RC^DISSO.VDC^C nuljda Hoiiiedead .AFB - (X's 18. 26. 28. and 2<5 Record of Decision 5-29

A .^0 <38 Rec.O

Risk-based PRGs are concentration limits that are calculated using carcinogenic and or

noncarcinogenictoxicity values under specific exposure conditions. PRGs provide long-tenn targets

to use during development, evaluation, and selection of remedial action alternatives. Tlie

methodology used to derive risk-based PRGs is taken from EP.A'Risk .Assessment Guidance for

Superfund. Part BtEPA 1991).

5.4.1 Human Health and En\ iroiunental Risks Identified by BR.\

Tlie BR.A identified potential risks to human health othe environment from specific contaminants

and exposure scenarios. Tlie identified potential risks at the four OVh are summarized below:

SiteOUlS

S Hypothetical occupational worker exposure through ingestion or dermal

contact with surface soils containing P.AHs (Excess Lifetime Cancer Risk

[ELCR] = 4 X \(f ).

S Hypothetical adult recreational receptor trespasser exposure through ingestion

or dennal contact with surface soils containing P.AHs (ELCR = 2 x fO).

S Hypotli^tical construction worker exposure through dennal contact with

groundwatd* containing pesticides and metals (Hazard Index [HI] = 2. I).

However, the highest concentrations of the respective contaminants of

concern are at different monitoring wells, resulting in an unlikely exposure

scenario.

S Potential environmental risk to sensitive plant species due to P.AHs in surface

soils, and potential risk to avian and mammalian receptors due to lead and

arsenic in sediments. However, the bioavailability of the metals is uncertain

and the potential for risk is likely overstated.

Q:.Miill BBRC^DIS RC^DISSO.VDC^C nuljda - Tri Hoiiie>1ead AFB - (X's 18.26.28. and 2<3 Record of Decision JJU Rec.O

• Site OU26

S Hypotheticaloccupational worker exposure through ingestion of surtace soils

containing lead and mercuiy (HI = 1.3).

S Hypothetical construction worker exposure through dennal contact with

groundwater containing TCE (HI = 3.8).

S .Althoughno unacceptable human health or environmental risks were identified

for P.AHs or arsenic in surtace soils, these chemicals were detected in surtace

soils at concentrations that exceed FDEP industrial soil cleanup goals (EDEP

1995).

Site OU28

S No unacceptable human health risks were identitled at 01^28. However.

P.AHs and lead were detected in surface soils at concentrations that exceed

FDEP industrial soil cleanup goals (FDEP 1995).

S Tliere is a potential ecological risk to herbivorous birds due to lead in surtace

soils found near the large upright storage tank.

Site OU29

S No unacceptable human health or environmental risks were identitled at

01^29. However. P.AHs were detected in surtace soils at concentrations that

exceed FDEP industrial soil cleanup goals (FDEP 1995).

5.4.2 PRGs Based on FDEP Cleanup Goals

Potential unacceptable human carcinogenic and ecological risks were identitled at OIH8 under

hypothetical occupational worker or recreational receptor trespasser exposures to

3M11 BBRC^D 18 |R(:iD18TBL.XLS| TABLE 5-1 nuljda " T 1 -1 20 <38 HoiiieAead AFB - CXis 18.26.28 and 20 Record of Decision ^-3 t Rev. 0

PAHs in surtace soils. A potential but unlikely ecological risk was identityed for avian and mammalian

receptors due to lead and arsenic in sediments at OIU8.

Potential unacceptable human health risks were identified at 01^26 under hypothetical occupational

worker exposures to lead and mercury in surtace soils. P.AHs and arsenic were detected in 01^26

surtace soils at levels that exceed FDEP industrial soil cleanup levels (FDEP 1995).

.Although the BR.A did not identify potential unacceptable human risks at 01^28 and 01^29. a potential ecological risk to herbivorous birds was identified under potential exposures to lead in

surtace soils at 01^28. Euilher. individual concentrations of lead, arsenic, and P.AHs (at 01^28) and

P.AHs (at 01^29) were detected in surtace soils at levels that exceed EDEP industrial soil cleanup

goals (FDEP 1995).

Tlie EDEP industrial soil cleanup goals are based on achieving an ELCR of 1 x "fffor carcinogens,

or achieving an HI equal to or less than 1.0 for noncarcinogens (EDEP 1995). Eor certain P.AHs (i.e..

benzo(a)pyrene. dibenzo(a.h)anthracene. indeno( 1.2.3-cd)pyrene) and arsenic, the general EDEP industrialsoil cleanup goals (EDEP 1995) have been adjusted to be site-specific goals that the BCT

developed by considering the unique local conditions existing at Homestead .AEB. Tliese site-specific

goals are considered to be protective of human health and the environment at Homestead .AEB.

Tlie EDEP industrial soil cleanup goals will be used as PRGs for the P.AHs. lead, arsenic and mercuiy

in surtace soils at the four OVh. Tlie use of EDEP soil cleanup goals will be protective of human

health and the environment, maintain consistency with previously completed remedial actions at other

Homestead .AEB sites, and comply with .AR.ARs and TBCs.

5.4.3 PRGs Based on Site-Specific Risk .Assessiiieiit

Risk-based PRGs were developed by first identifying and defining media of concern, chemicals of

concern, present and future land use. exposure pathways, and target risk levels.

.^Mll BBRC^D 18 |R(:iD18TBL.XLS| TABLE 5-1 nuljda " T-> -1 20 <38 HoiiieAead AFB - CXis 18.26.28 and 20 Record of Decision ^-32 Rev. 0

Chemical concentrations that would result in the prescribed target risk levels in the environmental

media of concern were then calculated.

A potential unacceptable noncarcinogenic human health risk was identified at OIUS under a

hypothdical dennal exposure of construction workers to pesticides and metals in groundwater. Tlie

highest concentrations of the respective contaminants of concern that were found to be the primaiy

risk drivers were detected in ditTerent monitoring wells with a large lateral separation (up to 500 feet).

Tlierefore. the calculated health risk (HI = 2.1) is consideredo be highly conservative because the

exposure scenario is not likely to be a completed pathway. Further remedial action to address the

pesticides and metals in groundwater at OIH8 is not considered to be justified.

.A potential noncarcinogenic human health risk was identified at 01^26 from hypothetical construction

worker dennal exposures to TCE in shallow groundwater. Tlie PRG calculated for this exposure

scenario is 580 pg L. .Although this PRG for TCE in groundwater exceeds the federal and state MCL

for TCE. thesurficial aquifer at the Base is not currently, nor is it planned to be. used for a potable water supply because of saltwater intrusion. Tlierefore. remediation of groundwater to MCLs is not

necessary to protect human health. Recent sampling of the wells at site 01^26 indicate that

chlorinated VOC concentrations are steadily decreasing, and may already have decreased to levels

below the PRG. Subsequent sampling in support of the selected alternative at the site will provide

more infonnation on site conditions.

5.4.4 Suiiiiiian ofPRGs

PRGs for the contaminants of concern at the four OVh are listed in Table 5-4.

.^Mll BBRC^D 18 |R(:iD18TBL.XLS| TABLE 5-1 nuljda -11 -1 20 <38 HoiiieAead AFB - CXis 18.26.28 and 20 Record of Decision ^-55 Rev. 0

TABLE 5-1

SUM^LARY OF COPCs IDENTIFIED IN THE HU^LAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT AT OUs 18, 26, 28, AND 29

GUIS Surface Soil Tolal Soil Grounduaier Sedinieni Surface Waler

P.AHs (lion and carci .L.V-Dichlorobenzidene P.AHs (lion and carci P.AHs (lion and carci •Arsenic Akirin P.AHs (lion and carci •Akirin. Heplaclilor Heplaclilor Heplaclilor Heplaclilor Heplaclilor epoxide •Aldriii. Dieklrin epoxide .Aniiniony. .Arsenic. epoxide .Aniiniony. •Aluniinu in. HqMachlor qioxide Berx liuni. Iron. Maneanese. •Arsenic. Berxliuni. •Arsenic. .Aluminum. .Anlimoin. Tlialliuni. \'anadiuni Cadmium. Chromium. Barium. •Arsenic. Barium. Iron. Mercury. Chromium. Ber\ hum. Chromium. \'anadiuni. Zinc Copper Copper. Iron

OU26 Surface Soil Tolal Soil Grounduaier Sedinieni Surface Waler

(Sile-Wide. P.AHs (lion and carci P.AHs (lion and carci Chloronielliane 1.2-DCE (lolall. (Clilorobenzene Exclu dine •Arsenic. Cadmium .Anlimoin. .Arsenic. cis-I.2-DCE Benzene. (Clilorobenzene. •Arsenic Soil Hoi Chromium. Iron Lead'^. Ben hum. Cadmium. lrans-I.2-DCE. PCE ICE. Chloronielliane Lead'^

Spoil Maneanese. Zinc Chromium. Iron. Lead'^. \'inyl Chloride HqMachlor I.2-DCB. I.-VDCB. 1.4-Maneanese. Mercun . .Anlimoin. Maneanese DCB Zinc P.AHs (lion and carci

Heplaclilor epoxide .\jiliriiony. .Vsenic. Berxliurii. Cailniiurii. Cliroriiiurii. Copper Iron. Lead'^ Mercurs

OU26 Surface Soil Tola! Soil

(Soil Hoi P.AHs (lion and carc) Spoil Cadniiuni. (Clironiiuni

Iron. Lead'^ Maneanese Mercurx

P.\Hs (lion and carci Cailniiuni. Clironiiuni Iron. Lead'^ Maneanese Mercurs

0U2S Surface Soil Tolal Soil Grounduaier

P.AHs (lion and carci P.AHs (lion and carci 1.2 DCE (lolall •Akirin. Dieilrin •Aldriii. Dieklrin PCE. TCE Heplaclilor Heplaclilor Ber\ hum. Iron Heplaclilor epoxide HqMachlor qioxide .Aluminum. .Aniiniony .Aluminum. .Aniiniony •Arsenic. Barium •Arsenic. Barium Cadmium. Chromium. Cailniiuni. Chromium. Iron. Lead'^ Mercurx Iron. Lead'^

Maneanese. Mercury

OU29 Surface Soil Tolal Soil Grounduaier

P.AHs (lion and carci 1.1-DCE I.2-DCE (lolall Heplaclilor epoxide P.AHs (lion and carci TCE .Aluminum. .Arsenic HqMachlor qioxide \'inyl chloride Cadmium. (Clironiiuni .Aluminum. .Arsenic Lead'^. Maneanese Ber\ hum. Cadmium.

Chromium. Iron Lead'^. Maneanese

^ Lead does nol have EP.VeslablisIied loxicily faclors. Ilierefore. il could nol be evalualed in llie quanlilalive risk assessnieni

.^Mll BBRCID 18 |R(:iD18TBL.XLS| T.ABLE 5-1 nuljda Hoiiit->1t-ad .AFB - (!>ii> 18. 26. 28 and 2<5 Record of Decision

-1 20 08 Rec.O

TABLE 5-2

SUMMARY OF THE RESULTS OF THE BASELINE RISK ASSESSMENT

SITE

HIALAN HEALTH RISK

ECOLOGICAL RISK SITE Noncfircinogenic HI Cfircinogenic Risk Lend* ECOLOGICAL RISK

GUIS Tlie liieliesl noncarcinoeeni risk was 2.1 for ftilure conslniclion workers. Dertiial contact witli pesliciiles ami metals iti the eroutuhvater was tlie major cotitrilnitor to tlie

HI. However, tlie HI is ver\ likely overstated

due to tlie fact that the hiehesi coticetitratiotis

of these COPCs occur iti difterent motiitoritie wells.

Tlie hiehesi carciiioeenic risk was 4 x 1ft for occupational workers. Risk is driven by

the iticidental itieestioti of and dermal contact w ith P.AHs iti surface soils.

Lead was tiot identiffed as a COPC

iti the human health risk assessmetit.

.A potential risk was idetitified to setisitive

plant species due to P.AHs deducted iti the surface soils. .Also, metals detected iti the sedimetit may pose a risk to avian and mammalian receptors. However, the

bioavailability of the metals is uticeilaiti.

OU26

Total

ExposTi res

Tlie hiehest iioiicarciiioeenic risk for total exposures texcluditie the hot spot) was .TS for ftiture cotistructioti workers. Dermal

cotitact w ith TCE iti erouiidwater was the major cotitrilnitor to the HI. However, the HI

is very likely overstated due to the localized tiature of the TCE plume.

Tlie hiehest carciotioeenic risk for total exposures texcluditie the hot spot) was 2 x 1 () for occupatiotial workers. Tliis risk

does tiot exceed I'SEP.A's acceptable ranee of 1 X 1(1'to 1 X 1 ()•'. Therefore, tio

utiaccqnabloe carcitioeetiic risks are

expected.

Lead was detected iti two surface

soil samples at coticetitratiotis (.*^06

me ke and me ke) that

exceeded the screetiitie values of 4()()tne ke and .'^notne ke.

No potetitial risks were idetitified for

ecoloeically-relevant receptors at the site.

OU26

Hot Spot

Tlie hiehest tioticarcitioeenic risk for exposures to the soil hot spot was .T4 for ftiture cotislmctioti workers. Iiicidetital itieestioti of mercury w as the major

cotitrilnitor to the HI. Tliis itidicates the

potetitial for adverse tioticarcitioeetiic health effects.

Tlie hiehest carcitioeetiic risk for exposures to the soil hot spot was 1 x 1ft for occupatiotial workers. Tliis risk does not exceed I'SEP.A's acceptable ranee of Ixln ' to 1 X It)"'. Tlierefore. tio utiacceptable

carcitioeetiic risks are expected.

Lead was detected iti the surface

soil hot spot sample at a coticetitratioti of221() nieke; this

coticetitratioti exceeded the screetiitie values of 4()()nie ke and

me ke. and exceeds the FDEP cleanup eoal of l.noo me ke.

No potetitial risks were idetitified for

ecoloeically-relevant recptors at the site.

3M11 BBRC^DIS JRC^DOIOÎTABLE 5-2 dal nulja Hoiiit-Aead AFB - 18. 26. 28 and 2<5 Record of Decision Sheet 1 of 2

A 20 08 Rec.O

TABLE 5-2

SUMMARY OF THE RESULTS OF THE BASELINE RISK ASSESSMENT

SITE

HIALAN HEALTH RISK

ECOLOGICAL RISK SITE Noncfircinogenic HI Cfircinogenic Risk Lend* ECOLOGICAL RISK

0U2S Tlie liieliest tioticarcitioeetii risk was i).4

for ftiture cotislmctioti workers. Tliis HI

is lielow tlie EP.A tareet level of I.

Therefore, tio utiaccqitalde

tioticarcitioeenic effects are expected.

The hiehest carcitioeetiic risk was 2 x 1 ft

for occupatiotial workers. Tliis risk is w ithin I'SEP.A's acceptalde risk ranee of 1 x Ift to

1 X III ^ Tlierefore. no unaccqMalde

carcinoeenic risks are expected.

Lead was detected iti six surface soil samples

at coticentratiotis raneitie frotn 469 tneke to 2(1.21)1) tne ke that exceeded the screenitie

values of 4()()tne ke and .*^00 tne ke. Several

coticetitratiotis also exceeded the FDEP

cleanup eoal of l.ooo tne ke.

.An utiaccqitable risk frotn lead is

presetit iti the surface soils located at Builditie "44. .Also, a potetitial risk frotn cailmiutn iti the snrface soils w as idetitifted; however, the cailmiutn coticetitratiotis were below backeround

and the risk is likely overstated.

OU29 The hiehesi tioticarcitioeenic risk was 1)..^ for ftiture cotistnictioti workers. Tliis HI is lielow tlie EP.A tareet level of 1. Therefore, tio utiaccqitalde

tioticarcitioeenic effects are expected.

The hiehest carciotioeetiic risk was x Ift

for occupatiotial workers due to the P.AHs iti surface soil. Tliis risk is w itliiii I'SEP.A's accqMalde risk ranee of 1 x in to 1 x Hf'.

Therefore, tio utiacceptalde carcitioeetiic risks are expected. However, several P.AHs

exceeded FDEP soil cleanup eoals.

Lead was detected iti two surface soil samples

at coticetitratiotis (.*^20 me ke and "60 me ke)

that exceeded the screenitie values of 4()()tneke and .*^00 tne ke. However, tio coticetitratiotis exceeded the l.ooo tne ke

FDEP cleanup eoal.

.A potetitial risk for cailmiutn iti the snrface soils w as ideiitined; however, the cailmiutn coticetitratiotis were

below backeround concentrations and the risk is likely overstated.

'^Lead does not liave a I'SEPA establislied toxicity factor; tlierefore; it was tiot evaluated quajititatively in tlie liutiiaji lieaitli risk assessment. HI = Hazard Itidex

3M11 BBRC^DIS IRC^DOIO-HT.ABLE 5-2 dal nulja Hoiiit-Aead .AFB - (iXis 18. 26. 28 and 2<5 Record of Decision Sheet 2 of 2

A 20 08 Rec.O

TABLE 5-3

SUM^LARY OF COPECs IDENTIFIED IN THE ECOLOGICAL HEALTH RISK

ASSESSMENT AT OUs 18, 26,28, AND 29

OU18 DIRECT EXPOSlfRE ' INDIRECT EXPOSlfRE -OU18

SedinienI Soil Ingeslion

P.AHs (tioti and carc). Carbazole P.AHs (tioti and carc) P.AHs (tioti and carc) 4.4'-DDD. 4.4'-DDE Carbazole. Dibetizoftirau 4.4'-DDD. 4.4'-DDE. 4.4'-DDT alpha-Chlordane. Heptachlor 4.4'-DDD.4.4'-DDE .Aidriti. alpha-Chlordaue Heptachlor epoxide. Methoxxchlor •Aidriti. delta-BHC delta-BHC. Etidosulfau I •Alumitium. .Antimotix. .Arsetiic. Barium. Etidosulfau 1. Etidosulfau sulfate Etidosulfau sulfate. Etiiiriti ketotie Berxlium. Cailmium. Chromium. Etidriti ketotie. Hqitachlor epoxide Hqitachlor. Heptachlor qioxide Cobalt. Copper Metlioxxchlor Metlioxxchlor Lead. Mercurx. Seletiium •Aiumitium. .Antimotix. Barium .Aiitimoiix. .Arsenic. Barium. Cailmium. \'auadium. Zitic Chromium. Copper. Iroti Lead. Mercurx

Lead. Mercurx. \'auadium. Zitic Selenium. Zinc

Ol'26 DIRECT EXPOSlfRE ' INDIRECT EXPOSlfRE -

SedinienI Surface Water Ingeslion

1.2-DCE. 2-Bulajione. Beiizene Clilorobenzene. Cliloromielliajie P.AHs (non ajul caro Bis(2-elliylliex\ )plillialale 1.2-DCB' 1.3-bCB. 1.4-DCB 4.4'-DDD. 4.4'-DDE. 4.4'-DDT alplia-Clilonlajie Heplaclilor epoxide Aluriiinurii. .Ajiliriiony. .Arsenic. Barium. Berxiium. Cailniium. Cliromium. Cobalt. Copper Lead. Mercurx. Nickel Selenium. \'ajiadium. Zinc

Bariu rn Lead

Mercurx

P.AHs (non ajid caro Bis(2-elliylhexyl)phllialale 4.4'-DDb. 4.4'-DDE. 4.4'-DDT alpha-Chlordajie Heplachlor epoxide •Antimony. .Arsetiic Cailmium. Chromium Lead. Mercurx. \'ajiadium

Olf28 DIRECT EXPOSlfRE ' INDIRECT EXPOSlfRE -Olf28

Soil Ingeslion

P.AHs (iioii and carc) P.AHs (IIOII and carc) Cabazole. Dibeiizoftirau 4.4'-DDD. 4.4'-DDE. 4.4'-DDT 4.4'-DDD. 4.4'-DDE. 4.4'-DDT .Aldriii. delta-BHC. eamma-BHC .Aldriii. delta-BHC. eamma-BHC alpha-Chlordatie. eamma-Chlordaue alpha-Chlordaue. eamma-ChIoniane Dielilriti. Etidosulfau 1 Etidosulfau 1. Eiiilriii Eiidriii. Eiidriii aldehyde Eiiilriii aldehyde. Eiulriii ketone Eiidriii ketone. Heptachlor Heptachlor. Hepatachlor epoxide Heptachlor epoxide. Metlioxyclilor Metlioxyclilor .Aiitimoiiy. .Arsenic .Alumitium. .Aiitimoiiy. .Arsenic. Cailmium. Lead. Mercury Barium. Cailmium. Chromium Copper. Iron. Lead Maueauese. Mercurx. Silver \'auadium. Zinc

.XMll BBrodlS [RC^DISTBL.XLSI TABLE 5-.X nid Hoiiit-Aead .AFB - 18. 26. 28 and 2<5 Record of Decision Sheet 1 of 2

A 20 08 Rec.O

TABLE 5-3

SUM^LARY OF COPECs IDENTIFIED IN THE ECOLOGICAL HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT AT Ous 18, 26, 28 AND 29

OU29 DIRECT EXPOSlfRE INDIRECT EXPOSlfRE -

Soil Inseslion

1.1-DCE P.AHs (non ajul caro 4.4'-DDD. 4.4'-DDE. 4.4'-DDT alpha-Clilonlajie. della-BHC Erulrin ketone. Heplachlor qioxide Mellioxydilor •Aluniinuni. .Aniiniony. .Xrsenic. Cadniiuni. Chroniiuni. Copper Iron. Lead. Majieajiese. Mercury Silver. \'ajiadiuni. Zinc

P.XHs (non ajid caro. Carbazole 4.4'-DDD. 4.4'-DDE. 4.4'-DDT alpha-Chlordajie. della-BHC Etulrin ketone. Hqiaclilor epoxide Methoxychlor .•\luniituini. .Antiniotiy. .Vsetiic. Cailniiuni. Lead. Mercurx

' Tliese media are listed to itidicate COPECs cotisidered tliroueh direct exposure (i.e.. dermal contact). - Tlie itieestioti pathway is iticluded to illuslrate COPECs cotisidered tliroueh indirect exposure (i.e.. incidental itieestioti).

.^Mll BBrodlS [RODISTBL.XLSI T.ABLE 50 nid Hoiiit-Aead .AFB - (!>ii> 18. 26. 28 and 2<5 Record of Decision Sheet 2 of 2

A 20 <38 Rec.O

TABLE 5-4

PRELBBNARV REMEDIATION GOALS FOR CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN AT HOMESTE AD AEB ES SITES

GUIS ou:6 GIGS GU:9 (ronlam inanl

PRO' (mg kg=soil. fjg L=\valer)

FDEP Goal Guidance* (mg kg=soil. fjg L=\valer) (rom menls

X X X X Benzo(a)ajilliracene 4.9 me ke 4.9 me ke

X X X X Benzo(a)p\rene 1.5 me ke i).5 me ke

X X X X Benzo(b)nuoranlliene 5 me ke 5 me ke

X Benzo(,e.h.i)per\lene 51) me ke 51) me ke

X Benzo(k)nuorajilliene 4S me ke 4S me ke

X X X X Dibenzota.h )ajilliracene 1.5 me ke i).5 me ke

X X X X Indenod .2..Vcd )p\rene 1.5 me ke 5 me ke

X Tridiloroelliene (ICE) 5S() pe L p e L 'RG MCL; however. PRG is protective of humaji leallh and environmenl. Not potable water source.

X X •Arsenic li) me ke .T1 m e k e No unacceptable EP.A risk idenlitled. L'se FDEP soil cleamip eoal.

X X Lead 1.()()() me ke 1.()()() me ke No unacceptable EP.A risk idenlitled. L'se FDEP soil cleamip eoal.

X Mercur\ 4S() me ke 4S() me ke ^GO calculated from BR.A at Fll = 1 was 221 lie ke. However. mercur\ occurs in only one sample aud -DEP soil cleamip eoal is considered protective.

Preliriiinan Remedial ion Goal Acceptable concentration based on decision by tlie BCT. Taken from FDEP Soil Cleajuip Cioals for Florida (FDEP 1995) or FDEP OroutKhvaler Guidajice Concent rations (FDEP 1994).

3M11 BBRODIS [RODISTBL.XLSI T.JLBLE5-1 jda Hoiiit->1t-ad .AFB - 18. 26. 28 and 2<5 Record of Decision

ROD18TBL.XLS Rec.O

out a

i AQMCULTUfW. (HURSERt) rf£tO

eouNtwnr CAKAI

' >CY MOD 120 0 120 ii

FAMIY CAMP GROUNDS AND RV HOOKUPS SCALE IR rCET

pLEGEND

^— ORAWACE SWALE

SHE SOUHDARt FOR Ri PURPOSES

PEUOVCO BINLOIRC

— SLOPE

HiSTORK: PAINT STAINS

MANHOLE (UNMARKED)

rONFIRyATKVN SAMRUHG LOCATIONS:

MH u

^ GEOPROBI

A SURFACE SOU.

9 UOMTORtNC WELL * SUBSURFACE SAMPLE

CIIKMICAL LEGEND

LCGCNO A = Atiton# MEK 2-Rutanoni COit or CS ^ Carbon B = T = Tolutno X s XylvAOt (total) PAH « PotycycUc Aromatic Hyarocorbort* (m^/kg) DBF s Oib«ntofi«ron ODD o 4,4"DD0 DDE = 4.4-CH)E Ai.0 B Alsllin Q™QO = <ii|>ii<i-Chloraon» CK s Cnarin K»toni MC = ttoplocNor tpo*ia« g.~CD == gomma-Catofrfoiio MC ~ Molhoxychter NOTE: AM concNiiiiationi oro ug/kg i^copl whtrt

Ai = Art«iiic (mg/kg) 9a B Barium (mg/kg) Bi ^ BiryKlum (mg/lcg) CN s Cyania* Cr 3 Chromium (mg/hg) Cu = Coppor (mg/kg) Mil B Mangofioio Pb = Looa (mg/kg) Sb 3 Anitmony (mg/kg) V « Voao^tum Zn 3 Zinc (mg/kg) OM = DltiatvoU Motals SB 3 Subsurfocc SaR SS 3 Surloac SoR MW 3 Uonllortng W«ll

noffd*

SMZ-SS-^ m m iiM MM in N w mtM U 7U Mt/kf CM 0.21 SiHfi

SIIOI-SS-02 • 1 1 1 X 2 m M M0I MM m CR si/ls Pb n.s wi/kf

CP-OS

T\"%rtSU0\CJMIIM\«OOI\fS-l«OOI.DwO (I5SM) Oi-Mk.bwG VoCOUFM

StfOI-S$-Ot 1 7 FAR MS m|/kf

m li 1.17

•"•Ai Zk m

•"•Ai CR 1.44 •"•Ai n 29.^

FARKIfIC

Utt3-U*(H FAR 2211 Tt/H Mi 2M| HE 2200 Fh ^ Hi 2S/N

m/H 2k 42« 2S/N m/H

CN 0.48^

SU02-SS-0S T 4 PAH 1074.1 n»a/k« M0 no

w CR 0.12 Pb 27.1 22^

• SITC BQUNOAHV

SH01-S5-04 T n X 5

' m flLS «fAi H6 220 fc 141 MAI 2A 2I€ 51/^

51/19

ssM

^ 01 Oil 51/^

51/19

ssM Cr 4U

51/^

51/19

ssM CA

' n 44

Tii

51/^

51/19

ssM

iloinoiletd Ai* Force Uoie imr OUI0 CONflBMATtON SAMPUNC LOCATIONS AND RESULTS

AGRICULTURAL (WJRSERY) REIO

g 5G-OV5W-05 so-oE/sw- ceS

0U18

HtSuH FOEP cm. »h04 (mg/kq) (iWkq)

BoP 4J 1-S BbT 6.0 5.0

SliCQ-kmi BQP

URAL (NURSERY) FIELD

RtsyN FDtP cN. MQ/U

20 02

BOUNOAHY CANAL BS0-04/SW-04

FAMILY CAMP

0

Xav MOP

120 a SCALE IN FEET

-LEGEND

DRAINAGE SWALE

SITE BOUNDARY TOR Rl PURPOSES

REIi«>VED BUriDINC

SLOPE

HISTORIC PAINT STAINS

gl SAMPUNG IQCATK»<S:

A SURFACE SOIL

C SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT

B SOIL BORING

^ MONITORING WELL at SUBSURFACE SAMPLE

Chemical Ligtrid

BQA, = ainro(oknlhroc»n« BaP = Bfnzo(a)pyrf5t BbF = BimoLtJfluoranlhtn* DQHA = (|ib«n2o{a,h)anlhroc«n# n23P = (nd«no<l,2,3-cd)pyrin# HE = H«ptocNlor •fwxid^ As s Arssnio Bm = Beryllium J = EftlmQt#d concsntfltron FP =s Polsntiol ffflj# poiitivs FOEP crll. = FDEP irtduitrlal soU cUanup goal (mg/kg) or primory groyr>dwal»r guldanco conc«ntratlon (pgA)

Conflrmotlon - Rssulft (rom 1993 coofirmollon sampliog program.

SIKQ-S80I IW9iil FDEP crit. fll'l ftntt/koT fnw/kB) Bo4 10,0 4.1 loP 7.1 13 Wtf B.B 53 DohA tJ H2iP 6.)

R«Mlt fOFP ciH, sa-0008 Ur) (mgAg) (mqAa)

ao? 1 3.1 1.5

Risulf FDEF SIHK (mQAo) (mo/kq)

BsP 4J 1.5 W 7.4 5.0

As 21.4 10.0

BRUSH Rnud FDFP cfH,

30-03 (mg/kg) (mg/ka) loP 2.7 1.5

SM02-MWI

RnMI FDEP cril. Si-«oy im (moA.) (ing/kg)

1 RcwM FOEP a»l. 1 Sli62-SS02 (mo/ho) (mc/ka)

BcA 110.0 4.1 BfiP 170.0 1.5 Bbf tec.o 5.0

120.0 5C.0 m 17.0 ^0

DoHA 34.0 1.5 I123P 120.0 t.5

RtsttH rKFTHT SIHIOOi C121 (mgAg) (mg/kg)

8oP 1 3.9J 1 1,5

RfsMt FDCP cHL (mg/kg) (msAg)

As 14.0 1 to.o

CnHrmsHew R«»4I FDEP crD.

aiQI-SSQl fma/ka) fmfl/hg) foA 45J 43 ioP 55.0 1.5 fibf 59.0 5.0 M 53.0 1.5

Il25f 43.0 5.0

RtsuU FKP CfiL SS-13 (mg/kg) (w«Ai)

OQA 57,0 4.9 9oP 49.0 1.5 ObT lOO.O 5.0

DcAA 2.0J 1.5 lt23P 51.0 SO

ssot SSOJ

AtSUA F0£F ctil. SS-12 (mq/kg) fiwi/ka)

OQA 173 4.9 BGP 19.0 1.5 W 210 5.0

3.U 1.5 II23P U.0 5.0

ME 0.4fF 0.3

V.

RnMI FKP <^4. S5-1I (mg/kg) (mqAg)

BaA 29.0 4.9 M 21.0 1.5 Bbf 353 53

OohA 7.4J 1.5 lt23P 203 5.0

HE 2.efP 0.3

ApfH 2t, ittl 1:19:4^ p.m. Omwina; T:\H0MC5TtDNC3U1 Itt^ROOlVFS'-SiOOt.O^fO (TSSM)

<»-mDWG

RtsUI FDEP cril. SS-09 (mo/kg) (mg/kg)

BoA 313 4.9 BoP 293 1.5 m 493 53

I123P 23.0 5.0 KE l.3fP 0.3

\

RtsuH FDEP ertf. SS-lfl (mg/kg) (mg/kg)

BOA 14.0 4,9 BQP 14.0 1.5 BbF IS.O 5.0 0^ 2JJ 1.5 M23P 8.3J 53

0.47FP C-3

Confirmalbfl PssMi FOFP c»!.

SMQ2-SS04 (ma/kg) (m^/. ;; Aid 0.35 C7

SoA 11000 4 '

BoP loao 1

Sbf I20.D t

. .BohiP 923 1 .•

BkF S53 3- . CkyhA 210 L5 I123P 910 1.^

\ CofilirfTMlioiy

R«suil rCFP r.l SM02-SS03 (mo/kfl)

3d 07 9eA 96.9 B<iP 1003 i «

Bbf 130.0 • KM

B<^ 903 V % Bkf 623 ' J

OohA 25.0 • ;

It23P 913 ^ -/

CefdkffVQlMn / Bcsutt fOFP

Sli02-SS01 (mg/kal m 0.25 0 2

BoA 150.0 4 .

1203 I.fi BbF 1503 5.0

1103 503 BkF 873 483

DOHA 32.0 1.5 1123P MO.O 1.5

\

RmN FOCP cril. Sli01-SS04 (mg/ko) (mg/kg)

AM 122 D.2 BoA 74,0 49 BoP 96.0 1.5 Bfef I0Q3 53

BohB' 80.0 50.0 Bkf 110.0 4B.0

DohA 2.4 1.5 I123P BID 50

Rfwk FCn:P cril. SII01-SS33 (moAo) (mg/itol

ScA 73.0 4.9 BcP 943 1.5 BbF 99.0 5.0

BohiP 8Q.0 50.0 BkF 783 48.0

DohA 2.2 t.5 H23P 783 5.0

Confirmoltofi RisuB FDCP crit

SMO1-5S02 fmgAg) /mgAo) AM 0.26 0.2

BoA 28.0 4.9 BoP 280 1.5 Bbf 33.0 5.0

DdKA 16 1.5 n23P 273 53

-Xi

>

\

„ r. « imi llomâUBd Asr Force B«e CONTAMINANTS EXCEEDING FDEP INDUSTRIAL CLEAN-UP COALS / CRITERIA IN SITE MEDIA

nc r. V't

GP-U LI OCC 0J7 v|/L 1.2 oa 6.14 sfA ICE 7X7 »t/L PCE a§4

CP-10 1.1 OCE 0.57 Si/L \a DCC 1.^ sgA TK 0.45 2^

CHASST AR£A

\ \

ss-o. • T 7 X 5

2.02 FTw/lta ooc 25 OOI 12 HE ti

125 mtAo Cs 16.5 mM Pb 29.5 mft/k| Sb 16.9

5VJilP tffWCHT ^tSCHAROi:

SS-03

-LEGEND

IS •—

D8AJNACC SWA(.£

SITE BOlWOARr

W8 CO»«)mONER

SLOPE

CQWrtPfttADQN SAMPUNG lOTATtOH*;:

® CCOPROK

• SURfACE SOIL

® MONITOIWG WELL k SUSSUSfACE SO*.

0 EXISTWG OHM MOHTORMIG WELLS

C Clussr AJ^

ly$T745-3/MW-1

CXCAVA ums •^\ 3 piaiaviD niANsri

FOfDiiCJI US7 743-rcNusff EJCGAVATION UMTS

OU25 1. 1 r

J /-• -i

4.^

/-• -i

4.^

/-• -i

4.^

X-

5S-04 i • i T S X 6 fm 19.4 GTC1 000 0.15 DOE 15 HE 12

5.5 Co 7.1 Cr If Cu mq/k§

0.62 47.5

Pb 506 msAs In inq/H

0P'a5 LI DOE 1.55 «g/l ICE 0.02 tfgA

FOMCA UST 749-^3

l«Y MCP

T\\HCI«ESt^CwVlW\«»I\r9-<»00liW« (ISSM) Xi9iw. Of-WM.OWC VffiCOWFttK

t 51 m 15.11 A-1254 1400 m 12 EX 20 HE 55 Cu 56.2 mm m 5.2 mg/lq n M.4 mg/lq In 2S6

0«ASSY MtCA

" CHEMICAL LEGEND T = Toiucn# E = Ethyl b^nztn# X = XyUnts PAH = Polycyclk AfomQlic Hydrocgrbons (mg/ka) tm = 4.4-DDD DDE - 4,4-DDE DOT = 4,4«00T PCE a T»trochloro4lH#ni (ug/L)

DCE - 1,1-DfcWoro4lhin« (ug/L) 1|2 tXS = 112—t>lchlorotthtii€ (ug/L) TCE = Tfl<Wô#th«rti (^/k) l.l.t TCA s Trkht&rMthon* (ug/L) ALO = AUIdn CK = Zn4rin Ktlon# HC s H«p1chlor Epoxfd* A-1254 = Arocior 1254 NO = Hond«}*et As s: Aosflic ("3/g Bfl = BsryKum (rng/kg) Co = CokôH (mg/kg) Cr = ChromJum (mg/kg) Cu s Cof^sf Mn s Mongon«is (ug/L) Nl = Nicksf (mg/kg) Pb = t»qd (mg/kg) Sb = AnHmoity (ug/L) Ss = Sslsnlimi (ug/L) V 5= Voaodhtfn (ugA) Zn = zinc (mg/kg) SB = SubsurtoG* SoU SS = SuTfaci Sou MW = Moiôiing Woll EM = DksolYSd Ustois CP = Gsaprobs

NOTE: oil conctnlroHoas ars ug/kg sxcspf wh«r« rcteO,

7*' bO

SCAII rH H - •

mi ouse CONFIRMATION SAMPUNC LOCATIONS AND RESULTS

T S- I

LEGEND •

ss; AIR CONOinONCR

*— SLOPE

® CEOPROBE

g SOIL BORING

0 MONITORING WEU ft SUBSURFACE SOIL

SEDIWENT / SURFACE WATER

APPROXIIMTE SCALE IN PEET

April 29. 1998 1:41:13 p Ora.lng- l:\HOWE3TECp\C3unBB\RODI\r5-5RODl DwC (TSSU) 'fit Q9-MM.rWC VaWt-SAMR

'Xcv MOP

Honiei'.eurt \ir Force BPS? 0U2C RI ?.V\!rUNG LOCATIONS 0-5

\Ll I ̂ ^ ^

0U2S oitcmi n.YD.

i

1

-4 '

f —

r I

^ /'v z'

coMotrrc StOCWAUC

50

-LEGEND scAU M rcrr

r~\ ORAiHAOe SWALE

sLore CULVERT LOCATKW

m SAilMHC EOCATtOHS; A SURFACE SOIL

Q SOU eORII^ WITH SURFACE son AHO SUBSURFACE SAMPLE

0 WOMTORWG WELL

^ EXISTING OHM MOmTORI««; WELLS

CH#ffnlcol L«9*nd

PCE = T#lrachlafo»th«ti« TCE = TrichJoro«»i«fi« BoA s B^zofQ)o4ilhrw«n« BoP = StnzofomyrtAA BbF - B«nzo(bmuoranlK»nt GkF - B«nzo{k)flueronth«^* DQHA = dib«nzo(a.h)anlhractnff lt2SP = ln<i#rto(l.2,i-cd)pyr#rt« HE s HtpfscHlor tpoKid# As - Art«filc Pb = Lwd F# = Iron J = Estlmolvd concsctlroHofi Fp = Polvnfi^ lalst posiHvs FKP crH. = FOCP MusfHol SoH cltonup gool (mg/kg) or groyiwiwaltf

?iuklon<« concootroHon (MBA) s) =: FDEP isctmdory woltr quolitf

slarKlord

e^MCRCTC RAMP

-J fj^ggS rocp sdi. i t SS-Of (ma/lM) (msAs) 3 M 3.5J 1.5

As m m 1 Pb 1000.0

4 » 1 / 4 Itsvi rOCP crN.

33-10 ItiwAol (weAs) As n.7 tos

4 4 Pb \7m.Q 1000.0

\ 1

X

' 6uw. (wffT' "-•jrf SS-OSP

CRASS

USTr50-fcW3

USr750-^MWl i SS-03

COCIÊ D«VC <REIilOVEO)"

0ST750-MW2

RssiiR FOEP cfil. SSHM lm/k9)

8QA 4.5 BoP 54J Bbf 5.SJ 3.0

\

•WfliW 7IB

RsstiR FOU> crR. m (^1 (yfl/n

PCE 4.W 3^

TCE liU 3.0 Fi 323.0 300(,1

a m

Sdl rOCP erH. 19

SS-OB F«

inui JuS^

_ AST (7SX

1SM.0 imo f AREA

\ >-<

IMtiilf rOCF CfH. SI-12 {maAsl fms/k«)

BoP 1.7 1.5

As 23.1 Pb 1340.0 1000.0

SS-II

/

59-04

SS-M 750S-MW4

REMOVES SUMP

mr ofH,

500(s) 75C5-MW2 z

REMOVES »IL/WATER EFAAATM

55-!5

SS- 12 SS-IW"

7^-MW0 50S-MW3

75OS-MW^'0^Ô5 1 r50-srw3 Q 75alrMW5 38-02

Sl-06^ CONTAMIIENT

AREA

750-MW4 r-

uu.) CONCf^TC PAO

ss-ts

7 >0-lrfW1

9S8-01 MW2

750-MW10

-0-75O-MW7

HM. 74B CONC PAS

S5-0i RtfMI mp crH.

SS-OI M S3J 4.1

•0" •0-750-MWS 750-MW$

ORASSr AREA

SS-021

CANAL (Tfit)

fttsyO FOEP cftt. SS-C2 WkQ) («aA«)

BoA 13 4J BDP 6.2 K5 Bbf 3.4 3.0

SS-17

^SSY AREA L

BS5«R FOCP c/rf. 55-01 (ms/ke) fmfl/kol

BoA 25.0 4.5 8of 26.0 1.5

31.0 UO DohA 4.7J 1 s II23P U.O 5.0

ME 0.68fP OJ Pb 1230.0 1000 0

APEA

R SS-17 (r

4*yR FOCP crtt. RfiAflL

BoP 3.8i i.5 BbF 52 50

750-MW10 RuuH FOEP OOVI (uftA) [VR/D

SSL , 15.0 3.0

trt

BcsuH FDCP CM. SS-li (mq/kg) (moAo)

BoA 13J 4.9 Bop 5.74 U Bbf S.7J 5.0

HANGAR RD.

Rssott FOCP cfB. hNHO (w«/L)

PCE 5.0J 3.0

29, 2i05!3f p.m, ^ Sfcurffw: T^HOMESTC0\CSMllBrvROO1\F9-iROOlSW6 (TBSM) irmfu: OB«^MM.OW6

HcmeiUod Air Force BM« Mil OUEB (FOKMERLY BUIU)ING 750): CONTAMINANTS EXCEEDING FDEP INDUSTRIAL CLEAN-UP GOALS / CRITERIA IN SITE MEDIA

m D-n

Oy29

50

K#v Mqp

SCALE IN FEET

-LEGEND

DR>UNAOC SWALE

snt &OUWARY Fon Rl PUirPOSES

REMOVED BUILDING

SLOPE

IXCAVATIW AREA i

a FORMER OO/WATER SEPARATOR

M SAMfiUNC LOCATIONS: A SURFACE 5«.

O soil WTH SUBSURFACE SAMPLE

a MONITORINC WELL

Ch»micdl

TCE - Trtchlor©»th«nt VC 5= Vinyl chlorid# BoA S5 Bi5lo(a^lhroc»fit BoP = B«nzo(a)pirr«r>« BbF = B«n2o(b)f1tioranth*n# DohA = Dlb«nio(a»h)fln!hrflc«ni !I25P - lnd»no(^,2.3-cd>pyrti># HE = Htplochlcw IpoMt As ^ Ar««iik

J = concvnlroflon FP = Pof«-nHol felt# poaitjv#

rOEP crM. = FDEP Induffrlal 9cU cl#<wup 9«il (mg/Rg) Of groundwafw puldonci conc#fttfotfo*i (jig/i.)

Asri 2«. im 2:l5(0i pm. DfovMO: T:\MOttE51Eg\CSlil1lf\tOOt\rS-l»OgiOWg (T5SB) XrmlM-. yoXCEED

SSHH fttluR (mcAtl

FOtP &n.

m 116 4M M 12.6 15 Ibf 110 M

112^ 8.01 5D

W ^ FDfP er«.

SSHfi (wtt/iift} (msAc) M 111 15

SS-04

\

SS-01

Hometletd Air Forc:« Bti« 7rn£ 0U2g (FORMER BUILDING 7fl0) CONTAMINANTS EXCEEDING FDEP INDUSTRIAL CLEAN-UP COALS / CRITERIA IN StTI MEDIA

ifttfl rKF CHI, 55-04 (rT>a/k«)

ftoA 1» 4.9 8oP U 1.5 IbT 110 5.0

DohA 2,3J 1.5 I125P 2.3 5.0 H! 03KP 0.3

\

fK ti-lQ

6.0 REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES

Tliis section describes the development of remedial alternatives for each Ol^ site. Tlie alternatives are

designed to satisfy the remedial action objectives discussed in Section 6. 1.

6.1 REMEDIAL ACTION OB.JECTIVES

Remedial Action Objectives (RAOs) specify the contaminants and media of interest, exposure

path\va\s. and preliminaiy remediation goals (PRGs) that pennit a range of remedial action

alternatives to be developed. Tlie R.AOs can be developed on a media-specitlc or operable

unit-specitlcbasis and result in goals for the protection of human health or the environment (l^SEP.A

1988a). Tlie process for developing R.AOs for the Homestead .AFB sites included:

• .A review of federal and state environmental regulations and standards to help

retnie remediation criteria that address human health and environmental risks

posed by site contamination

• Calculationof PRGs for contaminants and media of interest where established

regulations and standards do not exist or where site-specitlc. risk-related

factors should be considered to protect human health or the environment

6.1.1 Identification of .Applicable or Relevant and .Appropriate Requirements (.AR.ARs)

.Applicable or Relevant and .Appropriate Requirements (.AR.ARs) are federal, state, and regional

environmental and facility siting requirements with which a remedial action at a Superfund site must

comply. The CERCL.A of 1980 as amended by the Superfund .Amendments and Reauthorization .Act (S.AR.A) of 1986 (collectively. CERCL.A). and the NCP require compliance with .AR.ARs. Only those

state requirements that are more stringent than federal .AR.ARs and are legally enforceable and

consistentlv enforced statewide mav be .AR.ARs.

Q:.^M11 BBRC^DIS RC^DlSSOe.DC^C nul JDG , . J 20 <38 Hoiiie>1ead AFB - CXis 18.26.28 and 20 Record of Decision 6 - f Rev. 0

Pursuant to Section 121(d) of CERCLA. the on-site portion of a remedial action selected for a Superfund site must comply with all .AR.ARs. OlT-site. all requirements legally applicable at

the time the action is cairied out must be met. In addition to ARARs. guidance and other nonpromulgated criteria can be considered in evaluating remedial alternatives. Tliese

nonpromulgated guidance or criteria are refeired to as TBCs (to-be-considered).

.As part of the FS process, remedial alternatives, including the no-action alternative, were evaluated

to assess the degree to which they attain or exceed .AR.ARs. including federal and state public health

and environmental standards. .AR.AR identification continues throughout the RI FS as a better

understandingis gained of site conditions, site contaminants, exposure pathways, and remedial action

alternatives. .A preliminaiy identificatiomnd discussion of .AR.ARs for the four OVh at Homestead

.AFB is presented below.

Cleanup standards for remedial actions must attain a general standard of cleanup that assures protection of human health and the environment, is cost-elTective. and uses pennanent solutions and

alternative treatment technologies or resource recovery technologies to the maximum exient

practicable.In addition. S.AR.A requires that any hazardous substance or pollutant remaining on site meet the level or standard of control established by;tandards. requirements, criteria, or limitations

that have been established under any federal environmental law. or any more stringent standards,

requirements, criteria, or limitation^romulgated in accordance with a state environmental statute.

.A requirement may be applicable or relevant and appropriate to remedial activities at a site, but not

necessarilyboth. .Applicable requirements are those cleanup standards, standards of control, and other substantiveenvironmental protection requirements, criteria, or limitations promulgated under federal or state law that specifically address a hazardous substance, pollutant, contaminant, remedial action,

location, or other circumstances at a site.

UAi regulation is not applicable, it may still be relevant and appropriate. Tlie basic considerations are

whetherthe requirement (1) regulates or addresses problems or situations sufficiently similarto those

encounteied at the subject site (i.e.. relevance), and (2) is appropriate to the circumstances of the

release or threatened release, such that its use is well suited to the particular site. Detennining

whether a requirement is relevant and appropriate is

Q:.^M11 BBRC^DIS RC^DlSSOe.DC^C nul JDG , - J 20 <38 Hoiiie>1ead AFB - CXis 18.26.28 and 20 Record of Decision 0-2 Rev. 0

site-specific and mustbe based on best professional judgment. Tliis judgment is based on a number

of factors, including the characteristics of the remedial action, the hazardous substances present at

the site, and the physical circumstances of the site and of the release, as compared to the statutoiy or regulator requirement. Compliance with all requirements found to be applicable or relevant and

appropriate is mandatoiy under S.AR.A unless a waiver is obtained from the l^SEP.A.

"To-be-considered" materials (TBCs) are nonpromulgated advisories, proposed rules, criteria, or

guidance documents issued by federal or state governments that ckot have the status of potential

.AR.ARs. However, these advisories and guidance are to be considered when detennining protective

cleanup levels where no .AR.ARs exists, or where .AR.ARs are not sutTiciently protective of human

health and the environment. In these circumstances. TBC values are used to establish cleanup targets.

Tlie .AR.ARs presented herein are chemical-specific, location-specific, and action-specific

requirements. .Although some action-specific requirements are presented, applicability of these .AR.ARs can only be addressed once detailed remedial alternatives are developed for each location.

6.1.1.1 C'lieiiiical-SDecific .AR.ARs

Chemical-specific requirements are based on health or risk-based concentration limits of discharge limitations in environmental media (i.e.. water, soil) for specific hazardous chemicals. Tliese

requirements may be used to set cleanup levels forthe chemicals of concern, in the designated media,

or to set a safe level of discharge (e.g.. water, air. etc.) that may occur as pail of the remedial activity.

Sources for potential target cleanup levels included selected standards, criteria, and guidelines that

are typically considered as .AR.ARs for remedial actions conducted under CERCL.A. as well as some

recently published guidance and proposed actioievels provided by state and county agencies that

are t\pically considered as TBCs. .A summaiy of the chemical-specific .AR.ARs is presented in Table

6-1. Each citation in Table 6-1 is described

Q:.^M11 BBRC^DIS RC^DlSSOe.DC^C nul JDG , - J 20 <38 Hoiiie>1ead AFB - CXis 18.26.28 and 20 Record of Decision 6-Rev. 0

along with an explanation as to whether the citation is applicable or relevant and appropriate,

followed by an identification of which of the four Ol^ sites the citation may be pertinent to.

For groundwater, maximum contaminant limits (MCLs) established under the Safe Drinking Water

Act (SDWA) are often accepted by regulator agencies as cleanup levels for groundwater remedial

activities, especially if the groundwater is or could be a drinking water source. .At Homestead .AFB.

shallow groundwater is not used now and is not likely to be used in the future as a drinking water

source because of problems associated with saltwater intrusion. For this reason, attainment of MCLs

withinthe shallow groundwater is not necessaiy to be protective of human health. Nonzero maximum

contaminantlevel goals (MCLGs) are also established under the SDW.A. However. MCLGs are not

federally enforceable and should only be used if site-specific health risk conditions wairant their use.

.Although the shallow aquifer at Homestead .AFB is not used and is not planned foEe as a source

of potable water due to salt water intrusion, groundwater in the vicinity of Homestead .AFB.

specifically the Biscayne .Aquifer, is classified as a sole source of drinking water (Class G-1).

Tlierefore. the identification of potential target cleanup levels for groundwater at Homestead .AFB

includes standards, criteria, and guidelines primarily for drinking water. Tliese standards include

MCLs and MCLGs. as well as the Florida drinking water standards. .Also included are hazardous

constituent concentration limits under RCR.A Subpart F. which are applicable to releases from

RCR.A-regulated units.

State and federal standards and criteria for surtace water quality are considered applicable or relevant

and appropriate as long as there is the possibility of remedial activities impacting surtace water

bodies. Homestead .AFB canal system was considered as site surface waters. Should any remedial

activities at Homestead .AFB impact these surtace waters, compliance with both state and federal

surtace water quality standards and criteria may be required.

6.1.1.2 Locatioii-Specific .AR.ARs

Location-specific.AR.ARs are restrictions placed on the types of activities that may occur in particular

locations. Tlie location of a site may be an important characteristic in detennining its impact on human health and the environment: therefore, individual states mav establish

Q:.^M11 BBRC^DIS RC^DlSSOe.DC^C nul JDG , . J 20 08 Hoiiie>1ead AFB - CXis 18.26.28 and 20 Record of Decision 0-4 Rev. 0

location-specificARARs. Tliese AR.ARs may restrict or preclude certain remedial actions or may

applyonly to certain portions of a site. Examples of location-specitlc ARARs include federal and state requirementsfor preservation of historic landmarks, endangered species and wetlands protection, and

the restrictions on management of hazardous waste in tloodplain areas.

Potential location-specitlc .AR.ARs for Homestead .AFB are presented in Table 6-2. Each citation in Table 6-2 is described along with aiexplanation as to whether the citation is applicable or relevant

and appropriate, followed by an identitlcation of which of the four Ol^ sites the citation may be

pertinent to. .Although the universe of location-specitlc .AR.ARs is identified in Table 6-2. only those

regulations that are deemed .AR.ARs for the Homestead site are discussed below.

Due to the possible presence of both federal and state-listed threatened endangered (T E) species at

the sites, the federal and state Endangered Species .Acts are both considered "potentially" applicable. If T E species are found at the sites, these acts would be applicable. In addition, the Migratoiy Bird

Treaty .Act is considered applicable if any migratory bird species (i.e.. waterfowl) protected by this

.Act or their habitat is impacted by remedial actions.

Homestead .AEB does have waters at the southwest end of the runways that tall under the cuirent

definition of wetland areas under federal wetland delineation guidance. The federal regulations

governing wetlands, however, are not considered .AR.ARs as long as the project does not impact the

wetland areas. If remedial activities impact these wetland areas southwest of the runway at

Homestead .AEB. then the regulations concerning protection and preservation of wetlands will be

considered applicable or relevant and appropriate and coordination with the IfS. Eish and Wildlife

Service will need to be initiated prior to any remedial activity. Tlie State of Elorida also has its own

wetlands regulations, and any remediation activity impacting these wetlands will require prior

coordination with the state agency.

Q:.^M11 BBRC^DIS RC^DlSSOe.DC^C nul JDG , . J 20 <38 Hoiiie>1ead AFB - CXis 18.26.28 and 20 Record of Decision 6-^ Rev. 0

6.1.1.3 Action-Specific AR.\Rs

Action-specific ARARs are usually technology- or activity-based requirements or limitations on

remediation actions with respect to hazardous and nonhazardous wastes. Tliese action-specitlc

requirements do not in themselves detennine the remedial alternative: rather, they indicate how a

selected remedial alternative must be achieved.

Tlie action-specitlc .AR.ARs are intended to cover the potential remedial alternatives that may be

applied. .A summaiyof the action-specitlc .AR.ARs is presented in Table 6-3. Each citation in Table 6-3 is described along with an explanation as to whether the citation is applicable or relevant and

appropriate.followed by an identitlcation of which of the four Ol^ sites the citation may be pertinent

to. Compliance with action-specitlc .AR.ARs was evaluated for each alternative that was analyzed in

detail.

6.1.1.4 Identification of Remedial Objectives

Tlie R.AOs proposed for the four OVh were used as guidelines during the development of remedial

actionaltematives. Tlie proposed R.AOs focus on the exposure setting for which protection of human

health and the environment will be provided. Exposure settings take into consideration the chemicals

of concern, contaminated mediaand exposure pathways. Tlie consideration of exposure pathways

is important since protection may be achieved by reducing the likelihood of exposure and or by

reducing contamination levels.

Tlie specific media and contaminants of concern at the four OVh include:

C'ontaniiiumt of

Media of Concern Concern 0U18 OU2o OU28 0U2^^ Surface Soil PAHs

Lead Mercnr\' •Arsenic

X X X X X X X X X

Sediment See discussion

below

X

Groundwater TCE X

Q:.^M11 BBRC^DIS RC^DlSSOe.DC^C nul JDG Hoiiit->1t-ad AFB - 18. 26. 28 and 2<5 Record of Decision 6-6 A 20 08

Rec.O

Sediments in the canal next to OIUS were found to contain crushed asphalt that apparently eroded or washed into the canal from the Ol^ 18 site. Although no contaminant-specitlc cleanup criteria are available for the sediments and the BRA did not identify potential human health or environmental risks associated with the sediments, the l^S.AF has committed to removing sediments that contain crushed asphalt at OIU8. Tins removal will be done taliminate the crushed asphalt as a potential future contaminant source.

R.AOs have been developed for each of the four Ol^s. as follows:

OU18:

S Prevent human and ecological exposure to surtace soils at Oin8 that contain P.AHs at concentrations above the FDEP industrial soil cleanup goals listed in Table 5-4.

S Remove sediments containing crushed asphalt from the canal adjacent to Gin8 to eliminate the crushed asphalt as a potential future contaminant source.

OU26:

S Prevent human and ecological exposure to surtace soils at 01^26 that contain P.AHs. lead, mercuiy . and arsenic at concentrations above the FDEP industrial soil cleanup goals listed in Table 5-4.

S Prevent construction worker dermal contact with groundwater at 01^26 that contains TCE at concentrations above the risk-based concentration of 580 Pg L-

OU28:

S Prevent human and ecological exposure to surtace soils at 01^28 that contain P.AHs. lead, and arsenic at concentrations above the EDEP industrial soil cleanup goals listed in Table 5-4.

Q:.^M11 BBRC^DIS RC^DlSSOe.DC^C nul JDG , - J 20 <38 Hoiiie>1ead AFB - CXis 18.26.28 and 20 Record of Decision O- / Rec.O

OU29:

S Prevent human and ecological exposure to surtace soils at 01^29 that contain PAHs at concentrations above the FDEP industrial soil cleanup goals listed in Table 5-4.

Tlie RAOs listed above are consistent with the goals of the BCT and the l^SEPA to protect human health and the environment for all contaminated media to the target risk levels of:

• ELCRof 1 X IQ'^ for carcinogens

• HI equal to or less than 1.0 for noncarcinogens

6.2 ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT AND SCREENING PROCESS

.Alternatives for the OVh were developed in the ES by assembling combinations of representative process options that survived the technology screening. Tlie alternatives were assembled to provide a range from no further action (NE.A) to alternatives that use treatment to reduce toxicity, mobility, or volume (TMV). Tlie screening was done to eliminate alternatives that achieved the same remedial action objectives but were considered less feasible. Tlie screening criteria for alternatives include:

• EfTecti\eness - Tins criterion focuses on the alternative's ability to protect human health and the environment, reduce TMV. and minimize negative short-tenn impacts. .Alternatives providing signitlcantly less etTectiveness compared to other alternatives may be eliminated.

• Inipleinentabilitv - Tins criterion focuses on the technical feasibility and availability of the technologies, as well as the administrative feasibility of implementing the alternative. Technical feasibility refers to the ability to construct, operate, and maintain an alternative. .Administrative feasibility refers to the ability to obtain approvals to implement an alternative. .Alternatives that are technically or administrativelv not feasible will be eliminated.

Q:.^M11 BBRC^DIS RC^DlSSOe.DC^C nul JDG , „ J 20 <38 Hoiiie>1ead AFB - CXis 18.26.28 and 20 Record of Decision O-O Rev. 0

• Cost - Tliis criterion focuses on capital and operation and maintenance (O&M) costs expected for each alternative relative to other alternatives under consideration. At this

stage of screening, cost is used only to eliminate alternatives that are clearly more

costly than other alternatives with relatively equal etTectiveness and implementability.

Subsequent to the alternatives screening process, the alternatives that were cairied forward were

evaluated in the detailed analysis of alternatives. .A description of the criteria used for the detailed

analysis is as follows:

6.2.1 Detailed .Analysis Criteria

The l^SEP.A has developed nine criteria that encompass evaluation of statutoiy requirements and

technical, cost, and institutional considerations (l^SEP.A 1988). Tliese nine criteria are:

• Overall protection of human health and the environment

• Compliance with .AR.ARs

• Long-tenn etTectiveness and pennanence

• Reduction of toxicity, mobility, and volume (TMV) through treatment

• Shoi1-tenn etTectiveness

• Implementability

Cost

• State acceptance

• Community acceptance

Tlie last two criteria will be evaluated in the Record of Decision following a review of the public

comments received on the RI ES reports and the proposed plan. State acceptance by the Elorida Department of Environmental Protection (EDEP) will indicate whether the State agrees with the

prefeired alternative in the proposed plan. Eollowing is a brief description of each tile remaining seven criteria.

Q:.^M11 BBRC^DIS RC^DlSSOe.DC^C nul JDG , „ J 20 <38 Hoiiie>1ead AFB - CXis 18.26.28 and 20 Record of Decision 0-9 Rev. 0

6.2.1.1 0\ erail Protection of Human Health and the En\ iroiunent

Tliis criterion provides a tnial check to assess whether each alternative provides adequate protection of human health and the environment, focusing on how each risk and associated pathway are eliminated, reduced, or controlled. Tlie assessment on overall protection draws from the assessments done under other criteria, especially long-tenn effectiveness and pennanence. shoi1-tenn etTectiveness. and compliancewith ARARs. Tins evaluation allows for consideration of whether an alternative poses any unacceptable shoi1-tenn or cross-media impacts resulting from remediation.

6.2.1.1 C'oiiipiiance with .\R.\Rs

Tins criterion is used to detennine whether each alternative will meet federal and state .AR.ARs. .A descriptionof .AR.ARs is provided in Section 6. 1. ItAm identified .AR.AR is not met by an alternative, then an evaluation on the appropriateness of a waiver shoulHe made. Waivers could be applied in any of six circumstances identified by CERCLA (l^SEPA 1988).

6.2.1.3 Long-term EfTecti\ eness and Pennanence

Tins criterion addresses the risk remaining at the site associated with each alternative after remedial action has taken place and objectives have been met. Tlie focus is on risk posed by residuals and or untreated wastes after the cleanup criteria have been reached. Tlie primaiy components of this criterion include consideration of the magnitude of residual risk and the adequacy and reliability of controls.

6.2.1.4 Recluction of TM\" Through Treatment

Tins criterion addresses the statutoiy preference ofCERCL.Afor remedial actions involving treatment technologiesthat pennanently and significantly reduces toxicity, mobility and volume (TMV) of the principd hazardous substances at a site. Tins preference is satisfied when treatment is used to reduce the principal threats at a site by destroying toxic contaminants, irreversibly reducing contaminant mobility, or reducing the total volume of contaminated media.

Q:.^M11 BBRC^DIS RC^DlSSOe.DC^C nul JDG /- 1 f\ -1 20 <38 Hoiiie>1ead AFB - CXis 18.26.28 and 20 Record of Decision O - f U Rev. 0

6.2.1.5 Shoi't-Terin EfTecti\ eness

Tliis criterion assesses the shoi1-tenn etTectiveness of each alternative by assessing the risk to the

community, workers, and environmentluring the construction and implementation of the remedial

action, and the time required to achieve the remedial action objectives.

6.2.1.6 Inipleinentabilitv

Implementability is evaluated in tenns ofteclmical feasibility, administrative feasibility, and availability

of services and materials. Technical feasibility assesses the ability to construct, operate, monitor and.

ifneeded. expand an alternative. .Administrative feasibility assesses the activities needed to coordinate

with other agencies or obtain pennits. .Availability of services and materials considers locally available

resources and available of technologies.

6.2.1.7 Cost

Tlie cost of each alternative is evaluated by considering the capital cost, operations and maintenance

cost, and total present worth cost. Tlie present worth costs provide a common basis for comparing

alternatives.

Feasibility-level cost estimatesare intended to provide an accuracy range of +50 to -30 percent of

actual cost. The tnial project cost will depend on actual labor and material cost, productivity,

competitive market conditions, final project scope and schedule, and other variable factors.

.As a result of these factors, the final project cost is likely to van from the estimates provided in this

FS. Funding needs should be carefully reviewed before final remedial action budgets are established.

Tlie selected alternative and coiresponding cost estimates should be further reflnddi the remedial

design stage.

.A description of each alternative considered in the detailed analysis, on a site-by-site basis, is provided

in the following discussion. Following the description of all alternatives evaluated for each site, by

media, the results of the detailed analvsis are summarized with the

Q:.^M11 BBRC^DlSRC^DlSSOe.DCiC nulJDG , . . J 20 <38 Hoiiie>1ead AFB - CXis 18.26.28. and 20 Record of Decision O - f f Rec.O

recommendationfor the prefeired alternative. In general, the following alternatives were evaluated

for site soils and or sediments at Sites OIU8. 01^26. 01^28. and 01^29.

ALTERNATIVES EVALUATED EOR SITE SOILS/SEDIMENTS

Alternatives OU18 OU26 OU28 OU29

No Further Action x x x x

Institutional Controls x x x x

Soil Cover x

Remove and Treat x x x x

INing Tliennal

Desoiption

Remove and Liindfill x x x x

Liind Treatment x

For groundwater at site 01^26. the alternatives evaluated included No Further Action, groundwater

monitoring, intrinsic remediation (natural attenuation), and groundwater collection and treatment.

6.3 ALTERN.ATIVES ADDRESSING OU18 SOILS AND SEDIMENTS

6.3.1 Description of .Alternatives

•Alternative OU18-1 - No Eni-ther .Action

.Alternative OIU8-I assumes that no remedial action would be implemented at OIU8.

.Alternati\ e Ol^l8-2 Institutional Controls

.Alternative Gin 8-2 would consist of institutional controls including land use restrictions, long-tenn

management, and a health and safety plan for all future intrusive work at the site. .Additionally,

fencing would be installed around OIU8 to control and limit human access to the sites.

Q:.^M11 BBRC^DlSRC^DlSSOe.DCiC nulJDG , J 20 <38 Hoiiie>1ead AFB - CXis 18.26.28. and 20 Record of Decision O - 12 Rec.O

Alternative QUI8-3 - Soil Cover

.Alternative OIU8-3 involves removing the existing asphalt-containing sediments and some

abovegrade fill along the canal, placing them on top of OIU8. regrading the site, and installing a

vegetated soil cover over the site. Tins alternative would be implemented by:

• Removal of asphalt-containing sediments from the canal (estimated at about 800 bank cubic

yards) and removal of existing site fill materials within 15 feet of the canal (estimated at about

8.000 bank cubic yards).. Removal would be done using appropriately-sized, conventional

eailhmoving equipment. Wet sediments would be dewatered at the excavation site.

• Excavated materials would be placed over Oin8 to help establish grades of 2 percent.

.Additionalgrading would be done as needed to achieve a 2 percent grade over the surtace of

OIU8 and a maximum slope of 1 vertical to 3 horizontal along the sideslopes.

• Installation of a 24-inch soil cover, the upper 6 inches of which are capable of supporting

vegetation, in accordance with State of Florida regulations for construction debris landfills

(F.AC. Title 12. Chapter 62-701). Tlie perimeter slopes along the canal would be protected

using erosion control matting and vegetation.

• Two existing monitoring wells located near the edge ofOlU8 will be abandoned and replaced

within the 15-foot-wide butfer strip made between the landfill and the canal.

• Installation of a perimeter fence and warning signs, around OIU8.

.Alternative OIU8-3 would include a restriction on land access and use and would have the

requirement for long-tenn management and groundwater monitoring.


Alternati\ eOl^l8-4 - Reino\ e and Treat losing Low Teniperature Thermal Desorption (LTTD)

.AJtemativeOlU8-4 involves removal of asphaltic soils and sediments followed b\ treatment in a low

temperature thennal destruction (LTTD) unit. Tliis alternative would be implemented by:

• Removal of the upper 2 feet of contaminated surtace soils (estimated atbout 19.000 bank

cubic yards) and asphaltic sediments (about 800 cubic yards) at OIU8. Removal would be

done using appropriately-sized, conventional eailhmoving equipment.

• BacLfillingthe soil excavations with 6 inches of uncontaminated till followed by regradingand

revegetation of the ground surface.

• Transpoilationand treatment of excavated soils at a local LTTD incinerator, and subsequent

benetlcial reuse of the by-products in pavement materials.

•Alternative QUI8-5 - Remove and Landfill

.AJtemative OIU8-5 involves removal of contaminated soils and asphalt-containing sediments for

disposal in a solid waste (RCR.A Subtitle D) landtlll. Tins alternative would be implemented by:

• Removal of the upper 2 feet of contaminated surtace soil$estimated at about 19.000 bank

cubicyards) and the upper 1 foot of asphaltic sediments (estimated at about 800 bank cubic

yards )at OIT 8. Removal would be done using appropriately sized, conventional eailhmoving

equipment. Wet sediments would be dewatered at the excavation site.

• Backllllingthe soil excavations with 6 inches of uncontaminated till followed by regradingand


Q:.^M11 BBRC^DlSRC^DlSSOe.DCiC nulJDG , . . J 20 <38 Hoiiie>1ead AFB - CXis 18.26.28. and 20 Record of Decision O- 14 Rec.O

• Transpoilation and disposal of excavated soils and sediments at a local solid waste (RCRA

Subtitle D) landtlll.

Alternative QUI8-6 - Land Treatment

.Alternative OIU8-6 involves removal of contaminated soils followed by land treatment of the

material. Tlie land treatment would include addition of nutrients and possibly microbes to enhance

biodegradation of the contaminants. Tlie land treatment alternative would be implemented by:

• Removal of the upper 2 feet of contaminated surtace soils (estimatedt about 19.000 bank

cubic yards) at OIU8. Removal would be done using appropriately-sized, conventional

eailhmoving equipment.

• Backllllingthe excavations with 6 inches of uncontaminated till followed by regrading and


• Constructionof a lined land treatment cell for treatment of the contaminated soils. Treatment

would consist of biodegradation of organic constituents, which would be implemented by

nutrient addition, moisture control, and possibly microbe addition.

Contaminatedsoils would be treated in thin (12 inches or less) lifts inside the treatment cell to allow

for tilling aerating the soil during treatment. The treatment cell would need to cover about 12 acres

to simultaneously treat the entire estimated 18.800 cubic yards of contaminated soils. .Alternatively,

the excavations could be staged over a period of several years or the excavated materials could be

temporarilystockpiled until space was available within the treatment cell. Because of the high amount

of precipitation at Homestead .AFB. it would likely be necessaiy to cover and not operate the

treatment cell during the rainy season.

6.3.2 Detailed .Analysis of .Alteriiati\es .Addressmg OIH8 Soils and Sedunent

Five alternatives that address OIH8 soils and sediments were cairied fonvard to detailed analysis, as

follows:

Q:.^M11 BBRC^DlSRC^DlSSOe.DCiC nulJDG , . . J 20 <38 Hoiiie>1ead AFB - CXis 18.26.28. and 20 Record of Decision O - 1 ̂ Rec.O

• Alternative OIU8-1: No Further Action (NFA)

• Alternative 0118-2: Institutional Controls

• Alternative OIU8-3: Soil Cover

• AltemativeOin8-4: Remove and Treat using LTTD

.Alternative OIU8-5: Remove and Landfill

.A detailed analysisof each alternative was completed using the criteria described in Section 6.2.1.

Table 6-4 presents the results of this analysis.

6.3.3 Coiiipai-ative Analysis Of Alternatives Addressing OU18 Soils and Sedunents

6.3.3.1 0\ erail Protection of Human Health and the En\ iroiunent

NF.A (.Alternative OlUS-l) wouldnot provide any protection and would not mitigate the potential

unacceptable risks to human health and the environment from contaminants in surtace soil as

detennined by the baseline risk assessment. Institutional controls (.Alternative OIU8-2) provides

protectionof human health by limiting access and thereby restricting an exposure pathway: however,

no environmental protection is provided by institutional controls. .A soil cover (.Alternative OIU8-3)

provides both human health and environmental protection by eliminating exposure pathways.

Removal and treatment using LTTD and disposal in a landfill (.Alternatives OIU8-4 and OIU8-5)

provides for complete removal of contaminated surface soils from OIU8. thereby protecting human

health and the environment.

6.3.3.2 C'oiiiDliaiice with AR.ARs

Table 6-5 summarizes the action-specific .AR.ARs applicable to the alternatives under consideration,

and indicates if compliance is attainable.

NF.A (.Alternative OIU8-I) and institutional controls (.Alternative OIU8-2) would not meet the

chemical-specific .AR.AR - "Soil Cleanup Goals for Florida" (Technical Memorandum

Q:.^M11 BBRC^DlSRC^DlSSOe.DCiC nulJDG , . , J 20 <38 Hoiiie>1ead AFB - CXis 18.26.28. and 20 Record of Decision 6-16 Rec.O

dated September 29.1995). A waiver to this requirement may not be appropriate based on the six

circumstances for a waiver identified by CERCLA (l^SEPA 1988).

Tlie soil cover alternative (.Alternative OIU8-3) would meet the action-specific .AR.ARs for closure

of a construction debris landfill (E.AC. Title 62. Chapter 62-701.730 and 40 CER Pail 257).

Tlie other alternatives (.Alternatives C)lU8-4 and C)lU8-5) are expected to meet .AR.ARs and waivers

would not be required.

6.3.3.3 Long-Term EfFecti\eness and Permanence

NE.A (.Alternative C)in8-1) does not provide long-tenn protection of human health and the

environment and would leave a residual risk equal to that identified in the baseline risk assessment.

.All other alternatives provide elTective protection from human exposure through institutional controls.

Tlie pennanence of institutional controls depends on long-tenn site management by the l^S.AE.

Tlie soil cover alternative (.Alternative C)lU8-3) provides for permanent containment at C)IU8. Tlie

long-term elTectiveness of containment at C)IU8 will be ensured by annual inspections, repairs as

needed, and groundwater monitoring.

Tlie LTTD alternative (.Alternative C)lU8-4) provides for pennanent iireversible treatment of P.AHs.

Tlie landfill alternative (.Alternative C)lU8-5) provides for relocation of contaminated soils and

asphalt-containingsediments at a licensed solid waste lacility. where long-tenn elTectiveness is

ensured through routine monitoring and maintenance.

6.3.3.4 Reduction of TM\" through Treatment

NE.A. institutional controls, soil cover, and landfilling (.Alternatives OIU8-1. OIU8-2. OIU8-3. and

C)lU8-5) provide no reduction in TMV through treatment. LTTD (.Alternative C)lU8-4) will reduce

the toxicity of P.AHs in the surtace soil.

Q:.^M11 BBRC^DlSRC^DlSSOe.DCiC nulJDG , J 20 <38 Hoiiie>1ead AFB - CXis 18.26.28. and 20 Record of Decision 6 - 1 / Rec.O

6.3.3.5 Shoi't-Terin EfTecti\ eness

NFA (Alternative OlUS-l) does not have any shoi1-tenn impacts because no remedial action is

implemented. For all the other alternatives under consideration, workers can be protected through

implementationof a site-specitlc Health and Safety Plan. Homestead .AFB personnel can be protected

duringconstruction through the use of appropriate tratTic and access controls, as well as dust control

measures for earthwork activities. .Although general public access to the noncantonment area of

Homestead .AFB is less restricted than in the past, the site is located in a relatively remote portion of

the Base near fenced and secured areas, and protection of the general public during construction of

any alternative is not expected to be an issue.


NF.A. institutional controls, and soil cover (.Alternatives OIH8-1. OIH8-2. and OIH8-3) are

technically feasible but may not be administratively feasible unless .AR.AR waivers are granted. LTTD

and landFilling (.Alternatives OIH8-3. OIH8-4. and OIH8-5) are technically and administratively

feasible.

6.3.3.7 Cost

Tlie estimated capital cost. O&M cost, and present worth cost for all the OIH8 alternatives are

presented in Table 6-4. No capital or O&M costs are associated with NF.A (.Alternative OIH8-1). For

the other alternatives, capital costs range from a low of about S37.000 for .Alternative OIH8-2 to a

highof about $2,200,000 for .Alternative OIH8-4. .Annual O&M costs range from $0 (.Alternatives

OlT-18-4. and 01^-18-5) to about $11,000 for .Alternative Oin8-3.

Tlie estimated present worth costs are sensitive to the length of time assumed for each alternative and

to the actual quantity of contaminated materials that will be handled and or treated. Tlie OIH8

alternatives, ranked from low to high present worth cost, along with the estimated or assumed

remedial action life, are:


.Alternati\e Present \\ oi*th Cost at 5% Reinedial .Action Life OIU8-2 Institutional Controls $60,000 30 years QUI8-3 Soil Cover $800,000 30 years OIU8-5 Remove and Landfill $1,900,000 1 year

OIU8-4 Remove and Treat using $2,200,000 1 year

LTTD

6.3.4 Proposed Alteriiati\ e for 01^18 Soils and Sedunents

Tlie proposed alternative for OIU8 is .AJtemative OIU8-3 Soil Cover. Tliis alternative consists of

removal and consolidation of asphaltic sediments, which are a potential source of PAHs. from the

Boundar\ Canal. .Additionally, the edge of existing till materials will be excavated to be at least 15

feet from the edge of the canal and the slopes will be graded. .After consolidation of these materials

on top of the existing OIU8 site, a vegetated soil cover will be placed over the entire site, with

erosion protection for slopes along the canal. .Alternative OIU8-3 includes land use restrictions and

long-term groundwater monitoring. Tins alternative complies with State of Florida closure rules for

construction debrislandtllls. Tlie estimated present worth cost of .Alternative OIU8-3 is S800.000.

6.4 ALTERNATIVES ADDRESSING OU26 SOILS


•Alternative OU26-1S - No Euriher .Action

.Alternative 01^26-IS assumes that no remedial action would be implemented at 01^26.

.Alternati\ e Ol^26-2S - Institutional Controls

.Alternative Ol^26-2S would consist of institutional controls including land use restrictions, long-term

management, and a health and safety plan for all future intrusive work at the site.

Q:.^M11 BBRC^DlSRC^DlSSOe.DCiC nulJDG , J 20 <38 Hoiiie>1ead AFB - CXis 18.26.28. and 20 Record of Decision O - IJ Rec.O

Additionally.fencing would be installed around 01^26 to control and limit human access to the sites.

Alternati\e Ol^26-3S - Reino\e and Treat l^suig Low Temperature Thermal Desorption (LTTD)

.Alternative Ol^26-3S involves removal of contaminated soils followed by treatment in a low

temperature thennal destruction (LTTD) unit. Tins alternative would be implemented by:

• Removal of the upper 1 foot of contaminated surtace soils (estimated at about 120 bank cubic

yards )at 01^26. Removal would be done using appropriately-sized, conventional eailhmoving

equipment.

• Backlllling the excavations with uncontaminated till followed by regrading and revegetation

of the ground surtace.

• Transpoilationand treatment of excavated soils at a local LTTD incinerator, and subsequent

benetlcial reuse of the by-products in pavement materials.

.\lternati\e Ol^26-4S - Reino\ e and Landfill

.Alternative Ol^26-4S involves removal of contaminated soils for disposal in a solid waste (RCR.A

Subtitle D) landtlll. Tins altemative would be implemented by:

• Removal of the upper I foot of contaminated surtace soils (estimated at about 120 bank cubic

yards )at 01^26. Removal would be done using appropriately-sized, conventional eailhmoving

equipment.

• Backllllingthe excavations with uncontaminated till followed by regrading and revegetation

of the ground surtace.

• Transpoilationand disposal of excavated soils at a local solid waste (RCR.A Subtitle D)

landtlll.

Q:.^M11 BBRC^DlSRC^DlSSOe.DCiC nulJDG , J 20 <38 Hoiiie>1ead AFB - CXis 18.26.28. and 20 Record of Decision 0-2U Rec.O

6.4.2 Detailed Analysis of Alteriiati\ es Addressmg 01^26 Soils

Four alternatives that address 01^26 soils were cairied fonvard to detailed analysis, as follows:

Alternative 01^26-18: NFA

• Alternative Ol^26-2S: Institutional Controls

• Alternative 01^26-38: Remove and Treat using LTTD

• .Alternative 01^26-48: Remove and Liindtlll

.A detailed analysis of each alternative was completed using the criteria described in 8ection 6.2.1.


6.4.3 C'omparative Analysis Of Alternatives Addressing 01^26 Soils

6.4.3.1 0\ erall Protection of Human Health and the En\ iroiunent

NF.A (.Alternative 01^26-18) would not provide any protection and would not mitigate the potential

unacceptable risks to human health as detennined by the baseline risk assessment. Institutional controls (.Alternative 01^26-28) provides protection of human health by limiting access and thereby

restricting an exposure pathway. Removal and treatment using a LTTD and disposal in a landfill

(.Alternatives 01^26-38 and 01^26-48) provide for complete removal of contaminated surface soils

from 01^26. thereby protecting human health and the environment..

6.4.3.2 C'oiiiDliaiice with AR.ARs

Table 6-5 summarizes the action-specific .AR.ARs applicable to the alternatives under consideration,


NF.A (.Alternative 01^26-18) and Institutional Controls (.Alternative 01^26-28) would not meet the

chemical-specific .AR.AR - "8oil Cleanup Goals for Florida" (Technical Memorandum dated 8 e p t e m b e r 2 9.1 995 ). .A w a i e r to this requirement m a \ not be

Q:.^M11 BBRC^DlSRC^DSSOe.DCiC nulJDG /" -> 1 -1 20 <38 Hoiiie>1ead AFB-CÛs 18.26.28. and 20 Record of Decision 6-21 Rev. O

NFA (Alternative Ol^26-lS) and Institutional Controls (.Alternative Ol^26-2S) would not meet the

chemical-specitlc .AR.AR - "Soil Cleanup Goals for Florida" (Technical Memorandum dated September 29.1995). However, a waiver to these chemical -specitlc .AR.ARs is appropriate because

.Alternative Ol^26-2S will attain the standard of perfonnance that is equivalent to the standard of

performance for the chemical-specitlc .AR.ARs. Tlie standard of perfonnance considered is the protection of human health and the environmenis detennined by the site-specitlc risk assessment.

.Alternative Ol^26-2S attains this standard of perfonnance by eliminating exposure pathways.

Tlie other alternatives (.Alternatives OIT26-3S and OIT26-4S) are expected to meet .AR.ARs and

waivers would not be required.


NF.A (.Alternative 01^26-IS) does not provide long-tenn protection of human health and would leave

a residual riskequal to that identified in the baseline risk assessment. .All other alternatives provide

etTective protection from human exposure through institutional controls. Tlie permanence of

institutional controls depends on long-tenn site management by the l^S.AF.

Tlie LTTD alternative (.Alternative Ol^26-3S) provides for pennanent iireversibletreatment ofP.AHs.

Tlie landfill alternative (.Alternative Ol^26-4S) provides for relocation of contaminated soils at a

licensed solid waste facility, where long-tenn effectiveness is ensured through routine monitoring and

maintenance.


NF.A. institutional controls, and landfilling (.Alternatives 01^26-1S. 01^26-28. and 01^26-48) provide

no reduction in TMV through treatment. LTTD (.Alternative 01^26-38) will reduce the toxicity of

P.AHs in the surface soil.

F:.JLFCEEH(:iMESTEADD(:i-0010DELIBER.JLBLEiTN.JLL.(:iU18. 26. 28. and 20 RC^D RC^Dl 8S06.D(:iC nulJDG 10 21 08 Honit-Aead 18.26.28. and 20 Record of Decision , Rev. 2

6-22


NFAand institutional controls (Alternatives 01^26-IS and Ol^26-2S) aretechnicalK feasible but may

not be administratively feasible unless .AR.AR waivers are granted. LTTD and landtllling (Alternatives

Ol^26-3S and Ol^264S) are technically and administratively feasible.

6.4.3.7 Cost

Tlie estimated capital cost. O&M cost, and present worth cost for all the 01^26 alternatives are

presented in Table 6-6. No capital or O&M costs are associated with NF.A (.Alternative 01^26-1S).

For the other alternatives, capital costs range from a low of about S20.000 for .Alternative Ol^26-4S

to a high of about $31,000 for .Alternative 01^26-28. .Annual O&M costs range from $0 (.Alternatives

OIT-18-4S. and 01^-18-58) to about $1,500 for .Alternative 01^26-28.


to the actual quantity of contaminated materials that will Hiandled and or treated. Tlie 01^26 soil

alternatives.ranked from low present worth cost to high present worth cost, along with the estimated

or assumed remedial action life, are:

.Alternatne Present Worth Cost at 5% Remedial .Action Life

01^26-48 Remove and LandFill $20,000 1 year

01^26-38 Remove and Treat using LTTD $23,000 1 year

01^26-28 Institutional Controls $54,000 30 vears

6.4.4 Proposed .Alteriiati\ e for 01^26 Soils

Tlie proposed alternative for 01^26 soils is.AIteriiative OU26-4S Remove and Landfill. Tliis

altemativeconsists of removal of surface soils with P.AHs. arsenic, lead, or mercuiy at concentrations

that exceed FDEP industrial soil clean-up goals. These materials will be

Q:.^M11 BBRC^DlSRC^DSSOe.DCiC nulJDG r -1 20 <38 Hoiiie>1ead AFB-CÛs 18.26.28. and 20 Record of Decision 6-23 Rev. O

hauledto a pemiitted solid waste landtlll. Tlie estimated present woilh cost of .AJtemative Ol^26-4S

is $20,000.

6.5 .\LTERN.\TIVES .ADDRESSING OU26 GROUNDW.ATER


•Alternative OU26-1G - No Euriher .Action

Alternative Ol^26-lG assumes that no remedial actionvould be implemented for the groundwater

at OU26.

.Alternati\e Ol^26-2G - Grouncinater Monitoring

.Alternative Ol^26-2G includes groundwater monitoring of the TCE plume and implementation of

institutional controls. Tlie groundwater monitoring alternative includes:

• Long-tenn groundwater monitoring of TCE concentrations to document and quantify

the concentrations of TCE and associated risk to human health and the environment

• Placing restrictions on cuirent and future land and groundwater use in the

contaminated area (e.g.. restrict operation of base supply wells and future

groundwater users)

• Long-term management and health and safety oversight by l^S.AE personnel for any

new construction projects in the contaminated area

.AIternati\e Ol^26-3G - Intruisic Remediation

.Alternative Ol^26-3G includes monitoring for natural attenuation of the TCE plume and

implementation of institutional controls. Natural attenuation involves all naturally-occurring

processes that reduce contaminant concentrations over time. Theses situ processes (intrinsic

remediation) include biodegradation. abiotic transformation, dispersion, adsorption, and

Q:.^M11 BBRC^DlSRC^DSSOe.DCiC nulJDG /" -> 1 -1 20 <38 Hoiiie>1ead AFB-CÛs 18.26.28. and 20 Record of Decision 0-24 Rev. O



groundwater users)

• Long-term management and health and safety oversight by l^S.AF personnel for any


.\lternati\e Ol^26-3G - Intruisic Remediation

.AJtemative Ol^26-3G includes monitoring for natural attenuation of the TCE plume and

implementationof institutional controls. Natural attenuation involves all naturally-occumngprocesses

that reduce contaminant concentrations over time. Tliese« situ processes (intrinsic remediation)

include biodegradation. abiotic transfonnation. dispersion, adsoiption. and volatilization. This

altemativeditTers from the groundwater monitoring alternative by the consideration of the completed

preliminaiy natural attenuation evaluation and the ongoing natural attenuation pilot study at site

OU26.

Tlie intrinsic remediation alternative would be implemented by:

• Long-term groundwater monitoring (for TCE and daughter products) to document,

quantify, and contlrm the natural attenuation processes indicated in the initial

screening study and the pilot study



groundwater users)

• Long-term management and health and safety oversight by l^S.AE personnel for any


• Evaluation of the long-tenn monitoring to detennine if natural attenuation is

occuiring as predicted. Tlie evaluation will be part of the annual groundwater

monitoring report.

F:.JLFCEEH(:iMESTEADD(:i-0010DELIBER.JLBLEiTN.JLL.(:iU18. 26. 28. and 20 RC^D RC^Dl 8S06.D(:iC nulJDG 10 21 08 Honit-Aead 18.26.28. and 20 Record of Decision , __ Rev. 2

6-2^

• Discharge of treated groundwater to a nearby canal under a National Pollution

Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) pennit.

A NPDES permit will be required because the treated groundwater will be discharged to a canal, a

body of water of the State of Elorida. .Although discharge requirements have not been established,

it is assumed that treatment of groundwater to EDEP's Class III freshwater standard of 80.7 pg L

(annual average) will be adequate. General groundwater chemistiy may require the need for

pretreatmentto eliminate fouling and scaling of the air stripper. INe of a sequestering agent to control

scalingis assumed at this time. No air emissions control equipment should be needed because the total

VOC emissions are estimated to be well below regulator thresholds and risk levels.

6.5.2 Detailed .Analysis of .\lteriiati\ es .Addressmg 01^26 Groundwater

Eour alternatives that address 01^26 groundwater were cairied forward to detailed analysis, as

follows:

.Alternative 01^26-10: NF.A

• .Alternative Ol^26-2G: Groundwater Monitoring

• .Alternative Ol^26-3G: Intrinsic Remediation

• .Alternative Ol^26-4G: Groundwater Collection and Treatment

.A detailed analysis of each alternative was completed using the criteria described in Section 6.2.1.


6.5.3 Conipai-ati\e .Analysis Of .Alteniati\es .Addressing 01^26 Groundwater

6.5.3.1 0\ erall Protection of Human Health and the En\ iroiunent

Tlie baseline risk assessment identified potential health risks for hypothetical construction workers

who may be exposed to contaminated shallow groundwater at 01^26. NE.A (.Alternative Ol^26-IG)

would not provide any protection and would not mitigate the potential unacceptable risks to human

health as detennined bv the baseline risk assessment.

Q:.^M11 BBRC^DlSRC^DSSOe.DCiC nulJDG /-->/- -1 20 <38 Hoiiie>1ead AFB-CÛs 18.26.28. and 20 Record of Decision 6-26 Rev. O

Groundwatermonitoring (.AJtemative Ol^26-2G). intrinsic remediation (Alternative Ol^26-3G). and

groundwatercollection and treatment (Alternative Ol^26-4G) provide protection against health risks

to hypothetical construction workers through institutional controls. The key institutional control for

this protection involves long-term management and health and safety oversight of potential future

constructionprojects. Groundwater collection and treatment (Alternative Ol^26-4G) is expected to

provide protection through treatment after an estimated 5 years of active remediation.

6.5.3.2 Conipiiance with AR.\Rs

Table 6-5 summarizes the action-specitlc .AR.ARs applicable to the alternatives under consideration,


NF.A. groundwater monitoring, and intrinsic remediation (.Alternatives Ol^26-lG. Ol^26-2G. and

Ol^26-3G) would not meet the chemical-specitlc .AR.ARs applying to TCE in groundwater. .A waiver

to these requirements may be appropriate for .Alternatives Ol^26-2Gnd Ol^26-4G since risks are

controlledthrough monitoring and long-term management. Tlie groundwater collection and treatment

alternative (.Alternative Ol^26-4G) is expected to comply with all .AR.ARs and waivers would not be

required.


NF.A (.Alternative 01^26-IG) does not provide long-tenn protection of human health and would leave

a residual risk equal to that identified in the baseline risk assessment. Tlie other groundwater

alternatives provide etTective protection from human exposure through institutional controls. The

pennanence of institutional controls depends on long-tenn site management by the l^S.AF.

Intrinsic remediation (.Alternative Ol^26-3G) processes appear to be occuiring at the site: however,

these processes by themselves do not appear to be etTective in the short tenn at preventing

contaminants from persisting in the aquifer. Natural attenuation processes will likely provide

permanent long-term risk reduction of TCE contamination. The results of

Q:.^M11 BBRC^DlSRC^DSSOe.DCiC nulJDG r -1 20 <38 Hoiiie>1ead AFB-CÛs 18.26.28. and 20 Record of Decision 0-2 / Rev. O


NFA (Alternative Ol^26-4G) does not provide long-tenn protection of human heath and would leave

a residual risk equal to that identified in the baseline risk assessment. Tlie other groundwater

alteniiitives provide etTective protection from human exposure through institutional controls. Tlie

pennanence of institutional controls depends on long-tenn site management by the l^S.AF.

Intrinsic remediation (.Alternative Ol^26-3G) processes appear to be occuiring at the site: however,

these processes by themselves do not appear to be etTective in the short tenn at preventing

contaminants from persisting in the aquifer. Natural attenuation processes will likely provide

pennanent long-term risk reduction of TCE contamination. Tlie results of recent groundwater

samplingat site 01^26 indicate that the TCE concentration in site monitoring well SM60-M\V1 may

already have decreased to a concentration below the PRG. The etTectiveness of this trend will be

evaluated during the annual groundwater monitoring program.

Groundwatercollection and treatment (.Alternative Ol^26-4G) is a proven and reliable technology

to hydraulically control the migration and remove contaminants from groundwater. .Although

pump-and-treit remediation has a poor record at remediating chlorinated solvent sites to maximum

contaminant levels (MCLs). the PRGs fortius remediation are considerably higher than MCLs (i.e..

580 pg L) and are expected to be achievable in 5 years or less. The permanence of .Altemative 01^26-

4G requires periodic monitoring and continuous operation of the pumping wells until contaminant

concentrationsare at levels that allow the processes of natural attenuation to effectively treat the

plume.


NE.A. groundwater monitoring, and intrinsic remediation (.Alternatives 01^26-IG. Ol^26-2G. and

Ol^26-3G) will not reduce TMV through active treatment: however, in the long term, natural

attenuation(primarily biodegradation) will likely reduce the volume and toxicity of site contaminants.

Groundwater collection and treatment (.Altemative Ol^26-4G) will reduce the volume of

dissolved-phase contaminants through treatment on site.

F:.JLFCEEH(:iMESTEADD(:i-0010DELIBER.JLBLEiTN.JLL.(:iU18. 26. 28. and 20 RC^D RC^Dl 8S06.D(:iC nulJDG 10 21 08 Honit-Aead 18.26.28. and 20 Record of Decision , Rev. 2

o-2o

(.AJtemativesOl^26-2G. Ol^26-3G. and Ol^26-4G) are technically and administratively feasible. Tlie

collection and treatment alternative (Alternative Ol^26-4G) requires an aquifer stress test to more

accuratelydetnie the radius of intluence and pumping rate of an. extraction well. Tins alternative also

requires groundwater quality testing and bench testing to demonstrate reliability of process with

respect to scaling due to precipitationTlhs alternative includes an NPDES-pennitted discharge to

the adjacent canal: if discharge to surtace water is not allowed, surtace iirigation or re-injection may

be required. However, re-injection may not be feasible because of scaling aiiifsociated plugging.

Tlie monitoring alternatives require planning by qualitled individuals to develop appropriate

monitoring strategies and procedures.

6.5.3.7 Cost

Tlie estimated capitalcost. O&M cost, and present worth cost for all the alternatives are presented

inTable 6-7. No capital orO&M costs are associated with .Alternative Ol^26-lG. Capital costs range

from a low of about $57,000 for .Alternative OIT26-2G to a high of about $370,000 for .Alternative

OIT26-4G. .Annual O&M costs range from about $12,000 for .Alternative OIT26-2G to about $79,000

for .Alternative OIT26-4G.


to the actual quantity of contaminated materials that will be handled and or treated. Tlie 01^26

groundwateralternatives. ranked from low present worth cost to high present worth cost, along with

the estimated or assumed remedial action life, are:

.Alternate e Present Worth Cost at 5% Remedial .Action Life

(!)IT26-2G Groundwater Monitoring

(!)IT26-3G Intrinsic Remediation

(!)IT26-4G (rollection and Treatment

S360.000

S530.000

oU year

3(1 \'ears

8 \'ears

Q:.^M11 BBRC^DlSRC^DSSOe.DCiC nulJDG Hoiiit->1t-ad AFB-(!Û> 18. 26. 28. and Record of Decision 6-29 A 20 08

Rev. O

6.5.4 Proposed Alteriiati\ e for 01^26 Groundwater

Tlie proposed alternative for 01^26 groundwater lAlternative OU26-3G Intrmsic Remediation.

Tills alternative consists of deed restrictions, a natural attenuation evaluation, and long-tenn

groundwater monitoring. Tlie estimated present worth cost of .AJternative Ol^26-3G is S360.000.

6.6 .\LTERN.\TIVES .ADDRESSING OU28 SOILS


•Alternative OU28-1 - No Euriher .Action

Alternative 01^28-1 assumes that no remedial action would be implemented at 01^28.

.Alternati\ e Ol^28-2 - Institutional Controls

.AltemativeOl^28-2 would consist of institutional controls including land use restrictions, long-tenn


fencing would be installed around 01^28 to control and limit human access to the sites.

.Alternati\e Ol^28-3 - Reino\e and Treat losing Low Tenipei-ature Thermal Desorption (LTTD)

.Alternative Ol^28-3 involves removal of contaminated soils followed by treatment in a low

temperature thennal destruction (LTTD) unit. Tins alternative would be implemented by:

• Removal of the upper 2 feet of contaminated surtace soils (estimated at about 1.500

bank cubic yards) at 01^28. Removal would be done using appropriately-sized,

conventional earthmoving equipment.

• Backlllling the excavations with uncontaminated till followed by regrading and


Q:.^M11 BBRC^DlSRC^DSSOe.DCiC nulJDG /- If\ -1 20 <38 Hoiiie>1ead AFB-CÛs 18.26.28. and 20 Record of Decision O-30 Rev. O

• Encapsulation stabilizationof any excavated soils detennined to be characteristically

hazardousbased on TCLP testing. To be conservative fortius FS. it was assumed that

about 460 bank cubic yards of soil containing lead around the tank at 01^28 are characteristically hazardous: however, only one out olk)ur anal\lical tests for total

lead indicated a level that could pote ntially exceed the TCLP standard for lead.

Encapsulation stabilization would be done using pozzolonic or proprietaiy agents, and

treatability testing would be needed to design the mix. Following successful

stabilization.the stabilized soils would be transported to a local solid waste landtlll for

disposal.

• Transportation and treatment of excavated soils at a local LTTD incinerator, and

subsequent benetlcial reuse of the by-products in pavement materials.

.\lteriiati\e Ol^28-4 Reiiio\ e and Landfill

.AJtemative Ol^28-4 involves removal of contaminated soils for disposal in a solid waste (RCR.A

Subtitle D) landtlll. Tliis altemative would be implemented by:

• Removal of the upper 2 feet of contaminated surtace soils (estimated at about 1.500

bank cubic yards) at 01^28. Removal would be done using appropriately-sized,

conventional earthmoving equipment.




hazardousbased on TCLP testing. To be conservative fortius ES. it was assumed that

about 460 bank cubic yards of soil containing lead around the tank at 01^28 are characteristically hazardoushowever. only one out of four anal\lical tests for total

lead indicated a level that could potentially exceed the TCLP standard for lead.

Encapsulation stabilizition would be done using pozzolonic or proprietary agents, and

treatability testing

Q:.^M11 BBRC^DlSRC^DSSOe.DCiC nulJDG T 1 -1 20 <38 Hoiiie>1ead AFB-CÛs 18.26.28. and 20 Record of Decision 6-51 Rev. O




hazardousbased on TCLP testing. To be conservative fortius FS. it was assumed that

about 460 bank cubic yards of soil containing lead around the tank at 01^28 are

characteristically hazardoushowever. only one out of four anal\lical tests for total

lead indicated a level that could potentially exceed the TCLP standard for lead.

Encapsulation stabilization would be done using pozzolonic or proprietaiy agents, and

treatability testing would be needed to design the mix. Following successful

stabilization.the stabilized soils would be transported to a local solid waste landtlll for

disposal.

• Transportationand disposal of excavated soils at a local solid waste (RCR.A Subtitle

D) landfill.

• In addition, this alternative -would include a groundwater assessment to detennine if

lead is present in the groundwater above action levels adjacent to the Building 744

Fuel Tank.

6.6.2 Detailed .Analysis of .\lteriiati\ es .Addressmg 01^28 Soils

Four alternatives that address 01^28 soils were earned forward to detailed analysis, as follows:

Alternative OU28-1: NFA

• .Alternative Ol^28-2: Institutional Controls

• .Alternative 01^28-3: Remove and Treat using LTTD

.Alternative 01^28-4: Remove and Landfill

.A detailed analysis of each alternative was completed using the criteria described in Section 6.2.1.


F:.JLFCEEH(:iMESTEADD(:i-0010DELIBER.JLBLEiTN.JLL.(:iU18. 26. 28. and 20 RC^D RC^Dl 8S06.D(:iC nulJDG 10 21 08 Honit-Aead 18.26.28. and 20 Record of Decision , _ _ Rev. 2 6-32

6.6.3.2 C'oiiipiiance with AR.\Rs

Table 6-5 summarizes the action-specitlc AR.AJls applicable to the alternatives under consideration,


NFA (Alternative 01^28-1) and Institutional Controls (Alternative 01^28-2) would not meet the

chemical-specific ARAR - "Soil Cleanup Goals for Florida" (Technical Memorandum dated September 29.1995). .A waiver to this requirement may not be appropriate based on the six

circumstances for a waiver identified by CERCL.A (l^SEP.A 1988). Tlie other alternatives

(.AltemativesC)l^28-3 and 01^28-4) are expected to meet .AR.ARs and waivers would not be required.


NE.A and institutional controls (.Alternatives 01^28-1 and 01^28-2) do not provide long-term

environmental protection and would leave a residual environmental risk equal to that identified in the

baseline risk assessment. Tlie LTTD alternative (.Alternative 01^28-3 provides for pennanent

iireversible treatment of P.AHs. Tlie landfill alternative (.Alternative 01^28-4) provides for relocation

of contaminated soils at a licensed solid waste lacility. where long-tenn elfectiveness is ensured

through routine monitoring and maintenance.


NF.A. institutional controls, and landfillingaltematives (.Alternatives 01^28-1. 01^28-2. and 01^28-4)

provide no reduction in TMV through treatment. LTTD (.Alternative 01^28-3) will also reduce the

toxicity of P.AHs and other organic constituents in the surtace soil.

6.6.3.5 Shoi't-Term EfTecti\ eness

NE.A (.Alternative 01^28-1) does not have any shoi1-tenn impacts because no remedial action is

implemented. Eor all the other alternatives under consideration, workers can be protected through

implementation of a site-specific Health and Safety Plan. Homestead .AEB personnel can be protected

duringconstruction through the use of appropriate tralfic and access controls, as well as dust control

measures for earthwork activities. Since general public

Q:.^M11 BBRC^DlSRC^DSSOe.DCiC nulJDG r 11 -1 20 <38 Hoiiie>1ead AFB-CÛs 18.26.28. and 20 Record of Decision 0-33 Rev. O

access to Homestead AFBis restricted, protection of the general public during construction of any

alternative is not expected to be an issue.


NFA and institutional controls(Alternatives 01^28-1 and Ol^28-2) are technically feasible but may

not be administratively feasible unless .AR.AR waivers are granted. LTTD and landtllling (.Alternatives

Ol^28-3 and Ol^28-4) are technically and administratively feasible.

6.6.3.7 Cost

Tlie estimated capital cost. O&M cost, and present worth cost for all the 01^28 alternatives are

presented in Table 6-8. No capital or O&M costs are associated with NF.A (.Alternative 01^28-1). For

the other alternatives, capital costs range from a low of about S30.000 for .Alternative Ol^28-2 to a

high of about $370,000 for .Alternative 01^28-3. .Annual O&M costs range from $0 (.Alternatives

OlT-18-4. and 01^-18-5) to about $1,500 for .Alternative 01^28-2.


to the actual quantity of contaminated materials that will be handled and or treated. Tlie 01^28

alternatives.ranked from low present worth cost to high present worth cost, along with the estimated

or assumed remedial action life, are:

.Alternate e Present Worth Cost at 5% Remedial .Action Life

OU2S-2 Inslilulional Controls

(!)lT2S-5 Remove and Landfill

(!)lT29-4 Remove and Treat usins LTTD

S53.000 S340.000 S370.000

3(1 \'ears

I \ ear

I \ ear

F:.VFCEEH(:iMESTEADD(:i-0010DELIBER.VBLEiTN.VL.(:iU18. 26. 28. and 20 RC^D RC^Dl 8S06.D(:iC nulJDG qDflMI(aBafa')Dl&-JLOQ6SQ6.QQVC2»iaiCttid of Decision Honieslead .AFB-iiÛs 18. 26. 28. and 20 Record of Decision 6-34

10 21 08 dK6l/92 Rev. O

Alteriiiithe Present Worth Cost at 5% Reniedhil Action Life

(!)lT2S-2 Inslilulional (ronlrols S53.()()() 3()\'ears

(!)lT2S-4 Remove and Landfill S34().()()() 1 \'ear

(!)lT2S-3 Remove and Treat usins LTTD S37().()()() 1 \'ear

6.6.4 Proposed Alternative for OU28

Tlie proposed alternative for 01^28 iÎteriiative OU28-4 Remove and Landfill. Tills alternative

consists of removal of surface soils with P.AHs. arsenic, or lead at concentrations that exceed FDEP

industiial soil clean-up goals. Tliese materials will be hauled to a pennitted solid waste landfill. .Any

soils detennined to be characteristically hazardous because of lead will be stabilized and then hauled

otTsite to the pennitted solid waste landfill. Tins alternative also includes a groundwater assessment

to detennine if lead above action levels is present around Building 744. .Appropriate access

restrictionsand groundwater monitoring will be included in the transfer documents, as necessaiy . Tlie

estimated present woilh cost of .Alternative 01^28-4 is $340,000.

6.7 ALTERNATIVES ADDRESSING OU29 SOILS


•Alternative OU29-1 - No Euriher .Action

.Alternative 01^29-1 assumes that no remedial action would be implemented at 01^29.

.Alternati\ e Ol^29-2 - Institutional Controls

.AltemativeOl^29-2 would consist of institutional controls including land use restrictions, long-tenn


fencing would be installed around 01^29 to control and limit human access to the sites.

F: .AFCEE HC^MESTEAD DC^-OOIO DELIN ER .ABLE FTN.AL CÛ 18.26. 28. AND 20 RCID RCID 18S06.D(:iC nul JDG 10 21 08 Hoiiit-Aead .AFB - (X's 18.26.28. and 20 Record of Decision - _ Rev. 2 6-3^

! Backfillingthe excavations with uncontaminated fill followed by regrading and revegetation of the ground suiface.

! Transportation and treatment ofexcavated soils at a local LTTD incinerator, and subsequent beneficial reuse of the by-products in pavement materials.

Alternative OU29-4 - Reiiiove and Landfill

.\ltemativeOU29-4 involves removal of contaminated soils for disposal in a solid waste (RCRA Subtitle D) landfill. This alternative would be implemented by:

! Removal of the upper 2 feet of contaminated surface soils (estimated at about 920 bank cubic yards)at OU29. Removal would be done using appropriately sized, conventional earthmoving equipment.

! Backfillingthe excavations with uncontaminated fill followed by regrading and revegetation of the ground surface.

! Transportation and disposal ofexcavated soils at a local solid waste (RCR.\ Subtitle D) landfill.

6.7.2 Detailed Analysis of Alternatives Addressing OU29 Soils

Four alternatives that address OU29 soils were earned fonvard to detailed analysis, as follows:

! Alternative OU29-1: NFA

! .\ltemative OU29-2: Institutional Controls

! Alternative OU29-3: Remove and Treat using LTTD

! Alternative OU294: Remove and Landfill

detailed analysis of each alternative was completed using the criteria described in Section 6.2.1. Table 6-9 presents the results of this analysis.

Q:.^M11 BBRC^D ISRC^D 18S06 DC^C nul JDG , J 20 <38 Hoiiie>1ead AFB - (X's 18.26.28. and 20 Record of Decision O-dO Rev. 0

6.7.3 Coiiipai-ative Analysis Of Alternatives Aclclressmg OU29 Soils

6.7.3.1 0\ ei-ail Protection of Human Health and the En\ iroiunent

No potential unacceptable human healtlor environmental risks were identitled by the baseline risk assessment. Tlierefore. NFA (Alternative 01^29-1) would provide adequate protection of human health and the environment. Removal and treatment using a LTTD and disposal in a landtlll (.Alternatives Ol^29-3 and Ol^29-4) provide for complete removal of contaminated surface soils from 01^29. thereby meeting the FDEP cleanup levels for P.AHs in soil.

6.7.3.2 ConiDliance with AR.\Rs

Table 6-5 summarizes the action-specitlc .AR.ARs applicable to the alternatives under consideration, and indicates if compliance is attainable.

NF.A (.Alternative 01^29-1) and Institutional Controls (.Alternative 01^29-2) would not meet the chemical-specific .AR.AR - "Soil Cleanup Goals for Florida" (Technical Memorandum dated September 29.1995). .A waiver to this requirement may not be appropriate based on the six circumstances for a waiver identified by CERCL.A (l^SEP.A 1988). Tlie other alternatives (.AltemativesC)l^29-3 and 01^29-4) are expected to meet .AR.ARs and waivers would not be required.

6.7.3.3 Long-Term Effecti\eness and Permanence

.All the alternatives provide protection since the baseline risk assessment did not identify any unacceptable risks to human health othe environment. However. P.AHs have been found at levels that exceed EDEP industrial soil clean-up goals. NE.Aand institutional controls (.Alternatives 01^29-1 and 01^29-2) would not remove the soils that exceed these EDEP criteria, whereas LTTD and landfilling (.Alternatives 01^29-3 and 01^294) would remove all soils that exceed the EDEP criteria. Tlie LTTD alternative (.Alternative 01^29-3 provides for pennanent iireversible treatment of P.AHs. Tlie landfill alternative (.Alternative 01^29-4) provides for relocation of contaminated soils at a licensed solid waste lacility. where longtenn elfectiveness is ensured through routine monitoring and maintenance.

Q:.^M11 BBRC^D ISRC^D 18S06 DC^C nul JDG , J 20 <38 Hoiiie>1ead AFB - (X's 18.26.28. and 20 Record of Decision 6-3/ Rev. 0


NFA. institutional controls, and landFillingaltematives (.AJtematives 01^29-1. 01^29-2. and 01^29-4)

provide no reduction in TMV through treatment. LTTD (.Alternative Ol^29-3) will also reduce the

toxicity of P.AHs and other organic constituents in the surtace soil.

6.7.3.5 Shoi-t-Terni EfFecti\eness

NF.A (.Alternative Ol^29-l) does not have any shoi1-tenn impacts because no remedial action is

implemented. For all the other alternatives under consideration, workers can be protected through

implementation of a site-specitlc Health and Safety Plan. Homestead .AFB personnel can be protected

during construction through the use of appropriate tratTic and access controls, as well as dust control measures for earthwork activities. Since general public access to Homestead .AFB is restricted,

protection of the general public during construction of any alternative is not expected to be an issue.


NF.A and institutional controls (.Alternatives 01^29-1 and Ol^29-2) are technically feasible but may not be administratively feasible unless .AR.AR waivers are granted. LTTD and landtllling (.Alternatives

Ol^29-3 and Ol^29-4) are technically and administratively feasible.

6.7.3.7 Cost

Tlie estimated capital cost. O&M cost, and present worth cost for all the 01^29 alternatives are presented in Table 6-9. No capital or O&M costs are associated with NF.A (.Alternative 01^29-1). For

the other alternatives, capital costs range from a low of about S26.000 for .Alternative Ol^29-2 to a high of about $160,000 for .Alternative 01^29-3. .Annual O&M costs range from $0 (.Alternatives

01^29-3 and 01^29-4) to about $1,500 for .Alternative 01^29-2. Tlie estimated present worth costs are sensitive to the length of time assumed for each alternative and

to the actual quantity of contaminated materials that will be handled and or

Q:.^M11 BBRC^D ISRC^D 18S06 DC^C nul JDG , J 20 <38 Hoiiie>1ead AFB - (X's 18.26.28. and 20 Record of Decision 6-3 O Rev. 0

treated. Tlie 01^29 alternatives, ranked from low present worth cost to high present worth cost, along

with the estimated or assumed remedial action life, are:

Alternatne Present Worth Cost at 5% Remedial Action Life OU29-2 Inslilulional Controls (!)lC9-4 Remove and Landfill (!)lT29-3 Remove and Treat using LTTD

S49.000 SI 40.000 S160.000

3(1 \'ears

I \ ear I \ ear

6.7.4 Proposed .Alteriiati\ e for 01^29 Soils

Tlie proposed alternative for 01^29 iÎteriiative OU29-4 Remove and Landfill. Tins alternative

consists of removal ofsurface soils with P.AHs. at concentrations that exceed FDEP industrial soil

clean-ip goals. Tliese materials will be hauled to a permitted solid waste landfill. Tlie estimated

present worth cost of .Alternative 01^29-4 is $140,000.

6.8 SELECTED REMEDIES SUMMARY

Tlie Feasibility Study (W-C. 1997b) evaluated several remedial alternatives using the EP.A evaluation

criteria. Tlie following table identifies the remedial alternatives selected for each Ol^ based on the

EP.A criteria:

Site Selected .Alterniitne Total Present Worth Cost

GUIS Soil (rover (soils and sediment) SSoo ()()()

OU26 Remove and Landfill (soils) S2(). ()()()

OU26 Intrinsic Remediation (groundwater) S360.000

0U2S Remove and Landfill (soils) S340.000

OU29 Remove and landfill (soils) SI 40.000

Q:.^M11 BBRC^D ISBC^D 18S06 DC^C nul JDG Hoiiit->1t-ad AFB - (X's 18. 26. 28. and 2<5 Record of Decision 6-39 A 20 08

Rec.O

6.9 STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS

Tlie selected remedies are protective of human health and the environment, comply with Federal and

State requirements that are legally applicable or relevant and appropriate to the remedial action, and

are cost etTective. Tliese remedies utilize pennanent solutions and alternative treatment or resource

recoveiy technologies, to the maximum exient practicable. However, because treatment of the

principal threats of the OVh was not found to be practicable, these remedies do not satisfy the

statutory preference for treatment as a principal element.

Because the remedies for soil at OIH8 and groundwater at 01^26 will result in hazardous substances

still remaining on site above health-based levels, a review will be conducted within five years of

commencement of remedial action to ensure that the remedies continue to provide adequate

protection of human health and the environment.

Because the remedies for soil at OVh 28. 26. and 29 will not result in hazardous substances on site

above health-based levels, the tne-year review will not apply to these actions.

Q:.^M11 BBRC^D ISBC^D 18S06 DC^C nul JDG /• if\ Hoiiie>1ead AFB - (X's 18.26.28. and 2<3 Record of Decision 0-4U Rev. 0

Table 6-1

SmBURV OF POTENTIAL CHE^^CAL-SPECIFIC ARARs\TBCs HOMESTE AD AEB

Standard. Requirement, or Criteria Descriptioti Comment GUIS OU26 0U2S OU29

STATEVCOl^TY

Florida Air aiul Water Pollulion Conlrol AclFlorida Slalules. Title 29. Chapter 4()3. Sectioti 4()3)

Florida Surface Water Stajidards (FAC. Title 62. Chapter 62 - .V)2..'^.V))

Florida Safe Dritikitig Water .ActiFlorida Statutes. Title 29. Chapter 4().T Sectiotis 4().TS.'^() - 4().TS64)

Florida Pritiiary Dritikitie Water Stajulards (F.AC. Title 62. Chapter 62 -

Establislies surface water quality based oti use classitlcatioti ofthewaters

Establislies tiia.\itmitii cotitajiiitiajit (MCLs) ajid slajidards for sources of dritikitie w ater. These are health based slajidards for specific cotitajiiitiajits.

.Applicable if remedial activities result iti tlie discharee of cotitajiiitiajit to surface w aters.

State MCLs are tiiore siritieetit thaji federal MCLs ajid tlierefore are applicable requiretiietits

X X X X

Florida Secotulary Dritikitie Water Stajidards (F.AC. Title 62. Chapter 62 - .'^.'^()..12())

Florida Deiârtiuetit of Etivirotitiieiital Protectioti (FDEP)

Cleanup Cioals for tlie Military Sites iti Florida. Techtiical Metiiorajidutii dated Jul\ 1994.

Soil Cleajiup Cioals for Florida. Techtiical Memorajidum dated SqMetiiber 29. 199.*^

Petroleutii Cotitajiiitiatioti Site Cleajiup Criteria (F.AC. Title 62. Chapter 62-""())

Dade CoutitN Deimtiiietit of Etivirotitiieiital Resources Majiaeetiieiit (DERAl)

Soil Cleaji-up Cioals for Hotiiestead .Air Reserve Base, letter to .Air Force Base Cotiversioti .Aeeticy. March 2. 199-*^

Establishes secotulary M(CLs whicli are tiotietiforceable euidelities for public dritikitie water syslems to protect tlie aesthetic quality of the water.

Lists carcitioeetiic ajid tioticarcitioeenic soil cleaji-up eoals for tiiilitan itistallatiotis iti Florida.

Soil Cleajiup Goals are based on humaji toxicity usitie eeneralized exposure assnmptiotis.

Lists requirenietits for cleajiup of cotitajiiitiated soils, iticluditie procedures for detemiitiitie cleajiup levels.

Lists carcitioeetiic atid noncarcinoeenic soil cleati-up eoals. specifically for Sites at Homestead .ARB.

Secotulary MCLs may be "to be cotisidered"" if eroutuhvater is used as a dritikitie water source.

Not aji .AR.AR. Cleati-up eoals are otily applicable to Sites w itiiiti the cotitaitimetit area that is cotitajiiitiated w ith any of the listed cotitajiiitiajits

Cleajiup eoals are applicable if the site is cotitajiiitiated w ith any of the listed cotitamitiants.

Not an .AR.AR. Site is tiot cotitaniitiated with petroleum products.

Not an .AR.AR. Tlie BCT decided that the itulustrial Cleanup eoals outlitied iti the Sqitember 199.*^ Soil Cleanup Goals for Florida would be used.

X X X X

Q:-1M11 BBR(tD18R(tD18T61.D(tC dat Jiidja Hoiiit->tt-ad .AFB - 18. 26. 28. and 2<5 Record of Decision

Sheet 1 of 3 A 20 08 Rec.O

Table 6-1

SmBURV OF POTENTIAL CHE^^CAL-SPECIFIC ARARs\TBCs HOMESTE AD AFB

Standiird. Requirement, or C'riteriu Description Comment GUI 8 OU2o OU28 0U2^^

FEDERAL

Siite Drinkins Water .Act(40 U.S.C. Sect. 300 et seq.

National Primar\' Drinking Water Standards [40 CFR Parts 141. 142. (D^^Ô. )

National Secondare' Drinking Water Standards (40 CFR Part 143)

Maximum Contaminant Le\'el Goals (MCLGs) [PL No. 100 Stat. o42 (D^8o). (D^^Ô. D^^M):40 CFR 141. 142]

Resource. Conser\'ation. and Reco\'ere' •Act42 U.S.C. Sect. o'-tOl et seq.

Releases trom Solid Waste Management Units (40 CFR Part 2o4)

RCR.A Facilite' ln\'estigation Guidance (EP.A).

Proposed RCR.A .Action Le\'els FR 30'^^8. 2' Jnlv looQ)

Not an .AR.AR. The state MCLs are more stringent than the Federal MCLs and therefore are applicable.

SMCLs ma\' be "to be considered" if sronndwater is used as a drinkins water source.

Establishes niiLximnm contaminant le\'els (MCLs) for specific contaminants wliich are health-based standards for public drinking water s\stems.

Establishes secondare' nuodmnm contaminant le\'els (SMCLs) wliich are nonenforceable guidelines for public drinking water sestems to protect the aesthetic qnalite' of the water.

Establishes drinking water qnalite' goals at a Not an .AR.AR. There are no MCLGs for le\'el at which no ad\'erse health effects chemicals of concern set abo\'e zero le\'els for ma\' occur with an adequate margin of existing or potential sources of drinking water. safer\'.

Subpart E (2o4.'-'>4) gi\'es concentration limits in groundwater for hazardous constituents from a regulated unit.

Guidance le\'els for cleanup of contaminated soils based on EP.A-deri\'ed clironic exposure assumptions: intended as screening le\'els at RCR.A facilities to determine if a more detailed health-risk e\'alnation is warranted.

Not an .AR.AR. No limits set forth for chemicals of concern at these sites.

Not an .AR.AR. The concentration limits are superseded b\' the EDEP industrial cleanup goals outlined in the September Soil Cleanup Goals for Elorida.

Risk-based action le\'els for contaminants Not an .AR.AR. The concentration limits are in soil which, if exceeded, would trigger the superseded b\' the EDEP industrial cleanup need for a Correcti\'e Measures Snid\'. goals outlined in the September Soil

Cleanup Goals for Elorida.

Q:.IM11 BBROD18ROD18T61.DOC da! Jiidja Hoiiit->1t-ad .AFB - OU> 18. 26. 28. and 2<5 Record of Decision

Sheet 2 of 3 A 2<5 <58 Rec.O

Table 6-1

Sl^M^LARV OF POTENTIAL CHE^^CAL-SPECIFIC ARARs\TBCs HOMESTE AD AEB

Slajulard. Requirenienl. or Crileria Descriplion Coninieni GUIS OU26 0U2S OU29

Waler Pollulion Conlrol .AcK.T^ I'.S.C. Seel 12.*^!)

Nalional Pollulajil Discliaree Eliniinalion Sysleni Reeulalions (4() CFR 12.*^)

Eslablislies procedures for delemiinalion of eftluenl liniilalions for discliarees of pollulajils lo navieable uaiers.

Relevajil ajid appropriale if conlajiiinajils are released lo surface u aiers or if Irealed erouiuhvaler is discliareed lo surface u aiers.

X

Toxic Pollulajil El41uenl Slajidards (4() CFR 129)

Eslablislies efnueiil slandards for certain loxic pollulajils (as desienaled by 4() CFR 4()1); aldrin dieldrin. DDT. eiklrin. loxapliene. benzidine. PCBs

Nol aji .AR.AR. None of llie loxic pollulajils are chemicals of concern al lliese siles.

.Anibieni .Air Qualily Slajidards (4() CFR LM )

Requires slales lo develop uaier qualily crileria for surface u aiers based on llieir use ajid llie crileria provided under Seclion .V)4(a) of llie Cleaji Waler .Acl.

Relevajil ajid appropriale if conlajiiinajils are released lo surface u aiers or if Irealed erouiuhvaler is discharged lo surface u aiers.

X

Ciiiideliiies for Eslablisliine Test Procedures for llie .Analysis of Pollulajils (4() CFR 1.^6)

Specific ajiaKlical procedures for NPDES applicajils ajid reports.

.Applicable if conlajiiinajils are released lo surface u aier or if Irealed erouiuhvaler is discharged lo surface u aiers.

X

Cleaji .Air .Acl(42 I'.S.C. Seel. "4()1 - "642)

Nalional PriniajA ajul SecondajA .Anibieni .Air Qualily Slandards (4() CFR .*^0)

Eslablislies ajiibienl air qualily slajidards lo prolecl public lieallli and welfare.

.Applicable if conlajiiinajils are discharges lo llie almosphere diirine uasle handline or a Irealnieni process.

X X X X

Nalional Emission Slajidards for Hazardous .Air Pollulajils (40 CFR 61)

Eslablislies emission slajidards for certain iiuluslrial pollulajils ajul sources.

Will be an .AR.AR if llie remedial aclion involves a specitlc iiuluslrial caleeory for uhich NESH.APs have been established.

X X X X

MCLs = Maxirmirii Conlajiiinajil Level SMCLs = Secoruian Maîrmlr^l Conlajiiinajil Level MCLCis= Maîrmlr^l Conlajiiinajil Level Goals RCRA = Resource Conservalion ajul Recovery Acl PCB = Polyclilorinaled BipheiiKs •AR.ARs = .A|i[ilicable or Relevajil ajul Appropriale Requirenienis TBC = To be consiilered NPDES = Nalional Pollulajil Discliaree Eliniinalion Sysleni NESH.APs = Nalional Emission Slajulards for llie Hazardous .Air Pollulajils Nole: .An X nieajis llial llie .AR.AR TBC is polenlially applicable lo llie sile.

Q:-1M11 BBRClDlSRClDlSTei.DClC dal Jiidja Hoiiit->1t-ad .AFB - (X's 18. 26. 28. and 2<5 Record oJ' Decision


Table 6-2

SmBL\RV OF POTENTIAL LOCATION-SPECIFIC ARARs HOMESTE AD AFB

Slatulard. Requiremenl. or Criteria Description Commeni GUIS GU26 GU2S GU29

FEDER.4L

Resource Conservalion aiul Recovers Acl (42 I'.S.C. Seel. 6901 el seq.)

Faull ,\reas [4o CFR 264.1S(a)]

Floodplain [4o CFR 264.1 Slbl]

Sail Domes. I'lKlererouikl Mines, ami Caves [4o CFR 264.1S(c)

E.G. 119SS Proleclion of Flooilplains

E.G. 11990 Proleclion of Wellamis

Clean Waler .Acl Seel ion 4o4 U.S.C. Seel. 12-M el seq.)

Dredee or Fill Malerial I'.S.C. 12.'^1; 40 CFR 2-^0; CFR .^20-.^.ô]

WellamI Proleclion

New facililies where Irealnienl. sloraee or disposal of hazardous wasle w ill be condncled is prohibiled w iihin 61 inelers (2oo feel) of a faull displaced in Holocene lime.

New facililies w here Irealnienl. sloraee or disposal of hazardous wasle w ill be condncled is prohibiled w iihin Ihe 100-year Hoodplain.

Prohibils nonconlainerized or bulk liquid hazardous w asle placemeni in sail domes, sail bed fonnalions. and undereround mines or caves.

Limils aclivilies in tloodplain. Floodplain is detlned as " Ihe lowland and relalively Hal areas adjoinine inland and coaslal w alers includine Hood prone areas of offshore islands, includine al a minimum, lhal subjecl lo a oneperceni or erealer chance of tloodine in any eiven year."" [4o CFR 6. .Appendix .A and 4o CFR 6..ô2]

Minimizes impacis on areas desienaled as w el lands. [40 CFR 6. .A|ipendix .A]

.Aclion lo prohibil discharee of dredeed or till malerial inio walers of I'.S. w iihoul pennil.

Requires Federal aeencies lo avoid, lo Ihe exieni possible, adverse impacis associaled w iih deslruclion or loss of wellands.

Nol an .AR.AR. Trealmenl. sloraee and disposal of wasle w ill nol be condncled w iiliin 61 melers of a faull displaced in Holocene lime.

Nol an .AR.AR. Trealmenl. sloraee and disposal of wasle will nol be condncled w iihin Ihe 1 oo-year tloodplain of adjaceni rivers. There are no inn-year Hood plains al Homeslead .ARB.

Nol an .AR.AR. No aclion which would place wasle in a sail dome or sail bed formalion. undereround mine or cave is aniicipaled al Ihis sile.

Nol an .AR.AR. .As staled above. Ihere are no 1 nn-year Hood plains al Homeslead .ARB.

Nol an .AR.AR. No remedial aclivilies w ill occur on or near listed wellatid areas atid no remedial aclivilies w il impaci wellatid areas.

Nol ati .AR.AR. Dredee atid till permils requiremenis apply only if walers of Ihe I'.S. are impacled by remedial aclivilies on Ihe sile. No ilredee or till malerial w ill be placed in walers of Ihe I'.S.

Nol ati .AR.AR. .As described above, reeulalions are applicable only if Ihe remedial aclivilies impaci Ihe wellatid area.

Q:-tMll BBR(tD18R(tD18T61.D(tC daliiidja Hoiiit->tt-ad .AFB - 18. 26. 28. and 2<5 Record of Decision


Table 6-2

SmBL\RV OF POTENTIAL LOCATION-SPECIFIC ARARs HOMESTE AD AFB

Slajulard. Requiremenl. or Crileria Deseriplion Commenis GUIS OU26 0U2S OU29

Safe Drinkine Waler .Ael (40 U.S.C. Seel. 3()() el seq.)

Drinkine Waler [40 CFR 149] Includes reeulalions for deftnine sole source or principal ilrinkine waler source aquifers.

Tlie Biseapie .Aquifer is idenlifted as a sole source of polable w aler in Ihe area.

X X X X

Wellhead Proleelion Proerajii [42 USC.A 3()()h-"]

Direels slales lo implemeni proleelion proerajiis for wells ajid reeharee areas for ilrinkine w aler.

Wellhead proleelion areas exisi al Honieslead .ARB. X X X X

Endajieered Sneeies .Ael (16 U.S.C. Seel. 1531 el seq.) (50 CFR 200. 50 CFR 402)

Proleels endajieered species ajid Ihrealened species ajid preserves llieir habilal.

.Alllioueli lliere are no known erilieal habilals in Ihe ininiediale vieinily of Ihe sile or ajiy known lisled endajieered species, if ajiy are idenlifted duriiie Ihe remedial aelivilies Ihis reeulalion would be applicable.

X X X X

Bald Eaele Proleelion .Ael (16 U.S.C. Seel. 6SS el seq.)

Proleels all eaele species ajid reslriels aelivilies lhal may Ihrealen or adverselv afteel llieir habilal.

Nol aji .AR.AR. Bald eaeles are nol known lo inhabil Honieslead .ARB or Ihe surrouiuline area ajul are nol

Mieralors Bird Treal\ Acl (16 I'.S.C. Seel. "03 el seq.)

Wikleniess .Acl (16 U.S.C. Seel. 1311 el seq.) (50 CFR 53.1 el seq.)

Wikllife Reftiee [16 U.S.C. 66S el seq.; 5o CFR Pari 2"]

Fisli ajkl Wikllit'e Coordiiialioii .Ael (16 I'.S.C. Seel. 661 el seq.) (33 CFR Paris 32o-33o; 4o CFR 6.3o2

Wild ajkl Seeiiie Rivers .Ael (16 U.S.C. Seel. 12"1 el seq.) (40 CFR 6.302(e))

Nalioiial Hislorie PreservalioiiAel (NHP.A) (16 I'.S.C. Seel. 4"() el seq.) (" CFR 650. 36 CFR Pari 65. Pari Soo)

Proleels niieralor\. residenl. or raoee habilal of niieralor\ birds ineludine raplors aod uaierfoul.

Liniils aelivilies u iihin ao area desiened as a u ikleniess area.

Liniils llie l\pe of aelivilies pemiilled in an area desienaled as a Nalional Wikllife Reftiee Sysleni.

Prohibils aelivilies affeeline niodift ine slreanis or bodies of u aier if llie aelivily has a neealive inipael on fish or wildlife.

Proleels rivers lhal are desienaled as w iki. scenic or reerealional.

Requires Ihe preservalion of hislorie properlies included in or elieible for Ihe Nalional Reel si er of Hislorie Places and lo ininiinize harm lo Nalional Hislorie Landmarks.

expeeled lo in Ihe ftilure.

Remedial aelions eannol Ihrealen or adversely afteel Ihe habilals of mieralor\ walerfow l or raplors.

Nol an .\R.-\R. Tlie sile is nol wiihin a federally-owned area desienaled as a w ikierness area.

Nol an .AR.AR. Tlie sile is nol in an area desienaled as pari of Ihe Nalional Wikllife Reftiee Syslem.

Nol an .\R.-\R. Remedial aelivilieswill nol nuxlily a siream. river, or canal.

Nol an .\R.-\R. No rivers desienaled as wild, scenic, or reerealional w ill be afteeled b\ remedial aelivilies.

Nol an .\R.-\R. No hislorieal place or landmark idenlifted al Ihis sile.

Q:-^M11 BBR(1D18R(1D18T62.D(1C dal nula Hoiiit->1t-ad .AFB - 18. 26. 28. and 2<5 Record of Decision

Sheel 2 of 3 A 20 08 Rec.O

Table 6-2

Sl^M^L\RV OF POTENTIAL LOCATION-SPECIFIC ARARs HOMESTEAD AEB

Slajulard. Requireiiieiil. or Criteria Description Coninietits GUIS OU26 0U2S OU29

Tlie Historic ajul ,\rcliaeological Data Preservatioti Act ofl9"4 (16 I'.S.C. Sect. 469 et seq.) (40 CFR 6.3()l(c)

Tlie ,\rc[iaeological Resource Protection .Act of19'9 (16 I'.S.C. Sect 4"()aa-4"()l 1 et seq.)

Coaslal Zotie Majiaeenietit .Act (16 U.S.C. Sect. 1451 et seq.)

ST.4TE

(Florida Rules oti Hazardous Waste Wartiitig Sietis

Establislies procedures to provide for preservatioti of historical ajid archaeoloeical data which niieht be destroyed throueh alteratioti of terraiti as a result of a federal cotistnictioti project or a federally licetised activity proerajii.

Requires a permit for ajiy excavatioti or removal of archaeoloeical resources from public or Indiaji lajuls.

Limits activities aftectitie the coaslal zotie. iticluditie lands thereutuler ajul adjacetit sliorelajuls.

Establishes requiremetits for vvartiitie sietis to protect citizetis from utiknow inely beconiitie exposed to hazardous wastes.

Not an .\R,\R. No historic site located oti site.

Not aji .\R.-\R. No removal of archaeoloeical resources is expected from remedial activities.

Not an .\R.-\R. Homestead is tiot located w itiiiti the coastal niajiaeenietit area.

Tliese requirements are applicable because sites are suspected to cotitaiti hazardous substajices.

(F.-\C. Title 62. Chapter 62-"36

Note: .\n X means that the .AR.AR is potetitially ajiplicable to the site.

Q:-VM11 BBR(tD18R(tD18T62.D(tC dat nida Hoiiit->tt-ad .AFB - 18. 26. 28. and 2<5 Record of Decision

Sheet .t of.t A 20 08 Rec.O

Table 6-3

POTENTIAL ACTION-SPECIFIC ARARs/TBCs HOMESTEAD AEB

Slajulard. Requireiiieiil. or Criteria Description Coninient GUIS OU26 0U2S OU29

Federal

Solid Waste Disposal Act (SWDA). as amended by Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 19"6 (RCR.A) (42 U.S.C. Sect. 6901-698")

Criteria for Classitlcatioti of Solid Waste Disposal Facilities ajid Practices (Subtitle D) (40 CFR Part 25"

Criteria for Mutiicipal Waste Lajidtllls (Subtitle D) (40 CFR Part 258)

Identificatioti ajid Listitie of Hazardous Wastes (Subtitle C) (40 CFR Part 261)

Stajidards Applicable to Cietierators of Hazardous Waste (Subtitle C) (40 CFR Part 262)

Stajidards Applicable to Trajisporters of Hazardous Waste (Subtitle C) (40 CFR Part 263)

Stajidards for Outiers ajid Operators of Hazardous Waste Treatnietit. Storaee. and Disposal Facilities (Subtitle C) (4()CFR Part 264)

Establishes aiteria for use iti detennitiitie uhicli solid waste disposal facilities ajul practices pose a reasotiable probability of adverse effects oti healtli. Prohibits opeti dumps.

Sets forth mitiimum criteria for mutiicipal solid waste lajidfihs. iticluditie closure ajid postclosure care requirements.

Deffties tliose solid wastes which are subject to reeulatioti as hazardous w astes utider 4() CFR Parts 262-265. 268. ajid Parts 124. 2"(). ajid 2"1.

Establislies slajidards for eetierators of hazardous waste.

Establishes stajidards which apply to persotis trajisportitie hazardous w aste w itliiti the I'.S. if the trajisportatioti requires a niajiifest utider 4() CFR Part 262.

Establishes mitiimum national stajidards which define the acceptable niajiaeemetit of hazardous w aste for owners ajid operators of facilities which treat, store, or dispose hazardous w aste.

.Applicable to lajid disposal of tiotihazardous solid waste. May be relevajit ajid appropriate to stockpilitie. treatment ajid disposal of tiotihazardous solid waste ajid lajulffh closure actiotis.

Not aji .AR.AR. No mutiicipal solid waste lajidffhs exist at the site.

.Applicable id remedial actioti itivolves eeneratioti. storaee. treatJiietit. ajidor disposal of hazardous waste.

.Applicable if remedial actioti involves off-site disposal or treatJiietit of hazardous waste. Oti-site eeneratioti trieeers selected provisiotis (i.e.. waste detennination. accumulation time).

.Applicable if remedial actioti involves off-site trajisportatioti of hazardous waste.

Not aji .AR.AR. Remedial actioti w ill not itivolve stockpilitie. treatJiient. or disposal of hazardous w aste.

X X

Q:-JM11 BBR(tD18R(tD18T61.D(tC dat nidja Hoiiie>tead .AFB - 18. 26. 28. 2<3 Record of Decision


Table 6-3



Ititerini Stajklards for Ou7iers ajul Operators of Hazardous Wasle Treatment Storaee. ajul Disposal Facilities (Subtitle C) (40 CFR Part 265)

Stajidards for tlie Majiaeement of Specific Hazardous Wastes ajid Specific T\pes of Hazardous Waste Majiaeemetit Facilities (40 CFR Part 266)

Lajid Disposal (40 CFR Part 26S)

Resource. Conservalion. and Recovery Ad (RCR.A) (42 I'.S.C. Sect. 6901 et seq.)

Subtitle I

EP.A Techtiical Stajidards ajid Corrective .Actioti Requiremetits for Outiers ajid Operators of I'tidereroutid Storaee Tajiks (4() CFR Part 280)

Establishes mitiimum tiatiotial stajidards that defitie tlie accqjtable niajiaeenietit of hazardous waste duritie tlie period of ititerini status ajid utitil certiflcatioti of fltial clostire or if tlie facility is stibject to post-closure requirements, utitil post-closure respotisibilities are ftiltlhed.

Establishes requirements which ajiply to recyclable materials that are claimed to recover ecotioniicahy sietiificajit ajiioimts of precious metals, iticluditie eold ajid silver. .Also establislies requirenietits whicli apply to disposal of recyclable materials, buniitie of used oil for etierey recovery, ajid buniitie of hazardous waste iti boilers ajid itulustrial furnaces.

Establishes a timetable for restrictioti of burial of hazardous wastes, cotitajiiitiated soil, ajul debris. Prohibits the lajid disposal utiless the waste has beeti treated to prescribed treatJiietit stajidards. Land disposal restrictions (LDRs) do tiot apply to a specific hazardous w aste utiit EP.A has developed treatJiietit stajidards for that waste. Treatnietit variajices are t\picahy tieeded for cotitajiiitiated soils at (CERCL.A sites.

Subpart F requires that the corrective actioti plaji consider the "physical ajid chemical characteristics of the reeulated substajice. iticluditie its toxicity, persistetice. ajid potetitial for niieratioti.""

Not aji .AR.AR. Remedial actioti w ill not itivolve stockpilitie. treatJiietit. or disposal of hazardous w aste.

Not aji .AR.AR. No sietiiflcajit quajitities of metals or other recyclable materials occur at the sites, ajul tio buniitie or incineration of wastes for etierex recovers will occur.

.Applicable if the remedial actioti involves lajid disposal of reeulated waste. LDRs ajul treatJiient slajidards apply to hazardous waste that has been removed from a lajid disposal utiit or area of cotitajiiitiatioti.

Not aji .AR.AR. No utidereroutid Storaee Tajiks (I'STs) ajul I'ST ssstenis. as defined at 4() (LTR 2S().12. exist at these sites.

Q:-1M11 BBR(tD18R(tD18T61.D(tC dat nidja Hoiiie>1ead .AFB - (X's 18. 26. 28. 2<3 Record of Decision

Sheef 2 of 5 A 20 08 Rec.O

Table 6-3



Safe Drinking Water Act (SWDA) (42 I'.S.C. Sed. 3()()(f) et seq.)

StajKlards for Outiers ajki Operators of Public Water Supply Sysleni (4() CFR 141)

I'tKlereroutkl Injectioti Cotitrol Reeulatioti (4() CFR Parts 144-14")

Federal Water Poiiiition Control Act (FWPCA). as amended by tlie Clean Water Act (CWA)or 19"" (33 U.S.C. Sect. 1251-13"6)

Natiotial Pollutajit Discharee Eliniitiatioti Sysleni (40 CFR Parts 122-125)

Natiotial Pretreatnient Stajidards (40 CFR Part 4()3)

Toxic Substances Control Act (15 U.S.C. Sect. 2601-2629)

PCB Requirements

Stajklards for Hajidlitie PCI (40 CFR "61)

Provides treatment (water quality) requirements for public w ater supply ssstems.

Provides for protectioti of utidereroutid sources of ilritikitie water.

Requires pemiits for the discharee of pollutajits from ajiy poitit source itito waters of the Utiited States.

Sets pretreatnient stajidards to cotitrol pollutajits which pass throueh or ititerfere w ith treatmetit processes iti publically owned treatmetit works (POTW) or which nia\ cotitajiiitiate sewaee sludee.

Establishes sloraee ajid disposal requirenietits for PCBs.

Establishes prohibitiotis of and requirenietits for the niajiufacture. processitie. distributioti iti commerce, use. disposal, storage, ajid niarketitie of PCB ajid PCI items.

Not aji .AR.AR. Florida Dritikitie Water Stajidards w ill be used to deterniitie cleajiup goals for groutkhvater cotitajiiitiatioti.

Not aji .AR.AR. Remedial actioti w ill not itivolve utidergroutid itijectioti.

Potentially applicable to discliarges to oti-site or oft-site surface water.

Potetitially applicable to discharges of treated groutkhvater to a local POTW.

Not aji .AR.AR. Remedial actioti does not itivolve storage or disposal of PCBs or PCB-contajiiinates soils.

Not aji .AR.AR. Remedial actioti does not itivolve storage or disposal of PCBs or PCB-contajiiinated soils.


Sheet 3 of .5 A 20 08 Rec.O

Table 6-3



Gean Air Act (42 U.S.C. Sect. "401--642)

New Source Perforniajice Stajklards (NSPS) (40 CFR 60)

Preventioti of Sietiitlcajit Deterioratioti (PSD) proerajii (40 CFR 51 ajkl52)

Hazardous Materials Transportation Act (49 U.S.C. Sect. 1S()1-1S13)

Hazardous Materials Trajisportatioti Reeulatiotis (49 CFR Parts lo". 1"1-1"")

State

Florida Hazardous Substajice Release Notificatioti Rules (F.AC. Title 62. Chapter 62-150)

Florida Solid Waste Disposal Facilities Reeulatiotis (F.AC. Title 62. Chapter 62-"()l)

Florida Solid Waste Conibustor .Ash Reeulatiotis (F.AC. Title 62. Chapter 62-"()2

Florida Hazardous Waste Rules (F.AC. Title 62. Chapter 62-".t())

Petroleum Cotitajiiitiatioti SiteCleajiup Criteria (F.AC. Title 62. Chapter 62-""())

Eslablishes emissioti slajidards for certaiti cateeories Not aji .AR.AR. No remedial actiotis will be reeulated by these of itiduslrial statiotiary sources. stajulards.

Implemetits ajul sets rules for a reeiotial air pollutioti Not aji .AR.AR. Remedial actioti will not create eniissiotis that cotitrol proerajii. w ill trieeer these stajidards.

Reeulates trajisportatioti of Hazardous materials

Eslablislies tiotillcatioti requiremetits for releases of hazardous subslajices.

Eslablislies requirements for solid waste niajiaeemetit facilities.

Eslablislies requirements for the niajiaeement of asli that results from the conibustioti of solid wastes.

Eslablishes procedures for tiotillcatioti of hazardous waste activity. Idetitillcatioti ajid listitie of hazardous wastes, eetierators. ajid operators of treatmetit. storaee. ajid disposal facilities.

Lists requirements for cleanup of cotitamitiated soils, iticluditie procedures for deterniitiitie cleajiup levels.

.Applicable if the remedial actioti involves trajisportation of hazardous materials.

Requiremetits are applicable if a release is discovered at a site. Would apply to potential releases that could occur duritie remedial actioti.

Requirements are ajiplicable if lajidfillitie is used to dispose of cotitajiiitiated materials.

Not aji .AR.AR. Solid waste conibustor w ill not be used to themially breakdown ajiy solid wastes at a site.

Requiremetits are ajiplicable if remedial actiotis involve on-site hazardous waste niajiaeenient. storaee. treatment, ajul or disposal.

Not aji .AR.AR. Site istiot cotitamitiated with petroleum product-

XXX


Sheet 4 of .5 A 20 08 Rec.O

Table 6-3

POTENTIAL ACTION-SPECIFIC .AR.ARs/TBCs HOMESTEAD AEB

Stajulard. Requirement, or Criteria Descriptioti Comment GUIS OU26 0U2S OU29

Florida Soil Tliemial Treatnietit Facilities Reenlatiotis (F.AC. Title 62. Chapter 62-"".'^)

Establishes reqniremetits for cleajuip criteria of tliemial treated, petroleum cotitajiiitiated soils.

Not aji .AR.AR. Site has tio petroleum cotitajiiitiated soils tliat will be tliemially treated.

SWDA = Saee Drinkine Water Act RCRA = Resource Conservation ajul Recovery Act SWDA = Solid Wasle Disposal Act I'ST = I'tulererontid Storaee Tajik CERCLA = Cotiiprehensive Etivirotitiiental Respotise. Cotiipetisatioti ajid Liability Act LDRs = Land Disposal Restrictiotis PODV = Publicly outied Treatment Works PCBs = Polychloritiated Biphetiyls

Q:-JM11 BBRCJDlSRCJDlSTei.DCJC dat nidja Hoiiie>1ead AFB - (X's 18. 26. 28. 2<3 Record of Decision

Sheet of A 20 08 Rec.O

Table 6-4

DETAILED ANALYSIS OE ALTERNATIVES ADDRESSING OU18 SOILS AND SEDIMENTS HOMESTEAD AEB, EEASIBILITV STIT)V

E\ ALUATI(W CRTTERJCiN .ALT. CÛlS-l No FurUier .Aclioii

ALT. (X'18-2 Iiislitiilional ConlroL

ALT. (X' 18-3 Soil Cover

ALT. (X'18-1 Remove and Treal iisina LTTD

ALT. (X'18-5 Remove and Landllii

' Do notiilna .Access reslriclioiis • Remove asphallic sedimenis from canal and place on surface of (X'l 8 • Excavate edge of fill 10 feel away from canal • Regrade slq)es and surface • Inslall 18" soil cover and 6" vegelalive layer • Eence sile and monilor eroundwaler

• Remove asphallic sedimenis and upper. feel of asphallic soil • Haul and Ireal al LTTD • Place 6" veaelalive I aver over sile

• Remove asphallic sedimenis and upper ; feel of asphallic soil ' Haul and dispose al landlill • Place 6" veaelalive I aver over sile

(3\ ER.ALL PR(3TECTI(3N Human Health Prolecllon

Enviroiunenlal Protection

No |)roleclion.

No |)roleclion.

Some prolecllon iJirougli access reslrlclions and long-lenn nianagenienl.

No prolecllon. .Allows conlamlnalion to persist under influence of natural degradation process.

SIgnlllcanI [rroleclion al site by ellnilnaling potential paliiways liirougli consolldaling conlanilnaled soils and sediments benealJi cover. Prolecllon by removal of conlanilnaled sediment Ifoni canal, grading and erosion proleclion ofdebrisllll along canal, and consolldaling conlanilnaled soils and sedimenis benealJi cover.

PeniianenI proleclion al site by removing conlanilnaled soils and sediments. PeniianenI Prolecllon off-slle by destroying P.AHs and Immobilizing PeniianenI proleclion by ellnilnaling conlamlnalion sources al site, deslroying P.AHs. and immobilizing arsenic by re-use In pavement

PeniianenI proleclion al site by removing conlanilnaled soils and sediments. .Adequate prolecllon off-sile by conlalning waste In peniiltted PeniianenI proleclion al site by removing conlanilnaled soils and sediments. .Adequate future off-sile prolecllon by conlalning wasle In pernillled landlill.

C(3MPLLANCE WITH AR.ARs Compliance with .AR.ARs

.Alprqirialeness of waivers

Would not meet chemical sped lie requlrenienls. Not ap|)rq)riale. None of the six cirnmislances Idenlilied by CERCL.A would be met.

Would not meet dienilcal specific requlrenienls. Not approqlale. None of iJie six drcunislances Idenlilied by CERCL.A would be met.

Would not meet action sped lie requlrenienls for solid wasle disposal. Considered to be apprqirlale because a soil cover will allain an equivalent standard of performance required for pemillled solid waste facllllles.

Meets all .AFLARs

Not required.

Meets all .AFLARs

Not required.

L(3NG-TERJvl EEFTCTTv ENESS Masnlhide of residual risk

.Adequacy and reliability of controls

No reduction In risk associated wiiJi exposure to P.AHs In surface soils or arsenic In sediments. P.AHs In surface soils and P.AHs arsenic In sediments remain al levels above PRGs.

Not applicable.

Some redudlon In risk potential human rece()lors; no reduction In risk to potential environmental rece()lors. P.AHs In siirl'ace soils and P.AHs arsenic In sediments remain al lev els above PRGs. Deed and access restrictions and long-term over si gill can be adequate and reliable with proper nianagenienl.

Consolidation of P.AHs and arsenic under cover reduces risks to potential human and enviroiunenlal receptors by ellnilnaling pathway.

.A soil cover wiiJi long-term OA-M L adequate and reliable method to minimize exposures and control nilsTallon.

Soils conlalning P.AHs and sediments conlalning P.AHs arsenic permanently removed from iJie site. P.AHs destroyed and arsenic immobilized No residual risk.

Removal of conlanilnaled soils and sediments Is adequate and reliable. Incineration Is adequate and reliable method to destroy P.AHs. .Arsenic will not be destroy ed, but reuse of material In pavement will Immobilize iJie arsenic.

Soils conlalning P.AHs and sediments conlalning P.AH arsenic permanently remov ed from site and contained In pernillled landlill. No residual risk. US.AF retains long-term llablllly of waste disposed al landlill. Removal of contaminated soils and sediments Is adequate and reliable. Disposal al permitted landlill Is adequate and reliable nieliiod to contain wastes.

Q:3M11 BBR(3D 18 |rodl 8lab<)"|T.ABLE 6-1 dal Homestead .AEB - (!>us 18. 26. 28. and 2<5 Record of Decision Slieel 1 of.l

-1 20 08 Rev. 0

Table 6-4


E\ ALU.ATICIN CTOTERJCIN ALT. (:iU18-l .ALT. (:iU18-2 .ALT. CU 18-.^ .ALT. CUI8-1 .ALT. (TUI8-5 No Eurliier .Aclion Inslitiitlonal Controls Soil Cover Remove and Treat using LTTD Remove and Landlill

Need l'or5-year review Review would be required to ensure Review would be required to ensure Review would be required to ensure Not required. Not required adequate protection of human health ade(|uate |>rotection of hiuiian healtii ade(|uate |>rotection of hiuiian healtii and tiie environment is maintained. and tiie environment is maintained and tiie environment is maintained

REDUCTION CIETMN' TrealinenI [jrocess used and nialerial None. None. None. Low Temperature theniial desorptlon. None. Irealed .Anioiinl destroyed or Irealed None. None. None. .An esliniated 28.000 tons of sutl'ace None.

soil. .And sediment containing P.AHs. Reduction ol'TT^lW iliroiigli None. None. None. Reduces TM\' pf P.AHs tiirougli None. Irealinenl tiiemial deslruction. Irreversible Irealinenl None. None. None. LTTD Is irreversible. None. TNpe and quanlily of residuals Not applicable. Not applicable. Not applicable. .All Residual <|uantities are expected to None. remaining afler Irealinenl be beneliclally reused In pavement.

SHCIRT-TERM EEFBCTD ENESS

Time required lo achieve remedial R-AOs would not be achieved in tiie R.A(!ls would not be achiev ed In R.A(!ls could be achiev ed witliin one R.A(Ts could be achieved within one R.A(Ts could be achiev ed wf tiiin one aclion objectives (R.AOs) short-term. sliort-temK however, reduction in year. year. year.

human exposure to contaminants achieved immediately.

Proleclion of community and No action taken Little risk to community because LIttie risk to community because Some community risk Involved In Some community risk Inv olved In workers during remedial actions access to Homeslead .AFB Is access to Homeslead .AFB Is reslricted. transportation to tiie LTTD. Workers transportation to the landlill. Workers

restricted. Workers can be protected Workers can be protected using can be protected using slandard healtii can be protected using standard health using slandard healtJi and safety slandard healtii and sai'ety [irocedures. and sai'ety [irocedures. and safety procedures.

Environmental impacts during None. None. Impacts during construction due to Impacts during cotislruction due to Impacts during coiislruction due to dust remedial actions dust emissions and run-off can be dusi emissions and run-off can be emissions and run-off can be controlled

controlled through cotislruction controlled tiirougli constniction through cotislruction erosion control. erosion control. erosion control. .Air emissions from Impacts ironi landlill controlled under

LTTD controlled under operating operating permit. permit.

IMPLEMENTABILrri' .Ability to conslruct and operate Not applicable. Eencing easily coiislructed Standard excavation and eartii moving Standard excavation and earth moving Standard excavation and eartii moving

equipment can readily remove soil and equipment can readily remove soil equipment can readily remove soil and sedi nient. and sediment. LTTD qieration sediment. Peniiltted solid wasle landlill

already set up witiiin -10 miles of site. located wf tiiin -10 miles of site. Ease of doing more remedial action. Easy. Easy. Easy. Easy. Easy. If needed .Ability to monitor effecliveness Not applicable. Easy. .Annual inspections and monitoring Monitoring not re<|ulred after Monitoring by I'S.AE not required after

easy to Implement. remedial action. remedial action. Landlill monitors under permit conditions.

.Ability to obtain approvals and Not applicable. None required None required None required. None required. coordination witli other agencies

.Availability of serv ices and Not applicable. Commercially available. Commercially available. Commercially available. Commercially available. equipment

Q:-^M11 BBRC^D 18 [rodlSlabO'lT.ABLE 6-1 <ial Hoiiit->1t-ad AFB - 18. 26. 28. and 2<5 Record of Decision Slieel 2 of.^

-1 20 08 Rec.O

Table 6-4


E\ ALU.ATICIN CTOTERJCIN ALT. CU18-1 No EiirlJier .Aclion

.ALT. CU18-2 Insliliilional Conlrols

.ALT. CU 18C Soil Cover

.ALT. CU18-1 Remove and Treat usina LTTD

.ALT. CU18-5 Remove and Landllll

CCIST SO

o

o

o S585.000 S2.1.W.000 Sl.8-18.000

Capital cosi SO Presenl WorUi Co>1 of CAM

o

o

o S16O.000 SO SO

Presenl WorUi Co>1 SO S60.000 S"5-1.000 S2.1.W.000 Sl.8-18.000

Cosi Sensilive If' an 18" soil cover and 6" vegetative layer is placed Ca|)ital costs = S2..LLC500 Present woiUi cost = S2..L^5.000

If' an 18" soil cover and 6" vegetative layer is placed Capital cos1s= S2.0-1-1.000 Present worth cosi = S2.0-1-1.000

Q:-^M11 BBRC^D 18 [rodlSlabO'lT.ABLE 6-1 <ial Hoiiit->1t-ad AFB - 18. 26. 28. and 2<5 Record of Decision Slieel of.^

-1 20 08 Rec.O

TABLE 6-5

ACTION-SPECIFIC AR.ARs/TBCs HOMESTE AD AEB

Slandard. Requireinenl. orCrileria

.Alledialives .Aiklressine Soils ami Sediinenis .Alledialives .Aiklressine Uroumlwaler

Slandard. Requireinenl. orCrileria No .Action Inslilulional

Controls Soil Cover Remove and Treat usine

LTTD

Remove and Landtlll No .Action

Cirouiuhvaler Monilorine

Intrinsic Remediation

Grouiuhvaler Collection and

Trealmeni Federal Solid Waste Disposal .Act (SWD.A). as amended by Resource ConservalJon and Recovery .Act of 19"6 (RCR.A) (42.U.S.C. Swi. 6901-698") Crileria for Classitlcalion ofSolid Wasle disposal Facililies and Praclices (Sublille D) (4() CFR Pad 2.*^") Idenlitlcalion and Lisline of Hazardous Wasles (Sublille C) (40 CFR Pari 261) Slandards .Applicable lo Cieneralors of Hazardous Wasles (Sublille C) (4() CFR Pad 262) Slandards .Applicable lo Transpoders of Hazardous Wasles (Sublille C) (4() CFR Pad 26.^) Land Disposal (4() CFR Pari 268) Federal Water PolliitJon Control .Act (FWPC.A). as amended by tlie Clean Water .Act (CW.A Of 19"" (33 U.S.C. Sect. 125113"6) National Pollulani Discharee Eliininalion System (4() CFR Pads 122-12-M National Prelrealineni Slandards (4() CFR Pad 4().^) Hazardous Materials Transportation .Act (49 I'.S.C. Sect. 1801-1813) Hazardous Materials Transporlalion Reeulalions (49 CFR Pads 10". 1"1-1"") State Florida Hazarous Substance Release Nolificalion diles (F.AC. Title 62. Chapter 62-L'^()) Florida Solid Waste Disposal Facililies Reeulalions (F.AC. Title 62. Chapter 62-"()l) Florida Hazardous Wasle Rules (F.AC. Title 62. Chanter 62-".t())

Federal Solid Waste Disposal .Act (SWD.A). as amended by Resource ConservalJon and Recovery .Act of 19"6 (RCR.A) (42.U.S.C. Swi. 6901-698") Crileria for Classitlcalion ofSolid Wasle disposal Facililies and Praclices (Sublille D) (4() CFR Pad 2.*^") Idenlitlcalion and Lisline of Hazardous Wasles (Sublille C) (40 CFR Pari 261) Slandards .Applicable lo Cieneralors of Hazardous Wasles (Sublille C) (4() CFR Pad 262) Slandards .Applicable lo Transpoders of Hazardous Wasles (Sublille C) (4() CFR Pad 26.^) Land Disposal (4() CFR Pari 268) Federal Water PolliitJon Control .Act (FWPC.A). as amended by tlie Clean Water .Act (CW.A Of 19"" (33 U.S.C. Sect. 125113"6) National Pollulani Discharee Eliininalion System (4() CFR Pads 122-12-M National Prelrealineni Slandards (4() CFR Pad 4().^) Hazardous Materials Transportation .Act (49 I'.S.C. Sect. 1801-1813) Hazardous Materials Transporlalion Reeulalions (49 CFR Pads 10". 1"1-1"") State Florida Hazarous Substance Release Nolificalion diles (F.AC. Title 62. Chapter 62-L'^()) Florida Solid Waste Disposal Facililies Reeulalions (F.AC. Title 62. Chapter 62-"()l) Florida Hazardous Wasle Rules (F.AC. Title 62. Chanter 62-".t())

O X


X X X


• • •


• • •


. . .



X


X



• • •


• • •


o X


X • X

NOTES X -- Aclion-specitlc .AR.ARs is applicable ajul allainable al all Ol's. O -- Aclion-specitlc .AR.ARs is applicable but not considered lo be allainable. .A waiver w ill be required allow ine aclion lo provide an equivaleni slandard of perfomiance.

•Aclion-specitlc .AR.AR applicable only if excavaled soil is delerniined lo be characlerislically hazardous.

Q-^MllBB 18 |rodl8 lb<)"|T.-VBLE 6-5 dalja Hoiiit->1t-ad .AFB 18. 26. 28. and 2<5 Record of Decision

-1 20 08 Rec.O

TABLE 6-6

DET AILED ANALYSIS OF ALTERN ATIVES ADDRESSING OU26 SOILS AND SEDIMENTS HOMESTEAD AEB, FEASIBILITY STIT)Y

E\',\Ll'AT10N CRITERION •ALT. OU26-1S No Furllier Action

•ALT. OU26-2S Inslilulional Controls

•ALT. Ol'26-3S Remove ajul Treat usitie LTTD

•ALT. Ol'26-4S Remove ajul Lajidfil

Do tiotliitie Access restrictiotis • Remove up to otie foot of sedimetits • Haul ajki treat at LTTD • Backlli! to erade u itli cleaji til • Reveeetate

• Remove up to 1 foot of sediments •Haulajid dispose at lajidtlll • Backfill to erade uitli cleaji fil • Reveeetate

OVER.ALL PROTECTION Hiininn Henllh Proleclion No protect ioti

Envlronnienln! Proleclion No protectioti required because tio utiacceptable risk idetititled by baselitie risk assessment.

Some protectioti throueh access restrictiotis and lone-temi niajiaeenient

No protection. .Allows cotitajiiitiatioti to persist utuler itinueiice of tiatural deeredatioti processes.

Perniajient protectioti at site by reniovitie cotitajiiitiated soils ajid sediments. Pemiajient protectioti off-site by deslroyitie P.AHs ajid ininiobilizitie arsenic lead niercur\ by re-use iti pavenietit. Perniajietit protectioti by eliniinatine contajiiiiiation sources at site. deslro\itie P.AHs. ajid ininiobilizitie arsenic lead mercury by reuse in pavement

Pemiajietit protectioti at site by reniovitie contaminated soils ajid sedinietits. .Adequate protectioti oft-site by containine wasle in pemiitted lajidtlll.

Pemiajient protection at site by reniovitie contaminated soils ajid sedinietits. .Adequate ftiture oft-site protectioti by containine w asle iti pemiitted lajidtlll.

COMPLIANCE \^^TH AR.ARs Compliance willi .AR.ARs

.Approprialeness of waivers

Would not meet chemical specific requirements. Not ajjpropriate. Notie of the six circunislances identified by CERCL.A would be met.

Would tiot meet chemical specific requiremetits. Not appropriate. Notie of tlie six circunistajices idetitified by CERCL.A w ould be met.

Meets all .AR.ARs

Not required.

Meets all .AR.ARs.

Not required.

LONG TERM Masniliide of residual risk

.Adequacy' and reliability of conlrois

No reductioti iti risk associated with exposure to lead niercurx iti surface soils. P.AHs arsenic lead mercury in surface soils ajid P.AHs arsenic lead in sediments reniaiti at levels above PRCs.

Not applicable

Need for 5-vear review Review would be required to etisTire adequate protectioti of huniaji healtli ajid tlie

Some reduction iti risk to potential huniaji receptors. P.AHs arsetiic leadniercurv iti surface soils ajid P.AH arsenic lead in sediments remaiti at levels above PRCs.

Deed ajid access restrictiotis ajid lone-temi oversieht caji be adequate ajul reliable w ith proper niajiaeement.

Review would be required to etisure adequate protectioti of huniaji healtli ajid tlie

Soils containine P.AHsarsenic lead niercurv ajul sedinietits cotitaitiitie P.AHs arsetiic lead pemiajiently removed from the site. P.AHs destroyed ajid arsetiic lead niercurv immobilized. No residual risk.

Removal of contajiiinated soils ajid sediments is adequate ajid reliable. Incitieratioti is adequate ajid reliable method to destroy P.AHs. .Arsetiic lead niercurv vvill not be destroyed, but reuse of material iti pavement w ill immobilize. Not required.

Soils cotitaitiitie P.AHs arsenic lead niercurv ajid sediments cotitaitiitie P.AHs arsenic lead perniajiently removed from site ajid cotitaitied iti pemiitted lajidflll. No residual risk. I'S.AF retaitis lotie-terni liability for waste disposed iti lajidfiN. Removal of contajiiinated soils ajid sediments is adequate ajid reliable. Disposal at pemiitted lajidfill is adequate ajid reliable nietliod to cotitaiti wastes.

Not required.

Q-lMllBB 18 |rodl8 lb<)"|T.-VBLE6-6 datja tioiiie>1ead .AFB -(X's 18. 26. 28. and 2<3 Record ol' Decision Stieel 1 of 2

A 20 08 Rev. 0

TABLE 6-6

DET AILED ANALYSIS OF ALTERN ATIVES ADDRESSING OU26 SOILS AND SEDIMENTS HOMESTEAD AEB, FEASIBILITY STIT)Y

E\',\Ll',AT10N CRITERION ,Ui.OLiJf>iS .Ui.OLiJf>JS .Ui. .UI.OLiJWS

E\',\Ll',AT10N CRITERION No Furllier .Action histitutiotial Cotitrols Remove and Treat usitie LTTD Remove and Landtlll

REDUCTION OF TMV TrealiiienI process used and None. Notie. Low temperature tliennal None. nialerial treated desoqitioti. .Amount destroyed or treated None. Notie. .An estimated .^9i) totis of surface None.

soil and sedimetit cotitaitiitie P.AHs.

ReductJon of TMV through None. Notie. Reduces TM\' of P.AHs tlirou eh None. treatment tliennal destruction. Irreversible treatment None. Notie. LTTD is irreversible. None. Type and quantity of residuals Not applicable. Not applicable. .All residual quantities are None. remaining after treatment expected to be benetlcially reused

iti pavement processes. SHORT TERM Time required to achieve remedial R.AOs would not be achieved in the R.AOs would tiot be achieved iti R.AOs could be acliieved within R.AOs could be acliieved within otie action objectives (R.AOs) short-lerni. sliort-temi; however, reductioti of otie year. year.

human exposure to cotitaniitiants acliieved immediately.

Protection of community and workers during remedial No action taketi. Little risk to coniniutiity because access Some comnumity risk itivolved iti Some coniniutiity risk itivolved in actions to Honieslead .AFB is transportation to the LTTD. transportation to the landtlll.

restricted. Workers can be protected Workers can be protected usitie Workers can be protected usitie Environmentai impacts during usitie standard healtli and safety standard health and safety standard health and safety remedial actions Notie. procedures. procedures. procedu res.

Notie. Impacts duritie cotistructioti due to Impacts duritie con si ruction due to dust emissiotis and mti-off can be dusi emissiotis and run-oft'can be cotitrolled tliroueh construction controlled tliroueh construction erosioti cotitrol. .Air emissiotis erosioti control. .Air emissiotis from from LTTD controlled utider LTTD controlled utider operatine operatitie permit. permit.

IMPLEMENT.ABILm .Ability to construct and operate. Not applicable. Fencine easily constructed. Standard excavatioti and earth Standard excavatioti and earth

tnovitie equipment can readily tnovitie equipment can readily remove soil and sediment. LTTD remove soil and sedimetit. Permitted operatioti already set up witliiti 4i) solid waste landfill located withiti miles of the site. 41) miles of site.

Ease of doing more remedial Easy. Easy. Easy. Easy. action, if needed. .Ability to monitor effectiveness. Easy. Easy. Motiitoritie tiot required after Motiitoritie by US.AF not required

remedial actioti. after remedial actioti. Landtlll monitors utider permit cotiditiotis.

.Ability to obtain approvals and Not applicable. Notie required. Notie required. Notie required. coordination with other .Avaiiabiiity of services and Not applicable. Commercially available Commercially available. Commercially available. equipment. Cost Capital Cost $0 $.M.()()() $49.(too $4.1.1)1)1)

Present Worth Cost of 0«S;M $0 $2.1)1)1) $0 $0 Present Worth Cost $0 $54.not) $49.(too $4.1.not)

Q-^MllBB 18 [rod 18 lb<)"|T.JLBLE6-6 daija hoiiie>1ead AFB -(X's 18. 26. 28. and 2<3 Record of Decision Sheel 2 of 2

-1 20 08 Rev. 0

TABLE 6-7

DETAILED ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATI\ ES ADDRESSING 01^26 GROITNDWATER HOMESTEAD AEB, FEASIBILITY STIT)Y

E\ ALU.ATKW CRTTERJCIN No Eiirther .Action

.ALT. Groundwater Monitoring

.ALT. Intrinsic Remediation

ALT. 0Lli6-l(J Groundwater Collection and Treatment

• Do nolhina • Monitor 5 wells for TCE • Monitor 5 wells for TCE. daugliter products, and nahiral attenuation parameters

• Piuiip at 100 gpni for 5 years • Treat using air siripper • Discharge to canal under NPDES permit • Monitor groiuidwater for .1 years after puni|>ing Is stoqied

OV EJLALL PROTEC TION Human Heallh Prolerdon

EnvlronnienlaJ Prolertion

No protection in tlie short-terni.

No protection required because no unacce()table risk identilied b\ baseline risk assessment.

Protection tlirougli access reslrictions and site management.

Monitors for potential furtlier degradation of groundw ater. .Allow s for Inliuence of natural attenuation processes.

Protection tlirougli access reslrictions and site management.

Monitors for potential furtlier degradation of groundwater. .Allows for inliuence of nahiral attenuation qocesses.

Protection through access restrictions and site management. Permanent qotection after completion of remedial action. Reduces total TCE mass in groundwater.

COMPLLANCE WITH AR.ARS Compliance wiih ARARs

Approprialeness ol waivers

Would not meet chemical sped lie requi rements Not appropriate. None of the six clrcunislances identilied by CERCL.A would be met.

Would not immediately meet chemical specific requirement. Considered to be apprq)rlate since protection Is afforded tlirougli site management and monitoring of potential plume migration.

Would not Immediately meet chemical specific requirement. Considered to be apirrqiriate since protection is alTorded tlirougli site management and monitoring of potential plume migration.

Would not meet chemical specific re<|ulrenient In esliniated5 years. Not required.

LONG TERM EFFECTIA ENESS Masnllude ol residual risk

No reduction of risk to construction w orker exposure to groundwater.

Risk to coiislruction workers mitigated by liislitutlonal controls. .Allows TCE to remain In groiuidwater and nahirally attenuate.

Risk to coiislruction workers mitigated by liislitutlonal controls. .Allows TCE to remain In groundwater and naturally attenuate.

Risk to coiislruction workers mitigated by Instihitlonal controls and decreased over time by activ e remediation of the aquifer.

Adequars and reliabililv ol ronlrois

Need Tor f-vear review

Not applicable

Review would be required to ensure adequate protection of human health and the environment is maintained.

Iiislitutional controls adeqiate and reliable witliln Honieslead .AFB boiuidaries. Groiuidwater monitoring adequate and reliable for tracking TCE over time.

Review would be required to ensure adequate protection of human health and the environment Is maintained.

Inslitiitional controls adeqiate and reliable within Honieslead .AFB boundaries. Nahiral aheiiuatioii processes may not be adequate at reducing TCE concentrations and need to be demoiislrated through monitoring. Review would be required to ensure adequate protection of human health and tlie environnient Is maintained.

Groundwater collection and treatment adequate to contain TCE plume. Reliability to achieve low TCE levels (e.g. MCLs) is poor given body of evidence Ifoni oilier TCE pump and treat sites. Monitoring will prove eti'ecllv eness. Review would be required to ensure adequate protection of human health and the environnient Is nialntained.

REDUCTION OF TM\ Treatmeni process used and material treated

Amoimt destroyed or treated

None.

None.

None.

None by activ e remediation. Contamination at tlie site expected to attenuate over time.

Intrinsic reniediation processed include dispersion, volatilization, blodegradation. adsoqition. and chemical reactions.

None by activ e reniediation. Contanilnatlon at the site expected to attenuate over time.

Transferring TCE from groundwater to the vapor phase using an air siripper.

TCE will be traiisTerred Ifoni groundwater to air.

Reduction ol TMV throu&h treatment

Irreversible treatment

None.

None.

\ olunie and toxicity of TCE expected to gradually reduce over time.

None.

\ ohinie and toxicity of TCE expected to gradually reduce over time.

Blodegradation and chemical reactions are Irreversible.

N'oliuiie of contanilnated media will be reduced as plume shrinks during groundwater extraction. \ olatlllzation Is not Irrev ersible because contaminants are transferred to air.

Q-^MllBB 18 [rod 18 IbO'JT.ABLEe-" daija hoiiie>1ead AFB -(X's 18. 26. 28. and 2<3 Record of Decision Sheel 1 of 2

-1 20 08 Rev. 0

TABLE 6-7

DETAILED ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATI\ ES ADDRESSING 01^26 GROITNDWATER HOMESTEAD AEB, FEASIBILITY STIT)Y

.ALT. OU26-1G ALT. OU26-2G ALT. GU26GG ALT. GU26-1G E\ ALU.ATKW CRTTERJCIN E\ ALU.ATKW CRTTERJCIN

No Eiirther .Action Groundwater Monltorina Intrinsic Remediation Groundwater Collection and Treatment

Redurdon orTMV' (C'oni) None. None. T\pe and quanlit> of redduaJs Not applicable None. remain ins afler d'eadnenl

SHORT TERM EFFECTIVENESS Time required lo achieve remedial (ilbjeclive would not be acliieved in Protection of constnjction workers Protection of corislructlon workers Protection of coristnrction workers achlev ed action objectives (R.AOs) llie short-lenn. achieved Ininiedlately. achieved Immediately. Immediately. Reduction ofTCE to PRGs

estimated after 5 years of active remediation. Protection orcommimltv and workers No action taken. Little risk to coniniunlty because Little risk to community because access to Little risk to community because access to durina remedial acdons. access to Honieslead .AFB Is Homestead .AFB Is restricted. Workers can Honieslead .AFB Is reslrlcted. Workers can be

reslrlcted. Workers can be protected be protected using standard healtli and protected using standard healtli and safety using standard health and safety safety procedures. procedures. procedures.

Environmental impacts during No action taken. None. None. \ ery low coricerifratloris of TCE In emissions remedial acdons. from air stripper.

IMPLEMENTABiLi'n Ability to construct and operate Not applicable. No construction. Monitoring readily No coristnrction. Monitoring readily New extraction and treatment systems easily

Inipleniented. Implemented corislructed (!lperatlori expected to be ditiflcult given liigli mineral content of water.

Ease or doing more remedial action. IT EasT. Easy to a<kl new monitoring wells or Easy to add new monitoring wells or Easy to expand extraction well containment needed. sample for additional parameters. If sample for additional parameters. If sy stern. If needed.

needed. needed. Ability to motiitor efrectiveness Not applicable. MonltoiingTCE levels will provide Monitoring will prove etifectiveness of MoriltoririgTCE levels will prove

early warning If contaminants are natural attenuation and provide early effectiveness of removal and [jrovide early migrating furtlier away from source warning If contaminants are migrating warning If contaminants are migrating frrrtiier area. frrrther away from source area. away from source area.

Abiiitv to obtain approvals and Not applicable. None required. None required NPDES penult obtainable. Previously Issued coordinadon with other agencies for oilier sites on Honieslead .AFB. Availabiiit> of Services and Not applicable. Commercially available Commercially available. Commercially available. equipment.

COST

o

o

o

Capital Cost SO S5".000 S86.000 S162.000 Present Worth Cost ofO&M SO Sl<)2.000 S-IOO.OOO S5.LL000 Present Worth Cosi SO S2i<).000 S-l<)5.000

Q-^MllBB 18 [rod 18 IbO'JT.ABLEe-" daija hoiiie>1ead AFB -(X's 18. 26. 28. and 2<3 Record of Decision Sheel 2 of 2

-1 20 08 Rev. 0

Table 6-8 DETAILED ANALYSIS OE ALTERNATIVES ADDRESSING OU28 SOILS

HOMESTEAD AEB, EEASIBILITV STIT)V

E\',\Ll'AT10N CRITERION •ALT. Ol'2S-2 No furllier action

•ALT. Ol'2S-2 Inslilulional Controls

•ALT. Ol'2S-3 Remove ajul Treat usitie LTTD

•ALT. Ol'2S-4 Remove ajul Lajidfil

Do tiotliitie Access restrictiotis • Remove up to 2 feet of surface soil • Haul ajkl treat at LTTD • Backfill to erade with cleaji till • Reveeetate.

• Remove up to 2 feet of surface soil • Haul ajid dispose at lajidfill • Backfill to eradewith cleaji fill • Reveeetate • Cotifirmatioti eroutuhvater sajiiplitie for local

OVER.ALL PROTECTION Hiininn Henllh Proleclion

Envlronnienln! Proleclion

No protectioti required because tio utiacceptable risk idetitifled by baselitie risk assessment.

No protectioti.

Protectioti tliroueli access restrictions and lotie-temi niajiaeement.

No protectioti. .Allows contajiiiiiation to persist utuler itifluetice of tiatural deeradatioti processes.

Perniajient protectioti at site by reniovitie cotitajiiitiated soils. Permanent protectioti oft-site by deslroyine P.AHs ajul ininiobilizine arsenic lead by reuse in pavement. Perniajietit protectioti by eliniinatine contajiiiiiation sources at site, deslroyitie P.AHs ajid ininiobilizitie arsetiic lead by reuse iti pavenietit.

Perniajient protectioti at site by reniovitie contajiiinated soils. .Adequate protectioti off-site by cotitaitiitiewasle iti pemiitted lajidflll.

Perniajient protectioti at site by reniovitie contajiiinated soils. .Adequate future oft-site protectioti by containinewasle in pemiitted lajidflll.

COMPLIANCE \^^TH AR.ARs Compliance willi .AR.ARs

.Approprialeness of waivers

Would tiot meet chemical specific requirements. Not ajipropriate. Notie of the six circumslances identified by CERCL.A would be met.

Would tiot meet chemical specific requiremetits. Not appropriate. Notie of tlie six circunistajices idetitified by CERCL.A w ould be met.

Meets all .AR.ARs

Not required.

Meets all .AR.ARs

Not required.

LONG TERM Masniliide of residual risk

.Adequacy' and reliability of conlrois

Need for 5-vear review

No reductioti iti risk associated with etivirotimetital exposures to lead iti surface soils. P.AHs arsenic lead in surface soils remain at levels above PRCs.

Not applicable.

Review would be required to etisure adequate protectioti of huniaji health ajid the envirotiment is niaititaitied.

No reductioti in risk associated with etivirotimetital exposures to lead iti surface soils. P.AHs arsenic lead in surface soils remain at levels above PRCrS.

Deed ajid access reslrictiotis ajid lotie-temi oversieht may tiot cotitrol etivirotimetital exposures.

Review would be required to etisure adequate protectioti of huniaji healtli ajid tlie eiivironment is maintained.

Soils cotitaitiitie P.AHs arsetiic lead perniajient ly removed from site. P.AHs destroyed ajid arsenic lead immobilized. No residual risk.

Removal of cotitajiiitiated soils ajid sedinietits is adequate ajid reliable. Incitieratioti is adequate ajid reliable method to destroy P.AHs. .Arsetiic will not be destroyed, but reuse of material iti pavement w ill immobilize tlie arsenic. Not required.

Soils cotitaitiitie P.AHs arsenic lead permanently removed from tlie site ajid cotitaitied iti pemiitted lajidfill. No residual risk. I'S.AF retaitis lotie-temi liability of waste disposal at lajidfill. Removal of contajiiinated soils and sedinietits is adequate and reliable. Disposal at pemiitted landfill is adequate and reliable method to cotitaiti wastes.

Not required.

Q-lMllBB fJitD 18 |rodl8 lb<)"|T.-VBLE6-8 datja tioiiie>tead .AFB 18. 26. 28. and 2<3 Record ol' Decision Stieel 1 of 2

A 20 08 Rev. 0



E\',\Ll',AT10N CRITERION •ALT. Ol'2S-2 .ALT. Ol'2S-2 .ALT. OU2S-3 .ALT. OU2S-4 No furllier action Itisiitutiotial Cotitrols Remove and Treat usitie LTTD Remove and Landfill

REDUCTION OF TMV (Conl) RediiclJon of TMV Ihroiigh None. Notie. Reduces TM\' of P.AHs tliroueh tliennal None. Irenliiienl. destruction and mobility of lead tliroueh

encapsulation stabilizatioti. LTTD is irreversible.

Irreversible IrealiiienI None. Notie. Residual quantities from LTTD are None. Type and qiianlily of residuals Not applicable. Not applicable. expected to be benetlcially reused iti None. reniaining after Irealiiienl. pavemetit processes. Residual quantities

from eticapsulatioti stabilizatioti to be landtllled.

SHORT TERM Time required to aciiieve remedial R.AOs would not be achieve in llie R.AQs would tiot be achieved iti R.AOs could be achieved w ith otie year. R.AOs could be acliieved within action objectives (R.40S) short-term. sliort-temi. otie year. Protection of community and Some comnumity risk itivolved iti workers during remedial No actioti taketi. Litt le risk to commuti ity because transportation to the LTTD. Workers Some comnumity risk itivolved in actions access to Homestead .AFB is can be protected usitie standard healtli transportation to the landtlll.

restricted. Workers can be protected and safety procedures. Workers can be protected usitie usitie standard healtli and safety standard health and safety

Environmental impacts during procedures. Impacts duritie cotistructioti due to dust procedures. remedial actions. Notie. Notie. etnissiotis and ruti-off can be cotitrolled Impacts duritie construction due to

tliroueh construction erosioti cotitrol. dust etnissiotis and run-off can be .Air etnissiotis from LTTD controlled controlled tliroueh construction utuler operatitie pennit. erosioti control. Impacts from

landfill cotitrolled utuler operatitie pennit.

IMPLEMENT.ABILm .Ability to construct and operate Not applicable. Fencitie easily cotistnicted. Standard excavatioti and earth tnovitie Standard excavatioti and earth

equipment can readily remove soil and tnovitie equipment can readily sediment. LTTD operatioti already set remove soil and sediment. up w itliiti 4(1 miles of site. Pennitted solid waste landtlll

located witliiti 4() miles of site. Ease of doing more remedial Easy. Easy. Easy. Easy. action, if needed .Ability to monitor effectiveness Not applicable. Easy. Motiitoritie tiot required after remedial Motiitoritie by US.AF not required

actioti. after remedial actioti. Landtlll monitors utuler pennit cotiditiotis.

.Ability to obtain approvals and Not applicable. Notie required. None required. Notie required. coordination vvitli otiier .Availability of services and Not applicable. Commercially available. Commercially available. Commercially available. equipment. COST Capital Cost $0 $3(1.(1(1(1 $36".()()() $34.*^.()()() Present Worth Cost of 0«S;M $0 $23.()()() $0 $0 Present Worth Cost $0 $.*^3.()()() $36".()()() $34.*^.()()()

Q-^MllBB 18 [rod 18 lb<)"|T.JLBLE6-8 daija hoiiie>1ead AFB -(X's 18. 26. 28. and 2<3 Record of Decision Sheel 2 of 2

-1 20 08 Rev. 0


HOMESTEAD AEB, EEASIBILITV STIT)V EWALl'.ATION CRITERION •ALT. Ol'29-l

No furtlier action .ALT. OU29-2

Inslitutional Controls .ALT. OU29--1

Remove and Treat usitie LTTD .ALT. OU29-4

Remove and Landfill • Do nolliine • .Access reslrictions • Remove up to 2 feet of surface soil

• Haul and treat at LTTD • Backfill to eradewith clean till • Reveeetate.

• Remove up to 2 feet of stirface soil • Haul and dispose at landfill • Backfill to grade witli clean fill • Reveeetate

OVER.4LL PROTECTION Hiininn Heallli Proleclion

Environnienlnl ProleclJon

No proleclion required because no unaccqilable risk identified by baseline risk assessment.

No protection required because no unaccqitable risk identified by baseline risk assessment.

Protection tliroueh access reslrictions and lone-tenn manaeement.

No protection. .Allows contamination to persist under innuence of natural deeradation processes.

Permanent protectioti at site by removitie cotitaniitiated soils. Permanent protectioti oft-site by deslroyine P.AHs. Permanent protectioti by eliniinatine contamination sources at site and deslroyitie P.AHs.

Pennanetit protectioti at site by removitie contaminated soils. .Adequate protectioti oft-site by cotitaitiitie waste iti pemiitted landfill. Pennanent protection at site by removitie contaminated soils. .Adequate ftiture off-site protectioti by containing waste iti pemiitted landfill.

COMPLUNCE WITH .4R.4R.S Compliance Hilh .4R.4R.S

.Approprialeness of Haivers

Would not meet chemical specific requirements. Not appropriate. None of tlie six circumstances identitled by CERCL.A would be met.

Would not meet chemical specitlc requirements. Not appropriate. None of tlie six circumstances identitled by CERCL.A would be met.

Meets all .AR.ARs.

Not required.

Meets all .AR.ARs.

Not required.

LONG TERM Magniludeor residual risk P.AHs in surface soils remain at levels

above PRCis. P.AHs in surface soils and P.AHs arsenic in sediments remain at levels above PRCis.

Soils cotitaitiitie P.AHs permanetitly removed from site. P.AHs destroyed. No residual risk.

Soils cotitaitiitie P.AHs pennanently removed from tlie site and cotitaitied iti pemiitted landfill. No residual risk. US.AF retaitis lotig-temi liability of waste disposal at landfill.

.4dequac\' and reliabiilN' of conlrois

Need for 5-year review

Not applicable.

Review would be required to ensure adequate protection of human healtli and tlie environment is maintained.

Deed and access restrictions and lone-tenn oversight can be adequate and reliable w ith proper manaeement.

Review would be required to ensure adequate protectioti of human health and the etivirotimetit is maititaitied.

Removal of cotitaniitiated soils and sedimetits is adequate and reliable. Incitieratioti is adequate and reliable method to destroy P.AHs. .Arsetiic will tiot be destroyed, but reuse of material iti pavement will immobilize the arsenic.

Not required.

Removnl of cotitaniitiated soils and sediments is adequate and reliable. Disposal at pemiitted landfill is adequate and reliable metliod to cotitaiti wastes.

Not required.

REDUCTION OF TMV TrealinenI process used and inaleriai treated .Amount destroyed or treated

Reduction of TMV through treatment Irreversible treatment Type and quantity of residuals remainins after treatment.

None.

None.

None.

None. Not applicable

Notie.

Notie.

Notie.

Notie. Not applicable

Lower temperature thermal desoqitioti. .An estimated l.3i)i) totis of surface soils cotitaitiitie P.AHs. Reduces TM\' of P.AHs tliroueh tliennal destruction. LTTD is irreversible. .Ail residual quantities are expected to be betieflcially reused iti pavement processes.

Notie.

None.

None.

None. None.

Q-^MllBB 18 [rod 18 IbO'JT.ABLEe-O daija hoiiie>1ead AFB -(X's 18. 26. 28. and 2<3 Record of Decision Sheel 1 of 2

-1 20 08 Rev. 0



E\',\Ll',AT10N CRITERION •ALT. OU29-1 .ALT. Ol'29-2 .ALT. Ol'29--^ .ALT. Ol'29-4 No ftirtlier action Inslitutiotial Cotitrols Remove and Treat usitie LTTD Remove and Landtlll

SHORTTERJM Time required lo achieve remediai R.AOs vvouki not be acliieve in llie R.AOs vvouki tiot be achieved iti R.AOs vvouki not be achieved iti short- R.AOs vvouki not be achieved iti action objectives (R.40s) sliort-lemi. short-temi. tenn. sliort-tenn. Protection of community and workers during remediai No action taketi. Little risk to commutiity because Some commutiity risk itivolved iti Some community risk itivolved in actions access to Homestead .AFB is transportation to tlie LTTD. Workers can transportation to tlie LTTD.

restricted. Workers can be protected be protected usitie standard healtli and Workers can be protected usitie usitie standard health and safety safety procedures. slandard healtli and safety

Environmentai impacts during procedu res. procedures. remediai actions. Notie. Notie. Impacts duritie cotistructioti due to dust Impacts duritie construction due to

etnissiotis and ruti-off can be cotitrolled dust etnissiotis and run-oft'can be tliroueh cotistructioti erosion control. .Air controlled tliroueh conslmction etnissiotis from LTTD controlled utider erosion control. .Air etnissiotis from operatitie permit. LTTD controlled utider operatine

permit. IMPLEMENT.4BILITV .Abiiity to construct and operate Not applicable. Feticitie easily cotislmcted. Standard excavatioti and eartli tnovitie Statidard excavatioti and earth

equipment can readily remove soil and tnovitie equipment can readily sedimetit. LTTD operatioti already set up remove soil and sediment. vvitliiti 41) miles of site. Permitted solid waste landtlll

located vvitliiti 4i) miles of site. Ease of doing more remediai Easv. Easy. Easy. Easy. action, if needed .Abiiity to monitor elTectiveness Not applicable. Easy. Motiitoritie tiot required after remedial Motiitoritie by I'S.AF not required

actioti. after remedial actioti. Landfill monitors utider permit cotiditiotis.

.Abiiity to obtain approvais and Not applicable. Notie required. Notie required. Notie required. coordination with other .Avaiiabiiity of services and Not applicable. Commercially available. Commercially available. Commercially available. equipment. COST Capitai Cost $0 $26.1)1)1) $16.Li)i)i) $14.1.1)1)1) Present Worth Cost of 0«S;M $0 $2.Li)i)i) $0 $0

Present Worth Cost $0 $49.()()() $16.Li)i)i) $14.1.()()()

Q-^MllBB 18 [rod 18 IbO'JT.ABLEe-O daija hoiiie>1ead AFB -(X's 18. 26. 28. and 2<3 Record of Decision Sheel 2 of 2

-1 20 08 Rev. 0

7.0

RESPONSIVENESS SUMAURV

In accordance with the cuirent ROD guidance, this section is reserved for community comments and

the appropriate responses by the BRAC Cleanup Team (BCT) in regards to this ROD.

Q:.^M11 BBRC^DlSRC^DlSSO'DCiC nuljda _ . J 20 <38 Hoiiie>1ead AFB-(:3U>18.26.28 and 20 Record of Decision ' " A Rev. 0

8.0

REFERENCES

.American Cancer Society. 1990. Cancer Facts and Figures - 1990. .Atlanta. G.A. .American Cancer

Society.

Florida .Administrative Code. 1997. Chapter 62-701. "Solid Waste Management Facilities."

Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). 1994. Groundwater Guidance

Concentrations. Division of Water facilities. June.

Elorida Department of Environmental Protection (EDEP). 1995. Soil Cleanup Goals for Elorida.

Division of Waste Management. September.

Geraghty and Miller. Inc. 1993b. Ecological Inventory for Homestead .Air Eorce Base. Elorida.

Geraghty and Miller. Inc.. 1740 Ski Lane. Suite 102. Madison. Wisconsin 53713.

Hilsenbeck. C.E. 1993. EcologicaBurvey of Homestead .Air Eorce Base. Elorida. Report prepared

as part of Elorida Natural .Ai*eas Inventory.

Metropolitan Dade County. Elorida Department of Environmental Resources Management (DERM).

1995. Soil Cleanup Goals for Homestead .Air Reserve Base. Pollution Prevention

Management. March.

IfS. Environmental Protection .Agency (EP.A). 1986a. Guidelines for Carcinogenic Risk .Assessment.

51 FR 33992. September 24.

IfS. Environmental Protection .Agency (EP.A). 1986b. Guidelines for the Health Risk .Assessment

of Chemical Mixtures. 51 FR 34014. September 24.

IfS. Environmental Protection .Agency (EP.A). 1988a. Recommendations and Documentation of

Biological Values for INe in Risk .Assessment. Ihiited States Environmental Protection

.Agency. EP.A 600—87 008.

Q:.^M11 BBRC^DlSRC^DlSSOSDCiC nuljda o i J 2<3 <38 Hoiiie>1ead AFB-(:3U>18.26.28 and 2<3 Record of Decision 8-1 Rev. 0

l^S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1988. Superfund Exposure .Assessment Manual.

OtTice of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) Directive 9285.5-1.

EP.A 540 1-88 001. Washington. D.C. .April.

IfS. Environmental Protection .Agency (EP.A). 1989. Risk .Assessment Guidance for Superfund.

Volume I. Human Health Evaluation. Pail .A (Interim Einal). OtTice of Emergency and

Remedial Response. EP.A 540 1-89 002. Washington. D.C.

IfS. Environmental Protection .Agency (EP.A). 1990. National Oil and Hazardous Substances

Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). 40 CFR Pail 300. 55 FR 8666. March 8.

IfS. Environmental Protection .Agency (EP.A). 1991. Risk .Assessment Guidance for Superfund.

Volume 1: Human Health Evaluation Manual Part B. Development of Risk-Based Preliminaiy

Remediation Goals. Interim. Publication 9285.7-0IB. December.

IfS. Environmental Protection .Agency (EP.A). 1993a. Wildlife Exposure Factors Handbook.

Volumes land 11. EP.A 600 R-93 187a-b. Ihiited States Environmental Protection .Agency.

OtTice of Research and Development. Washington. D.C.

IfS. Environmental Protection .Agency (EP.A). 1994a. Risk-Based Concentration Table. Second

Quarter. 1994. Region 111. Philadelphia. Pennsylvania. .April.

IfS. Environmental Protection .Agency (EP.A). 1994b. EP.A Region IV Risk .Assessment Guidance.

Bulletins, and l^pdates compiled by Elmer .Akin. EP.A Region IV. .Atlanta. Georgia.

IfS. Environmental Protection .Agency (EP.A). 1994c. Revised Interim Soil Lead Guidance for

CERCL.ASites and RCR.ACoirective .Action Facilities. OSWER Directive 9355.4-12. From

Elliot P. Laws. .Assistant .Administrator to Regional .Administrators 1-X. Washington. D.C.

Julv.

Q:.^M11 BBRC^DlSRC^DlSSOSDCiC nuljda o -> J 2<3 <38 Hoiiie>1ead AFB-(:3U>18.26.28 and 2<3 Record of Decision 8-2 Rev. 0

l^S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1995a. Region III. Risk-Based Concentration Table.

July through December. 1995a. EroirRoy L. Smith. Senior Toxicologist to the RBC Table

Mailing List. October.

l^S. Environmental Protection.Agency (EP.A). 1995b. Supplemental Guidance to R.AGs: Region

IV Bulletins - Human Health Risk .Assessment. Waste Management Division. .Atlanta.

Georgia. November.

l^S. Environmental Protection .Agency (EP.A). 1996. Soil Screening Guidance: Technical

Background Document. EP.A 540 R-95 128. Washington. D.C. May.

Woodward-Clyde. 1994. Einal RCR.A Eacility .Assessment for Homestead .Air Eorce Base.

Florida.

Woodward-Clyde. 1995. Einal Confmnation Sampling Report for Homestead .Air Eorce Base.

Florida.

Woodward-Clyde. 1997a. Einal Remedial Investigation Report for Homestead .Air Eorce Base.

Florida.

Woodward-Clvde. 1997b. Draft Einal Eeasibilitv Studv for Homestead .Air Eorce Base. Florida.

Q:.^M11 BBRC^DlSRC^DlSSOSDCiC nuljda o J 2<3 <38 Hoiiie>1ead AFB-(:3U>18.26.28 and 2<3 Record of Decision 0-5 Rev. 0

Date post:	21-Jun-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	3 times
Download:	0 times

EPA Superfund Record of Decision · RE: Final Record of Decision (ROD) signature page. Operable...

Documents