PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT
NAVAL AIR STATION CECIL FIELD
(a/k/a USN AIR STATION CECIL FIELD)
JACKSONVILLE, DUVAL COUNTY, FLORIDA
APPENDIX A: SUMMARY OF SITE EVALUATIONS, NAS CECIL FIELD
(Future reuse categories obtained from NAS CF Base Reuse Plan, Table 4-51)
| Base Area and Site Name | Public Health Evaluation | Comments |
| Main Station: by proposed future use category | ||
|
Forestry Site 17: Oil/Sludge Disposal Pit |
• No past exposure situations were identified for these sites • No one is currently coming into contact with contaminated materials at levels posing a potential health hazard • Lease and transfer documents will provide notification of residual contamination left on site, if any, minimizing the likelihood that workers will be exposed during future development of the properties |
• Investigations complete - remedial
action on-going: Site 17
? What is the status of AOI 35? |
|
Light Industry No sites are located in the area proposed for light industry reuse |
• Since no waste sites or areas of interest are located in this area, no past, current, or future exposure situations were identified |
• Not applicable |
|
Parks and Recreation Site 3: Oil/Sludge Disposal Pit |
• No past exposure situations were identified for these sites • No one is currently coming into contact with contaminated materials at levels posing a potential health hazard • Lease and transfer documents will provide notification of residual contamination left on site, if any, minimizing the likelihood that workers will be exposed during future development of the properties • Testing of Lake Fretwell game fish by NAS CF demonstrates that past and current consumption of fish from this lake does not pose a health hazard. However, there is uncertainty in (i) whether releases of contaminants to the lake are on-going and (ii) whether the investigations of the remaining potential source areas will permit identification and mitigation of the source. |
• Investigations complete - no further action required to protect public health and the environment: Lake Fretwell • Investigations complete - remedial action in 1998: Sites 3, 5, 11 • Investigations complete - remedial action selection in 1998: Sites 4, 6, 19 • ATSDR recommends that the Cecil Field Development Commission develop and implement a fish tissue monitoring plan to ensure that future concentrations of mercury and PCBs in fish do not pose a hazard to the health of Lake Fretwell fishers. |
|
Heavy Industry Site 12: Public Works Rubble Disposal |
• No past exposure situations were identified for these sites • No one is currently coming into contact with contaminated materials at levels posing a potential health hazard • Lease and transfer documents will provide notification of residual contamination left on site, if any, minimizing the likelihood that workers will be exposed during future development of the properties |
• Investigations complete - remedial
action selection in 1998: Site 12
? What is the status of AOIs 25, 26, 27, 35? |
|
Aviation-related Site 7: Old Fire Fighting Training Area |
• No past exposure situations were identified for these sites • No one is currently coming into contact with contaminated materials at levels posing a potential health hazard • Lease and transfer documents will provide notification of residual contamination left on site, if any, minimizing the likelihood that workers will be exposed during future development of the properties |
• Investigations complete - remedial action in 1998: Sites 7, 16 ? What is the status of AOIs 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33? |
|
General Aviation Site 3: Oil/Sludge Disposal Pits
|
• No past exposure situations were identified for these sites • No one is currently coming into contact with contaminated materials at levels posing a potential health hazard • Lease and transfer documents will provide notification of residual contamination left on site, if any, minimizing the likelihood that workers will be exposed during future development of the properties |
• Investigations complete - remedial
action on-going: Sites 3, 17
• Investigations complete - remedial action selection in 1998: Site 4 |
|
Forestry/Airport Reserve Site 1: Old Landfill |
• No past exposure situations were identified for these sites • No one is currently coming into contact with contaminated materials at levels posing a potential health hazard • Lease and transfer documents will provide notification of residual contamination left on site, if any, minimizing the likelihood that workers will be exposed during future development of the properties |
• Investigations complete - no further
action required to protect public health and the environment: Sites 9, 10
• Investigations complete - remedial action in 1998: Sites 1, 2, 8 • Investigations complete - remedial action selection in 1998: Sites 18 ? What is the status of AOIs 23, 24, 34? |
|
Commercial No sites are located in the area proposed for commercial reuse |
• Since no waste sites or areas of interest are located in this area, no past, current, or future exposure situations were identified |
• Not applicable |
| Conservation No sites are located in the area proposed for conservation reuse |
• Since no waste sites or areas of interest are located in this area, no past, current, or future exposure situations were identified |
• Not applicable |
| Yellow Water Weapons Area (YWWA): by proposed future use category | ||
|
Forestry No sites are located in the area proposed for forestry reuse |
• Since no waste sites or areas of interest are located in this area, no past, current, or future exposure situations were identified |
• Not applicable |
|
Light Industry Yellow Water Weapons Complex |
• No past exposure situations were identified for these sites • No one is currently coming into contact with contaminated materials at levels posing a potential health hazard • Lease and transfer documents will provide notification of residual contamination left on site, if any, minimizing the likelihood that workers will be exposed during future development of the properties |
• Eastern and central portion of the Yellow Water Area. The YWWC is categorized as a "grey" area requiring further investigation to determine whether environmental contamination has occurred from the previous storage and maintenance of radiochemical weapons. USEPA is providing oversight of radiation surveys to be conducted by NAS CF and Navy RASO during the summer, 1998. |
|
Parks and Recreation Site 15: Blue 10 Ordnance Disposal Area |
• No past exposure situations were identified for these sites • No one is currently coming into contact with contaminated materials at levels posing a potential health hazard • Lease and transfer documents will provide notification of residual contamination left on site, if any, minimizing the likelihood that workers will be exposed during future development of the properties • Levels of soil contaminants at Site 15 present a potential health hazard to current and future recreational users. USEPA and the NAVFACENGCOM-South Division have recommended to the Cecil Field Development Commission that future recreational activities planned for the YWWA avoid Site 15 |
• Investigations complete - no further action required to protect public health and the environment: Sites 14 • Investigations complete - remedial action selection in 1998: Sites 15 ? What is the status of AOI 20, the wastewater treatment plant, transportation maintenance facility, munitions magazines, and former artillery range? • Currently, Site 15 is posted with signs alerting users to the chemical hazards in the area and remedy selection is scheduled for 1998. |
|
Heavy Industry No sites are located in the area proposed for heavy industry reuse |
• Since no waste sites or areas of interest are located in this area, no past, current, or future exposure situations were identified |
• Not applicable |
|
Commercial No sites are located in the area proposed for commercial reuse |
• Since no waste sites or areas of interest are located in this area, no past, current, or future exposure situations were identified |
• Not applicable |
| Main Station Systems | ||
|
Petroleum Storage Tanks and Pipelines North Fuel Farm |
• No past exposure situations were identified for these sites • No one is currently coming into contact with contaminated materials at levels posing a potential health hazard • Past releases of jet fuel from the 103rd Street pipeline at on- and off-base locations did not pose a health hazard: private wells and the indoor air quality of nearby buildings were not impacted. The pipeline is currently out of service and is scheduled for in-place abandonment and closure in conjunction with the closure of NAS CF in 1999. In-place closure does not pose a public health hazard. |
• Petroleum products stored in tanks includes aviation and motor fuel, oil, heating fuel, lubricants, and hydraulic fluids. NAS CF will remove all tanks and remediate all tank areas prior to closure in 1999. • The State of Florida is responsible for administering the underground storage tank program. • In general, for all petroleum sites, soil removals and free product recovery from groundwater are complete or on-going. Remedial actions and groundwater monitoring on-going. |
| Potable Water System |
• Backflow prevention devices are not in place in the distribution system to prevent the flow of non-potable water into potable water lines. • The distribution system is believed to be composed of copper pipe with lead welded joints; however, compliance testing of taps indicates that lead and copper concentrations in drinking water are below state and federal standards and, therefore, safe for household use. • NAS CF has been abandoning non-potable wells and monitoring wells that are no longer needed throughout the facility. These wells are being abandoned per FDEP and the St. John River Water Management District requirements. |
• The NAS CF water supply (and wastewater supply) system will be upgraded and consolidated into the City of Jacksonville public water supply at base closure. |
APPENDIX B: ATSDR'S EXPOSURE EVALUATION PROCESS
INFORMATION ON HOW ATSDR ASSESSES EXPOSURE
What is meant by exposure?
ATSDR's public health assessments are driven by exposure or contact. Chemicals released into the environment have the potential to cause harmful health effects. Nevertheless, a release does not always result in exposure. People can only be exposed to a chemical if they come in contact with that chemical. If no one comes into contact with a chemical, then no exposure occurs, thus no health effects could occur. Often the general public does not have access to the source area of the environmental release; this lack of access becomes important in determining whether the chemicals are moving through the environment to locations where people could come into contact with them.
The route of a chemical's movement is the
pathway. ATSDR identifies and evaluates
exposure pathways by considering how
people might come into contact with a
chemical. An exposure pathway could involve
air, surface water, groundwater, soil, dust, or
even plants and animals. Exposure can occur
by breathing, eating, drinking, or by skin
contact with a substance containing the
chemical.
How does ATSDR determine which exposure situations to evaluate?
ATSDR scientists evaluate site-specific conditions to determine whether people are being exposed to site-related contaminants. When evaluating exposure pathways, ATSDR identifies whether exposure to contaminated media (soil, water, air, waste, or biota) is occurring through ingestion, dermal (skin) contact, or inhalation.
If exposure is possible, ATSDR scientists then consider whether contamination is present at levels that might affect public health. ATSDR selects chemicals for further evaluation by comparing them against health-based comparison values. Comparison values are developed by ATSDR from available scientific literature concerning exposure and health effects. Comparison values are derived for each of the media and reflect an estimated chemical concentration that is not expected to cause harmful health effects for a given chemical, assuming a standard daily contact rate (e.g., amount of water or soil consumed or amount of air breathed) and standard body weight.
Comparison values are not thresholds for harmful health effects. ATSDR comparison values represent chemical concentrations many times lower than levels at which no effects were observed in experimental animal or human epidemiologic studies. If chemical concentrations are above comparison values, ATSDR further analyzes exposure variables (e.g., duration and frequency) for health effects, including the toxicology of the chemical, other epidemiology studies, and the weight of evidence.
Some comparison values used by ATSDR scientists include ATSDR's environmental media evaluation guides (EMEG), reference dose media evaluation guides (RMEG), and cancer risk evaluation guides (CREG). EMEGs, RMEGs, and CREGs are non-enforceable, health-based comparison values developed by ATSDR for screening environmental contamination for further evaluation. Risk-based concentrations (RBCs) and soil screening levels (SSLs) are health-based comparison values developed by EPA Region III to screen sites not yet on the National Priorities List (NPL), respond rapidly to citizens inquiries, and spot-check formal baseline risk assessments.
More information about the ATSDR evaluation process can be found in ATSDR's Public Health Assessment Guidance Manual at http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/HAC/HAGM/ or by contacting ATSDR at 1-888-42-ATSDR. For reference, Appendix A defines some of the technical terms used in this public health assessment and a List of Acronyms is available after the Table of Contents.
If someone is exposed, will they get sick?
Exposure does not always result in harmful health effects. The type and severity of health effects that occur in an individual as the result of contact with a chemical depend on the exposure concentration (how much), the frequency and duration of exposure (how long), the route or pathway of exposure (breathing, eating, drinking, or skin contact), and the multiplicity of exposure (combination of chemicals). Once exposure occurs, characteristics such as age, sex, nutritional status, genetics, lifestyle, and health status of the exposed individual influence how that individual absorbs, distributes, metabolizes, and excretes the chemical. Taken together, these factors and characteristics determine the health effects that can occur as a result of exposure to a chemical in the environment.
Considerable uncertainty exists regarding the true level of exposure to environmental contamination. To account for that uncertainty and to protect public health, ATSDR scientists typically use high-end, worst-case exposure level estimates to determine whether harmful health effects are possible. These estimated exposure levels are usually much higher than the levels to which people are really exposed. If the exposure levels indicate harmful health effects are possible, a more detailed review of exposure, combined with scientific information from the medical, toxicologic, and epidemiologic literature about the health effects from exposure to harmful substances, is performed.
APPENDIX C. FUEL RELATED SPILLS AT NAS CECIL FIELD
| Fuel Related Spills at NAS Cecil Field | ||||
| Location | Year of Release | Gallons released | Reported Type of Fuel | Action to Date |
| North Fuel Farm | 1985 | 2200 | JP-5 | See North Fuel Farm, Tank 76-E CA completed at the site, RAP completed in FY 1997, Revision to RAP December 1997. Free product will continue to be collected as long as tanks remain in operational status. Soil remediation and groundwater remediation will be initiated upon tank decommissioning. |
| North Fuel Farm | August 1987 | 22, 772 | JP-5 | |
| North Fuel Farm | February 1991 | 913000 | JP-5 | |
| North Fuel Farm, Tank 76 |
November 1993 | 1, 800 | JP-5 | |
| North Fuel Farm spill and release to Sal Taylor Creek Contaminate Area and Possum Dam |
February 1991 | Not identified | JP-5 | CAR 1994, CAR Addendum 1996 and 1997 that recommends NFA except at Possum Dam |
| Truck Stand (Facility 372) | December 1990 | JP-5 | Ca and CAR Completed. CAR addendum submitted July 1994. IRA (soil removal) completed, CAR addendum submitted July 1994. Monitoring Only Plan (MOP) has been implemented for Groundwater. | |
| South Fuel Farm | July 1991 | Not identified | Not identified | All Tanks Removed. CA, CAR,
RAP Completed ?.
RAP implementation to begin in early FY98 |
| Jet Engine Test Cell Facility (Facilities 334, 339, 328 and 811) |
October 1989 | Failed precision fitness testing | JP-5 | CA, CAR, CAR addendum, RAP
Completed.
Tanks Removed and RAP implemented in FY97 |
| NAS Jacksonville -NAS Cecil Field Jet Fuel Pipeline | July 1989 | Unknown | JP-5 | Site Transferred to NAS
Jacksonville
CA and RAP Completed. RAP implemented (soil removed and groundwater being monitored). |
| NAS Jacksonville -NAS Cecil Field Jet Fuel Pipeline | July 1997 | 6,100 gallons | JP-5 | Contaminated soil removed under emergency response. CA to be initiated by end of FY97 |
| Helicopter Crash Site | February 1992 | 1,800 gallons | JP-5 | PCAR submitted in January 1994. Car submitted in FY 95. S-3 Crash Site : IRA completed in August 1994 . Designated by regulatory community as NFA (No further action required) |
| S-3 Crash Tank | December 1991 | Unknown
? Worst Case gallon of fuel that S-3 can carry including supplemental tanks |
Not identified | IRA completed in August 1994. |
| Day Tank 1 | 1981 | 497, 000 gallons | JP-5 | CA completed. CAR completed. RAP completed, Free produce will continue
to be collected as long as tank remains in and operational status Soil remediation and ground water remediation will be initiated upon tank decommissioning |
| Day Tank 2 | 1996 | Unknown, 29,000 gallons of free product recovered | JP-5 | Tank was taken out of service and removed in August of 1997. IRA completed in August 1997. CA initiated. |
| Tank 199 | ? | Unknown | Heating oil | CA Completed in June 1997. Monitoring only required by Regulatory Stakeholders |
| CA = Contamination Assessment CAR = Contamination Assessment Report FY = Fiscal year ( October to September) IRA = Interim Remedial Action |
NFA = No Further Action PCAR = Preliminary CAR RAP = Remedial Action Plan S-3 = UST = Underground Storage Tank |
|||
| Source: Table 2-27 Tank Investigation Program Sites, NAS Cecil Field Date?? | ||||
| Fuel Tanks, Fuel Lines and Abandoned fuel lines from fuel farms, to runways, under hangers and other structures | 1940- 2000 | Unknown | JP- 5 Other Fuels Other Fuel Additives |
Not investigated to date.
Some closed with fuel remaining in lines |
APPENDIX D. NAVY'S EVALUATION OF INDOOR AIR
Click here to view Appendix D in PDF format [PDF, 2190KB]
APPENDIX E. INDOOR AIR SCREENING AND SAMPLING STRATEGIES
Determining buildings with the greatest potential for indoor air contaminant migration and determine if indoor air sampling would be necessary. To help select buildings to be screened, ATSDR recommends that levels of gases found in soil and groundwater be compared to Oregon Department of Environmental Quality published Tier 1 Look-up Table (Oregon DEQ, 1999) and Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection published Reference Table A (Connecticut DEP), as well, as use and comparison with the screening model and Tier-2 groundwater model developed by Johnson and Ettinger Model (1991) for subsurface vapor intrusion into buildings. Comparisons with all three of the above should be considered conservative estimates and should be considered for planning purposes only. Nevertheless, the results of comparisons to these tables and the modeling effort can aid in the planning and development of a more comprehensive field program to help determine the levels of indoor air contamination from soil and groundwater vapor migration. Comparison should be used to identify a representative sample of buildings most likely to have elevated levels near source areas, plumes or utility pipe lines.
ATSDR recommends field screening followed by confirmation sampling.
There are other technologies that meet or exceed these standards.
If indoor air sampling is indicated from the modeling, ATSDR is recommending indoor air sampling for aerobic and anaerobic breakdown products. Publications by the U. S. Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence indicate that anaerobic biodegradation processes create both biogenic gases and petroleum breakdown products and the primary chemicals released to the environment are chlorinated hydrocarbons (Wiedemeier et al., 1995; Newell et al., 1995). ATSDR recommends indoor air sampling should include the following:
Next Section Table
of Contents
