Record of Decision Potential Source of Contamination 51 · The selected remedy for soil contamination addresses the restriction of site access through institutional controls to prevent

Comprehensive Long-term Environmental Action Navy

CONTRACT NUMBER N62467-94-D-0888

Southern Division

Naval Facilities Engineering Command 2155 Eagle Drive

North Charleston, South Carolina 29406

Rev. 4

08/16/05

Record of Decision

for Potential Source of Contamination 51

Naval Air Station Jacksonville Jacksonville, Florida

Contract Task Order 0100

August 2005

Rev. 4 08/16/05

RECORD OF DECISION

FOR POTENTIAL SOURCE OF CONTAMINATION 51

OIL DISPOSAL AREA AND

FIRE FIGHTING TRAINING AREA

NAVAL AIR STATION JACKSONVILLE JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA

COMPREHENSIVE LONG-TERM

ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION NAVY (CLEAN) CONTRACT

Submitted to: Southern Division

Naval Facilities Engineering Command 2155 Eagle Drive

North Charleston, South Carolina 29406

Submitted by: Tetra Tech NUS, Inc. 661 Andersen Drive

Foster Plaza 7 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15220

CONTRACT NUMBER N62467-94-D-0888 CONTRACT TASK ORDER 0100

AUGUST 2005

PREPARED UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF: APPROVED FOR SUBMITTAL BY: _______________________ _______________________ GREGORY S. ROOF, P.E. DEBRA M. HUMBERT TASK ORDER MANAGER PROGRAM MANAGER TETRA TECH NUS, INC. TETRA TECH NUS, INC. JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA PITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANIA

Rev. 4 08/16/05

03JAX0002 v CTO 0100

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION PAGE

PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER AUTHORIZATION ...............................................................................iii ACRONYMS ....................................................................................................................................vii

1.0 DECLARATION OF THE RECORD OF DECISION ............................................................... 1-1 1.1 SITE NAME AND LOCATION................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE ................................................................. 1-1 1.3 ASSESSMENT OF THE SITE .................................................................................. 1-1 1.4 DESCRIPTION OF THE SELECTED REMEDY ......................................................... 1-2 1.5 STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS............................................................................ 1-4 1.6 DATA CERTIFICATION CHECKLIST........................................................................ 1-5 1.7 SIGNATURE AND SUPPORT AGENCY ACCEPTANCE OF REMEDY ....................... 1-6

2.0 DECISION SUMMARY ........................................................................................................ 2-1 2.1 SITE NAME, LOCATION, AND DESCRIPTION ......................................................... 2-1 2.2 SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES.................................................. 2-5 2.2.1 PSC 51 History ........................................................................................................ 2-5 2.2.2 Site Investigations.................................................................................................... 2-7 2.3 HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION..................................................... 2-8 2.4 SCOPE AND ROLE OF REMEDIAL ACTION SELECTED FOR PSC 51..................... 2-9 2.5 SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS ............................................................... 2-9 2.5.1 Geology and Hydrology ............................................................................................ 2-9 2.5.2 Nature and Extent of Contamination........................................................................ 2-12 2.5.3 Current and Potential Future Site Uses ................................................................... 2-49 2.6 SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS................................................................................... 2-49 2.6.1 Human Health Risk Assessment............................................................................. 2-49 2.6.2 Ecological Risk Assessment ................................................................................... 2-52 2.6.3 Basis for Action ..................................................................................................... 2-52 2.7 REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVES FOR PSC 51.................................................... 2-52 2.8 PRELIMINARY REMEDIAL GOALS ........................................................................ 2-53 2.8.1 Soil, Surface Water, and Groundwater PRGs .......................................................... 2-53 2.9 DESCRIPTION OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES .................................................... 2-53 2.9.1 Soil Remedial Alternatives ...................................................................................... 2-55 2.9.2 Groundwater Remedial Alternatives ........................................................................ 2-60 2.10 SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES ............................ 2-66 2.11 SELECTED REMEDY ............................................................................................ 2-67 2.11.1 Summary of Rationale For Remedy Selection.......................................................... 2-67 2.11.2 Remedy Description............................................................................................... 2-70 2.11.3 Summary of Estimated Remedy Costs .................................................................... 2-72 2.11.4 Expected Outcomes of the Selected Remedy .......................................................... 2-73 2.12 STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS.......................................................................... 2-73 2.13 DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES .................................................. 2-73

REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................R-1

APPENDICES

A RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY..............................................................................A-1 B HISTORICAL FIGURES FROM TtNUS RI/FS ...........................................................B-1 C DETAILED COST ESTIMATES OF SELECTED REMEDY ........................................C-1 D TABLE 13-3 MILESTONE OBJECTIVES FOR ALTERNATIVE GW-2 FROM THE

PSC 51 RI/FS..........................................................................................................D-1

Rev. 4 08/16/05

03JAX0002 vi CTO 0100

TABLES

NUMBER PAGE

1-1 Data Certification Checklist................................................................................................... 1-5 2-1 Surface Soil Analytical Detections Summary, Oil Disposal Area............................................ 2-14 2-2 Surface Soil Analytical Detections Summary, Fire Fighting Training Area .............................. 2-19 2-3 TtNUS DPT/Mobile Laboratory Groundwater Analytical Detections Summary ........................ 2-28 2-4 Mobile Laboratory Frequency and Range of Organic Compound Detections in Groundwater .. 2-38 2-5 TtNUS Groundwater Analytical Detections Summary -Organic Constituents ........................... 2-39 2-6 Frequency and Range of Organic Compound Detections in Groundwater.............................. 2-44 2-7 Frequency and Range of Inorganic Compound Detections in Groundwater............................ 2-45 2-8 TtNUS Groundwater Analytical Detections Summary -Organic Constituents ........................... 2-48 2-9 Human Health Risk Assessment Summary.......................................................................... 2-51 2-10 COCs, COPCs, and PRGs ................................................................................................. 2-54 2-11 Explanation of Detailed Analysis Criteria ............................................................................. 2-68 2-12 Summary of Comparison of Soil and Groundwater Cleanup Alternatives ............................... 2-69 2-13 Synopsis of Federal and State ARARs and Guidance Materials for PSC 51........................... 2-75

FIGURES

NUMBER PAGE

2-1 Site Location Map................................................................................................................ 2-2 2-2 Site Map ............................................................................................................................. 2-3 2-3 Estimated Extent of Surface Soil Contamination .................................................................... 2-4 2-4 Estimated Extent of Groundwater COCs ............................................................................... 2-6 2-5 Groundwater Elevation Contour Map .................................................................................. 2-11 2-6 Surface Soil Sampling Locations ......................................................................................... 2-13 2-7 Soil Analytical Results Exceeding Applicable Regulatory Criteria, Oil Disposal Area............... 2-21 2-8 Soil Analytical Results Exceeding Applicable Regulatory Criteria, Former Fire Fighting Area.................................................................................................................................. 2-22 2-9 Groundwater, Surface Water, and Sediment RI Sampling Locations ..................................... 2-25 2-10 RI DPT Locations .............................................................................................................. 2-27 2-11 Land Use Control Boundaries .............................................................................................2-57

Rev. 4 08/16/05

03JAX0002 vii CTO 0100

ACRONYMS

ABB-ES ABB Environmental Services, Inc.

ARARs Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements

AS Air Sparging

AWQC Ambient Water Quality Criteria

bls Below Land Surface

BEI Bechtel Environmental, Inc.

BTEX Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, and Total Xylenes

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liabilities Act

COCs Chemicals of Concern

COPCs Chemicals of Potential Concern

CTO Contract Task Order

DCE Dichloroethene

DPT Direct-Push Technology

DRMO Defense Reutilization and Marketing Office

ERA Ecological Risk Assessment

FAC Florida Administrative Code

FDEP Florida Department of Environmental Protection

FFA Federal Facility Agreement

FFTA Fire Fighting Training Area

FOTW Federally Owned Treatment Works

FS Feasibility Study

ft Foot/Feet

ft2 Square Feet

ft/d Foot (or feet) Per Day

ft/year Foot (or feet) Per Year

g/L Gram(s) per liter

GCTLs Groundwater Cleanup Target Levels

HHRA Human Health Risk Assessment

HI Hazard Index

HLA Harding Lawson Associates

ICR Incremental Cancer Risk

K Hydraulic Conductivity

lbs Pounds

LUCs Land Use Controls

Rev. 4 08/16/05

03JAX0002 viii CTO 0100

ACRONYMS (CONTINUED)

LUCIP Land Use Control Implementation Plan

LUCRD Land Use Control Remedial Design

MCL Maximum Contaminant Level

MCLG Maximum Contaminant Level Goal

mg/kg Milligrams per Kilogram

µg/L Micrograms per Liter

n porosity

NA Not Applicable

NADC Natural Attenuation Default Concentration

NAS Naval Air Station

Navy Department of the Navy

NCP National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan

ND Not Detected

NL Not Listed

NPDES National Pollution Discharge Elimination System

NPL National Priorities List

NPW Net Present Worth

NS Not Sampled

ODA Oil Disposal Area

OH Overhead

O&M Operation and Maintenance

ORC® Oxygen-Release Compound

OU Operable Unit

PAHs Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons

PCBs Polychlorinated Biphenyls

POTW Publicly Owned Treatment Works

PRGs Preliminary Remediation Goals

PSC Potential Source of Contamination

PVC Polyvinyl Chloride

QC Quality Control

RAB Restoration Advisory Board

RAOs Remedial Action Objectives

RBCs Risk-Based Concentrations

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

RI Remedial Investigation

Rev. 4 08/16/05

03JAX0002 ix CTO 0100

ACRONYMS (CONTINUED)

RI/FS Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study

ROD Record of Decision

SAF South Antenna Field

SARA Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986

SCTL Soil Cleanup Target Level

SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act

SPLP Synthetic Precipitation Leaching Procedure

SQAG Sediment Quality Assessment Guidelines

SSFP Scoping Study Field Program

SVOCs Semivolatile Organic Compounds

SWMU Solid Waste Management Unit

TAL Target Analyte List

TBC To Be Considered

TCE Trichloroethene or Trichloroethylene

TCL Target Compound List

TCLP Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure

TtNUS Tetra Tech NUS, Inc.

UCL Upper Confidence Limit

USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

USGS United States Geological Survey

V Horizontal Velocity

VOCs Volatile Organic Compounds

WQBEL Water Quality Based Effluent Limitations

yd3 Cubic Yard

Rev. 4 08/16/05

03JAX0002 1-1 CTO 0100

1.0 DECLARATION OF THE RECORD OF DECISION

1.1 SITE NAME AND LOCATION

NAS Jacksonville occupies 3,896 acres on the west bank of the St. Johns River in southeastern Duval

County, Florida. Potential Source of Contamination (PSC) 51 consists of the contaminated soil and

groundwater identified at the former Fire Fighting Training Area (FFTA) and the former Oil Disposal Area

(ODA) at Naval Air Station (NAS) Jacksonville, Jacksonville, Florida. PSC 51 is located slightly north of

the southern perimeter of NAS Jacksonville, occupying a portion of the South Antenna Field (SAF). PSC

51 has also been identified as Operable Unit (OU) 5 in the USEPA tracking system.

1.2 STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE

This Record of Decision (ROD) presents the selected remedial action for PSC 51 at NAS Jacksonville.

The remedial action was chosen in accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response,

Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), as amended by the Superfund Amendments and

Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986, and the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution

Contingency Plan (NCP) [40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 300]. This decision document was

prepared in accordance with the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) decision

document guidance (USEPA, 1999).

The USEPA and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) concur with the selected

remedy (NAS Jacksonville Partnering Team, 2002).

1.3 ASSESSMENT OF THE SITE

The response action selected by this ROD is necessary to protect the public health and welfare, or the

environment from actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances into the environment. Metals

are present in the soil at PSC 51. The groundwater at PSC 51 has been found to contain volatile organic

compounds (VOCs) and semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs), including such contaminants as

trichloroethene (TCE), benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylene (BTEX). If not addressed by

implementing the response actions selected in this ROD, these contaminants may present an imminent

and substantial endangerment to public health, welfare, or the environment. Unacceptable human health

risks could result from exposure to the soil and surficial aquifer groundwater at PSC 51.

Rev. 4 08/16/05

03JAX0002 1-2 CTO 0100

1.4 DESCRIPTION OF THE SELECTED REMEDY

This ROD is the final action for PSC 51. A Remedial Investigation (RI), Human Health Risk Assessment

(HHRA), an Ecological Risk Assessment (ERA), Feasibility Study (FS), and Proposed Plan have also

been prepared for PSC 51.

The selected remedy for soil contamination addresses the restriction of site access through institutional

controls to prevent exposure to soil at PSC 51, which contains aluminum, antimony, arsenic, barium,

chromium, copper, iron, lead, mercury, nickel, and vanadium. The selected remedy for remediating the

surficial aquifer groundwater contamination at PSC 51 addresses the reduction of petroleum and

chlorinated solvent compounds through natural attenuation, monitoring, and institutional controls. The

selected remedy also includes the monitoring of surface water near PSC 51 to assure that surface water

is not impacted by petroleum and chlorinated solvent compounds found in the groundwater at PSC 51.

The major components of the remedy selected by the Navy and USEPA are as follows:

• Institutional Controls, including Land Use Controls (LUCs) will be monitored, implemented, reported

on and maintained by the Navy for PSC 51 to ensure that the site continues to operate as an

industrial area. The LUCs will be maintained until the concentrations of hazardous substances in the

soil and groundwater are at such levels to allow for unrestricted use and exposure. The objectives of

the LUCs will be to

ü prevent non-industrial development (i.e., prohibit the development and use of property for

residential housing, elementary and secondary schools, child care facilities and playgrounds)

of the PSC 51 area until the contamination is removed,

ü ensure no construction on or excavation of the contaminated soil without special handling

and disposal procedures for the soil (The special procedures shall include at a minimum

obtaining a dig permit that has been reviewed by the station’s environmental division, using

OSHA-trained employees where appropriate, and use of proper analyses and facilities for

soil management.),

ü prevent drilling, excavation, or any activity which would interfere with the remedial or

monitoring systems,

ü ensure no withdrawal of and/or use of the groundwater without FDEP and USEPA

concurrence until cleanup levels are met, and

ü ensure any workers that might potentially be exposed to the contaminated soil or

groundwater at this site are properly trained.

Rev. 4 08/16/05

03JAX0002 1-3 CTO 0100

Continued use and effectiveness of these controls will be verified by regular site inspections. The

administrative measures (e.g., environmental review of all NAS Jacksonville construction projects)

associated with the LUC for PSC 51 will be included in a LUC Remedial Design (LUCRD) document,

which will detail those LUC implementation measures that the station will take to achieve the above-

listed objectives. Once signed, the LUCRD will be a primary document under the FFA and will be

enforceable. The Navy or another party to be designated by the Navy as set out in the LUCRD shall

be responsible for implementing, maintaining, monitoring, reporting on, and enforcing the LUCs.

• COC concentrations in groundwater will be monitored to evaluate decreases in contaminant

concentrations that may result from naturally occurring processes. Surface water quality will be

monitored to verify i f contamination from groundwater migration is occurring. Natural attenuation

parameters will be monitored, to evaluate the groundwater conditions associated with the biological

and other natural processes.

• Groundwater and surface water monitoring reports will be prepared to document the plume

concentrations and natural attenuation conditions. Reports will typically be issued after each

monitoring event.

• Contingency actions will be performed if contaminated groundwater discharges to the unnamed creek

at levels exceeding the PRGs established in this ROD, or if natural attenuation does not effectively

reduce groundwater contaminants. Contingency actions will be implemented through another

CERCLA document.

The Navy estimates the present worth of the selected remedy to be $485,000 over a 30 year period. The

selected remedy must remain in place indefinitely, unless all contaminated surface soil, subsurface soil

and groundwater are removed or subsequent sampling demonstrates they then meet applicable criteria

for unrestricted use of the site.

Site reviews will also be performed every five years to verify the continued adequacy of the proposed

remedy.

A LUCRD will be prepared as the land use component of the Remedial Design. Within 90 days of ROD

signature, the Navy shall prepare and submit to the USEPA for review and approval a LUCRD that shall

contain LUC implementation and maintenance actions, including periodic inspections.

The Navy shall not modify or terminate LUCs, implementation actions, or modify land use at PSC 51

without the approval of USEPA and the FDEP. The Navy shall seek prior concurrence before any

Rev. 4 08/16/05

03JAX0002 1-4 CTO 0100

anticipated action that may disrupt the effectiveness of the LUCs or any action that may alter or negate

the need for LUCs.

The LUCs shall be maintained for as long as they are required to prevent unacceptable exposures to

contaminated soil or groundwater, or to preserve the integrity of the remedy. The Navy or any

subsequent owners shall not modify, delete, or terminate any LUC without USEPA and FDEP

concurrence. The LUCs shall be maintained until the concentrations of hazardous substances in the soils

and groundwater have been reduced to levels allowing for unlimited exposure and unrestricted reuse.

The Navy will be responsible for implementing, inspecting, reporting, and enforcing the LUCs described in

ROD in accordance with the approved LUCRD. Although the Navy may later transfer these procedural

responsibilities to another party by contract, property transfer agreement, or through other means, the

Navy shall retain ultimate responsibility for remedy integrity. Should this LUC remedy fail, the Navy will

ensure appropriate actions are taken to re-establish its protectiveness and may initiate legal action to

either compel action by a third party(ies) and/or to recover the Navy’s costs for remedying any discovered

LUC violation(s).

NAS Jacksonville environmental staff shall conduct all required LUC inspections and take any actions

necessary to correct any observed LUC deficiencies. The Navy will notify the USEPA prior to any

changes in the internal procedures that would affect LUC oversight effectiveness.

1.5 STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS

The selected remedy is protective of human health and the environment, is cost effective, and complies

with federal and state requirements that are legally applicable or relevant and appropriate to remedial

action. The nature of the selected remedy is such that applicable or relevant and appropriate

requirements (ARARs) will eventually be met through monitoring for soil and through monitored natural

attenuation for groundwater. The selected remedy represents the maximum extent to which permanent

solutions and treatment technologies can be used in a practicable manner at this site. Of those

alternatives that are protective of human health and the environment and comply with ARARs, the

selected remedy provides the best balance of trade-offs in terms of the five balancing criteria, while also

considering the statutory preference for treatment. Although the selected remedy does not provide for

treatment as a principal element, reductions of soil and groundwater contaminant concentrations are

expected over time due to natural attenuation processes. Because this remedy would result in soil and

groundwater with contaminant concentrations greater than health-based levels remaining on site, a

review will be conducted every five years until unrestrictive use is achieved to ensure that the remedy

continues to provide adequate protection of human health.

Rev. 4 08/16/05

03JAX0002 1-5 CTO 0100

1.6 DATA CERTIFICATION CHECKLIST

The information required to be included in the ROD is summarized on Table 1-1. These data are

presented in Section 2.0: Decision Summary of this ROD. Additional information, if required, can be

found in the Administrative Record for PSC 51.

TABLE 1-1

DATA CERTIFICATION CHECKLIST

PSC 51 RECORD OF DECISION NAVAL AIR STATION JACKSONVILLE

JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA

Information ROD Reference

Chemicals of Concern (COCs) and their concentrations. Section 2.7.1, Table 2-10, pg. 2-52

Baseline risk represented by the COCs.

Section 2.6, pg. 2-49

Preliminary Remediation Goals (PRGs) established for the COCs.

Section 2.7.1, Table 2-10, pg. 2-52

Current and reasonably anticipated future land and groundwater use scenarios used for risk assessment.

Section 2.5.1, pg. 2-10

Potential land and groundwater uses available at the site as a result of the selected remedy.

Section 2.10.4, pg. 2-72

Estimated capital, operation and maintenance (O&M), and total present worth costs of selected remedy. Discount rate used and timeframe over which these costs are projected.

Section 2.10.3, pg. 2-70

Key factors which lead to the selection of the remedy.

Section 2.10.1, Table 2-11, pg. 2-66

Rev. 4 08/16/05

03JAX0002 2-1 CTO 0100

2.0 DECISION SUMMARY

2.1 SITE NAME, LOCATION, AND DESCRIPTION

NAS Jacksonville, as shown on Figure 2-1, occupies 3,896 acres on the west bank of the St. Johns River

in the southeastern part of Duval County, Florida. The station is approximately nine miles south of

downtown Jacksonville. NAS Jacksonville was commissioned in 1940 to provide facilities for pilot training

and a Navy Aviation Trades School for ground crewmen. The station more than doubled during World

War II in order to provide support for military operations during the war. Since 1951, the facility has been

used for training pilots and ground crewmen while also supporting operational carrier squadrons. In

November 1989, NAS Jacksonville was added to the National Priorities List (NPL).

PSC 51 is located slightly north of the southern perimeter of NAS Jacksonville, occupying a portion of the

SAF as shown in Figure 2-1. The former FFTA and the former ODA, shown on Figure 2-2, are located on

the site. PSC 51 is a relatively flat grass field, gently sloping to the southeast and with an unnamed creek

at the southern boundary of the site.

The soil at PSC 51 is contaminated with metals including aluminum, antimony, arsenic, barium,

chromium, copper, iron, lead, mercury, nickel, and vanadium. At the ODA, the metals arsenic and

vanadium are present at concentrations in excess of FDEP soil cleanup target levels (SCTLs) for direct

residential exposure. All metals are present at concentrations exceeding the FDEP residential SCTLs in

soil near the FFTA. Chemical concentrations in the soil samples were compared to SCTLs, USEPA

Region III Risk-Based Concentrations (RBCs) and basewide background concentrations to define the

extent of soil contamination. The site use was considered industrial; however, the extent of soil

contamination evaluated in the FS was derived using residential criteria. SCTLs and RBCs were used as

“To Be Considered” criteria in the FS.

The volume of soil contamination at the ODA and FFTA was estimated as approximately 1,114 cubic

yards (yd3). The area of soil contamination at PSC 51 is indicated on Figure 2-3 and is assumed to

extend to the water table, which is encountered at approximately 2 ft below land surface (bls). A

conservative estimate for the volume of contaminated groundwater was calculated during the initial RI

activities to be 3,920,600 gallons. This is based on estimates conducted during the RI/FS, with a surface

area of the plume of 59,903 square ft (ft2), plume thickness of 35 ft2, and an assumed porosity (n) of 0.25.

The area of contaminated groundwater at PSC 51 is presented on Figure 2-4.

KnightL

Rev. 4 08/16/05

johnsonj

Rev. 4 08/16/05

johnsonj

Rev. 4 08/16/05

Rev. 4 08/16/05

03JAX0002 2-5 CTO 0100

Past activities at the site have also resulted in VOC contamination of the surficial aquifer groundwater,

including petroleum compounds and chlorinated VOCs and SVOCs.

2.2 SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES

The FFTA and ODA were in operation from 1943 to 1952. In March 1983, an Initial Assessment Study

identified an FFTA at NAS Jacksonville, but misidentified the location as the site of PSC 28, which is in a

different location on NAS Jacksonville [Tetra Tech NUS, Inc. (TtNUS), 2002a]. The FFTA, and ODA were

first identified as a PSC in 1995 during a review of past facility activities in the area. In 1996, an initial site

screening was conducted (TtNUS, 2002a). From March to October 1997, Harding Lawson and

Associates (HLA) collected soil and groundwater samples in support of a Sampling Event Report on

PSC 51. In 1998, Bechtel Environmental Inc. (BEI) excavated radiologically-contaminated and lead-

contaminated soil at the FFTA and ODA (TtNUS, 2002a).

The USEPA placed NAS Jacksonville on the NPL in November 1989. A Federal Facilities

Agreement (FFA) for NAS Jacksonville was signed by the FDEP, USEPA, and the Navy in October 1990.

PSC 51 is one of 55 PSCs that have been identified at NAS Jacksonville.

2.2.1 PSC 51 History

PSC 51 is located in the western portion of the SAF slightly north of the southern perimeter of

NAS Jacksonville. As noted previously, PSC 51 was comprised of two operations areas, the former FFTA

and the former ODA.

The former FFTA was a nearly circular area, approximately 60 ft in diameter, located north of the patrol

road, west of Allegheny Road, and approximately 250-ft northwest of the ODA. The FFTA was formerly

used by the base fire department for firefighter training. This area was also formerly identifiable by its

barren soil and by shards of glass and scrap metal debris scattered throughout. The area has since been

excavated, backfilled, and is no longer as easily identifiable.

The former ODA is a circular area approximately 50 ft in diameter. The area is located north of the patrol

road, west of Allegheny Road, and southeast of the FFTA. According to NAS Jacksonville personnel, the

area was operational from 1946 until 1952 and was used as an area to drain aircraft hydraulic fluids,

fuels, and oils prior to the aircraft being relocated to the Defense Reutilization and Marketing

Office (DRMO) facility located across Highway 17 from NAS Jacksonville. This area, like the FFTA, was

identifiable by its barren soil but has since been excavated and backfilled and is no longer as easily

identifiable.

johnsonj

Rev. 4 08/16/05

Rev. 4 08/16/05

03JAX0002 2-7 CTO 0100

2.2.2 Site Investigations

The following investigations and studies have been conducted in and around PSC 51:

• March 1983 – Initial Assessment Study – Fred C. Hart identified an FFTA, but misidentified the

location as the site of PSC 28 at NAS Jacksonville [ABB Environmental Services, Inc. (ABB-ES),

1995].

• Early 1995 – After a review of past facility activities, ABB-ES first identified this area as a PSC

(ABB-ES, 1995).

• February 1996 – Site Screening of PSC 51. Surface soil samples were collected and analyzed as

part of an initial site screening (TtNUS, 2002a). Results indicated evidence of metal and VOC

contamination in the surface soil.

• March to October 1997 - Sampling Event Report on PSC 51. HLA collected soil and groundwater

samples for analysis. Results of the investigation revealed metal contamination in soil and VOC

contamination in groundwater (TtNUS, 2002a). A radiological survey was conducted during the

sampling event because it was thought that burned aircraft and aircraft parts at the FFTA may have

contained instruments with radium dials. The survey indicated radioactivity at both the FFTA and the

ODA. Included in this effort were two hydrocone groundwater samples collected from south of the

unnamed creek downgradient of the contaminant plume (Q010 and Q011). These samples were

analyzed for VOCs and no analytes were detected in either sample location.

• Early 1998 – Interim Removal Action - As a result of the radiological contaminants detected during

the Sampling Event Report, Bechtel Environmental, Inc. (BEI) excavated the radiologically

contaminated soil at the FFTA and ODA in early 1998. Approximately 1000 yd3 of soil were removed,

resulting in removal of radioactive and lead-bearing soil, as well as VOC contaminated soil. A 20-

gallon drum was found and removed from the ODA during the 1998 excavation. The excavated

areas were then backfilled with clean soil (BEI, 1999). BEI also collected soil and groundwater

samples for use in the RI.

• July 1999 and March 2000 – Additional Radiological Groundwater Sampling Activities – BEI re-

sampled two monitoring wells (MW-51-05 and MW -51-06) for Radium-226 at the request of the

USEPA (TtNUS, 2002a). July 1999 – TtNUS began performing monitoring of the two BEI monitoring

wells in July 1999 for VOCs only. One monitoring event in July 1999 was performed prior to the RI

sampling documented as part of the RI. Concentrations of VOCs were detected in exceedance of

FDEP groundwater cleanup target levels (GCTLs).

Rev. 4 08/16/05

03JAX0002 2-8 CTO 0100

• December 1999 – RI field activities were conducted at PSC 51. Eight monitoring wells were installed

at specified locations to define the horizontal and vertical extents of groundwater contamination.

Groundwater samples were collected from all of the new and existing PSC 51 monitoring wells and

analyzed for Target Compound List (TCL) VOCs and TCL SVOCs, and target analyte list (TAL)

metals. In addition, four surface soil samples were collected and analyzed for TAL metals. Three

surface water and three sediment samples were collected and analyzed for TCL VOCs (TtNUS,

2002a).

• After the initial scope of work was completed and the draft -final RI/FS was issued, the NAS

Jacksonville Partnering Team1 agreed that additional data collection was necessary (NAS

Jacksonville Partnering Team March 6, 2001 meeting minutes). From August 2001 to January 2002,

14 additional soil samples were collected from the ODA and analyzed for arsenic. Twelve soil

samples were collected from the FFTA and analyzed for TAL metals. Two shallow and two deep

monitoring wells were installed downgradient of the groundwater plume on the opposite side of the

unnamed creek, and 21 direct-push technology (DPT) borings were installed to delineate the

contaminant plume at depth. The additional data collection was included in the revised RI/FS for

PSC 51.

• July 2002 – The last field event occurred due to the presence of total chromium in surface soil at the

FFTA that exceeded industrial SCTLs for hexavalent chromium. TtNUS collected three soil samples

in July 2002 for analysis of hexavalent chromium (TtNUS, 2002a) to differentiate total chromium from

hexavalent chromium.

2.3 HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION

Public notices of the availability of the Proposed Plan (TtNUS, 2002b) were placed in the Metro section of

the Florida Times-Union on January 14, 2003. A 30-day comment period was held from January 7, 2003

through February 6, 2003. The results of the RI, the HHRA, ERA, and the remedial alternatives of the FS

(TtNUS, 2002a), and the preferred alternatives of the Proposed Plan (TtNUS, 2002b) were also

presented and discussed at a Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) meeting held in January 2003, during

which comments were solicited from the community. Public comments and the responses to these

comments are presented in the Responsiveness Summary that is provided in Appendix A.

1 NAS Jacksonville Partnering Team members at the time of this ROD include the following

representatives: Anthony Robinson (EFDSOUTH), Bill Raspet (NAS JAX), Peter Dao (USEPA), Jim

Cason (FDEP), Hal Davis (USGS), Greg Roof (TtNUS), Mike Halil (CH2M Hill), and Eric Nuzie (Tier II

Link).

Rev. 4 08/16/05

03JAX0002 2-9 CTO 0100

Documents pertaining to PSC 51 are available to the public at the Information Repository located at the

Jacksonville Public Library, 122 Ocean Street, Jacksonville, Florida. This ROD will become part of the

Administrative Record File.

2.4 SCOPE AND ROLE OF REMEDIAL ACTION SELECTED FOR PSC 51

As with many Superfund sites, there are multiple contaminated sites at NAS Jacksonville. However, this

ROD only addresses contamination found in surface soils, subsurface soils and groundwater at PSC 51

and presents the final response actions selected for that site.

2.5 SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS

Contaminant sources, detected concentrations, fate and transport, contaminated media, and geologic and

hydrogeologic conditions of PSC 51 are discussed in Sections 2.0, 3.0, 5.0, and 6.0 of the PSC 51 RI/FS

Report (TtNUS, 2002a). These site characteristics are summarized in the following paragraphs.

2.5.1 Geology and Hydrology

The geology at NAS Jacksonville is mostly comprised of unconsolidated surficial deposits of

predominantly fine to very fine clastic sediments that range from clean medium- to fine-grained sands, to

silty fine sands, to sandy and silty clay (Fairchild, 1972) overlying thick deposits of phosphatic sands and

clays of the Hawthorn group (Scott, 1988) and limestones and dolomites of the Floridan aquifer systems

(Leve, 1966).

The surface water hydrology at NAS Jacksonville consists of two waterways located near NAS

Jacksonville, the St. Johns River and the Ortega River. The St. Johns River forms the eastern boundary

of NAS Jacksonville. The river is rated by the FDEP as a Class III water body designated for fish and

wildlife propagation and body contact recreational use. The river is influenced by tidal action and can be

considered part of the St. Johns River estuary (NAS Jacksonville, 1990). Based on salinity

measurements taken during the Scoping Study Field Program (SSFP), which ranged from 7.0 to

8.8 grams per liter (g/L), the river water would be classified as marine.

The geology of PSC 51 is characterized by fine to medium grained unconsolidated sands encountered

from the ground surface to depths varying from 2 to 4 ft bls. Silty sand and sandy clay extend from

approximately 6 ft bls to a depth of approximately 35 to 40 ft bls. During DPT operations, a weathered

limestone with some clay was encountered at approximately 35 to 40 ft bls, and an unsaturated clay unit

was encountered at 50 ft bls to a depth of greater than 70 ft bls. Figures 2-5 through 2-7 from the RI/FS

are included in Appendix B.

Rev. 4 08/16/05

03JAX0002 2-10 CTO 0100

The surficial aquifer is predominantly comprised of silty sands from approximately 6 ft bls to

approximately 50 ft bls. Discontinuous clay lenses are also interspersed throughout the surficial aquifer,

which extends approximately 50 ft bls where the Hawthorn formation is encountered. The shallow zone

of the surficial aquifer is unconfined in nature and is typically encountered at a depth of approximately 3 to

4 ft bls. Water table contours, as shown on Figure 2-5, indicate the groundwater flow in the aquifer to be

to the southeast toward the unnamed creek.

In 2001, Tetra Tech installed four wells (MW-11S, MW-12D, MW -13S and MW-14D) in the community

south of the station. These wells and the wells at PSC 51 were used by the USGS to evaluate the

groundwater flow from the area. Using water level information, the United States Geological Survey

(USGS) reported that the water table slopes to the unnamed creek from PSC 51 and from the housing

subdivision to the south. Similar to the water table, the deeper water levels slope toward the creek from

the station and the community. The groundwater flow gradient toward the creek from both the station and

the southern community indicates that the unnamed creek is draining the surficial aquifer to the St. Johns

River. This information is presented in the RI/FS (TtNUS, 2000a).

The groundwater flow velocity was calculated for the surficial aquifer at PSC 51 using the following

formula:

V = k (h1-h2)/L/n

Where:

V = horizontal velocity component of groundwater flow

K = hydraulic conductivity

h1 and h2 = groundwater elevation at arbitrary points 1 and 2, respectively

L = the horizontal distance between arbitrary points 1 and 2

n = Porosity

and

(h1-h2)/L = the average hydraulic gradient (0.009 ft per ft) as calculated using measurements

Groundwater Elevation Contour Map, shown on Figure 2-5.

Hydraulic conductivity (K) was obtained from information provided by the USGS from OU 1 (Davis, 1996)

at NAS Jacksonville, which is located approximately 4,000 ft north-northeast of PSC 51. The hydraulic

conductivity in the surficial aquifer was determined by the USGS using results of a multiple well aquifer

test, at 5 ft per day (ft/d).

A porosity value of 0.3 for sandy clay and silty sand was assumed (Freeze/Cherry, 1979).

johnsonj

Rev. 4 08/16/05

Rev. 4 08/16/05

03JAX0002 2-12 CTO 0100

The December 1999 groundwater elevation values from monitoring wells MW-02 and MW-08S, and the

horizontal distance between the two wells were used to calculate the hydraulic gradient.

Based on the above values, the velocity of shallow groundwater at PSC 51 is 0.15 ft/d or 54.75 ft per

year (ft/year) toward the southeast. This calculated value is influenced by the more severe gradient near

the creek.

The vertical gradient of groundwater at a site can be inferred from the difference in the groundwater

elevation between adjacent wells with screen intervals set at different depths in the aquifer. The directions

of the gradients between the shallow and deep wells indicate that the water in the deeper part of the

surficial aquifer is discharging to the creek.

2.5.2 Nature and Extent of Contamination

This section summarizes the results of the sampling activities supporting the RI. Specifically, this section

summarizes the nature and extent of impact to soil, groundwater, surface water, and sediment.

2.5.2.1 Soil

The initial RI scope of work included the collection and analysis of four surface soil samples near the

southeastern edge of the ODA excavation. The samples were only analyzed for TAL metals. In the fall

and winter of 2001, 14 additional surface soil samples were collected from the ODA and analyzed for

arsenic only. Twelve surface soil samples were collected from the FFTA at the same time and analyzed

for TAL metals. In July 2002, three soil samples were collected from soil sample locations SS22, SS26A,

and SS28A at the FFTA and analyzed for hexavalent chromium. Figure 2-6 presents the surface soil

sample locations at PSC 51. Table 2-1 presents the summary of detections found in the ODA surface soil

samples. Table 2-2 presents the summary of detections found in the soil samples from the FFTA.

The NAS Jacksonville Partnering Team reviewed the results of the surface soil analyses to evaluate the

need for potential future action. Part of this evaluation included considering potential future uses for the

property. The team determined that the property would likely remain as controlled access undeveloped

land, but may be converted to industrial uses. It was then determined that potential future remedial

actions should achieve industrial exposure criteria, which was then designated as the primary regulatory

criteria for evaluation purposes.

Surface soil exceedances at the ODA and the FFTA, are shown on Figures 2-7 and 2-8, respectively.

Two metals, arsenic and lead, were detected in excess of the FDEP industrial SCTL values at the FFTA,

and lead was detected in excess of this criteria at the ODA. Due to the low frequency of reported

johnsonj

Rev. 4 08/16/05

TABLE 2-1

SURFACE SOIL ANALYTICAL DETECTIONS SUMMARYOIL DISPOSAL AREA

RECORD OF DECISIONNAVAL AIR STATION JACKSONVILLE

JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDAPAGE 1 OF 5

Sample ID, Date, and Depth

INORGANICS (mg/kg) mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg

Aluminum 72,000/*/*** 78,000/2,000,000 1,340 2580 2010 6410 5800

Antimony 26/240/5 31/820 None Listed 0.29 U 0.45 0.33 0.31 U

Arsenic 0.8/3.7/29 0.43/3.8 0.8 0.48 B 0.75 2.6 3.7

Barium 110/87,000/1,600 5,500/140,000 11.2 1.6 8.1 25.7 21

Cadmium 75/1300/8 39/1,000 None Listed 0.02 U 0.33 2.2 0.27

Calcium None Listed None Listed 2,360 92.7 U 433 465 345

Chromium 210/410(1) 12,000/3,100,000(2) 6.6 5.4 7.8 16 9.6

Cobalt 4,700/110,000/*** 1,600/41,000 None Listed 0.08 U 0.28 U 0.93 0.83

Copper 110/76,000/*** 3,100/82,000 5.8 0.55 U 29.5 8.4 4 U

Iron 23,000/480,000/*** 23,000/610,000 852 228 1090 6400 9620

Lead 400/920/*** None Listed 14.4 3.3 35.4 188 62.8

Magnesium None Listed None Listed 99.8 21 U 66.8 U 471 479

Manganese 1,600/22,000/*** 11,000/290,000 99.8 1.7 U 9.5 10.1 5.9

Mercury 3.4/26/2.1 None Listed None Listed 0.05 0.06 0.04 0.01

Nickel 110/28,000/130 1,600/41,000 11 0.47 U 2.6 2.2 1.8

Potassium None Listed None Listed None Listed 21.8 U 41.3 209 161

Vanadium 15**/7,400/980 550/14,000 3.8 1.8 2.4 12.8 15.1

Zinc 23,000/560,000/6,000 23,000/610,000 15.2 2 U 10.9 19.2 7.1

See notes at end of table.

0-1ft

FDEP SCTLs Residential/Industrial/

Leaching

S004S001 S002

12/17/1999Detected Constituent

S003

12/17/1999 12/17/199912/17/1999

USEPA Region III RBCs Residential/

Industrial

NAS Jacksonville Background Soil Concentrations

0-1ft 0-1ft 0-1ft

TABLE 2-1 (CONTINUED)






Aluminum 72,000/*/*** 78,000/2,000,000 1,340 NA NA NA NA

Antimony 26/240/5 31/820 None Listed NA NA NA NA

Arsenic 0.8/3.7/29 0.43/3.8 0.8 0.34 3.4 4.3 2.0

Barium 110/87,000/1,600 5,500/140,000 11.2 NA NA NA NA

Cadmium 75/1300/8 39/1,000 None Listed NA NA NA NA

Calcium None Listed None Listed 2,360 NA NA NA NA

Chromium 210/410(1) 12,000/3,100,000(2) 6.6 NA NA NA NA

Cobalt 4,700/110,000/*** 1,600/41,000 None Listed NA NA NA NA

Copper 110/76,000/*** 3,100/82,000 5.8 NA NA NA NA

Iron 23,000/480,000/*** 23,000/610,000 852 NA NA NA NA

Lead 400/920/*** None Listed 14.4 NA NA NA NA

Magnesium None Listed None Listed 99.8 NA NA NA NA

Manganese 1,600/22,000/*** 11,000/290,000 99.8 NA NA NA NA

Mercury 3.4/26/2.1 None Listed None Listed NA NA NA NA

Nickel 110/28,000/130 1,600/41,000 11 NA NA NA NA

Potassium None Listed None Listed None Listed NA NA NA NA

Vanadium 15**/7,400/980 550/14,000 3.8 NA NA NA NA

Zinc 23,000/560,000/6,000 23,000/610,000 15.2 NA NA NA NA


Detected ConstituentSS07

10/10/2001 10/10/200110/10/2001


Industrial



Leaching

SS08SS05

0-1ft0-1ft

SS06

10/10/2001

0-1ft 0-1ft









Arsenic 0.8/3.7/29 0.43/3.8 0.8 0.35 2.3 0.84 0.27 U

Barium 110/87,000/1,600 5,500/140,000 11.2 NA NA NA NA





Copper 110/76,000/*** 3,100/82,000 5.8 NA NA NA NA

Iron 23,000/480,000/*** 23,000/610,000 852 NA NA NA NA





Nickel 110/28,000/130 1,600/41,000 11 NA NA NA NA



Zinc 23,000/560,000/6,000 23,000/610,000 15.2 NA NA NA NA


0-1ft


Leaching

SS14SS09 SS10


SS13

10/10/2001 10/10/200110/10/2001


Industrial


0-1ft 0-1ft 0-1ft









Arsenic 0.8/3.7/29 0.43/3.8 0.8 0.34 0.48 0.38 1.8

Barium 110/87,000/1,600 5,500/140,000 11.2 NA NA NA NA





Copper 110/76,000/*** 3,100/82,000 5.8 NA NA NA NA

Iron 23,000/480,000/*** 23,000/610,000 852 NA NA NA NA





Nickel 110/28,000/130 1,600/41,000 11 NA NA NA NA



Zinc 23,000/560,000/6,000 23,000/610,000 15.2 NA NA NA NA


Detected ConstituentSS17

10/10/2001 10/10/200110/10/2001


Industrial



Leaching

SS19SS15

0-1ft0-1ft

SS16

10/10/2001

0-1ft 0-1ft







Aluminum 72,000/*/*** 78,000/2,000,000 1,340 NA NA

Antimony 26/240/5 31/820 None Listed NA NA

Arsenic 0.8/3.7/29 0.43/3.8 0.8 0.24 0.34

Barium 110/87,000/1,600 5,500/140,000 11.2 NA NA

Cadmium 75/1300/8 39/1,000 None Listed NA NA

Calcium None Listed None Listed 2,360 NA NA

Chromium 210/410(1) 12,000/3,100,000(2) 6.6 NA NA

Cobalt 4,700/110,000/*** 1,600/41,000 None Listed NA NA

Copper 110/76,000/*** 3,100/82,000 5.8 NA NA

Iron 23,000/480,000/*** 23,000/610,000 852 NA NA

Lead 400/920/*** None Listed 14.4 NA NA

Magnesium None Listed None Listed 99.8 NA NA

Manganese 1,600/22,000/*** 11,000/290,000 99.8 NA NA

Mercury 3.4/26/2.1 None Listed None Listed NA NA

Nickel 110/28,000/130 1,600/41,000 11 NA NA

Potassium None Listed None Listed None Listed NA NA

Vanadium 15**/7,400/980 550/14,000 3.8 NA NA

Zinc 23,000/560,000/6,000 23,000/610,000 15.2 NA NA

SCTLs taken from Table II; Florida Administrative Code (FAC) 62-777; August 1999 mg/kg - milligrams per kilogramRBCs taken from USEPA Region III RBC Table, dated 4/13/00. U - below laboratory detection limitB - Constituent also detected in a quality control (QC) blank. NA - Not analyzed* Contaminant is not a health concern for this default exposure scenario (FDEP, 1999). Bolded numbers indicate regulatory criteria exceedances.** Direct Exposure value based on acute toxicity considerations (FDEP, 1999).

USEPA Region III RBCs Residential/ Industrial


0-1ft0-1ft


Leaching

Notes: (1) The chromium FDEP SCTL is for hexavalent chromium. (2) The laboratory analysis performed was for total chromium, which does not have a Region III RBC. There are Region III RBCs for Chromium III (12,000/3,100,000)and Chromium IV (230.6100).

*** Leachability values may be derived using the Synthetic Precipitation Leaching Procedure (SPLP) Test to calculate site-specific SCTLs or may be determined using Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) in the event oily wastes are present (FDEP, 1999).

SS20 SS29


10/10/2001

TABLE 2-2

SURFACE SOIL ANALYTICAL DETECTIONS SUMMARYFIRE FIGHTING TRAINING AREA



INORGANICS (mg/kg)

Aluminum 72,000/* 78,000/2,000,000 1,340 1460 75700 79200 21400 56400 2230

Antimony 26/240 31/820 None Listed 0.37 46.7 J 32.5 J 3.0 J 21.6 J 0.37 U

Arsenic 0.8/3.7 0.43/3.8 0.8 0.25 U 6.1 J 2.2 2.3 2.7 0.26 U

Barium 110/87,000 5500/140,000 11.2 9.6 271 319 52.2 110 12.4

Beryllium 120/800 160/4100 None Listed 0.24 0.86 U 0.80 J 0.22 J 0.28 J NA

Cadmium 75/1300 39/1000 None Listed 0.21 21.8 24.0 J 4.0 J 10.7 J NA

Calcium None Listed None Listed 2,360 161 6510 8550 1480 1870 157

Chromium 210/410(1) 12,000/3,100,000(2) 6.6 3.9 U 1280 1180 206 559 6.4 J

Chromium (hexavalent)(3) 210/410(1) 12,000/3,100,000(2) None Listed NA 3.3 UJ 3.0 UJ NA 3.0 UJ NA

Cobalt 4700/110,000 1600/41,000 None Listed 0.09 U 9.6 J 9.3 2.6 5.5 NA

Copper 110/76000 3100/82,000 5.8 28.7 7310 6760 1710 3920 11.0 J

Iron 23,000/480,000 47,000/1,200,000 852 350 40400 19000 14900 32400 NA

Lead 400/920 None Listed 14.4 12.0 1130 1190 315 691 4.2 J

Magnesium None Listed None Listed 99.8 20.2 997 1290 J 478 J 418 J 49.0 J

Manganese 1600/22,000 1600/41,000 18 10.4 891 705 J 172 J 576 J NA

Mercury 3.4/26 None Listed None Listed 0.02 5.4 0.91 J 0.33 J 2.6 J NA

Nickel 110/28,000 1600/41,000 11 3.1 544 362 216 178 4.4

Potassium None Listed None Listed None Listed 30.5 U 94.9 284 222 172 NA

Selenium 390/10,000 390/10,000 None Listed 0.30 U 3.7 J 2.4 J 0.61 U 0.89 U NA

Silver 390/9100 390/10,000 None Listed 0.10 U 7.5 J 10.4 3.0 J 5.2 J NA

Sodium None Listed None Listed 288 14.5 B 47.2 U 110 61.6 44.0 NA

Vanadium 15**/7,400 550/14,000 3.8 1.7 15.1 10.2 20.5 11.3 NA

Zinc 23,000/560,000 23,000/610,000 15.2 6.6 876 878 244 687 NA


Detected ConstituentFDEP SCTLs

Residential/Industrial


Industrial



SS21 SS22

0-1 ft0-1 ft

10/10/2001 10/11/2001

SS26A

11/26/2001

0-1 ft

SS30

0-1 ft

1/7/200211/26/2001 11/26/2001

SS27A

0-1 ft

SS28A

0-1 ft


SURFACE SOIL ANALYTICAL DETECTIONS SUMMARYFIRE FIGHTING TRAINING AREA



INORGANICS (mg/kg)

Aluminum 72,000/* 78,000/2,000,000 1,340 21400 34500 NA NA NA NA

Antimony 26/240 31/820 None Listed 6.3 14.6 NA NA NA NA

Arsenic 0.8/3.7 0.43/3.8 0.8 3.1 2.2 J 2.1 1.6 2.5 J 1.1

Barium 110/87,000 5500/140,000 11.2 54.3 108 NA NA NA NA

Beryllium 120/800 160/4100 None Listed NA NA NA NA NA NA

Cadmium 75/1300 39/1000 None Listed NA NA NA NA NA NA

Calcium None Listed None Listed 2,360 1300 2630 NA NA NA NA

Chromium 210/410(1) 12,000/3,100,000(2) 6.6 188 J 362 J 313 J 377 J 225 J 22.1 J

Chromium (hexavalent)(3) 210/410(1) 12,000/3,100,000(2) 6.6 NA NA NA NA NA NA

Cobalt 4700/110,000 1600/41,000 None Listed NA NA NA NA NA NA

Copper 110/76000 3100/82,000 5.8 1060 J 2360 J 2350 J 2840 J 1310 J 85.8 J

Iron 23,000/480,000 47,000/1,200,000 852 NA NA NA 19100 22200 4090

Lead 400/920 None Listed 14.4 214 J 366 J NA 776 J 246 J 21.0 J

Magnesium None Listed None Listed 99.8 823 J 926 J 690 J 957 J 1070 J 406 J

Manganese 1600/22,000 1600/41,000 18 NA NA NA NA NA NA

Mercury 3.4/26 None Listed None Listed NA NA NA NA NA NA

Nickel 110/28,000 1600/41,000 11 80.6 146 145 165 67.8 12.0

Potassium None Listed None Listed None Listed NA NA NA NA NA NA

Selenium 390/10,000 390/10,000 None Listed NA NA NA NA NA NA

Silver 390/9100 390/10,000 None Listed NA NA NA NA NA NA

Sodium None Listed None Listed 288 NA NA NA NA NA NA

Vanadium 15**/7,400 550/14,000 3.8 29.8 16.5 18.4 16.5 26.9 NA

Zinc 23,000/560,000 23,000/610,000 15.2 NA NA NA NA NA NANotes:(1) The chromium FDEP SCTL is for hexavalent chromium. NA = Not Analyzed

* Contaminant is not a health concern for this default exposure scenario (FDEP, 1999).

** Direct Exposure value based on acute toxicity considerations (FDEP, 1999).

SCTLs taken from Table II; FAC 62-777; August 1999 J = concentration was estimated Bolded numbers indicate regulatory criteria exceedances.

RBCs taken from USEPA Region III Criteria U - below laboratory detection limit

(2) The laboratory analysis performed was for total chromium, which does not have a Region III RBC. The Region III RBCs for Chromium III are listed.

(3) Chromium (hexavalent) samples were collected on 07/16/02

Detected ConstituentFDEP SCTLs

Residential/Industrial


Industrial



1/7/2002

SS34SS33

1/7/2002

SS31

1/7/2002

SS32

1/7/2002 1/7/2002

SS35 SS36

0-1 ft0-1 ft

1/7/2002

0-1 ft 0-1 ft 0-1 ft 0-1 ft

johnsonj

2-21

johnsonj

Rev. 4 08/16/05

johnsonj

2-22

johnsonj

Rev. 4 08/16/05

Rev. 4 08/16/05

03JAX0002 2-23 CTO 0100

exceedances, statistical evaluation of the data was conducted to characterize the data set as a whole, to

determine if the site as a whole, posed an environmental risk by exceeding the industrial SCTL or USEPA

RBC values. Four statistical tools were used to perform this characterization: descriptive statistics, box

and whisker plots, histograms and discordance test. The results of these statistical analyses are

summarized below:

FFTA

Arsenic: Only one arsenic result was greater than the cleanup goal of 3.8 mg/kg.

Although this value (6.1 mg/kg at SS22) was shown by the discordance test to be a

statistical outlier at greater than 95 percent confidence relative to the rest of the data set

even without removing this outlier value, the 95 percent upper confidence limit (UCL) of

2.98 mg/kg is below the regulatory criteria and the data set is normally distributed (as

seen by the Wcalc value exceeding the Wtest value on the histogram). Based on this

evaluation, arsenic concentrations at the site conform to the FDEP industrial criteria.

Lead: Two lead concentrations were greater than the cleanup goal of 920 mg/kg (1,130

mg/kg at SS22 and 1,190 mg/kg at SS26A). Neither of these results are outliers, the

data set is normally distributed, and the 95 percent UCL of 685 mg/kg is below the

Florida criteria of 920 mg/kg. Based on this evaluation, lead concentrations at the site

conform to the FDEP industrial criteria.

ODA

Arsenic: Three arsenic concentrations exceeded the industrial criteria of 3.8 mg/kg (4.2

mg/kg at 51B00302, 4.3 mg/kg at SS07, and 17 mg/kg at JX00934). The highest value of

17 mg/kg is an extreme value and a statistical outlier with much greater than 99 percent

confidence according to the discordance test. It skews the data set so it is not normally

distributed, but rather a lognormal distribution. Even without removing this extreme value

from the data set the lognormal 95 percent UCL of 2.69 mg/kg is below the regulatory

criteria of 3.8 mg/kg. Based on this evaluation, arsenic concentrations at the site conform

to the FDEP industrial criteria.

Lead: One lead concentration greater than the criteria of 920 mg/kg (1,030 mg/kg at

51B00402). Although this was shown by the discordance test to be a statistical outlier at

greater than 99 percent confidence relative to the rest of the data set even without

removing this outlier value, the 95 percent normal UCL of 256 mg/kg is less than the

regulatory criteria of 920 mg/kg. Although the data set is not normally distributed but

rather lognormally distributed, even the lognormal 95 percent UCL of 628 mg/kg is below

Rev. 4 08/16/05

03JAX0002 2-24 CTO 0100

the regulatory criteria of 920 mg/kg. Based on this evaluation, lead concentrations at the

site conform to the FDEP industrial criteria.

Total chromium exceeded the FDEP industrial SCTL value for hexavalent chromium (410 mg/kg) at three

locations at the FFTA (SS22, SS26A, and SS28A) (see Table 2-2). To determine if the chromium

detected was in the form of hexavalent chromium, additional sampling and analysis was performed at

these locations for hexavalent chromium. Hexavalent chromium was not detected in the subsequent

samples. Since hexavalent chromium was not sampled for in the other locations where the total

chromium detections exceeded the residential criterion for hexavalent chromium (see figure 2-8),

chromium is considered a COC in soil.

Even though the FDEP SCTLs (typically more conservative than USEPA soil criteria) are not ARARs,

they were used as To Be Considered (TBC) criteria to screen the extent of soil contamination at PSC 51

per agreement by the NAS Jacksonville Partnering Team members. USEPA Region III RBCs were also

used to evaluate the nature and extent of soil contamination at the site. Three metal compounds, arsenic,

cadmium and cobalt have lower residential RBCs than SCTLs. The eventual soil delineation was based

on chemical concentrations exceeding residential criteria. The SCTLs are not being applied as ARARs,

instead are being used as a conservative criteria to establish LUC extents.

2.5.2.2 Surface Water

For the initial RI activities, the NAS Jacksonville Partnering Team agreed to sample three points in the

unnamed creek south of PSC 51. Three surface water samples were collected and analyzed for TCL

VOCs only on December 17, 1999. One additional sample (SW on Figure 2-4) was collected and

analyzed by a mobile laboratory during additional RI activities in September 2001. The additional surface

water sample was analyzed by the mobile laboratory for BTEX, TCE, 1,2-DCE (cis and trans), vinyl

chloride, and naphthalene to determine COC concentrations in the creek in closer proximity to the

groundwater plume.

The locations of the four surface water samples analyzed for TCL VOCs are shown on Figure 2-9. The

creek is the primary receptor of groundwater from PSC 51. Of the TCL VOCs analyzed, only 2-butanone,

which is a common laboratory solvent, was detected in one sample 0.7J µg/L. This detection was

reported by the laboratory as an estimated value and could be a result of 2-butanone being used in the

laboratory. No other VOCs were detected in the surface water samples. The concentration of the

detected 2-butanone was less than the FDEP surface water criteria (120,000 µg/L). It was determined

that the presence of this contaminant at such a low concentration would not present a significant

environmental risk. It was later discovered that the groundwater in some of the monitoring wells

johnsonj

Rev. 4 08/16/05

Rev. 4 08/16/05

03JAX0002 2-26 CTO 0100

positioned upgradient of the creek also contained 2-butanone, resulting in the possibility that the

contaminated groundwater migration into the creek is responsible for the detection of the contaminant in

the single surface water sample.

2.5.2.3 Sediment

Sediment samples from PSC 51 were collected at the same locations as the aforementioned initial

surface water samples shown in Figure 2-9. Sediment sample SD004 was shown to contain 2-butanone

at 5.7 µg/kg, but no other VOCs were detected. Since 2-butanone was also detected in the groundwater,

it is possible that the contaminated groundwater migration into the creek is contributing to the single

detection in the sediment. There are no Sediment Quality Assessment Guidelines (SQAGs) for 2-

butanone.

2.5.2.4 Groundwater

Groundwater beneath PSC 51 was evaluated in a series of investigative phases including sampling via

DPT with mobile laboratory analyses and multiple rounds of monitoring well installations and sampling.

The locations of the groundwater samples collected from monitoring wells at PSC 51 are shown on

Figure 2-9. The locations of DPT sample locations are shown on Figure 2-10. Groundwater samples

collected from the monitoring wells were analyzed for TCL VOCs, SVOCs, and TAL metals during the

initial RI assessment activities, and analyzed for the TCL VOCs detected during the first round of

sampling, and naphthalene during the DPT phase of assessment activities.

The DPT/mobile laboratory groundwater analytical results are presented in Table 2-3. The frequency and

range of organics detected during the DPT phase of activities is summarized on Table 2-4. A summary of

groundwater organic analytical results from PSC 51 monitoring wells is provided on Table 2-5.

Frequency and range of detection for organic constituents in groundwater from monitoring wells is

presented in Table 2-6. The results of inorganic compounds detected in PSC 51 monitoring wells are

presented on Table 2-7. The estimated extent of groundwater COCs at PSC 51 is presented on

Figure 2-4. Two-dimensional and three-dimensional visualization of individual groundwater COCs can be

reviewed in figures from the RI/FS for PSC 51 found in Appendix B.

A total of 15 VOCs were detected in PSC 51 groundwater. Of these, seven VOCs (benzene, 1,2-DCE,

TCE, vinyl chloride, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes) were detected as exceedances of MCLs and

FDEP GCTLs. The highest frequency of detections exceeding GCTLs were obtained from samples

collected in the vicinity of the ODA and in downgradient areas north of the unnamed creek.

johnsonj

Rev. 4 08/16/05

TABLE 2-3

TtNUS DPT/MOBILE LABORATORY GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL DETECTIONS SUMMARYPSC 51


JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDAPAGE 1 OF10

Regulatory Criteria DPT ID, Depth, and Sample Analysis Date

Vinyl Chloride 1 2 17 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U

Trans-1,2-DCE 100 100 5 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U

cis-1,2-DCE 70 70 75 1 U 1 U 1 U 64.3 1 U 1 U

Benzene 1 5 240 1 U 1 U 1 U 69.9 1 U 1 U

TCE 3 5 63 1 U 1 U 1 U 28.5 1 U 1 U

Toluene 40 1000 470 1 U 1 U 1 U 3.5 1 U 1 U

Ethylbenzene 30 700 85 1 U 1 U 1 U 25.2 1 U 1 U

Xylenes (Total) 20 10000 380 1 U 1 U 1 U 55.1 1 U 1 U

Naphthalene 20 NL 120 1.2 1 U 1 U 66.0 1 U 1 U


DPT-7-40'

10/1/2001 10/1/20019/25/2001

DPT-7-30'DPT-6-39' DPT-7-10'FDEP GCTLs

(µg/L)

USEPA MCLs (µg/L) 9/28/2001

Constituent

9/28/2001

DPT-6-30'

9/25/2001

DPT-6-10'

9/28/2001

DPT-6-20'





Regulatory Criteria DPT ID, Depth, and Sample Date

Vinyl Chloride 1 2 5 U 1 U 1 U 12 1 U 1 U 1 U


cis-1,2-DCE 70 70 7.4 1 U 1 U 29.4 1 U 1 U 1 U

Benzene 1 5 160 1 U 1 U 65.7 1 U 1 U 1 U

TCE 3 5 78 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U

Toluene 40 1000 70 1 U 1 U 3.3 1 U 1 U 1 U

Ethylbenzene 30 700 29 1 U 1 U 13.3 1 U 1 U 1 U

Xylenes (Total) 20 10000 92 1 U 1 U 22 1 U 1 U 1 U

Naphthalene 20 NL 64 1 U 1 U 31.9 1 U 1 U 2.4


Constituent

10/1/2001

DPT-8-40'

9/25/2001

DPT-8-10'

10/1/2001

DPT-8-30' DPT-9-10' DPT-9-20'FDEP GCTLs

(µg/L) 9/27/2001

USEPA MCLs (µg/L)

DPT-9-39'

9/27/2001 9/27/20019/27/2001

DPT-9-30'






Vinyl Chloride 1 2 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U


cis-1,2-DCE 70 70 1 U 1 U 13.0 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U

Benzene 1 5 1.1 1 U 4.4 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U

TCE 3 5 1 U 1 U 5.8 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U

Toluene 40 1000 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U

Ethylbenzene 30 700 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U

Xylenes (Total) 20 10000 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U

Naphthalene 20 NL 1 U 2.6 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U


DPT-11-20' DPT-11-30'

9/27/2001

DPT-12-10'

9/27/2001 9/27/20019/27/2001

DPT-11-35'Constituent

9/25/2001

DPT-11-10'

9/26/2001

DPT-10-20'

9/27/2001

DPT-10-30'FDEP GCTLs

(µg/L)

USEPA MCLs (µg/L)






Vinyl Chloride 1 2 1 U 1 U 1 U 37.3 11.9 - -

Trans-1,2-DCE 100 100 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U - -

cis-1,2-DCE 70 70 1 U 1 U 1 U 8.2 5.7 - -

Benzene 1 5 1 U 1 U 1 U 35.1 12.9 - -

TCE 3 5 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 6.9 - -

Toluene 40 1000 1 U 1 U 1 U 1.3 1 U - -

Ethylbenzene 30 700 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U - -

Xylenes (Total) 20 10000 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U - -

Naphthalene 20 NL 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U - -


Constituent

9/27/2001

DPT-12-32'

9/27/2001

DPT-12-20'

9/27/2001


(µg/L) 9/27/2001

USEPA MCLs (µg/L)

DPT-13-39'

10/1/2001 10/1/20019/27/2001

DPT-13-30'






Vinyl Chloride 1 2 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 2


cis-1,2-DCE 70 70 27 3.3 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U

Benzene 1 5 1.1 3.3 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U

TCE 3 5 9.4 2.3 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U

Toluene 40 1000 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1.6

Ethylbenzene 30 700 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1.7

Xylenes (Total) 20 10000 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 9.2

Naphthalene 20 NL 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1.8 1.0


DPT-15-20' DPT-15-30'

9/27/2001

DPT-16-6'

9/27/2001 9/26/20019/27/2001


9/27/2001

DPT-15-10'

9/27/2001

DPT-14-10'

9/27/2001


(µg/L)

USEPA MCLs (µg/L)






Vinyl Chloride 1 2 1 U 1 U 1 U 5.7 10.4 1 U 1 U


cis-1,2-DCE 70 70 1.3 1 U 1 U 3.0 10.4 5.6 3.8

Benzene 1 5 1 U 1 U 1 U 1.0 11.7 13.1 12.3

TCE 3 5 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 2.3 4.1 2.4

Toluene 40 1000 1 U 1.0 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U


Xylenes (Total) 20 10000 1 U 4.1 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U

Naphthalene 20 NL 1 U 1.4 1 U 1.7 1 U 1.4 1.7


Constituent

9/26/2001

DPT-16-40'

9/26/2001

DPT-16-20'

9/26/2001


(µg/L) 9/26/2001

USEPA MCLs (µg/L)

DPT-18-20'

9/27/2001 9/27/20019/27/2001

DPT-18-10'






Vinyl Chloride 1 2 - - 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U

Trans-1,2-DCE 100 100 - - 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U

cis-1,2-DCE 70 70 - - 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 21.4

Benzene 1 5 - - 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 9.4

TCE 3 5 - - 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 3.8

Toluene 40 1000 - - 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U

Ethylbenzene 30 700 - - 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U

Xylenes (Total) 20 10000 - - 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U

Naphthalene 20 NL - - 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1.4


DPT-19-20' DPT-19-30'

9/26/2001

DPT-20-9'

9/26/2001 9/25/20019/26/2001


10/1/2001

DPT-19-10'

10/1/2001

DPT-18-30'

9/26/2001


(µg/L)

USEPA MCLs (µg/L)






Vinyl Chloride 1 2 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U

Trans-1,2-DCE 100 100 2.8 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1.0

cis-1,2-DCE 70 70 110 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 35.8

Benzene 1 5 44.0 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 14.8

TCE 3 5 1.1 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 4.4

Toluene 40 1000 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U

Ethylbenzene 30 700 13.9 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 4.0

Xylenes (Total) 20 10000 18 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1.8

Naphthalene 20 NL 28.5 1 U 1 U 1 U 4.6 1 U 10.4


Constituent

9/28/2001

DPT-21-30'

9/26/2001

DPT-21-6'

9/28/2001


(µg/L) 9/28/2001

USEPA MCLs (µg/L)

DPT-23-6'

9/28/2001 9/26/20019/26/2001

DPT-22-20'






Vinyl Chloride 1 2 1 U 1 U 1 U 7.4 1 U 1 U 1 U


cis-1,2-DCE 70 70 1 U 1 U 1 U 21.8 1 U 1 U 1 U

Benzene 1 5 1 U 1 U 1 U 15.3 1 U 1 U 1 U

TCE 3 5 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U

Toluene 40 1000 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U


Xylenes (Total) 20 10000 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U

Naphthalene 20 NL 1 U 1 U 1 U 1.3 1 U 1 U 1 U


DPT-24-6' DPT-24-20'

9/26/2001

DPT-24-40'

9/28/2001 9/28/20019/28/2001


9/28/2001

DPT-23-40'

9/28/2001

DPT-23-20'

9/28/2001


(µg/L)

USEPA MCLs (µg/L)






Vinyl Chloride 1 2 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U

Trans-1,2-DCE 100 100 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U

cis-1,2-DCE 70 70 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U

Benzene 1 5 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U

TCE 3 5 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U

Toluene 40 1000 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U

Ethylbenzene 30 700 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U

Xylenes (Total) 20 10000 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U

Naphthalene 20 NL 1 U 1 U 1.1 1 U 1 U 1 U

Notes:U - below laboratory detection limit Bold values exceed regulatory critera.

J - estimated value - = none detected

NL - not listed MCLs-Maximum Contaminant Levels

all units are micrograms per liter (µg/L)

FDEP GCTLs (µg/L)

USEPA MCLs (µg/L) 9/28/2001

Constituent

9/28/2001

DPT-26-6'

9/28/2001

DPT-25-10'

9/28/2001

DPT-25-20'

9/28/20019/28/2001

DPT-26-39'DPT-26-20' DPT-26-30'

Rev. 408/16/05

TABLE 2-4

MOBILE LABORATORY FREQUENCY AND RANGE OF ORGANIC COMPOUND DETECTIONS IN GROUNDWATER

PSC 51RECORD OF DECISION

NAVAL AIR STATION JACKSONVILLEJACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA

PAGE 1 OF 1

Analyte/CompoundFrequency of

Detection1

Range of Detected

Concentrations

Arithmetic Mean of Positive Detections2

Volatile Organic Compounds (µg/L)cis-1,2-DCE 24/80 1.3 to 110 19.9trans-1,2-DCE 2/80 1.0 to 2.8 1.9Benzene 23/80 1.0 to 240 33.2Ethylbenzene 8/80 1.7 to 85 22.3Toluene 7/80 1.0 to 470 78.7TCE 14/80 1.1 to 78 15.3Vinyl chloride 10/80 1.9 to 37.3 10.8Xylenes (total) 9/80 1.8 to 380 65.2

Semivolatile Organic Compounds (µg/L)Naphthalene 22/80 1.0 to 120 16.0

Notes:1Frequency of detection is the number of groundwater samples in which the analyte was detected divided by the total number of samples analyzed.2The mean of detected concentrations is the arithmetic mean of all samples in which the analyte was detected. It does not include those samples in which the analyte was not detected.

Data set summarized above includes groundwater samples taken from monitoring wells DPT-03 through DPT-05, MW-04, MW-05, MW-06, MW-08S, MW-09I, MW-10D, MW-13S, MW-14D, and DPT borings DPT-6 through 26 (including all depths) during the additional RI field investigation activities conducted from in September 25, 2001 to October 1, 2001.

03JAX0002 2-38 CTO 0100

Rev. 408/16/05

TABLE 2-5

TtNUS GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL DETECTIONS SUMMARY - ORGANIC CONSTITUENTSPSC 51



Regulatory Criteria Well ID and Sample Date

VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (µg/L)

1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 1.3 NL 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U NS

1,1-DCE 7 7 0.25 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U NS

1,2-Dichloroethane 3 5 0.33 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U NS

1,2-DCE (mixture) 63 NL 4.9 0.94 J 1 U 1 U 1 U NS

2-Butanone 4,200 NL 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U NS

4-Methyl-2-Pentanone 560 NL 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U NS

Acetone 700 NL 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U NS

Benzene 1 5 1.3 1.6 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U

Bromodichloromethane 0.6 100 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U NS

Carbon Disulfide 700 NL 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 0.14 NS

Chloroform 5.7 100 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U NS

Chloromethane 2.7 NL 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U NS

cis-1,2-DCE 70 70 NA NA NA NA NA 1 U

Ethylbenzene 30 700 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U

Methylene Chloride 5 NL 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U NS

Toluene 40 1000 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U

Trans-1,2-DCE 100 100 NA NA NA NA NA 1 U

TCE 3 5 1.2 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U

Vinyl Chloride 1 2 2.9 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 1 U

Xylenes (Total) 20 10000 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U

SEMIVOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (µg/L)

2,4-Dimethylphenol 140 NL 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U NS

2-Methylnaphthalene 20 NL 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U NS

Naphthalene 20 NL 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 1 U

POLYNUCLEAR AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS (µg/L)

1-Methylnaphthalene 20 NL 2 U 2 U 2.1 U 2 U 2 U NS

2-Methylnaphthalene 20 NL 2 U 2 U 2.1 U 2 U 2 U NS

Indeno(1,2,3-cd)Pyrene 0.2 NL 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.05 J 0.1 U 0.1 U NS

Naphthalene 20 NL 2 U 2 U 2.1 U 2 U 2 U NS


Constituent

12/21/1999

MW-51-06

12/17/1999

MW-51-05FDEP GCTLs (µg/L)

USEPA MCLs (µg/L) 9/26/200112/14/1999

DPT-03

12/14/1999 12/15/1999

DPT-01 DPT-02

03JAX0002 2-39 CTO 0100

Rev. 408/16/05





Regulatory Criteria


1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 1.3 NL 1 U NS 1 U NS 1 U

1,1-DCE 7 7 1 U NS 1 U NS 1 U

1,2-Dichloroethane 3 5 1 U NS 1 U NS 1 U

1,2-DCE (mixture) 63 NL 1.1 NS 2 NS 1 U

2-Butanone 4,200 NL 10 U NS 10 U NS 10 U

4-Methyl-2-Pentanone 560 NL 10 U NS 10 U NS 10 U

Acetone 700 NL 10 U NS 10 U NS 10 U

Benzene 1 5 1 U 1 U 6.2 8.2 1 U

Bromodichloromethane 0.6 100 1 U NS 1 U NS 1 U

Carbon Disulfide 700 NL 1.1 NS 1 U NS 1 U

Chloroform 5.7 100 1 U NS 1 U NS 1 U

Chloromethane 2.7 NL 2 U NS 2 U NS 2 U

cis-1,2-DCE 70 70 NA 1 U NA 3.5 NA

Ethylbenzene 60 700 1 U 1 U 0.77 J 1 U 1 U

Methylene Chloride 5 NL 1 U NS 1 U NS 1 U

Toluene 40 1000 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U

Trans-1,2-DCE 100 100 NA 1 U NA 1 U NA

TCE 3 5 0.097 J 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U

Vinyl Chloride 1 2 2 U 1 U 2.6 1.9 2 U

Xylenes (Total) 20 10000 1 U 1 U 2.3 1 U 1 U


2,4-Dimethylphenol 140 NL 10 U NS 10 U NS 10 U

2-Methylnaphthalene 20 NL 10 U NS 10 U NS 10 U

Naphthalene 20 NL 10 U 1 U 10 U 1 U 10 U


1-Methylnaphthalene 20 NL 2 U NS 2 U NS 2 U

2-Methylnaphthalene 20 NL 2 U NS 0.57 J NS 2 U

Indeno(1,2,3-cd)Pyrene 0.2 NL 0.1 U NS 0.1 U NS 0.1 U

Naphthalene 20 NL 2 U NS 0.69 J NS 2 USee notes at end of table.

12/16/199912/17/1999 12/15/1999

FDEP GCTLs (µg/L)

Constituent MW-02USEPA MCLs (µg/L)

Well ID and Sample Date

9/27/2001 9/28/2001

DPT-04 DPT-05

03JAX0002 2-40 CTO 0100

Rev. 408/16/05






12/16/1999 9/28/2001 12/15/1999 9/28/2001


1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 1.3 NL 5 U NS 1 U NS

1,1-DCE 7 7 1.2 J NS 0.25 J NS

1,2-Dichloroethane 3 5 5 U NS 1 U NS

1,2-DCE (mixture) 63 NL 64 NS 3.8 NS

2-Butanone 4,200 NL 50 U NS 10 U NS

4-Methyl-2-Pentanone 560 NL 50 U NS 10 U NS

Acetone 700 NL 50 U NS 10 U NS

Benzene 1 5 120 2.7 3.4 4.9

Bromodichloromethane 0.6 100 5 U NS 1 U NS

Carbon Disulfide 700 NL 5 U NS 1 U NS

Chloroform 5.7 100 5 U NS 1 U NS

Chloromethane 2.7 NL 10 U NS 2 U NS

cis-1,2-DCE 70 70 NA 1.3 NA 9.2

Ethylbenzene 60 700 20 1 U 1 U 1 U

Methylene Chloride 5 NL 5 U NS 1 U NS

Toluene 40 1000 2.8 J 1 U 1 U 1 U

Trans-1,2-DCE 100 100 NA 1 U NA 1 U

TCE 3 5 4.7 J 1 U 2.7 2.8

Vinyl Chloride 1 2 10 U 1 U 2 U 1 U

Xylenes (Total) 20 10000 20 1 U 1 U 1 U


2,4-Dimethylphenol 140 NL 2.8 J NS 10 U NS

2-Methylnaphthalene 20 NL 20 NS 10 U NS

Naphthalene 20 NL 31 1.4 10 U 1 U




Indeno(1,2,3-cd)Pyrene 0.2 NL 0.1 U NS 0.1 U NS

Naphthalene 20 NL 30 NS 2 U NSSee notes at end of table.

MW-05Constituent FDEP GCTLs (µg/L)

USEPA MCLs (µg/L)

MW-04

03JAX0002 2-41 CTO 0100

Rev. 408/16/05

TABLE 2-5(CONTINUED)





12/16/1999 9/27/2001 12/22/1999 9/26/2001 12/22/1999


1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 1.3 NL 1 U NS 1 U NS 1 U NS

1,1-DCE 7 7 0.2 J NS 1 U NS 1 U NS

1,2-Dichloroethane 3 5 1 U NS 1 U NS 1 U NS

1,2-DCE (mixture) 63 NL 5.8 NS 3.2 NS 1 U NS

2-Butanone 4,200 NL 10 U NS 10 U NS 10 U NS

4-Methyl-2-Pentanone 560 NL 10 U NS 10 U NS 10 U NS

Acetone 700 NL 10 U NS 10 U NS 10 U NS

Benzene 1 5 11 27.8 4 J 1 U 1 U 1 U

Bromodichloromethane 0.6 100 1 U NS 1 U NS 1 U NS

Carbon Disulfide 700 NL 1 U NS 1 U NS 0.36 J NS

Chloroform 5.7 100 1 U NS 1 U NS 1.4 NS

Chloromethane 2.7 NL 2 U NS 2 U NS 2 U NS

cis-1,2-DCE 70 70 NA 14.6 NA 1.4 NA 1 U

Ethylbenzene 30 700 1.4 6.1 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U

Methylene Chloride 5 NL 1 U NS 1 U NS 1 U NS

Toluene 40 1000 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U

Trans-1,2-DCE 100 100 NA 1 U NA 1 U NA 1 U

TCE 3 5 0.13 J 1 U 1.1 1 U 1 U 1 U

Vinyl Chloride 1 2 1.5 J 2.3 2.2 1 U 2 U 1 U

Xylenes (Total) 20 10000 1 4.2 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U


2,4-Dimethylphenol 140 NL 10 U NS 10 U NS 10 U NS

2-Methylnaphthalene 20 NL 10 U NS 10 U NS 10 U NS

Naphthalene 20 NL 1.7 J 3.5 10 U 2.4 10 U 1 U


1-Methylnaphthalene 20 NL 0.44 J NS 2 U NS 2 U NS

2-Methylnaphthalene 20 NL 0.91 J NS 2 U NS 2 U NS

Indeno(1,2,3-cd)Pyrene 0.2 NL 0.1 U NS 0.1 U NS 0.1 U NS

Naphthalene 20 NL 1.4 J NS 2 U NS 2 U NS


FDEP GCTLs (µg/L)

USEPA MCLs (µg/L)

Constituent

9/26/2001

MW-06 MW-08S MW-09I

03JAX0002 2-42 CTO 0100

Rev. 408/16/05






MW-13S MW-14D

12/21/1999 9/26/2001 9/27/2001 9/27/2001


1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 1.3 NL 1 U NS NS NS

1,1-DCE 7 7 1 U NS NS NS

1,2-Dichloroethane 3 5 1 U NS NS NS

1,2-DCE (mixture) 63 NL 1 U NS NS NS

2-Butanone 4,200 NL 2.5 J NS NS NS

4-Methyl-2-Pentanone 560 NL 0.79 J NS NS NS

Acetone 700 NL 21 J NS NS NS

Benzene 1 5 2 J 4.8 1 U 1 U

Bromodichloromethane 0.6 100 1 U NS NS NS

Carbon Disulfide 700 NL 13 NS NS NS

Chloroform 5.7 100 0.86 J NS NS NS

Chloromethane 2.7 NL 2 U NS NS NS

cis-1,2-DCE 70 70 NA 1.5 1 U 1 U

Ethylbenzene 30 700 0.17 J 1 U 1 U 1 U

Methylene Chloride 5 NL 0.27 J NS NS NS

Toluene 40 1000 1.7 1 U 1 U 1 U

Trans-1,2-DCE 100 100 NA 1 U 1 U 1 U

TCE 3 5 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U

Vinyl Chloride 1 2 2 U 1 U 1 U 1 U

Xylenes (Total) 20 10000 2.3 1 U 1 U 1 U


2,4-Dimethylphenol 140 NL 10 U NS NS NS

2-Methylnaphthalene 20 NL 10 U NS NS NS

Naphthalene 20 NL 10 U 1 U 1 U 1 U




Indeno(1,2,3-cd)Pyrene 0.2 NL 0.1 U NS NS NS

Naphthalene 20 NL 2 U NS NS NS

Notes:

U - below laboratory detection limits NA - not analyzed for this constituent

J - estimated value Bold values exceed regulatory criteria.

NL - not listed µg/L - micrograms per liter

NS - not sampled

Constituent FDEP GCTLs (µg/L)

USEPA MCLs (µg/L)

MW-10D

03JAX0002 2-43 CTO 0100

Rev. 408/16/05

TABLE 2-6

FREQUENCY AND RANGE OF ORGANIC COMPOUND DETECTIONS IN GROUNDWATERPSC 51




Detection1

Range of Detected

Concentrations

Arithmetic Mean of Positive

Detections2

Volatile Organic Compounds (µg/L)1,1-DCE 4/14 0.25 to 1.2 0.481,2-Dichloroethane 1/14 0.33 0.331,2-DCE 8/14 0.94 to 64 10.722-Butanone 1/14 2.5 2.504-Methyl-2-pentanone 1/14 0.79 0.79Acetone 1/14 21 21.0Benzene 8/14 1.3 to 120 18.69Carbon disulfide 4/14 0.14 to 13 3.65Chloroform 2/14 0.86 to 1.4 1.13Ethylbenzene 4/14 0.17 to 20 5.59Methylene chloride 1/14 0.27 0.27Toluene 2/14 1.7 to 2.8 2.25TCE 6/14 0.097 to 4.7 1.65Vinyl chloride 4/14 1.5 to 2.9 2.30Xylenes (total) 4/14 1 to 20 6.25

Semivolatile Organic Compounds (µg/L)2,4-Dimethylphenol 1/14 2.8 2.82-Methylnaphthalene 1/14 20 20Naphthalene 2/14 1.7 to 31 16.35

Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (µg/L)1-Methylnaphthalene 2/14 0.44 to 10 5.222-Methylnaphthalene 3/14 0.57 to 18 6.49Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 1/14 0.05 0.05Naphthalene 3/14 0.69 to 30 10.7

Notes:1Frequency of detection is the number of groundwater samples in which the analyte was detected divided by the total number of samples analyzed.2The mean of detected concentrations is the arithmetic mean of all samples in which the analyte was detected. It does not include those samples in which the analyte was not detected. Estimated (J) values between the method reporting limit and the equipment detection capabilities were included in this calculation.

Data set summarized above include groundwater samples taken from monitoring wells MW-51-05, MW-51-06, DPT-01 through DPT-05, MW-02, MW-04, MW-05, MW-06, MW-08S, MW-09I, W-10D during the RI field investigation activities conducted from December 14, 1999 through December 21, 1999.

03JAX0002 2-44 CTO 0100

Rev. 408/16/05

TABLE 2-7

FREQUENCY AND RANGE OF INORGANIC COMPOUND DETECTIONS IN GROUNDWATERPSC 51




Detection1

Range of Detected

Concentrations

Arithmetic Mean of Positive

Detections2

Inorganics (µg/L)Aluminum 11/14 109 to 3,190 735Barium 14/14 26.6 to 126 64.7Cadmium 2/14 2.6 to 2.9 2.75Calcium 14/14 980 to 112,000 22,753.6Chromium 2/14 2.8 to 3.0 2.9Copper 7/14 1.7 to 8 4.23Iron 14/14 154 to 5,560 1,425Lead 2/14 1.8 to 4.2 3.0Magnesium 14/14 803 to 33,300 4,532Manganese 11/14 14.3 to 119 44.61Nickel 9/14 1.3 to 4.3 3.14Potassium 14/14 521 to 7,060 2,553Sodium 14/14 4,470 to 19,600 11,415Vanadium 8/14 0.51 to 6.5 2.11

Notes:

Data set summarized above include groundwater samples taken from monitoring wells MW-51-05, MW-51-06, DPT-01 through DPT-05, MW-02, MW-04, MW-05, MW-06, MW-08, MW-09, and MW-10 during the RI field investigation, December 1999.

1Frequency of detection is the number of groundwater samples in which the analyte was detected divided by the total number of samples analyzed.2The mean of detected concentrations is the arithmetic mean of all samples in which the analyte was detected. It does not include those samples in which the analyte was not detected.

03JAX0002 2-45 CTO 0100

Rev. 4 08/16/05

03JAX0002 2-46 CTO 0100

A total of three SVOC/polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) compounds were detected in

groundwater at PSC 51. Naphthalene was the only contaminant that was detected in excess of FDEP

GCTLs. Naphthalene was detected as an exceedance in the vicinity of the ODA. Its presence is

consistent with the historical use of the ODA for the disposal of fluids from aircraft. The extent of impact

is restricted to the shallow part of the surficial aquifer in the immediate vicinity of the ODA. Vertical

profiling with the DPT and mobile laboratory identified the ARAR exceedances in the upper 20 ft bls only.

The Navy (and the NAS Jacksonville Partnering Team) understands from the RI information that water

from this aquifer has not been and is not accessed or used by the station. Shallow groundwater that is

impacted at PSC 51 is traditionally not used for potable water. The station has not installed water

production wells in this area. Once the LUC is in place, it will prohibit accessing this water, and the water

will not be used as potable water until after the contaminants are removed. In addition, this groundwater

is anticipated to be intercepted by the creek, which is the station’s border to the south, and should not be

available to off-site receptors.

Fourteen inorganic compounds were reported in groundwater samples collected at PSC 51. Of these

compounds, three metals (aluminum, iron, and manganese) were detected at levels exceeding FDEP

GCTLs, but did not exceed the NAS Jacksonville base-wide background screening values.

Both fuel-related VOC constituents (BTEX) and chlorinated solvent VOC constituents (TCE, cis-1,2-DCE,

and vinyl chloride) were detected at PSC 51. Maximum detections were associated with the ODA, which

is consistent with the uses of the FFTA and the ODA. The detected levels were within an order of

magnitude or less of their GCTLs, indicating that these constituents may be degradable via natural

attenuation. The distribution of the constituents indicated that the ODA served as the primary source for

groundwater contamination at PSC 51 prior to the excavation of the impacted soils.

The lateral extent of the VOC constituents has been defined with the downgradient extent limited by the

unnamed creek to the southeast of the ODA. Analysis of groundwater samples collected from the

monitoring wells installed beyond the creek (MW-13S and MW-14D on Figure 2-9) did not show any

detections of the COCs detected at PSC 51. The vertical extent of the VOC constituents are contained in

the upper 20 ft of the surficial aquifer at PSC 51, which terminates at an extensive limestone and clay

unit, preventing continued vertical migration of the constituents.

The VOC distribution is consistent with the USGS model for groundwater flow at PSC 51, which shows

that in the vicinity of the ODA, groundwater flow is characterized by a southeasterly horizontal gradient

and a downward vertical gradient. This flow condition has served to transport constituents to the

southeast and to deeper intervals of the surficial aquifer. Nearing the creek, a vertical upward gradient

exists, indicating the unnamed creek is the primary receptor for groundwater from the PSC 51. As

Rev. 4 08/16/05

03JAX0002 2-47 CTO 0100

mentioned earlier, monitoring of surface water indicated only one detection of a VOC constituent

(2-butanone) at a level less than applicable surface water standards, indicating that VOCs in groundwater

are not currently degrading the quality of water in the unnamed creek (TtNUS, 2002a). Additionally, no

COCs were detected in MW-13S and MW-14D, which were installed beyond the creek to the south.

Benzene concentrations are highest near the former ODA and are significantly lower in the wells in the

vicinity of the unnamed creek. MW-04 was previously sampled in 1997 as part of a site screening effort

performed by ABB-ES. The concentrations of benzene, and 1,2-DCE have decreased between 1997 and

1999. (See Table 2-8.) The reduction is likely due to the excavation of impacted soils from the ODA

(removal of source) in 1997/1998 and natural attenuation of COCs in the groundwater at the site.

The groundwater plume is an irregular shape with the leading edge to the southeast in the same direction

as the groundwater flow path, as shown on Figure 2-4. The largest plume footprints are the benzene and

the vinyl chloride plumes. Figures 5-3 through 5-18 from the RI/FS are included in Appendix B and

illustrate the VOC contaminant distribution in groundwater. Except for benzene, the other constituents

were not detected in excess of their MCLs or GCTLs at depths below 20 ft bls. No contaminants were

detected in wells on the opposite side of the unnamed creek from the site.

Per U.S. Geological Survey Evaluation of groundwater flow, the unnamed tributary is the receiving body

of water for all groundwater at the site. Therefore, offsite migration of COCs in the groundwater is not

expected as all groundwater migrating away from PSC 51 is expected to enter the creek.

2.5.2.5 Summary of Soil and Groundwater Contamination

Soil contamination has been defined in the RI/FS by samples where the concentrations of COCs were in

excess of residential SCTLs/Region III RBCs. The horizontal extent of soil contamination was defined to

less than industrial criteria and is assumed to extend to the water table. Groundwater contamination at

the site was defined by samples with concentrations of COCs in excess of GCTLs/MCLs. Horizontally,

groundwater contamination is defined by the monitoring well network shown on Figure 2-9 except to the

south. The leading edge of the contamination is beyond MW-8S. However, the groundwater in the

surficial aquifer beneath PSC 51 discharges into the unnamed creek south of the site. Surface water

samples at PSC 51 provide the downgradient control points for this groundwater plume. The vertical

extent of groundwater contamination has been defined to a depth of approximately 20 ft bls across most

of the site. Analytical results from groundwater samples collected from wells south of the creek confirm

that no contamination extends beyond the creek to the south. The figures from the RI/FS are included in

Appendix B.

Rev. 408/16/05

TABLE 2-8

TtNUS GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL DETECTIONS SUMMARY ORGANIC CONSTITUENTS

PSC 51RECORD OF DECISION


PAGE 1 OF 1


4/8/1997


1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 1.3 NL 10 U 5 U

1,1-DCE 7 7 1 J 1.2 J

1,2-Dichloroethane 3 5 10 U 5 U

1,2-DCE (mixture) 63 NL 81 64

2-Butanone 4,200 NL 10 U 50 U

4-Methyl-2-Pentanone 560 NL 10 U 50 U

Acetone 700 NL 10 U 50 U

Benzene 1 5 130 120

Bromodichloromethane 0.6 100 10 U 5 U

Carbon Disulfide 700 NL 10 U 5 U

Chloroform 5.7 100 10 U 5 U

Chloromethane 2.7 NL 10 U 10 U

Ethylbenzene 60 700 17 20

Methylene Chloride 5 NL 10 U 5 U

Toluene 40 1000 2 J 2.8 J

TCE 3 5 10 U 4.7 J

Vinyl Chloride 1 2 10 U 10 U

Xylenes (Total) 20 10000 33 20


2,4-Dimethylphenol 140 NL 2 J 2.8 J

Naphthalene 20 NL 26 31

1-Methylnaphthalene 20 NL

2-Methylnaphthalene 20 NL 17 20

Indeno(1,2,3-cd)Pyrene 0.2 NL 10 U


1-Methylnaphthalene 20 NL 10

2-Methylnaphthalene 20 NL 18

Indeno(1,2,3-cd)Pyrene 0.2 NL 0.1 U

Naphthalene 20 NL 30 Notes:U - below laboratory detection limits NA - not analyzed for this constituentJ - estimated value Bold values exceed regulatory criteria.NL - not listed µg/L - micrograms per liter

NA

NA

26

NA NA

NA

NA

Constituent FDEP GCTLs (µg/L)

USEPA MCLs (µg/L)

MW-04

12/16/1999

03JAX0002 2-48 CTO 0100

Rev. 4 08/16/05

03JAX0002 2-49 CTO 0100

2.5.3 Current and Potential Future Site Uses

PSC 51, including the groundwater beneath the site, is not currently used by NAS Jacksonville. Should

the status of the site change, potential future uses for PSC 51 are limited to industrial land use. Any other

use (e.g., residential land use) would potentially require additional remedial action. In addition, shallow

groundwater beneath the site is not used nor is it planned for future use.

2.6 SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS

HHRAs and ERAs were completed to determine if the risk associated with the contaminant

concentrations was acceptable using current standard protocols.

2.6.1 Human Health Risk Assessment

The HHRA considered exposures to future construction workers, current/future maintenance workers,

future occupational workers, current/future adolescent trespassers, current/future adult trespassers,

hypothetical future child residents, and hypothetical future adult residents. There are two criteria

evaluated in accordance with the standard HHRA: carcinogenic effects (cancer risk) and non-

carcinogenic effects (non-cancer risk). Cancer risk is reported in terms of an incremental cancer risk

(ICR). USEPA deems an ICR range of 10-6 (1 in one million) to 10-4 (1 in 10,000) to be acceptable but the

State of Florida requires that an ICR target of 10-6 be met. Non-cancer risk is reported in terms of Hazard

Quotient (HQ) and Hazard Index (HI). Both USEPA and the State of Florida have set an HQ or HI limit of

one.

For carcinogens, risks are generally expressed as the incremental probability of an individual developing

cancer over a lifetime as a result of exposure to the carcinogen. Excess lifetime cancer risk is calculated

from the following equation:

Risk = CDI x SF

where: risk = a unitless probability (e.g., 2 x l0-5) of an individual developing cancer

CDI = chronic daily intake averaged over 70 years (mg/kg-day)

SF = slope factor, expressed as (mg/kg-day)-1.

These risks are probabilities that usually are expressed in scientific notation (e.g., 1 x 10-6). An excess

lifetime cancer risk of 1 x 10-6 indicates that an individual experiencing the reasonable maximum

exposure estimate has a 1 in 1,000,000 chance of developing cancer as a result of site-related exposure.

This is referred to as an “excess lifetime cancer risk” because it would be in addition to the risks of cancer

Rev. 4 08/16/05

03JAX0002 2-50 CTO 0100

individuals face from other causes such as smoking or exposure to too much sun. The chance of an

individual developing cancer from all other causes has been estimated to be as high as one in three. The

USEPA’s generally acceptable risk range for site-related exposures is 10-4 to 10-6. The FDEP’s

acceptable risk for site-related exposures is 10-6.

The potential for non-carcinogenic effects is evaluated by comparing an exposure level over a specified

time period (e.g., lifetime) with a reference dose (RfD) derived for a similar exposure period. An RfD

represents a level that an individual may be exposed to that is not expected to cause any deleterious

effect. The ratio of exposure to toxicity is called a hazard quotient (HQ). An HQ<l indicates that a

receptor’s dose of a single contaminant is less than the RfD, and that toxic non-carcinogenic effects from

that chemical are unlikely. The Hazard Index (HI) is generated by adding the HQs for all constituent(s) of

concern that affect the same target organ (e.g., liver) or that act through the same mechanism of action

within a medium or across all media to which a given individual may reasonably be exposed. An HI< 1

indicates that, based on the sum of all HQs from different contaminants and exposure routes, toxic non-

carcinogenic effects from all contaminants are unlikely. An HI>1 indicates that site-related exposures may

present a risk to human health.

The HQ is calculated as follows:

Non-cancer HQ = CDI/RfD

where: CDI = Chronic daily intake

RfD = reference dose

CDI and RfD are expressed in the same units and represent the same exposure period (i.e., chronic,

subchronic, or short -term).

No adverse health effects were anticipated for exposure to surface water and sediment within the

unnamed creek. Incremental lifetime cancer risks for all receptors exposed to soil were less than or

within USEPA’s target cancer risk range of 10-4 to 10-6. Although incremental lifetime cancer risks for the

occupational worker, child resident, and adult resident exceeded FDEP’s target risk level of 1.0E -06,

arsenic was the only chemical in soil with cancer risks greater than 1.0E-06. Table 7-16 of the RI/FS

(TtNUS, 2002a) presents the RAOs for arsenic in soil based on a cancer risk of 1EE-06 as 0.588 mg/kg

(child resident), 1.26 mg/kg (adult resident), and 0.4 mg/kg (lifelong resident). The cancer risk calculated

for the occupational worker was 1.1EE-06 using the original data only. The evaluation considered the

maximum concentration of arsenic (3.7 mg/kg) detected instead of the 95 percent UCL value which was

eventually used for the (2.98 mg/kg). If the UCL value is used, the arsenic no longer presents a threat to

the occupational worker.

Rev. 4 08/16/05

03JAX0002 2-51 CTO 0100

In groundwater, benzene, vinyl chloride and 1,1-DCE were the cause for unacceptable cancer risks to

adolescent, adult and lifelong residents. Using 10-6 as a standard (FDEP criteria), RAOs established for

these receptors were:

Groundwater Remedial Action Objectives (RAOs) (µg/L)

Child Resident Adult Resident Lifelong Resident

1,1-DCE 0.283 0.084 0.065

Benzene 3.04 0.906 0.698

Vinyl Chloride 0.094 0.027 0.021

The above RAOs were extracted from the RI/FS and represent a cancer risk of 10-6.

HIs for receptors exposed to soil were less than the USEPA and FDEP acceptable level of 1.0 indicating

that there is minimal potential for adverse health effects under the conditions established in the risk

assessment. HIs for child residents to individual media were less than the acceptable level of 1.0.

However, the total HI for all media (1.3) was slightly in excess of the acceptable level. Table 2-9 provides

a brief summary of the results of the HHRA, detailed results can be found in the RI/FS for PSC 51.

TABLE 2-9

HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT SUMMARY PSC 51

RECORD OF DECISION NAVAL AIR STATION JACKSONVILLE


Media Receptor Compound Cancer Risk (1) Hazard Index (2)

Occupational Worker 1.1E-06 0.03

Child Resident 6.3E-06 0.61

Adult Resident 1.2E-04 0.60

Soil

Lifelong Resident

Arsenic

9.2E-06 Not Applicable

Child Resident (3) 3.3E-05 0.66

Adult Resident 1.1E-04 0.52

Groundwater

Lifelong Resident

Vinyl Chloride, 1,1-DCE and Benzene

1.5E-04 Not Applicable

(1) Acceptable cancer risks have been es tablished by the FDEP (10-6) (from 62-777 FAC) and USEPA (10-4) (per the National Contingency Plan).

(2) The FDEP and USEPA have established an acceptable Hazard Index at 1.0. (3) The added hazard risk for this receptor from soil and groundwater combined is 1.3, which exceeds the regulatory

requirements.

Rev. 4 08/16/05

03JAX0002 2-52 CTO 0100

2.6.2 Ecological Risk Assessment

An ERA was performed as part of the RI to evaluate potential receptors at risk. Soil- and sediment-

dwelling organisms, terrestrial plants, pelagic/planktonic organisms, aquatic plants, and organisms that

may ingest the above items were all considered in the ERA as potential receptors. The results indicated

that metals in the surface soil could be harmful to plant and soil organisms, but should not post a

significant risk to wildlife in the area. Also, the ERA indicated that the impacts of groundwater upon the

unnamed creek south of the site were uncertain, while risks from the chemicals in surface water and

sediment in the unnamed creek were determined to be low. Finally, the ERA reported that if PSC 51

remained as it is and its use unchanged, further action is not necessary from an ecological perspective.

2.6.3 Basis for Action

This ROD is necessitated due to the following:

1. The carcinogenic risk to an individual due to exposure to soil and groundwater exceeds 10-6

(state of Florida requirements) for child, adult and lifelong residents. Additionally, the

occupational worker’s risk exceeds 10-6 for exposure to soil. The cancer risk exceeds 10-4 for

adult and lifelong residents.

2. Chemical-specific standards for drinking water (i.e., MCLs, GCTLs) are exceeded in groundwater,

which is a potential source of drinking water.

2.7 REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVES FOR PSC 51

Remedial Action Objectives (RAOs) are defined in the CERCLA RI/FS guidance manual as

media-specific goals that are established to protect human health and the environment (USEPA, 1988).

Each goal was created assuming future use of the site as industrial. The following RAOs were

established for soil at PSC 51:

• Protect human health by eliminating or preventing potential exposure to COCs in surface and

subsurface soils. The COCs in soil consist of various metals, primarily arsenic and lead.

The following RAOs were established for groundwater at PSC 51:

• Reduce human health risk associated with potential exposure to surficial aquifer groundwater at

PSC 51 due to various organic compounds, such as 1,1-dichloroethene (DCE), benzene, and

vinyl chloride.

Rev. 4 08/16/05

03JAX0002 2-53 CTO 0100

• Reduce groundwater contamination at PSC 51 to meet chemical-specific ARARs. The ARARs

for groundwater at this site are as follows:

cis-1,2-Dichloroethene = 70 µg/L (Minimum criteria systematic toxicant, as listed in 62-550

FAC)

Trans -1,2-Dichloroethene = 100 µg/L (Minimum criteria systematic toxicant, as listed in 62-

550 FAC)

1,1-Dichloroethene = 7 µg/L (Primary Standard, as listed in 62-550 FAC)

Benzene = 1 µg/L (Primary Standard, as listed in 62-550 FAC)

Trichloroethene = 3 µg/L (Primary Standard, as listed in 62-550 FAC)

Vinyl Chloride = 1 µg/L (Primary Standard, as listed in 62-550 FAC)

Ethylbenzene = 700 µg/L (Primary Standard, as listed in 62-550 FAC)

Toluene = 1,000 µg/L (Primary Standard, as listed in 62-550 FAC)

Xylenes = 10,000 µg/L (Primary Standard, as listed in 62-550 FAC)

The following RAO was established for surface water at PSC 51:

• Protect human health and the environment by preventing potential exposure to Chemicals of

Potential Concern (COPCs) in surface water.

The remedy documented in this ROD will achieve these RAOs.

2.8 PRELIMINARY REMEDIAL GOALS

The PRG of a chemical is the target concentration to which a COC must be reduced within a particular

medium of concern to achieve one or more of the established RAOs. PRGs are developed to ensure that

contaminant concentration levels left on site are protective of human and ecological receptors.

2.8.1 Soil, Surface Water, and Groundwater PRGs

The soil, surface water, and groundwater PRGs for various COCs and COPCs are presented in

Table 2-10.

2.9 DESCRIPTION OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES

This section provides a narrative of each alternative evaluated for the remediation of soil and groundwater

at PSC 51. Summaries of the treatment alternatives that were evaluated in the FS are described in the

following sections. The remedy selected for this ROD is presented in Section 2.10. As part of the FS,

Rev. 4 08/16/05

03JAX0002 2-54 CTO 0100

each of the following alternatives was evaluated for compliance with related ARARs. It should be noted

that the ARARs presented in Section 2.11 of this ROD are specific to the selected remedy.

TABLE 2-10

COCS, COPCS AND PRGS PSC 51


JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA PAGE 1 OF 2

COCs/COPCs Range of Detections

PRGs(1)

COCs for Soil (mg/kg) Residential/Industrial

Arsenic (5) 0.47 – 6.1 0.43/3.7

Lead 3.3 – 1190 400/920

Vanadium 1.7 – 29.8 15/7400

Aluminum 1,460–

79,200

72,000/*

Antimony 0.37 – 46.7 26/240

Barium 9.6 – 319 110/87,000

Copper 11 – 7,310 110/76,000

Iron 228 – 40,400 23,000/480,000

Mercury 0.02 – 5.4 3.4/26

Nickel 3.1 - 544 110/28,000

COPCs for Surface Water (µg/L)

2-Butanone 0.7 120,000(3)

Methylene Chloride ND <1,580 annual average(2)

Toluene ND 475(3)

Benzene ND <71.28 annual average(2)

1,2-Dichloroethene ND 7,000(3)

Rev. 4 08/16/05

03JAX0002 2-55 CTO 0100


COCS, COPCS AND PRGS PSC 51



COCs/COPCs Range of Detections

PRGs(1)

COCs for Groundwater (µg/L)

Ethylbenzene ND 605(3)

Vinyl Chloride ND 525(4)

Trichloroethene ND <80.7 annual average

Xylenes ND 370(3)

Naphthalene ND 26(3)

cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 1.3-110 70

trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 1.0-2.8 100

1,1-Dichloroethene 0.25-1.2 7

Benzene 1-240 1

Trichloroethene 0.097-78 3

Vinyl Chloride 1-37.3 1

Ethylbenzene 0.17-85 30

Toluene 1.7-470 40

Xylenes 1-380 20

Naphthalene 1.7-120 20

NOTES: (1) Criterion from FAC 62-777, Residential and Industrial direct exposure SCTLs for soil were used. The soil PRGs were the lower

of the above referenced SCTLs and the USEPA Region III RBCs. Groundwater PRGS are predominantly from 62-550 FAC. (2) Criterion from the Class III Predominantly Fresh Water Classification from the FAC Chapter 62-302 Surface Water Quality

Standards. (3) Criterion from the FAC Chapter 62-777 Freshwater Surface Water Criteria. (4) Criterion from the National Recommended Water Quality for Priority Toxic pollutants. (5) The residential criterion f or arsenic is the USEPA Region III RBC, since it was lower than the Florida residential SCTL. * Contaminant is not a health concern for this scenario. ND Not detected in surface water.

2.9.1 Soil Remedial Alternatives

The following remedial alternatives were analyzed for PSC 51 soil. This ROD has selected Soil

Alternative 2: Institutional Controls and Monitoring to address contaminants present in soil at PSC 51.

These alternatives (as described in the FS) are summarized as follows:

Rev. 4 08/16/05

03JAX0002 2-56 CTO 0100

Soil Alternative 1: No Action:

Evaluation of the No Action alternative is required by law to provide a baseline for comparison with other

alternatives. Under this alternative, no cleanup activities would occur to remove soil contamination and

no controls would be implemented to reduce exposure by human receptors. While the concentrations of

some COCs in the soil might be reduced to PRGs through natural processes, no monitoring would be

performed to verify and quantify the reduction.

This alternative would not protect human health because risks from exposure to contaminated soil would

continue to exist. Because there are no Federal or State promulgated regulatory cleanup values for soil,

there are no soil-based ARARs identified for this site. However, concentrations in soil would not meet

State guidance criteria if this option is used. Since inorganic materials degrade slowly, if at all, there

would be little long-term effectiveness of the remedy at reducing the contamination. Additionally, there

would be no long-term effectiveness at protecting human health because there would be no controls at

the site. There would be no reduction of contaminant mobility and reduction in toxicity and volume would

occur only through long-term natural attenuation. Because no remedial action would take place, this

alternative would not result in any short-term risks and would be very easy to implement. There would be

no cost associated with this alternative. The site could support only industrial activity after completion of

this alternative.

Soil Alternative 2: Institutional Controls:

This alternative would require implementation of institutional controls. The objectives of the institutional

controls for PSC 51 soil would be to

• Ensure no construction on or excavation of the contaminated soil without special handling and

disposal procedures for the soil without FDEP and USEPA concurrence.

• Ensure that PSC 51 use remains industrial.

These controls include annotating base utility and land use maps for land in the vicinity of the surface soil

contamination at PSC 51 which may pose a health risk. The boundaries of the LUC are as shown on

Figure 2-11.

johnsonj

2-57

johnsonj

Rev. 4 08/16/05

Rev. 4 08/16/05

03JAX0002 2-58 CTO 0100

While this alternative would limit the possibility of humans coming into contact with contaminated soil at

PSC 51, it would not prevent it totally. Warning signs and institutional controls would discourage entry

into the contaminated area, protecting human health. Because PSC 51 is in an industrially designated

area of NAS Jacksonville, industrial criteria are more appropriate than residential criteria. This alternative

would limit the potential exposure to metals in surface soil, particularly in an industrial setting. Since

inorganic materials degrade slowly, if at all, there would be little long term effectiveness of the remedy at

reducing the contamination. However, the long term effectiveness of protecting human health would be

acceptable as long as the station maintains the LUCs. The administrative actions proposed in this

alternative are considered reliable controls and would provide a means of exposure control, but would not

provide eliminate potential risks posed by the site. Because active treatment is not included in this

alternative, it would not provide for a reduction in contaminant mobility or volume. Neither would it

enhance or increase the rate of natural transformation processes that reduce the toxicity, mobility, or

volume of the contaminants. This alternative would have minimal impacts on the surrounding community.

This alternative could be implemented relatively quickly, preventing exposure and therefore requiring

minimal time to provide an acceptable measure of protectiveness. The site could support only industrial

activity after completion of this alternative.

A site review (CERCLA five-year review) would be conducted every five years to evaluate the continued

effectiveness of the alternative and to determine if additional active remedial measures need to be

evaluated and possibly implemented.

The approximate costs of this alternative would include capital cost of $5,000, present worth of O&M cost

of $71,000, and a 20 percent contingency cost of $25,000, making the total net present worth (NPW)

approximately $101,000. The cost figures were rounded to the nearest $1,000 to reflect the preliminary

nature of the estimates and are itemized in Appendix C.

Soil Alternative 3: Excavation and Off-Base Disposal:

Under this alternative, contaminated soil from PSC 51 would be removed from the site and transported off

site to either a hazardous or non-hazardous waste landfill. The excavation and disposal procedure would

start with clearing the site and conducting general site preparation activities. These preparation activities

would include collecting soil samples for off-site laboratory analysis. Additional soil sampling would be

required, to determine the full extent of excavation to residential direct exposure SCTLs. Also, the

necessary permits (e.g., station excavation permits, which include utility clearance) would have to be

obtained and documented prior to the onset of intrusive work at PSC 51. A temporary fence would be

erected, encompassing the excavation area to control access and representing the limits of the site

during its remediation. The vegetation would have to be removed, in addition to setting up

Rev. 4 08/16/05

03JAX0002 2-59 CTO 0100

decontamination and lay down areas for equipment. Finally, clean fill would have to be provided to

backfill the excavated areas.

A backhoe would be used to excavate the contaminated soil to a depth of 1 ft bls. To more accurately

project the costs of soil contaminated in excess of FDEP residential SCTLs, the excavation is estimated

to include the removal of soil 50-ft out from the soil exceedances at the FFTA. The total estimated area

of excavation would be 30,081 square feet (ft2). An estimated 1,560 tons of soil would need to be

removed from the site. The soil would be placed directly into the trucks for transportation to an

appropriately permitted off-site disposal facility. Soil samples would be collected from the bottom and

sidewalls of the excavation area and analyzed to ensure TAL metal concentrations do not exceed FDEP

residential SCTLs.

Backfilling would occur following the review of the confirmatory sampling results. Backfill would be staged

at the designated area on site. Once excavation, disposal and backfill activities at PSC 51 are

completed, closeout activities would occur including removal and cleanup of decontaminated area,

temporary fence, clean backfill staging area and equipment, and re-grading and re-vegetation of PSC 51

would occur.

This alternative would protect human health by reducing the amount of metals, which could harm humans

if exposed via ingestion, dermal contact, and inhalation of particulate matter. While chemical-specific

ARARs are not available for contaminants in soil at PSC 51, source removal and disposal activities

described would comply with action- and location-specific ARARs. All waste generated during removal

activities would be managed according to these ARARs. Removal of soil from the site would provide

long-term and permanent effectiveness at PSC 51, and off-site disposal at a landfill would isolate the

waste, preventing migration and exposure to humans. Dust emissions would be monitored during

remediation and protective clothing would be worn by site workers to protect against contaminated dust

and soil, and to minimize the short-term effect of this alternative on humans. Techniques used for

excavation are well developed, commonly used, and would not be difficult to implement. Excavation is

very reliable and would not be expected to result in technical difficulties leading to excessive schedule

delays. This alternative is expected to take two weeks to complete. At the completion of this alternative

the site would be cleared for unrestricted use with respect to the soil contamination).

The approximate costs of this alternative would include capital cost of $535,000 and present worth of

O&M cost of $0, a 15 percent contingency cost of $80,000, with a NPW of approximately $615,000. The

cost figures were rounded to the nearest $1,000 to reflect the preliminary nature of the estimates.

Rev. 4 08/16/05

03JAX0002 2-60 CTO 0100

2.9.2 Groundwater Remedial Alternatives

The following three remedial alternatives were analyzed for PSC 51 groundwater. These alternatives are

summarized as follows. This ROD has selected Groundwater Alternative 2: Natural Attenuation,

Institutional Controls, and Monitoring to address contaminants in groundwater.

Groundwater Alternative 1: No Action:

Under this alternative, no activities would occur to remove groundwater contamination, no monitoring

would be performed, and no controls would be implemented to reduce exposure by human receptors.

This alternative is a baseline for comparison against alternatives that incorporate remedial actions.

This alternative would not protect human health because risks from direct exposure (e.g., consumptive

use, exposure to workers during intrusive activities) to contaminated groundwater could continue to exist.

This alternative would achieve the groundwater RAO 3 and comply with chemical specific ARARs over

time. However, through natural attenuation of contaminants, it is expected to achieve RAO 4. Since

organic materials are susceptible to natural attenuation, there would be long-term effectiveness of the

remedy at reducing the contamination. There would be no cost associated with this alternative. There

would be no reduction of contaminant mobility and reduction in toxicity and volume may occur through

long-term natural attenuation but would not be monitored. Because no remedial action would take place,

this alternative would result in both long- and short-term risks, yet would be very easy to implement. The

site could support only industrial activity after implementation of this alternative. However, since the

contaminants are organic and do appear to be naturally attenuating, the site would eventually be

available for unrestricted use. Without monitoring the station would not be able to verify this.

Groundwater Alternative 2: Natural Attenuation, Monitoring, and Institutional Controls:

This alternative relies on natural attenuation to reduce the concentration of contaminants in PSC 51

groundwater. Natural attenuation relies on natural biological and physical/chemical processes occurring

within the surficial aquifer to reduce contaminant concentrations in groundwater. Microorganisms within

the aquifer use organic contaminants as substrate, and processes such as volatilization, sorption,

advection, and dispersion further reduce contaminant concentrations naturally within the aquifer. The

RI/FS for PSC 51 included an NA evaluation, which indicates the groundwater conditions are favorable

for MNA.

This alternative would include groundwater and surface water monitoring. The groundwater would be

monitored for the COCs listed in Table 2-10 and other parameters to assess the effectiveness of natural

attenuation as a treatment for the surficial aquifer at PSC 51. Six existing wells at PSC 51 and a newly

Rev. 4 08/16/05

03JAX0002 2-61 CTO 0100

installed upgradient well would be used to monitor groundwater plume size, contaminant concentrations,

and movement of the groundwater plume. Groundwater would be monitored by sampling it quarterly the

first year, semi-annually the second year, and annually thereafter, continuing until remediation goals are

attained. A calculation was made in the RI/FS using the FDEP Milestone Objective Software program

using linear regression to determine an approximate time for the NA to achieve PRGs. This program

calculated 15 years to achieve PRGs in groundwater at PSC 51. Table 13-3 from the RI/FS is included in

Appendix D. If, however, the five-year review of the site indicates that a more aggressive alternative

should be considered, the monitoring schedule would be reconfigured.

Since the unnamed creek located south of the PSC 51 groundwater contamination is the ultimate

receptor of the groundwater contamination, the surface water would be monitored at the point of expected

intersection (SW004 to verify that groundwater discharges to the unnamed creek do not cause the COC

concentration in surface water to exceed surface water ARARs. Surface water samples would be

collected during each groundwater-monitoring event and analyzed for TCL VOCs. The data collected in

the monitoring of surface water and groundwater would assist in evaluating the extent of natural

biodegradation, the overall conditions of the aquifer, and the relative migration of the contamination.

In addition to monitoring, this alternative would require placing groundwater use restrictions on the area.

The objective of the groundwater LUC for PSC 51 would be to eliminate the potential human health risk

associated with exposure to the contamination. A LUCRD for PSC 51 would be prepared to indicate that

groundwater extraction for potable use in the area may pose a significant health risk if consumed without

treatment. The objectives of the groundwater LUC for PSC 51 include

• Ensure no withdrawal of the groundwater for potable or other use without the FDEP and EPA

approval.

• Ensure any workers that might potentially be exposed to the contaminated groundwater at this

site are properly trained.

The LUCRD document would be prepared after execution of this ROD. The purpose of the LUCRD

would be to set forth how the LUC components of the selected remedy would be implemented and

maintained in order to preclude future unacceptable exposure(s) to contaminated groundwater until all

site specific RAOs are achieved. Specific LUC implementation measures (e.g., future site inspections

and reporting) would be addressed in the LUCRD, which would be a Primary Document under the FFA.

A site review would be conducted every five years to evaluate the continued effectiveness of the

alternative and to determine if additional active remedial measures need to be evaluated and

implemented.

Rev. 4 08/16/05

03JAX0002 2-62 CTO 0100

This alternative would require groundwater reporting to be performed to document the plume

concentrations and natural attenuation conditions. It would be updated after each monitoring event. In

addition, there would be a five-year site review to determine that continued implementation of this

alternative is appropriate. Additionally, changes may be made to the monitoring program at any time and

the program will be evaluated at a minimum on an annual basis in conjunction with the annual monitoring

report.

Implementing groundwater use restrictions would prohibit exposure to contaminated groundwater and

humans would be prevented from drinking water within the contaminated aquifer. This alternative would

not comply with chemical-specific ARARs in the short term, but would eventually comply with the ARARs

when natural physical, chemical, and biological processes in the aquifer reduce contaminant

concentrations over time. In the long-term, naturally occurring processes are expected to reduce non-

chlorinated VOC contaminant concentrations in 10 years and chlorinated VOCs in 15 years. Thus the

remedy would provide long term effectiveness through the use of LUCs and through natural attenuation of

contaminants. Short-term effectiveness would be achieved through implementation of the LUCs.

Contaminant toxicity of VOCs would be reduced over time through natural degradation processes. This

alternative can be implemented using easily obtained monitoring equipment. After completion of the

natural attenuation alternative the site could be cleared for unrestricted use.

The capital costs associated with this alternative are $25,000, the present worth of the O&M costs total

$309,000, and a 15 percent contingency cost of $50,000 would also be incurred. The NPW is estimated

as $384,000. The cost figures were rounded to the nearest $1,000 to reflect the preliminary nature of the

estimates. The breakdown of this cost is presented in Appendix C.

Groundwater Alternative 3: In-Situ Enhanced Bioremediation with Oxygen-Release Compounds®

(ORC®), Groundwater Monitoring, and Institutional Controls:

This alternative consists of injecting chemicals into the groundwater plume to enhance natural

biodegradation of VOCs, primarily 1,2-DCE, vinyl chloride, BTEX, and naphthalene. ORC® would be

injected into the groundwater plume to favor aerobic biodegradation and decreasing time needed for

degradation of VOCs. These compounds would stimulate bacterial growth, in turn increasing

biodegradation of organic compounds. Treatability tests would be necessary to assess the effectiveness

of this technology based on the conditions at the site.

ORC® would be injected by hollow-stem auger or DPT methods. It is assumed that these injections would

allow the ORC® to permeate the entire plume. The injection points would be spaced 20 ft apart from each

other. With each injection, 4 pounds (lbs) of ORC® per linear ft would be released to a depth of 10 ft

Rev. 4 08/16/05

03JAX0002 2-63 CTO 0100

below the water table. It is estimated that a second application would be required, one-third the size of the

first application, one year after the initial application.

The groundwater and surface water would be monitored for parameters that indicate future

biodegradation. Monitoring well sampling would be used to monitor plume size, chemical concentrations,

and movement of the groundwater plume. Surface water would be monitored to ensure that the injection

of the material is not causing the contaminated groundwater to migrate into the ditch at unacceptable

concentrations. Monitoring of biodegradation would be performed quarterly after the injection of ORC® to

assess performance of the method. Sampling and analysis of the natural attenuation parameters would

also be conducted. Measurement over time would help determine whether or not enhanced

biodegradation is effective in reducing chemical concentrations and ultimately reducing risks to

hypothetical resident human receptors.

Groundwater use restrictions (LUCs), similar to the ones mentioned in Groundwater Alternative 2, would

be placed in the area. Five-year site reviews would be required, as discussed in the second alternative

as well.

Groundwater restrictions would protect them in the short term, while enhanced biodegradation would

reduce the contamination for the long-term. Implementation of this alternative would achieve chemical-

specific ARARs for VOCs in the groundwater through enhanced biological mechanisms. This alternative

would also accelerate reduction in toxicity and volume of VOCs in groundwater by enhancing the natural

degradation processes. The estimated duration of treatment so that groundwater contamination is

reduced to comply with RAOs and PRGs is five years at PSC 51, and significant migration of the plume is

not expected. This time frame is based on past experience using this alternative. Injection of ORC®

would require only basic direct path drilling techniques, making the plan feasible. After completion of the

natural attenuation alternative the site could be cleared for unrestricted use.

The estimated total capital costs of this alternative would be $365,000. The present worth of the O&M

costs would total $81,000, a 20 percent contingency cost of $55,000, and a NPW cost of $600,000. The

costs were rounded to the nearest $1,000 to reflect the preliminary nature of the estimates.

Groundwater Alternative 4: In-situ Chemical Oxidation, Monitoring, and Institutional Controls:

This alternative would consist of injecting an oxidant into the groundwater at PSC 51 to chemically

destroy the chlorinated compounds and petroleum compounds. Hydrogen peroxide or Fenton’s reagent

are the oxidants often used to destroy VOCs. It is anticipated that chemical oxidation with hydrogen

peroxide or Fenton’s reagent would be able to destroy between 90 and 99 percent of the contaminant

mass.

Rev. 4 08/16/05

03JAX0002 2-64 CTO 0100

This alternative would involve oxidant injection through steel injection wells that would be installed at

PSC 51. Hydrogen peroxide or Fenton’s reagent would be injected in special injection wells at a depth

from 5 to 30 ft bls. A pilot test would be performed to determine the actual site specific injection criteria.

Chemical oxidation using hydrogen peroxide or Fenton’s reagent oxidizes contaminants vi a hydrogen

peroxide. In Fenton’s reaction, the oxidant reacts with ferrous iron to produce the hydroxyl radical, a

powerful oxidizer. The hydroxyl radical progressively reacts with organic compounds to produce carbon

dioxide and water. When the oxidized organic compound is chlorinated, chloride ions are also released.

Research shows that in-situ chemical oxidation using Fenton’s reagent can be an effective remediation

technology at chlorinated VOC sites.

The groundwater and surface water monitoring would be similar to Groundwater Alternative 2. In order to

effectively assess the performance of chemical oxidation injection and confirm that reduction of COCs

has occurred, monitoring would be performed quarterly after the compound injection activities are

complete. Based on vendor information, the treatment and monitoring duration for this alternative to

effectively clean groundwater so that the contamination complies with RAOs and PRGs is an assumed

two years.

Groundwater use restrictions similar to those in the previous alternatives would be implemented, as well

as five-year site reviews to monitor results, assess reduction of contaminant concentrations, and evaluate

the compliance action levels.

Groundwater restrictions would offer protection in the short term, while chemical oxidation would reduce

COC contamination soon after chemical injection. Implementation of this alternative would achieve

chemical-specific ARARs for COCs in the groundwater through chemical oxidation. This alternative

would also accelerate reduction in toxicity and volume of COCs in groundwater. The estimated duration

of treatment is two years for Groundwater Alternative 4. Injection of the oxidant would require special

techniques that must be provided by a few vendors. This technique is more difficult to implement than

typical drilling operations. Injection points at PSC 51 are located in an unused, cleared area at NAS

Jacksonville, and manmade structures would not interfere with drilling. After completion of the natural

attenuation alternative the site could be cleared for unrestricted use.

The estimated total capital costs of this alternative would be $381,000. The present worth of the O&M

costs would total $161,000, a 50 percent contingency cost of $271,000, and a NPW cost of $813,000.

The cost figures were rounded to the nearest $1,000 to reflect the preliminary nature of the estimates.

Rev. 4 08/16/05

03JAX0002 2-65 CTO 0100

Groundwater Alternative 5: Extraction, On-site Treatment, Treated Groundwater Discharge,

Monitoring, and Institutional Controls:

This alternative consists of implementing a groundwater extraction-and-treatment system to encompass

the COC plume. Groundwater would be collected through two extraction wells, treated to achieve

appropriate criteria, and discharged to the Federally Owned Treatment Works (FOTW). The groundwater

would be removed at a combined rate of 6 gallons per minute through 40-ft deep wells. It is assumed that

eight years would be required to achieve PRGs.

This alternative would require a hydrogeological study during the design phase to verify estimated

pumping rates, capture zones, well designs, and depths based on the aquifer test, flow gradient, and

plume width. The placement and design of the extraction wells would be refined during the remedial

design based on the treatability study.

Extracted groundwater would be treated via an air stripping system. A particulate filter system would be

used for extracted groundwater to prevent suspended solids from collecting in the packing material. The

treated groundwater would be discharged to the FOTW. The discharge would be required to satisfy the

substantive requirements of the FOTW. Groundwater and surface water would be monitored similar to

the monitoring proposed in the second alternative. In addition, monitoring of the effluent, treatment

effectiveness, and the operation of the extraction-and-treatment system would be necessary.

Groundwater use restrictions, similar to those in Groundwater Alternative 2, would be implemented, as

well as five-year site reviews performed.

Contaminated groundwater would be removed from the aquifer and treated for VOCs, leaving

naphthalene remaining in the groundwater to be treated at the FOTW. This alternative would eventually

comply with all chemical-, action-, and location-specific ARARs. Extracting and treating the groundwater

would reduce the COCs. Groundwater monitoring would provide a means of evaluating the

concentrations of contaminants in groundwater over time. This alternative would reduce the toxicity,

mobility, and volume of VOCs in extracted groundwater. VOCs would be volatilized in the air stripper

while residuals produced in this alternative would be collected for off-site transport, treatment, and

disposal at a permitted facility. The installation of the extraction and treatment systems is fairly common

and is not expected to pose a significant risk to workers. After completion of the natural attenuation

alternative the site could be cleared for unrestricted use.

The capital cost was estimated at $266,000, the present worth of O&M was estimated at $504,000, a 30

percent contingency cost of $233,000, and the total NPW was estimated at $1,003,000. The cost figures

were rounded to the nearest $1,000 to reflect the preliminary nature of the estimates.

Rev. 4 08/16/05

03JAX0002 2-66 CTO 0100

Groundwater Alternative 6: Air Sparging (AS):

This alternative consists of sparging air into groundwater at PSC 51 to enhance volatilization of the

COCs. AS is intended to reduce concentrations of organic compounds in groundwater in-situ. AS uses

an aeration system to create turbulence in the groundwater and induce the mass transfer of the VOCs

from water into the vapor phase. The system would feature 11 sparge wells constructed with 2-inch

inside diameter schedule 40 polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipe with a screen at the bottom of each well.

Based on past experience, it is anticipated that it would require five years for COCs to attain RAOs and

PRGs with Groundwater Alternative 6.

The groundwater and surface water would be monitored and their use restricted similar to Groundwater

Alternative 2. The treatment system would be monitored to ensure optimal performance. Five-year site

reviews would be conducted, as in Groundwater Alternative 2.

Humans would be protected by groundwater use restrictions in the short-term, and by the AS process

results that will reduce the VOC concentrations and eliminate future health risks. This alternative would

eventually comply with chemical-specific ARARs for COCs. This alternative would also comply with

location- and action-specific ARARs. This alternative would offer a long-term and permanent remedy for

COC contamination in groundwater. AS would physically and permanently remove the VOCs. The

technology is readily available and has been shown effective at other areas of NAS Jacksonvi lle.

Workers installing sparge wells would encounter minimal exposure to COCs. Constructing the system

would require only basic equipment. After completion of the natural attenuation alternative the site could

be cleared for unrestricted use.

The capital cost was estimated at $322,000, the present worth of O&M was estimated at $291,000, a 20

percent contingency cost of $123,000, and the total NPW was estimated at $736,000.

2.10 SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES

This section evaluates and compares each of the soil and groundwater remedial alternatives with respect

to the nine criteria outlined in Section 300.430(e) of the NCP. These criteria are categorized as threshold

criteria (Overall protection of Human Health and the Environment and Compliance with ARARs), five

balancing criteria (Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence; Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, and

Volume through Treatment; Short-term Effectiveness; Implementability; and Cost), and modifying criteria

(State and Community Acceptance). These criteria are further explained in Table 2-11. An analysis of

the first seven criteria was performed during the FS and a summary comparison of that analysis is

presented on Table 2-12. Further information regarding the comparison of the soil and groundwater

alternatives to the nine criteria can be found in the FS portion of the RI/FS for PSC 51.

Rev. 4 08/16/05

03JAX0002 2-67 CTO 0100

2.11 SELECTED REMEDY

2.11.1 Summary of Rationale For Remedy Selection

Based upon consideration of the requirements of CERCLA, the NCP, the detailed analysis of alternatives,

and USEPA, FDEP, and public comments, Soil Alternative 2 and Groundwater Alternative 2 were

selected to address contamination at PSC 51.

This remedy was selected for the following reasons:

• Although the concentrations of COCs remaining in soil exceed the FDEP residential SCTLs or

background values, they do not present an unacceptable threat to human health or the environment

under the current and foreseeable future industrial use of PSC 51. LUCs should be adequate to

provide the required protection.

• The groundwater is contaminated with organic constituents, which should easily degrade naturally

over time. The LUCs will maintain protectiveness while the contamination is degrading.

• PSC 51 does not currently provide a significant ecological habitat and the area is contained within a

controlled location within NAS Jacksonville. Future land use scenarios are expected to remain similar

in nature.

Groundwater at PSC 51 is contaminated with COCs exceeding regulatory criteria and presents a potential

human health hazard. Natural attenuation has been evaluated at this site and appears to be an effective

alternative. In addition, with the monitoring proposed with Groundwater Alternative 2, if it is determined in

the future that natural attenuation has become ineffective, contingency actions will be conducted.

Rev. 4 08/16/05

03JAX0002 2-68 CTO 0100

TABLE 2-11

EXPLANATION OF DETAILED ANALYSIS CRITERIA PSC 51



Criterion Description

Threshold Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment. This criterion evaluates the degree to which each alternative eliminates, reduces, or controls threats to human health and the environment through treatment, engineering methods, or institutional controls (e.g., access restrictions). Compliance with State and Federal Regulations. The alternatives are evaluated for compliance with environmental protection regulations determined to be applicable or relevant and appropriate to the site conditions.

Primary Balancing

Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence. The alternatives are evaluated based on their ability to maintain reliable protection of human health and the environment after implementation. Reduction of Contaminant Toxicity, Mobility, and Volume Through Treatment. Each alternative is evaluated based on how it reduces the harmful nature of the contaminants, their ability to move through the environment, and the amount of contamination. Short-Term Effectiveness. The risks that implementation of a particular remedy may pose to workers and nearby residents (e.g., whether or not contaminated dust will be produced during excavation), as well as the reduction in risks that results by controlling the contaminants, are assessed. The length of time needed to implement each alternative is also considered.

Implementability. Both the technical feasibility and administrative ease (e.g., the amount of coordination with other government agencies needed) of a remedy, including availability of necessary goods and services, are assessed. Cost. The benefits of implementing a particular alternative are weighted against the cost of implementation.

Modifying USEPA and FDEP Acceptance. The final FS and the Proposed Plan, which are placed in the Administrative Record, represent a consensus by the Navy, USEPA, and FDEP. Community Acceptance. The Navy assesses community acceptance of the preferred alternative by giving the public an opportunity to comment on the remedy selection process and the preferred alternative and then responds to those comments.



S1 S2 S3 G1 G2 G3 G4 G5 G6No Action Limited

Action*Excavation

and DisposalNo Action Monitored

Natural Attenuation*

Enhanced Biodegradation

Chemical Oxidation

Extraction and Treatment

Air Sparging

Protects human health and the environment X(2) (-) (+) X(2) (+) (+) (+) (+) (+)

Meets federal and state requirements X(2) (+) (+) X(2) (+) (+) (+) (+) (+)

Provides long-term protection and permanence

X (-) (+) X (+) (+) (+) (+) (+)

Reduces toxicity, mobility, or volume through treatment

X X (-) X (+) (+) (+) (+) (+)

Provides short-term protection

X (+) (-) X (+) (+) (+) (+) (+)

Implementability (-) (+) (+) (-) (+) (+) (-) (+) (+)

State acceptance

Community acceptance

Estimated Cost (present worth)

$0 $101,000 $535,000 $0 $384,000 $600,000 $813,000 $1,003,000 $736,000

Time to reach PRGs, years 30(3) 30(3) 1 30(3) 10 to 15 5 2 9 5

NOTES:X : Does not meet criterion (-) : Meets criterion, less preferred (+) : Meets criterion, more preferred * : Preferred Alternative

(1) Remedial alternatives are examined with respect to nine critera set forth by CERCLA and factors described in the USEPA RI/FS Guidance Manual.

(2) Mechanisms would not be in place to determine whether the alternative would comply with ARARs or achieve the RAO.

(3) Time to achieve cleanup goals is unknown; 30 years was used as a default value for costing based on CERCLA guidance.

TABLE 2-12

SUMMARY OF COMPARISON OF SOIL AND GROUNDWATER CLEANUP ALTERNATIVESPSC 51

FDEP as part of NAS Jacksonville Partnering Team has provided concurrence for the remedy selected in this document. Formal written concurrence is expected after ROD signing.No negative responses regarding remedy selection were received during the public comment period.

Nine Criteria(1)

Soil Groundwater

Rev. 4 08/16/05

03JAX0002 2-70 CTO 0100

2.11.2 Remedy Description

The remedy consists of four major components: (1) institutional controls, (2) natural attenuation and

long-term monitoring (3) groundwater and surface water monitoring reporting, and (4) contingency

remedy.

Component 1: Institutional Controls

Remedies that include LUCs leave hazardous substances in place that pose a potential future risk and

prevent unrestricted use. The objectives of the institutional controls for PSC 51 at NAS Jacksonville are

to

• Ensure no construction on or excavation of the contaminated soil without special handling and

disposal procedures for the soil.

• Ensure that PSC 51 use remains industrial.

• Ensure no withdrawal of and/or use of the groundwater.

• Ensure any workers that might potentially be exposed to the contaminated soil or groundwater at

this site are properly trained.

NAS Jacksonville has developed a LUC program to ensure that land use restrictions are maintained and

periodically verified. The unit specific LUC Remedial Design will provide detail and specific measures

required for LUCs, which are part of the remedy. Please note that in the PSC 51 Proposed Plan the

document was referred to as a LUC Implementation Plan. However, since the release of the Proposed

Plan the Navy and USEPA have changed the name to “LUC Remedial Design”. Both names refer to the

same document.

The Navy is responsible for implementing, monitoring, maintaining, reporting on, and enforcing the LUC

element of the remedy. The LUC Remedial Design for soil and groundwater at PSC 51, developed as

part of the final remedy, will be submitted to the USEPA and FDEP for review and approval within 90

days of signing this ROD. The LUC Remedial Design will establish implementation, monitoring,

maintenance, reporting, and enforcement requirements for the unit. The LUC Remedial Design will

remain effective until modified as needed to be protective of human health and the environment. LUC

Remedial Design modification will only be made through another CERCLA document with the

concurrence of the USEPA and FDEP.

For soil, base maps, land-use plans, and the LUCs for land in the vicinity contaminated soil at PSC 51 will

be annotated to indicate that direct exposure to soil may pose a health risk and to prohibit unauthorized

excavation.

Rev. 4 08/16/05

03JAX0002 2-71 CTO 0100

For groundwater, PSC 51 will be added to the LUC program and land-use plans will be annotated to

indicate that groundwater extraction for potable use in the area may pose a health risk and is prohibited.

Under the LUC program PSC 51 will be monitored quarterly to assure that restrictive measures are

maintained. Warning signs stating language similar in nature to the following: “Contaminated Area. Avoid

contact with soil and groundwater. Call 542-2717 ext. 5 for further information.” will be posted at regular

intervals along the PSC 51 boundary to warn NAS Jacksonville personnel and workers of the hazards

associated with the site. In addition, the station has a procedure in place where all construction projects

must be reviewed by the Environmental Division, who will evaluate whether the contaminated

groundwater will be encountered or used.

These restrictions will be removed only when a five-year site review indicates that the site action levels

have been achieved.

Component 2: Natural Attenuation and Long-Term Monitoring

Groundwater will be monitored for COCs and natural attenuation parameters to assess the effectiveness

of natural attenuation as a treatment for the surficial aquifer at PSC 51. Six existing monitoring wells and

a new monitoring well (to be installed during the remedial design) located northeast of the groundwater

plume at PSC 51, will be sampled to monitor groundwater plume size, chemical concentrations, and

movement of the plume. The groundwater will be analyzed for the COCs listed in the groundwater

section of Table 2-10 and for natural attenuation parameters. The monitoring program will begin with

quarterly sampling the first two years, semi-annual sampling in years three and four, and annual sampling

beginning at year five. Groundwater monitoring will continue until the PRGs are attained, or unless during

a five-year review, site conditions suggest that a different cleanup method should be considered.

Surface water monitoring in the unnamed creek will be performed along with the groundwater monitoring

at PSC 51. The surface water monitoring will monitor that groundwater discharges to the unnamed creek

south of the site do not cause COPC concentrations to exceed Federal and State surface water criteria.

Surface water samples will be collected during each groundwater-monitoring event and analyzed for the

COPCs listed in Table 2-7.

Component 3: Groundwater and Surface Water Monitoring Reporting

Groundwater and surface water monitoring reports will be prepared to document the plume

concentrations and natural attenuation conditions. The report will be issued after each monitoring event,

based on the results of sampling or other pertinent data or site changes. If deemed necessary based on

Rev. 4 08/16/05

03JAX0002 2-72 CTO 0100

monitoring, groundwater modeling may be performed. The modeling, if performed, will be used to

estimate the duration of the natural attenuation.

Component 4: Contingency Remedy

If results of the five-year reviews indicate that natural attenuation has failed or will fail to cleanup the

groundwater contamination within the prescribed time frame, the Navy will implement Groundwater

Alternative 3 to stimulate the contamination cleanup. Implementation of a contingent remedy will be

made through another CERCLA document.

For contingency action of the groundwater natural attenuation remedy, Milestone Objectives have been

established for groundwater COCs to attain PRGs within 10 years for non-chlorinated VOCs and 15 years

for chlorinated VOCs. The Annual Milestone Objectives are listed on Table 13-3 from the RI/FS, which is

included as Appendix D. The Milestone Objectives will be reviewed during the five-year reviews to

determine if contingency actions should be considered. In the event that natural attenuation is not

effectively remediating the groundwater, Groundwater Alternative 3 will be considered to increase the

degradation of COCs in groundwater.

If it is determined during the groundwater and surface water monitoring at PSC 51 that the groundwater

COCs reach the unnamed creek south of PSC 51 and are present at concentrations in excess of the

surface water PRGs listed in Table 2-10, a contingency action will occur. Specifically, the groundwater

plume will be treated via Groundwater Alternative 3. The remedial design will include surface water

collection or flow control measures if required.

2.11.3 Summary of Estimated Remedy Costs

The estimated capital, O&M, and NPW costs of the selected remedy are as follows:

• Capital Cost: $30,000

• 30-Year NPW of O&M Costs: $380,000

• 30-Year NPW: $485,000

A detailed breakdown of these costs is provided in Appendix C.

Rev. 4 08/16/05

03JAX0002 2-73 CTO 0100

The above cost figures have been rounded to the nearest $1,000 to reflect the preliminary nature of the

estimates. The NPW is based upon an annual discount rate of 7 percent. Included in the 30-year NPW

value is a contingency cost of $75,000. A detailed breakdown of the above estimates is provided in

Appendix C.

2.11.4 Expected Outcomes of the Selected Remedy

The expected outcomes of the selected remedy may be summarized as follows:

• Immediately upon implementation of the remedy, PSC 51 will be environmentally safe for its intended

use as an industrial area.

• Eventually, the groundwater PRG will be attained, and the surficial aquifer will become available for

unrestricted use.

• Surface soil contamination is not anticipated to attenuate and will remain indefinitely..

2.12 STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS

The remedy selected for PSC 51 is consistent with CERCLA and the NCP, provides protection of human

health and the environment, attains ARARs, and is cost-effective. Table 2-13 summarizes Federal and

State chemical-, location-, and action-specific ARARs to which the selected remedy must comply. The

selected remedy represents the maximum extent to which permanent solutions and treatment

technologies can be used in a practicable manner at this site. Although the selected remedy does not

provide for treatment as a principal element, reductions of soil and groundwater contaminant

concentrations are expected over time due to natural attenuation processes. The selected remedy also

provides flexibility to implement additional remedial measures, if necessary, to achieve the RAOs or to

address unforeseen issues. Because this remedy would result in hazardous substances remaining on

site above health-based levels, a review will be conducted every five years to ensure that the remedy

continues to provide adequate protection of human health.

2.13 DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES

The Proposed Plan for PSC 51 (TtNUS, 2002b) was released for public comment on January 6, 2003.

The Proposed Plan identified Soil Alternative 2 and Groundwater Alternative 2 as the preferred

alternatives. The public was invited to comment during a 30-day period extending from January 6, 2003

to February 5, 2003. No changes to the proposed remedy, as originally identified in the Proposed Plan,

have been made as a result of public comments.

TABLE 2-13

SYNOPSIS OF FEDERAL AND STATE ARARs AND GUIDANCE MATERIALS FOR PSC 51RECORD OF DECISION


PAGE 1 OF 2

Name and Regulatory Citation DescriptionConsideration in the Remedial Action Process for

PSC 51Types

Applicable to Selected Remedy1

Federal ARARsResource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Regulations, Releases from Solid Waste Management Units (SWMUs) (40 CFR Part 264, Subpart F)

This rule establishes the requirements for SWMUs, and encompasses groundwater protection standards, concentration limits, point of compliance, compliance period, and requirements for groundwater monitoring.

The rule is relevant and appropriate for CERCLA sites contaminated with RCRA hazardous constituents.

Relevant and Appropriate, Action-specific G1, G2, G4

Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) Regulations, Maximum Contaminant Level Goals (MCLGs) (40 CFR Part 141, Subpart B and F)

Establishes enforceable standards (MCLGs) for potable water for specific contaminants that have been determined to adversely affect human health. MCLGs are nonenforceable health goals established by USEPA.

Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) can be used for groundwater or surface waters that are current or potential drinking water sources. Non-zero MCLGs can be considered potential relevant and appropriate requirements for groundwater used as a current or potential drinking water source.

Applicable, Chemical-specific

G2, G4

USEPA Region III Risk-Based Concentrations

Establishes risk-based criteria for specific contaminants in soil that have been determined to adversely affect human health.

These values aid in the screening of constituents in soil. The NAS Jacksonville Partnering Team has designated the use of these RBCs as ARARs for this site.

Relevant and Appropriate, Chemical-specific

S1

Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), General Industry Standards (29 CFR Part 1910)

Requires establishment of programs to assure worker health and safety at hazardous waste sites, including employee-training requirements.

This standard should be used for all activities at PSC 51.

Applicable, Action Specific

G1, G2, G4

OSHA, Occupational Safety and Health Regulations (29 CFR Part 1910 Subpart Z)

Establishes permissible exposure limits for workplace exposure to a specific listing of chemicals.

Will be applied to control worker exposure to OSHA hazardous chemicals during remediation activities.

Applicable, Action Specific G1, G2, G4

OSHA, Recordkeeping, Reporting and Related Regulations (29 CFR Part 1904)

Provides recordkeeping and reporting requirements applicable to remediation activities.

These requirements will apply to all site contractors and subcontractors and will be followed during site work.


OSHA, Health and Safety Standards (29 CFR Part 1926)

Specifies the type of safety training, equipment, and procedures to be used during the site investigation and remediation.

The phases of the remedial action will be executed in compliance with these standards.


CERCLA and the NCP Regulations (40 CFR, Section 300.430)

Discusses the types of institutional controls to be established at CERCLA sites.

These regulations may be used as guidance in establishing appropriate institutional controls at PSC 51.



TABLE 2-13

SYNOPSIS OF FEDERAL AND STATE ARARs AND GUIDANCE MATERIALS FOR PSC 51RECORD OF DECISION


PAGE 2 OF 2

Name and Regulatory Citation DescriptionConsideration in the Remedial Action Process for

PSC 51Types

Applicable to Selected Remedy1

State ARARsFlorida Surface Water Quality Standards (Chapter 62-302, FAC)

Rule distinguishes surface water into five classes based on designated uses and establishes ambient water quality standards (called Florida Water Quality Standards) for listed pollutants.

Because these standards are specifically tailored to Florida waters, they should be used to establish cleanup levels rather than the Federal Ambient Water Quality Criteria.

Relevant and Appropriate, Chemical-specific G2, G4

Florida Groundwater Classes, Standards and Exemptions (Chapter 62-520, FAC)

Rule designates the groundwater of the State into five classes and establishes minimum "free from" criteria. Rule also specifies that Class I & II waters must meet primary and secondary drinking water standards listed in Chapter 62-550, FAC.

These regulations should be used when determining cleanup levels for groundwater.

Relevant and Appropriate, Chemical-specific

G2, G4

Florida Drinking Water Standards (Chapter 62-550, FAC)

Rule adopts Federal primary and secondary drinking water standards and also creates additional rules to fulfill state and federal requirements for community water distribution systems.

The standards provided in this rule will be used when evaluating cleanup levels for groundwater at PSC 51.

Relevant and Appropriate, Chemical-specific 2,4

Hazardous Waste Rules (Chapter 62-730, FAC)

These rules adopt by reference appropriate sections of 40 CFR Parts 260 through 268 and established minor additions and exceptions to these regulations concerning the generation, storage, treatment, transportation, and disposal of hazardous waste.

At PSC 51 any investigative-derived waste would be analyzed and classified prior to disposal.

Applicable, Action-specific

G1, G2, G4

Groundwater Cleanup Target Levels, Florida Department of Environmental Protection (Chapter 62-777 FAC)

The document provides maximum concentration levels of contaminants for groundwater in the State of Florida. Groundwater with concentrations less than the listed values are considered "free from" contamination.

The values in this guidance (other than the primary standards established in other regualtiosn) should be considered when determining cleanup levels for groundwater.

TBC, Chemical Specific

G2, G4

Soil Cleanup Target Levels of Florida Provides maximum concentration levels of contaminants for soil in the State of Florida. Includes levels for residential, industrial, and leaching exposure scenarios.

The values in this guidance should be considered when determining cleanup levels for soil.

TBC, Chemical Specific

S1

Notes: 1 The values in this column reference the 4 major components of the selected remedy as listed in Section 2.10.2.Portions of this Table have been reproduced from reference HLA, 2000. S1 = Soil Alternative 1G1 = Groundwater Alternative 1

Rev. 4 08/16/05

03JAX0002 R-1 CTO 0100

REFERENCES

ABB-ES (ABB Environmental Services), 1995. Naval Installation Restoration Program Plan, Volume 2,

Remedial Response Decision System, NAS Jacksonville, Jacksonville, Florida. Prepared for

SOUTHNAVFACENGCOM, North Charleston, South Carolina.

BEI (Bechtel Environmental, Inc.), 1999. Completion Report for the PSC 51 South Antenna Area, NAS

Jacksonville, Jacksonville, Florida. Prepared for Southern Division, Naval Facilities Engineering

Command, North Charleston, South Carolina.

Davis, J. Hal, 1996. Simulation of Groundwater Flow at the U.S. Naval Air Station Jacksonville, Florida,

with an Evaluation of the Changes to Groundwater Movement Caused by Proposed Remedial Designs at

Operable Unit 1. Open File 96-597. USGS.

Fairchild, R.W., 1972. The Shallow-Aquifer System in Duval County, Florida: Florida Bureau of Geology

Report of Investigation No. 59.

FDEP (Florida Department of Environmental Protection), 1999. Contaminant Clean-up Target Levels

FAC. 62-777, Florida Department of Environmental Protection, August 5, 1999.

FDEP, 1999. Chapter 62-520 Ground Water Classes, Standards, and Exemptions, Florida Department of

Environmental Protection, as published on Website http://www.dep.state.fl.us/legal/Rules/shared/62-

520.pdf and last reviewed on March 2, 2005.

FDEP, Chapter 62-550 Drinking Water Standards, Monitoring, and Reporting, Florida Department of

Environmental Protection, as published on Website http://www.dep.state.fl.us/legal/Rules/shared/62-

550.pdf and last reviewed on March 2, 2005.

Freeze, R. Alan and Cherry, John A., 1979. Groundwater.

HLA (Harding Lawson Associates), 1999. Sampling Event Report for Potential Source of Contamination

51, South Antenna Field, Fire Fighting Training Area NAS Jacksonville, Jacksonville, Florida. Prepared

for Southern Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command. April.

Leve, G.W., 1966. Groundwater in Duval And Nassau Counties, Florida; Bureau of Geology Report of

Investigation NO. 43.

NAS Jacksonville, 1990. FFA Site Management Plan; November 14.

Rev. 4 08/16/05

03JAX0002 R-2 CTO 0100

NAS Jacksonville Partnering Team, 2001. NAS Jacksonville Partnering Team Meeting Minutes.

March 6, 2001.

Scott, T.M., 1988. The Lithostratigraphy of the Hawthorn Group (Miocene) of Florida: Florida Geological

Survey Bulletin No. 59.

TtNUS (Tetra Tech NUS, Inc.), 2002a. Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study for Potential Source of

Contamination 51, Naval Air Station Jacksonville, Jacksonville, Florida. Prepared for Southern Division,

Naval Facilities Engineering Command, North Charleston, South Carolina.

TtNUS, 2002b. Proposed Plan for PSC 51. Prepared for Southern Division, Naval Facilities Engineering

Command, North Charleston, South Carolina. December.

USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency), 1988. Guidance for Conducting Remedial

investigations and Feasibility Studies under CERCLA, Interim Final. USEPA/540/G-89/004. Office of

Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER), Washington D.C. October.

USEPA, 1999. A Guide to Preparing Superfund Proposed Plans, Records of Decision, and Other

Remedy Selection Decision Documents. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER)

9200.1-23P. EPA Document 540-R-98-031. July.

Rev. 4 08/16/05

03JAX0002 A-1 CTO 0100

APPENDIX A

RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY

Rev. 4 08/16/05

03JAX0002 A-2 CTO 0100

Responsiveness Summary Potential Source of Contamination (PSC) 51

Former Fire Fighting Training Area and Oil Disposal Area Naval Air Station Jacksonville

Jacksonville, Florida

A public comment period on the PSC 51 Proposed Plan was held from 7 January 2003 through

6 February 2003. A public meeting was conducted on 14 January 2003 to hear public comment.

No significant comments were received.

Rev. 4 08/16/05

03JAX0002 B-1 CTO 0100

APPENDIX B

FIGURES FROM TtNUS RI/FS

ESTIMATED EXTENT OF SOIL AND GROUNDWATER COPCs

B

B'

A

A'

09/06/02Rev. 2

CTO 01002-10TtNUS-FY00-0086

09/06/02Rev. 2

CTO 01002-11TtNUS-FY00-0086

09/06/02Rev. 2

CTO 01002-12TtNUS-FY00-0086

CHECKED BY DATE

COST/SCHEDULE-AREA

SCALE

P:\GIS\JACKSONVILLE_NAS\APR\PSC_51.APR BENZENE GROUNDWATER PLUME 5/1/02 JAL

AS NOTED

BENZENE GROUNDWATER PLUME EXCEEDING FDEP GCTLs (AERIAL VIEW)PSC 51RI/FS

NAS JACKSONVILLEJACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA

DATE

DATE

APPROVED BY

DRAWING NO. REV

APPROVED BY

0

0253

__ __

__

CONTRACT NUMBER

"́"́"́

"́

"́"́

"́ "́

$T$T

$T

$T

$T$T

$T$T

$T$T

$T

$T$T

$T

$T$T

$T $T

$T$T

$T

"́

"́

"́

"́

"́

"́

"́

"́"́ "́

"́"́

"́"́

#MW-01# DPT-01

# DPT-03#DPT-02

#MW-02

#DPT-22

#DPT-25

#DPT-21

#DPT-04

#DPT-24

#

MW-03

#DPT-06

#

DPT-08#

MW-07

#DPT-05 #

DPT-09

#DPT-12

#DPT-16

#

MW-06

#

DPT-10#

MW-04

#

MW-05#

DPT-07

#

DPT-23

# DPT-26

#

DPT-20

#DPT-13

# DPT-11

# DPT-15

# DPT-14

# DPT-19

#MW-51-05#

MW-51-06#

MW-10D

#

MW-08S

#

MW-09I

#

MW-11SMW-12D

#OU1-MW81#

OU1-MW80 #

OU1-HMW10

Patrol Rd.

Alleg

heny

St.

#DPT-17

#

DPT-18

N

_____ _____

100 0 100 Feet

__

DATEDRAWN BY

5/1/02J. LAMEY

Building/Structure

Fence

Surface Water

Road

Vegetation

Property Boundary

LEGEND$T DPT Boring Location"́ Monitoring Well

19016514011590654015

215240

Benzene

RoofG

FIGURE 5-3

Julie M Johnson

Rev. 2 09/06/02

Julie M Johnson

TtNUS-FY00-0086

Julie M Johnson

5-41

Julie M Johnson

CTO 0100

DRAWN BY D ATE

CHECKED BY D ATE

COST/SCHED - AREA

SCALE

RLMCONTRACT NO.

APPROVED BY D ATE

APPROVED BY D ATE

DRAWING NO. REV.

4/5/02 0253

FIGURE 5-4 0

BENZENE GROUNDWATER PLUMEEXCEEDING FDEP GCTL (3-D VIEW)

PSC 51 RI/FSNAS JACKSONVILLE


Julie M Johnson

Rev. 2 09/06/02

Julie M Johnson

TtNUS-FY00-0086

Julie M Johnson

5-42

Julie M Johnson

CTO 0100

CHECKED BY DATE

COST/SCHEDULE-AREA

SCALE

P:\GIS\JACKSONVILLE_NAS\APR\PSC_51.APR ETHYLBENZENE GROUNDWATER PLUME 5/2/02 JAL

AS NOTED

ETHYLBENZENE GROUNDWATER PLUME EXCEEDING FDEP GCTLs (AERIAL VIEW)PSC 51RI/FS


DATE

DATE

APPROVED BY

DRAWING NO. REV

APPROVED BY

0

0253

__ __

__

19

CONTRACT NUMBER

"́"́"́

"́

"́"́

"́ "́

$T$T

$T

$T

$T$T

$T$T

$T$T

$T

$T$T

$T

$T$T

$T $T

$T$T

$T

"́

"́

"́

"́

"́

"́

"́

"́"́ "́

"́"́

"́"́ DPT-18

#

DPT-17 #

Alleg

heny

St.Patrol Rd.

#

OU1-HMW10#

OU1-MW80#OU1-MW81

#

MW-11SMW-12D

#

MW-09I

#

MW-08S

#

MW-10D

MW-51-06#

MW-51-05 #

# DPT-19

#

DPT-14# DPT-15

#

DPT-11

#

DPT-13

#

DPT-20

# DPT-26#

DPT-23

DPT-07

#

MW-05#

#

MW-04

#

DPT-10#

MW-06

#DPT-16

#DPT-12

#

DPT-09#DPT-05

#

MW-07#

DPT-08

#DPT-06

#

MW-03

#DPT-24

#DPT-04

#DPT-21

#DPT-25

#DPT-22

#MW-02

#DPT-02

# DPT-03

# DPT-01#MW-01 N

_____ _____

100 0 100 Feet

__

DATEDRAWN BY

5/2/02J. LAMEY

Building/Structure

Fence

Surface Water

Road

Vegetation

Property Boundary


756555453525155

85Ethylbenzene

ClaggettE

FIGURE 5-5

Julie M Johnson

Rev. 2 09/06/02

Julie M Johnson

5-43

Julie M Johnson

CTO 0100

Julie M Johnson

TtNUS-FY00-0086

DRAWN BY D ATE

CHECKED BY D ATE

COST/SCHED - AREA

SCALE

CONTRACT NO.

APPROVED BY D ATE

APPROVED BY D ATE

DRAWING NO. REV.

RLM 4/5/02 0253

FIGURE 5-6 0

ETHYLBENZENE GROUNDWATER PLUMEEXCEEDING FDEP GCTL (3-D VIEW)



Julie M Johnson

Rev. 2 09/06/02

Julie M Johnson

5-44

Julie M Johnson

CTO 0100

Julie M Johnson

TtNUS-FY00-0086

CHECKED BY DATE

COST/SCHEDULE-AREA

SCALE

P:\GIS\JACKSONVILLE_NAS\APR\PSC_51.APR TOLUENE GROUNDWATER PLUME 5/2/02 JAL

AS NOTED

TOLUENE GROUNDWATER PLUME EXCEEDING FDEP GCTLs (AERIAL VIEW)PSC 51RI/FS


DATE

DATE

APPROVED BY

DRAWING NO. REV

APPROVED BY

0

0253

__ __

__

FIGURE 5-21

CONTRACT NUMBER

"́"́"́

"́

"́"́

"́ "́

$T$T

$T

$T

$T$T

$T$T

$T$T

$T

$T$T

$T

$T$T

$T $T

$T$T

$T

"́

"́

"́

"́

"́

"́

"́

"́"́ "́

"́"́

"́"́

#MW-01# DPT-01

# DPT-03#DPT-02

#MW-02

#DPT-22

#DPT-25

#DPT-21

#DPT-04

#DPT-24

#

MW-03

#DPT-06

DPT-08

# MW-07#

#DPT-05 #

DPT-09

#DPT-12

#DPT-16

#

MW-06

#

DPT-10#

MW-04

#

MW-05#

DPT-07

DPT-23# # DPT-26

DPT-20#

DPT-13#

DPT-11#

# DPT-15DPT-14

#

# DPT-19

#MW-51-05#

MW-51-06

#

MW-10D

#

MW-08S

#

MW-09I

#

MW-11SMW-12D

#OU1-MW81#

OU1-MW80 #

OU1-HMW10

Patrol Rd.

Alleg

heny

St.

#DPT-17

#

DPT-18

N

_____ _____

100 0 100 Feet

__

DATEDRAWN BY

5/2/02J. LAMEY

Building/Structure

Fence

Surface Water

Road

Vegetation

Property Boundary


3703202702201701207020

420470

Toluene

ClaggettE

FIGURE 5-7

Julie M Johnson

Rev. 2 09/06/02

Julie M Johnson

TtNUS-FY00-0086

Julie M Johnson

CTO 0100

Julie M Johnson

5-45

DRAWN BY D ATE

CHECKED BY D ATE

COST/SCHED - AREA

SCALE

CONTRACT NO.

APPROVED BY D ATE

APPROVED BY D ATE

DRAWING NO. REV.

RLM 4/5/02 0253

FIGURE 5-8 0

TOLUENE GROUNDWATER PLUMEEXCEEDING FDEP GCTL (3-D VIEW)



Julie M Johnson

Rev. 2 09/06/02

Julie M Johnson

5-46

Julie M Johnson

CTO 0100

Julie M Johnson

TtNUS-FY00-0086

CHECKED BY DATE

COST/SCHEDULE-AREA

SCALE

P:\GIS\JACKSONVILLE_NAS\APR\PSC_51.APR TOTAL XYLENES GROUNDWATER PLUME 5/2/02 JAL

AS NOTED

TOTAL XYLENES GROUNDWATER PLUME EXCEEDING FDEP GCTLs (AERIAL VIEW)PSC 51RI/FS


DATE

DATE

APPROVED BY

DRAWING NO. REV

APPROVED BY

0

0253

__ __

__

FIGURE 5-23

CONTRACT NUMBER

"́"́"́

"́

"́"́

"́ "́

$T$T

$T

$T

$T$T

$T$T

$T$T

$T

$T$T

$T

$T$T

$T $T

$T$T

$T

"́

"́

"́

"́

"́

"́

"́

"́"́ "́

"́"́

"́"́

#MW-01# DPT-01

# DPT-03#DPT-02

#MW-02

#DPT-22

#DPT-25

#DPT-21

#DPT-04

#DPT-24

#

MW-03

#DPT-06

#

DPT-08#

MW-07

#DPT-05 #

DPT-09

#DPT-12

#DPT-16

#

MW-06

#

DPT-10#

MW-04

#

MW-05#

DPT-07

#DPT-23

# DPT-26

#DPT-20

#

DPT-13

#

DPT-11

# DPT-15

# DPT-14

# DPT-19

#MW-51-05#

MW-51-06

#

MW-10D

#

MW-08S

#

MW-09I

#

MW-11SMW-12D

#OU1-MW81#

OU1-MW80 #

OU1-HMW10

Patrol Rd.

Alleg

heny

St.

#DPT-17

#

DPT-18

N

_____ _____

100 0 100 Feet

__

DATEDRAWN BY

5/2/02J. LAMEY

Building/Structure

Fence

Surface Water

Road

Vegetation

Property Boundary


3803302802301801308030

Total Xylenes

ClaggettE

FIGURE 5-9

Julie M Johnson

Rev. 2 09/06/02

Julie M Johnson

TtNUS-FY00-0086

Julie M Johnson

CTO 0100

Julie M Johnson

5-47

DRAWN BY D ATE

CHECKED BY D ATE

COST/SCHED - AREA

SCALE

CONTRACT NO.

APPROVED BY D ATE

APPROVED BY D ATE

DRAWING NO. REV.

RLM 4/5/02 0253

FIGURE 5-10 0

TOTAL XYLENES GROUNDWATER PLUMEEXCEEDING FDEP GCTL (3-D VIEW)



Julie M Johnson

Rev. 2 09/06/02

Julie M Johnson

5-48

Julie M Johnson

TtNUS-FY00-0086

Julie M Johnson

CTO 0100

CHECKED BY DATE

COST/SCHEDULE-AREA

SCALE

P:\GIS\JACKSONVILLE_NAS\APR\PSC_51.APR TCE GROUNDWATER PLUME 5/1/02 JAL

AS NOTED

TCE GROUNDWATER PLUME EXCEEDING FDEP GCTLs (AERIAL VIEW)PSC 51RI/FS


DATE

DATE

APPROVED BY

DRAWING NO. REV

APPROVED BY

0

0253

__ __

__

FIGURE 5-13

CONTRACT NUMBER

"́"́"́

"́

"́"́

"́ "́

$T$T

$T

$T

$T$T

$T$T

$T$T

$T

$T$T

$T

$T$T

$T $T

$T$T

$T

"́

"́

"́

"́

"́

"́

"́

"́"́ "́

"́"́

"́"́

#MW-01# DPT-01

# DPT-03#DPT-02

#MW-02

#DPT-22

#DPT-25

#DPT-21

#DPT-04

#DPT-24

#

MW-03

#DPT-06

#

DPT-08#

MW-07

#DPT-05 #

DPT-09

#DPT-12

#DPT-16

#

MW-06

#

DPT-10#

MW-04

#

MW-05#

DPT-07

#

DPT-23

# DPT-26

#

DPT-20

#DPT-13

# DPT-11

# DPT-15

# DPT-14

# DPT-19

#MW-51-05#

MW-51-06#

MW-10D

#

MW-08S

#

MW-09I

#

MW-11SMW-12D

#OU1-MW81#

OU1-MW80 #

OU1-HMW10

Patrol Rd.

Alleg

heny

St.

#DPT-17

#

DPT-18

N

_____ _____

100 0 100 Feet

__

DATEDRAWN BY

4/29/02J. LAMEY

Building/Structure

Fence

Surface Water

Road

Vegetation

Property Boundary


78685848382818

8

TCE

ClaggettE

FIGURE 5-11

Julie M Johnson

Rev. 2 09/06/02

Julie M Johnson

TtNUS-FY00-0086

Julie M Johnson

CTO 0100

Julie M Johnson

5-49

DRAWN BY D ATE

CHECKED BY D ATE

COST/SCHED - AREA

SCALE

CONTRACT NO.

APPROVED BY D ATE

APPROVED BY D ATE

DRAWING NO. REV.

RLM 4/5/02 0253

FIGURE 5-12 0

TCE GROUNDWATER PLUMEEXCEEDING FDEP GCTL (3-D VIEW)



Julie M Johnson

Rev. 2 09/06/02

Julie M Johnson

Julie M Johnson

5-50

Julie M Johnson

CTO 0100

Julie M Johnson

Julie M Johnson

TtNUS-FY00-0086

CHECKED BY DATE

COST/SCHEDULE-AREA

SCALE

P:\GIS\JACKSONVILLE_NAS\APR\PSC_51.APR TCE GROUNDWATER PLUME 4/29/02 JAL

AS NOTED

CIS 1,2-DCE GROUNDWATER PLUME EXCEEDING FDEP GCTLs (AERIAL VIEW)PSC 51RI/FS


DATE

DATE

APPROVED BY

DRAWING NO. REV

APPROVED BY

0

0253

__ __

__

FIGURE 5-15

CONTRACT NUMBER

"́"́"́

"́

"́"́

"́ "́

$T$T

$T

$T

$T$T

$T$T

$T$T

$T

$T$T

$T

$T$T

$T $T

$T$T

$T

"́

"́

"́

"́

"́

"́

"́

"́"́ "́

"́"́

"́"́ DPT-18

#

DPT-17 #

Alleg

heny

St.Patrol Rd.

#

OU1-HMW10#

OU1-MW80#OU1-MW81

#

MW-11SMW-12D

#

MW-09I

#

MW-08S

#

MW-10D

MW-51-06

#

MW-51-05 #

# DPT-19

# DPT-14

# DPT-15

# DPT-11

#DPT-13

#

DPT-20

# DPT-26#

DPT-23

DPT-07

#

MW-05#

#

MW-04

#

DPT-10#

MW-06

#DPT-16

#DPT-12

#

DPT-09#DPT-05

#

MW-07#

DPT-08

#DPT-06

#

MW-03

#DPT-24

#DPT-04

#DPT-21

#DPT-25

#DPT-22

#MW-02

#DPT-02

# DPT-03

# DPT-01#MW-01 N

_____ _____

100 0 100 Feet

__

DATEDRAWN BY

5/1/02J. LAMEY

Building/Structure

Fence

Surface Water

Road

Vegetation

Property Boundary


110

90

70

50

30

10

CIS 1,2-DCE

ClaggettE

FIGURE 5-13

Julie M Johnson

TtNUS-FY00-0086

Julie M Johnson

CTO 0100

Julie M Johnson

5-51

Julie M Johnson

Rev. 2 09/06/02

DRAWN BY D ATE

CHECKED BY D ATE

COST/SCHED - AREA

SCALE

CONTRACT NO.

APPROVED BY D ATE

APPROVED BY D ATE

DRAWING NO. REV.

RLM 4/5/02 0253

FIGURE 5-14 0

CIS-1,2 DCE GROUNDWATER PLUMEEXCEEDING FDEP GCTL (3-D VIEW)



Julie M Johnson

Rev. 2 09/06/02

Julie M Johnson

TtNUS-FY00-0086

Julie M Johnson

5-52

Julie M Johnson

CTO 0100

Julie M Johnson

CHECKED BY DATE

COST/SCHEDULE-AREA

SCALE

P:\GIS\JACKSONVILLE_NAS\APR\PSC_51.APR VINYL CHLORIDE GROUNDWATER PLUME 5/2/02 JAL

AS NOTED

VINYL CHLORIDE GROUNDWATER PLUME EXCEEDING FDEP GCTLs (AERIAL VIEW)PSC 51RI/FS


DATE

DATE

APPROVED BY

DRAWING NO. REV

APPROVED BY

0

0253

__ __

__

FIGURE 5-17

CONTRACT NUMBER

"́"́"́

"́

"́"́

"́ "́

$T$T

$T

$T

$T$T

$T$T

$T$T

$T

$T$T

$T

$T$T

$T $T

$T$T

$T

"́

"́

"́

"́

"́

"́

"́

"́"́ "́

"́"́

"́"́

#MW-01# DPT-01

# DPT-03#DPT-02

#MW-02

#DPT-22

#DPT-25

#DPT-21

#DPT-04

#

DPT-24

#

MW-03

#

DPT-06#

DPT-08

#

MW-07

#

DPT-05

#

DPT-09#

DPT-12

#DPT-16

#

MW-06

# DPT-10#

MW-04

#

MW-05#

DPT-07

#

DPT-23# DPT-26

#DPT-20

#

DPT-13# DPT-11

# DPT-15

# DPT-14

# DPT-19

#

MW-51-05

#

MW-51-06

#

MW-10D

#

MW-08S

#

MW-09I

#

MW-11SMW-12D

#OU1-MW81#

OU1-MW80 #

OU1-HMW10

Patrol Rd.

Alleg

heny

St.

#DPT-17

#

DPT-18

N

_____ _____

100 0 100 Feet

__

DATEDRAWN BY

5/2/02J. LAMEY

Building/Structure

Fence

Surface Water

Road

Vegetation

Property Boundary


37

32

2722

17

12

7

2

Vinyl Chloride

ClaggettE

FIGURE 5-15

Julie M Johnson

Rev. 2 09/06/02

Julie M Johnson

CTO 0100

Julie M Johnson

TtNUS-FY00-0086

Julie M Johnson

5-53

DRAWN BY D ATE

CHECKED BY D ATE

COST/SCHED - AREA

SCALE

CONTRACT NO.

APPROVED BY D ATE

APPROVED BY D ATE

DRAWING NO. REV.

RLM 4/5/02 0253

FIGURE 5-16 0

VINYL CHLORIDE GROUNDWATERPLUME

EXCEEDING FDEP GCTL (3-D VIEW)PSC 51 RI/FS


Julie M Johnson

Rev. 2 09/06/02

Julie M Johnson

5-54

Julie M Johnson

TtNUS-FY00-0086

Julie M Johnson

CTO 0100

CHECKED BY DATE

COST/SCHEDULE-AREA

SCALE

P:\GIS\JACKSONVILLE_NAS\APR\PSC_51.APR NAPTHALENE GROUNDWATER PLUME 5/2/02 JAL

AS NOTED

NAPTHALENE GROUNDWATER PLUME EXCEEDING FDEP GCTLs (AERIAL VIEW)PSC 51RI/FS


DATE

DATE

APPROVED BY

DRAWING NO. REV

APPROVED BY

0

0253

__ __

__

FIGURE 5-25

CONTRACT NUMBER

"́"́"́

"́

"́"́

"́ "́

$T$T

$T

$T

$T$T

$T$T

$T$T

$T

$T$T

$T

$T$T

$T $T

$T$T

$T

"́

"́

"́

"́

"́

"́

"́

"́"́ "́

"́"́

"́"́

#MW-01# DPT-01

# DPT-03#DPT-02

#MW-02

#DPT-22

#DPT-25

#DPT-21

#DPT-04

#DPT-24

#

MW-03

#DPT-06

#

DPT-08

#

MW-07

#DPT-05 #

DPT-09

#DPT-12

#DPT-16

#

MW-06

#

DPT-10#

MW-04

#

MW-05#

DPT-07

#

DPT-23# DPT-26

# DPT-20

#

DPT-13

#DPT-11

# DPT-15

# DPT-14

# DPT-19

#MW-51-05#

MW-51-06

#

MW-10D

#

MW-08S

#

MW-09I

#

MW-11SMW-12D

#OU1-MW81#

OU1-MW80 #

OU1-HMW10

Patrol Rd.

Alleg

heny

St.

#DPT-17

#

DPT-18

N

_____ _____

100 0 100 Feet

__

DATEDRAWN BY

5/2/02J. LAMEY

Building/Structure

Fence

Surface Water

Road

Vegetation

Property Boundary


120

80

60

40

20

0

100

Napthalene

ClaggettE

FIGURE 5-17

Julie M Johnson

Rev. 2 09/06/02

Julie M Johnson

TtNUS-FY00-0086

Julie M Johnson

CTO 0100

Julie M Johnson

5-55

DRAWN BY D ATE

CHECKED BY D ATE

COST/SCHED - AREA

SCALE

CONTRACT NO.

APPROVED BY D ATE

APPROVED BY D ATE

DRAWING NO. REV.

RLM 4/5/02 0253

FIGURE 5-18 0

NAPHTHALENE GROUNDWATER PLUMEEXCEEDING FDEP GCTL (3-D VIEW)



Julie M Johnson

Rev. 2 09/06/02

Julie M Johnson

5-56

Julie M Johnson

CTO 0100

Julie M Johnson

TtNUS-FY00-0086

Rev. 4 08/16/05

03JAX0002 C-1 CTO 0100

APPENDIX C

DETAILED COST ESTIMATE OF SELECTED REMEDY

Rev. 105/10/02

Alternative S-2PSC 51

Cost Estimate/Backup:

Alternative S-2 (Limited Action)

Estimator: JDF

Checked By: TJR

COST SUMMARY TABLE (costs rounded to nearest $1000)

DIRECT COSTS

Warning Signs $500

Institutional Controls $5,000

Total Direct Costs $5,000

INDIRECT COSTS

Labor OH, Engineering and

Design, and Construction Support Services. $325

Total Capital Costs (Direct + Indirect) $5,000

OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE

Five-Year Site Reviews (annualized) $5,000

Total Administrative O&M (annual) $5,000

PRESENT WORTH OF O&M (7%, 30 yrs) ($70,732) $71,000

Total Capital and O&M Cost $76,000

Contingency (20%) $25,000

TOTAL COST $101,000

TtNUS-FY00-0086 M-2 CTO 0100

Rev. 105/10/02

Alternative S-3PSC 51


Alternative S-3 (Excavation and Disposal)

Estimator: JDF

Checked By: TJR


DIRECT COSTS

Site Preparation and Mobilization $40,000

Remedial Activities $13,000

Offsite Disposal of Soil $250,000

Management of Decontamination Fluid $2,000

Site Restoration and Demobilization $10,000

Total Direct costs $315,000

INDIRECT COSTS

Labor OH (@30%) $94,000

Engineering and Design (@20%) $63,000

Construction Support Services (@20%) $63,000

Total Indirect costs $220,000

Total Capital Costs $535,000

Contingency (@15%) $80,000

TOTAL COSTS $615,000

TtNUS-FY00-0086 M-4 CTO 0100

Rev. 105/10/02

Alternative GW-2PSC 51


Alternative GW-2 (Natural Attenuation Alternative)

Estimator: JDF

Checked By:


DIRECT COSTS

Purchase of Equipment for Natural Attenuation Parameters Measured in Field $4,000



INDIRECT COSTS

Health and Safety, HASP $8,000

Engineering and Administration, SAP $8,000

Total Indirect Costs $16,000



Quarterly Natural Attenuation Groundwater Monitoring and reporting (first Year) $72,000

Semi-Annual Natural Attenuation Groundwater Monitoring and Reporting (second year) $36,000

Present Cost of Sampling for first and second year $108,000

Annual Natural Attenuation Groundwater Monitoring $9,000

Annual Groundwater Reporting $9,000




Present Cost of first two years plus present worth for 13 years $309,000



TOTAL COST $384,000

TtNUS-FY00-0086 M-7 CTO 0100

Rev. 105/10/02



Alternative GW-3 (Enhanced Biodegradation)

Estimator: JDF

Checked By:


DIRECT COSTS

Oxygen Releasing Compound Injection $166,000

Purchase of Equipment for Monitoring Parameters Measured in Field $2,000

Groundwater Use Restrictions $5,000

Treatability Study $42,000


INDIRECT COSTS

Labor OH (30%) $64,000

Engineering and Design (20%) $43,000

Construction and Support Services (20%) $43,000



Total Indirect Costs

Health and Safety Plan for Monitoring Activities $8,000

Sampling and Analysis Plan for Monitoring Activities $8,000

Operation and Maintenance

Groundwater Monitoring for Natural Attenuation 1st Year (quarterly) $37,000

Groundwater Monitoring Report $9,000


Groundwater Monitoring (annual) $9,000




Treatment System O&M

Present Value - ORC O&M (Reinjection 1 year after initial injection 1/2 amount of initial injection) $83,000



TOTAL COST $600,000

TtNUS-FY00-0086 M-11 CTO 0100

Rev. 105/10/02



Alternative GW-4 (Chemical Oxidation)

Estimator: JDF

Checked By:


DIRECT COSTS

Chemical Oxidation Injection System 182,000$

Groundwater Use Restrictions 5,000$

Treatability Study 37,000$

Total Direct Costs 224,000$

INDIRECT COSTS

Labor OH (30%) 67,000$

Engineering and Design (20%) 45,000$

Construction and Support Services (20%) 45,000$

Total Indirect Costs 157,000$

Total Capital Costs (Direct + Indirect) 381,000$


Administrative O&M 15,000$

Groundwater Monitoring (Quarterly) 32,000$

Monitoring Reports (Quarterly) 36,000$

Five-Year Site Reviews (annualized) 6,000$

Total Administrative O&M (annual) 89,000$

PRESENT WORTH OF O&M (7%, 2 yrs) ($160,914) 161,000$

Total Capital and O&M Cost 542,000$

Contingency (50%) 271,000$

Note: contingency cost at 50% because although vendor quote

was provided for direct cost, this quote was very low based on

previous costs for chemical oxidation.

TOTAL COST $813,000

TtNUS-FY00-0086 M-16 CTO 0100

Rev. 105/10/02



Alternative GW-5 (Groundwater Extraction and Treatment Via Packed Tower Air Stripper, and Discharge to FOTW)

Estimator: JDF

Checked By:


DIRECT COSTS

Site Preparation $34,000

Groundwater Extraction System $85,000

Air Stripper, GAC, and Filter System $13,000



Total Direct Cost $157,000

INDIRECT COSTS

Labor OH (30%) $47,000


Construction Support Services (20%) $31,000




Administrative O&M

Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP) for Monitoring Activities $8,000

Annual Groundwater Monitoring $8,000

Reporting, Site Activities Report $9,000

Five-Year Reviews (annualized) $6,000

Total Administrative O&M, annual $23,000


Present worth O&M + SAP $158,000


System Maintenance $32,000

Utilities $15,000

Total Treatment System O&M, annual $47,000

Present Worth of Treatment System O&M (7%, 8 yrs) ($346,335) $346,000

Present Worth O&M (Administrative + Treatment System O&M) $504,000



TOTAL COST $1,003,000

TtNUS-FY00-0086 M-20 CTO 0100

Rev. 105/10/02



Alternative GW-2 (Air Sparging)

Estimator: JDF

Checked By:


DIRECT COSTS

Site Preparation $34,000

Air Sparging System Well Installation $47,000

Piping and Equipment $57,000

Total Installation labor $26,000



Total Direct Cost $189,000

INDIRECT COSTS

Labor OH (30%) $57,000


Construction Support Services (20%) $38,000




Administrative O&M

Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP) for Monitoring Activities $9,000

Annual Groundwater Monitoring $8,000

Reporting, Site Activities Report/System Operation Report $9,000

Five-Year Reviews (annualized) $6,000

Total Administrative O&M, annual $23,000


Present worth O&M + SAP $119,000


System Maintenance $31,000

Utilities $11,000

Total Treatment System O&M, annual $42,000

Present Worth of Treatment System O&M (7%, 5 yrs) ($172,208) $172,000

Present Worth O&M (Administrative + Treatment System O&M) $291,000



TOTAL COST $736,000

TtNUS-FY00-0086 M-25 CTO 0100

Rev. 4 08/16/05

03JAX0002 D-1 CTO 0100

APPENDIX D

TABLE 13-3

MILESTONE OBJECTIVES FOR ALTERNATIVE GW-2

FROM THE PSC 51 RI/FS

Table 13-3Milestone Objectives for Alternative GW-2 (Natural Attenuation)

PSC 51

Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study for PSC 51Naval Air Station Jacksonville

Jacksonville, Florida

CompoundFDEP

GCTLs (ug/L)

USEPA MCLs (ug/L)

FDEP NADCs (ug/L)

Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7

Benzene 1 5 100 240 216 192 168 144 120 97 73Ethylbenzene 30 700 300 85 80 74 69 63 58 52 47Toluene 40 1000 400 470 427 384 341 298 255 212 169Xylene (total) 20 10000 200 380 344 308 272 236 200 164 1281,2-DCE 63 70 630 110 107 104 101 97 94 91 88Tricloroethene 3 5 300 78 73 68 63 58 53 48 43Vinyl Chloride 1 2 100 37 35 32 30 28 25 23 20Naphthalene 20 NL 200 120 110 100 90 80 70 60 50Notes: Initial concentrations based on the highest detection of contaminant during the Remedial Investigation.

All Concentrations in ug/L

CompoundFDEP

GCTLs (ug/L)

USEPA MCLs (ug/L)

FDEP NADCs (ug/L)

Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15

Benzene 1 5 100 49 25 1 -- -- -- -- --Ethylbenzene 30 700 300 41 36 30 -- -- -- -- --Toluene 40 1000 400 126 83 40 -- -- -- -- --Xylene (total) 20 10000 200 92 56 20 -- -- -- -- --1,2-DCE 63 70 630 85 82 79 76 72 69 66 63Tricloroethene 3 5 300 38 33 28 23 18 13 8 3Vinyl Chloride 1 2 100 18 16 13 11 8 6 3 1Naphthalene 20 NL 200 40 30 20 -- -- -- -- --