Homestead AR #4045 Page 2 of 281 BUREAU OF WASTE CLEANUP MAR20 2003 TECHNICAL REVIEW SECTION Former Homestead Air Force Base, Florida ii Prepa red fo- Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence 1' Brooks Air Force Base, Texas FINAL RECORD OF DECISION FOR OPERABLE UNIT 9 AND THE CANAL PORTION OF OPERABLE UNIT 11 (EXCLUDING IRP SITES LF-019 AND WP-023) Contract F4 1624-97-D -8017 January 2003 MONTGOMERY WATSON Dyflr.JILJ 'rucir LLftjNL)r Homestead AR #4045 Pa e 3 of 281 MAR 02003 TECHNICALREVIEW SECTION TABLEOF CONTENTS (Continued) 0 ('7 Section Page 1.0 DECLARATION 1 1.1 SITE NAME AND LOCATION 1 1.2 STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE 2 1.3 ASSESSMENT OF SITE 3 1.4 DESCRIPTION OF SELECTED REMEDY 3 1.5 STATUTORY DETERMINATiONS 6 1.6 ROD DATA CERTiFICATION CHECKLIST 7 1.7 AUTHORIZING SIGNATURES 8 2.0 DECISION SUMMARY 2-1 2.1 SITE NAME, LOCATION, AND DESCRIPTION 2-1 2.1.1 OU-9 Boundary Canal System 2-2 2.1.1.1 West-South Boundary Canal Segment 2-2 2.1 .1.2 North-East Boundary Canal Segment 2-3 2.1.1.3 Flightline Canal and Other Drainage Canals 2-3 2.1.2 Stormwater Reservoir 2-5' 2.1.3 Military Canal (OU-ll) 2-5 2.2 SITE HISTORY 2-6 2.2.1Regulatory History 2-6 . 2.2.2History of Site Operations 2-7 ,• 2.2.3 Previous OU-9 Investigations 2-9 2.2.4 Previous OU-1 I Investigations 2-9 2.3 COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION 2-11 2.3.1 Community Participation at 00-9 2-12 2.3.2 Community Participation at OU-11 2-13 2.4 SCOPE AND ROLE OF RESPONSE ACTIONS 2-14 2.4.1 00-9 Boundary Canal 2-14 2.4.2 OU-l 1 Military Canal 2-14 2.5 SITE CHARACTERISTICS OF 00-9 2-16 2.5.1Initial 00-9 Boundary Canal Investigation 2-16 2.5.2 OU-9 Remedial Investigation 2-16 2.5.2.1 Nature and Extent of Contamination 2-17 2,5,2.1.1 Surface Water 2-17 2.5.2.1.2 OU-9 Sediment 2-17 2 12.1,3 Fish Tissue Sampling 2-18 2.5.2.2 Contaminant Transport 2-19 2.5.2.3 Contaminant Migration 2-20 2.5.2.4 Relationship Between Groundwater and Surface Water 2-21 2.5.3 OU-9 Voluntary Custodial Actions 2-21 2.5.4 OU-9 Maintenance Activities 2-22 2.6 SITE CHARACTERISTICS OF 00-11 MILITARY CANAL 2-23 2.6.1 Investigation and Remedial Action Summary 2-23 2.6.1.1 Surface Water Sample Results 2-23 2.6.1.2 Volatile Organic Compounds 2-24 Homestead AR # MAR282003 TABLEOF CONTENTS (Continued) TECHNCAL REVIEWSECTION 2.6.1.3 Base Neutral/Acid Extractable Compounds 2-24 2.6.1.4 Organochiorine Pesticide/Polychiorinated Biphenyl Compounds 2-25 2.6.1.5 Metals and Cyanide 2-25 2.6.1.6 Sediment Sample Results 2-26 2,6.1.6.1 Tidewater Channel 2-27 2.6.1.6.2 Downstream Reach 2-28 2.6.1.6.3 Bridge Reach 2-29 2.6.1.6.4 Upstream Reach 2-30 2.6.2 OU-9 and OU-1 I Contaminant Fate arid Transport 2-31 2.6.2.1 Site Contaminant Migration Pathways 2-31 2.6.2.2 Site Specific Transport Processes C... 2-32 2.6.2,2.1 Analysis Methodology 2-33 2.6.2.2.2 Wet Detention Systems 2-33 2.6.2.2.3 Suspended Solids Removal 2-34 2.6.2.2.4 Data Rcquirements 2-34 2.6.2.2.5 Sources of Data 2-35 2.6.2.2.6 Particle Settling Velocities 2-38 2.6.2.2.7 Results and Conclusions of the Settling Test 2-38 2.6.2.3 Sediment Treatability/Leachability Testing 2-40 2.6.2.3.1 Sample Location 2-40 2.6.2.3.2 Study Methodology 2-41 • 2.6.2.3.3 Summary of Sediment Analytical Results 2-41 2.6.2.4 Surface Water and Sediment 2-42 2.7 CURRENT AND FUTURE LAND USE (OU-9 and OU-1 1) 2-43 2.7.1 Land Use (OU-9 and OU-1 1) 2-43 2.7.2 Groundwater Use (OU-9 and OU-l1) 2-45 2.7.3 Surface Water Use (O1J-9 and OU-11) 2-45 2.8 SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS 2-46 2.9 OU-9 BASELINE RISK ASSESSMENT 2-47 2.9.1 OU-9 Human Health Risk Assessment 2-47 2.9.1.1 Selection of Contaminants of Potential Concern 2-47 2.9.1.2 Exposure Assessment 2-48 2.9.1.3 Toxicity Assessment 2-50 2.9.1.4 Risk Characterization 2-51 2.9.2 OU-9 Ecological Risk Assessment 2-53 2.9.2.1 Ecological Habitat Review 2-54 2.9.2.2 Selection of Chemicals of Potential Concern 2-56 2.9.2.3 Exposure Assessment 2-58 2.9.2.4 Toxicity Assessment 2-62 2.9.2.5 Risk Characterization 2-64 2.10 OU-1I HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT 2-67 2.10.1 OU-11 Screening Criteria Selection 2-67 2.10.1.1 Human Health Screening Criteria Selection 2-68 2.10.1.2 Human Health Risk Assessment Results 2-69 Homestead AR # .Pa.ue5 of 281 uncny Or WR5TLi CLEANuP MAR2 U 2003 TABLEOF CONTENTS (Continued) TECHNICALREVIEW SECTiON 2.10.2OU-1 1 Ecological Risk Assessment 2-71 Common Name 2-72 Freshwater Fish 2-72 Common snook 2-72 Mammals 2-72 Birds 2-72 Amphibians 2-72 Reptiles 2-72 2.10.2.1 Sediment Screening and Results 2-73 2.10,2.2 Surface Water Screening and Results 2-73 2.10.2.3 Conclu8ions 2-74 2.11 DISCUSSION OF REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVES 2-74 2.11.1 OU-9 Remedial Action Objectives 2-74 2.11.1.1 Basis and Rational for OU-9 Remedial Action Objectives 2-74 2,1 3.1.2 How OLJ-9 Remedial Action Objectives Address Risk 2-75 2.11.2 OU-11 Discussion of Remedial Action Objectives 2-75 2.11.2.1 013-11 Sediment Remedial Action Objectives 2-75 2.11.2.2 Considerations 2-76 2.11.2.3 Basis and Rationale 2-76 2 11.2.4 How 013-11 Remedial Action Objectives Address Risk 2-76 2.12 DESCRIPTION OF 013-11 ALTERNATIVES 2-77 2.13 DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF OU-l I ALTERNATIVES 2-78 2.13.1 Alternative 1: No Further Action 2-78 2.13.1.1 Description of Alternative 2-78 2.13.1.2 Assessment of Alternative 2-78 2.13.2 Alternative 2'— Sediment Transport Control Structure, Support DERMs Wetland Project and Dredge Entire OU-l I Canal 2-79 2.13.2.1 Description of Alternative 2-79 2.13.2.2 Assessment of Alternative 2-81 2.13.3 Alternative 3 —SedimentTransport Control Structure, Support of DERMs Pilot Wetland Project, and Encapsulating the Entire OU-l I Canal 2-82 2.13.3.1 Description of Alternative 2-82 2.13.3.2 Assessment of Alternative 2-83 2.14 SUMMARY OF 013-11 REMEDY 2-84 2.14.1 Identification of Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements 2-85 2.14.1.1 Chemical-Specific ARARs 2-87 2.14.1.2 Location-Specific ARARs 2-88 2.14.1.3 Action-Specific ARARS 2-90 2.14.2 Expected Outcomes of Each Alternative 2-90 2.14.2.1 Identification of Remedial Action Objectives 2-91 2.14.3 Sediment Remedial Action Objectives 2-91 2.14.4 General Considerations 2-91 2.15 SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES 2-92 2.15.1 Effectiveness 2-93 Homestead AR # MAR202003 TECHNiCALREVIEW SECTION TABLEOF CONTENTS (Continued) 2.15.2 Implementability 2-94 2.15.3 Cost 2-94 2.15.4 Detailed Analysis Criteria 2-95 2.15.4,1 Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment 2-96 2.15.4.2 Compliance with ARA.Rs 2-96 2.15.4.3 Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence 2-96 2.15,4.4 Reduction of TMV Through Treatment 2-97 2.15.4.5 Short-Term Effectiveness 2-97 2.15.4.6 Implementability 2-98 2.15.4.7 Cost 2-98 2.15.4.8 State Acceptance 2-99 2.15.4.9 Community Acceptance 2-100 2.16 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATiVES 2-100 2.16.1 Comparative Analysis 2-100 2.16.2 Comparison of Nine Criteria 2-101 2.16.2.1 Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment 2-101 2.16.2.2 Compliance with ARARs 2-101 2,16.2.3 Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence 2-102 2.16.2.4 Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume Through Treatment 2-102 2.16.2.5 Short-Term Effectiveness 2-102 2.16.2.6 Implementability 2-103 • 2.16.2.7 Cost 2-103 2.16.2.8 State and Community Acceptance 2-104 2.17 SELECTED REMEDY 2-104 2.18 STATUTORY DETERMiNATIONS 2-107 2.18.1 Protection of Human Health and the Environment 2-107 2.18.2 Compliance with ARARs 2-108 2.18.3 Cost-Effectiveness 2-108 2.18.4 Permanent Solutions and Alternative Treatment Technologies 2-109 2.18.5 Preference for Treatment as a Principal Element 2-109 2.18.6 Five-Year Review Requirements 2-109 3.0 RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY 3-1 3.1 OU-9 RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY 3-1 3.1.1 Overview 3-1 3.1.2 Background Of Community Involvement 3-1 3.1.3 Summary of Comments From the Public Comment Period and Responses 3-2 3.2 OU-1 1 RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY 3-7 3.2.1 Overview 3-7 3.2.2 Background of Community Involvement 3-8 3.2.3 Summary of ConirnentsFromthe Public Comment Period and Responses 3-8 .