Skip directly to search Skip directly to A to Z list Skip directly to site content

PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT

NAVAL AIR STATION CECIL FIELD
(a/k/a USN AIR STATION CECIL FIELD)
JACKSONVILLE, DUVAL COUNTY, FLORIDA


D. LEAD AND ASBESTOS IN BASE HOUSING - Current and future building occupants and visitors, particularly children, could be exposed to lead-based paint, lead in tap water, and asbestos insulation found in many buildings on base. These hazards are indeterminate as the hazard management efficacy (preventing paint chipping, flushing water lines, covering insulation) is unknown. (Indeterminate Public Health Hazard)

There are several ways building occupants can beexposed to lead, including eating or inhaling lead-based paint or dusts or drinking water from plumbingcontaining lead. In 1995, the Navy surveyed basebuildings and found lead-based paint hazards. Thesurveys determined that base housing, and Base OfficerFamily Housing units have varying levels of lead-basedpaint as well as the former Child Care Center facilities(Buildings 24 & 118). The survey stated that residentialhousing units constructed between 1942 and 1957 havepaint with 20-25% lead. The base buildings also haveasbestos insulation remaining that, if disturbed, couldpresent a health hazard.

The Navy has disclosed information concerning lead and asbestos via the Finding of Suitability to Transfer (FOST) documents for parcels transferred to the city of Jacksonville and the Jacksonville Port Authority. The Navy or the redevelopment authority should provide information to new residents, developers, or tenants on not only the location of the lead paint and asbestos buildings, but ways to manage those hazards.

The Navy has also identified copper drinking water pipes with lead solder. Lead solder is known to leach into drinking water under certain conditions. The Navy should determine if the lead solder is leaching into the drinking water at action levels (15 ppb). If so, either remove the lead hazard or provide information to new occupants on flushing techniques and frequency. Future occupants and frequent visitors should consult with their health care provider as to whether routine (annual) blood lead sampling is needed based on their medical condition. Those at greatest risk are children under 6 years old, the elderly, and women of child bearing age.

Exterior lead paint may have also peeled off the housing exterior and deposited into soilspossibly presenting a hazard if children play there or if soil is used for vegetable gardening. TheNavy has sampled the soils and determined that the levels do not present a health hazard.

Possible Past Exposures to Lead

Children who attended Building 24 Day Care operations at the base may have been exposed to lead at levels of health concern. Surveys conducted in 1995 demonstrated that interior and exterior surfaces of this facility were painted with lead-based paint. Areas of deteriorated paint were noted in the infant room, pre-toddler room, 3 year old and 4 year old rooms, and in common areas. In 1997, NAS Cecil Field day care activities were moved from Building 24 to Buildings 109 and 118. No lead hazard has been identified at Building 109, but Building 118 is documented as having lead-based paint and extreme deterioration of painted surfaces.

Additionally, children who lived in base housing may have been exposed to lead at levels ofhealth concern. The 1995 surveys determined that Base Officer Family Housing and BaseEnlisted Housing units have lead-based painted surfaces.

No risk reduction or abatement activities were initiated by NAS Cecil Field or the NavalFacilities Engineering Command-Southern Division in response to the results of the 1995 leadpaint survey. Baseline and follow-up blood lead screenings were not performed so there is noinformation to determine if children were being exposed to lead in the day care and residentialenvironments at levels posing a health risk. Therefore, ATSDR also concludes that in the past,those children attending base day care facilities, living in base enlisted housing, or both, mayhave experienced exposures to lead at levels posing a health hazard. Since the base closing, theday care and Base Officer Family Housing have been taken out of service.

Possible Future Exposures to Lead

In the absence of risk reduction or lead abatement activities, the lead in the NAS Cecil Field housing units may pose a health hazard to children 6 years and under, the elderly, and women of child-bearing age who use these units for permanent or vacation housing in the future.


PUBLIC HEALTH ACTION PLAN - LEAD AND ASBESTOS IN BASE HOUSING

CONCLUSIONS

  1. Current and future building occupants or visitors, particularly children, could be exposed to lead-based paint, lead in tap water, and asbestos insulation found in many buildings on base. Lead in soils near housing was determined to not present a hazard. These hazards are indeterminate as the hazard management (preventing paint chipping, flushing water lines, covering insulation) efficacy is unknown.

RECOMMENDATIONS

  1. The Navy or the redevelopment authority should provide information to new residents, developers, and tenants on not only the location of the lead paint and asbestos buildings, but how to manage those hazards.


  2. The Navy should determine if the lead solder is leaching into the drinking water at action levels (15 ppb). If so, either remove the lead hazard or provide information to new occupants on tap water flushing techniques.


  3. If the lead hazards remain unabated, future occupants and frequent visitors should consult with their health care provider as to whether routine (annual) blood lead sampling is needed based on their medical condition. Those at greatest risk are children under 6 years old, elderly, and women of child bearing age.

E. EATING FISH AND TURTLES FROM ON-BASE LAKES AND CREEKS - People could be exposed to contaminants that accumulate in fish and turtles as new lakes or enlargement of existing lakes may inadvertently bring contamination to the water bodies from nearby remaining source areas. (Current - No Apparent Public Health Hazard)

According to Navy documents, there are five fishable lakes including Lake Fretwell, Lake Newman, Lake Wright, Lake Yellow Water, and Lake Burrel, and numerous creeks as well as wetland areas with standing water, capable of supporting fish on NAS Cecil Field. While the base was in operation, people were fishing in the lakes. With the turnover of NAS Cecil Field, more fishing is likely. The fish have only been sampled in one lake, Lake Fretwell, and found to be contaminated with low levels of mercury, lead, PCBs, and other chemicals, but at levels not likely to result in adverse health effects in people. New lakes or enlargement of existing lakes in the future may inadvertently bring contamination to the water bodies from nearby remaining source areas. Future use of the lakes and streams has not been determined and they may, in the future, be stocked with sufficient fish to support recreational or subsistence fishing. This situation would therefore, warrant periodic reassessment.

Background

There are five man-made lakes on NAS Cecil Field, including Lake Fretwell, Lake Newman,Lake Wright, Lake Yellow Water, and Lake Burrel, and numerous creeks, as well as wetlandareas with standing water, capable of supporting fish. Fish resources in the impoundmentsinclude large mouth bass, red ear sunfish, warmouth perch, channel catfish, bullhead catfish.Channel catfish are found in lake impoundments and creeks and rivers feeding lakes.

Exposure Evaluation and Public Health Implications

Current and Future Exposure to Chemical Contaminants in Lake Fretwell Fish

Lake Fretwell, located in the western portion of the Main Station, was created by dammingRowell Creek. The northern and western parts of the base drain to Lake Fretwell and RowellCreek, which ultimately discharges to Sal Taylor Creek. Sal Taylor Creek continues off-base tothe south and eventually drains to the St. Johns River. In the past, the Lake Fretwell was stockedby NAS Cecil Field for recreational fishing. Lake Fretwell is the only on-base lake where fishwere sampled.

In February 1995, fishing restrictions were placed on Lake Fretwell after sampling resultsindicated PCB and pesticide contamination in lake sediments (NAS Cecil Field IRP, 1996a). Asubsequent investigation was conducted to determine if fish tissue was contaminated andwhether consumption of fish from the lake posed an unacceptable health risk (U.S. EPA, 1995a).The results of the investigation led the Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services(HRS) to issue a Health Advisory for fish establishing a consumption rate of two 8-ounceservings of Lake Fretwell fish per month (Florida DEP, Undated). However, it was subsequentlydetermined that the fish samples may not have been representative of game fish contaminantconcentrations; therefore, additional fish were collected and analyzed by the Navy in January 1997.

The 1997 fish sampling event was designed to generate an optimum data set for drawingconclusions about the public health risks associated with eating fish from Lake Fretwell. Forty-seven adult fish, belonging to the popular game fish species, were caught and the fillets analyzedfor PCBs, pesticides, and mercury. The Navy estimated cancer and non-cancer health risks forfour different potential fishing populations using standard EPA risk assessment methodology;recreational fisherman, avid fisherman, subsistence fisherman, and fisherman consuming fishaccording to ingestion rates and frequency defined by the Florida HRS as typical of fishers inFlorida. The risk evaluation assumed that 50% of all fish consumed by an individual were caughtfrom Lake Fretwell. Analysis of the 1997 fish tissue data indicated that consumption of fish fromLake Fretwell did not pose a health risk to people. (ABB-ES, 1997b).

There are not currently enough fish in Lake Fretwell to feed those with diets of fish atsubsistence or recreational levels. Other lakes are believed by stakeholders to be upgradient ofpossible source areas. Nevertheless, the lack of available fish in Lake Fretwell does not supporteating fish at subsistence (e.g., eating fish a few times a week) or recreational consumptionlevels (e.g., eating fish a few times a month) and therefore, contaminants would be below levelsof health concern.

Possible Contaminant Sources

The 1997 sampling results demonstrated that Lake Fretwell is safe for recreational fishing use. The multiple possible sources of contamination to Lake Fretwell include:

Site 4 Grease Pits
Site 5 Oil and Sludge Disposal Pits
Site 6 Lake Fretwell Rubble Disposal Area
Site 7 Old Fire Fighting Training Area
Site 11 Golf Course Pesticide Disposal
Site 19 Rowell Creek Rubble Disposal Area
Sewage Treatment Plant
Aircraft Wash Rack

References: ABB-ES, 1994a ; ABB-ES, 1997c.

Some site-specific sources of mercury used, stored, or disposed at NAS Cecil Field include thefollowing: paints, calibration gauges, batteries, and munitions (e.g., mercury fulminate is aninitiating explosive that may be used as either a primer or a detonator (Department of the Navy.1969). Additionally, EPA's Mercury Report to Congress shows the Jacksonville area with amoderate mercury deposition (i.e., 5-10 g/m2) (EPA, 1997a).

Besides mercury, when NAS Cecil Field was in operation, many fuel spills - some quite large-ran off into creeks and streams. The contaminants from those spills could have included lead,fuels, and possibly other chemicals. Additionally, small impoundments (lakes and ponds) nearold firing ranges and the gunnery school have not been sampled and lead and explosives possiblypresent in soil could impact those waters.

Future Uncertainty of Fish Contamination

If future use of the property includes expanding or creating new lakes, a review of the remaining contaminant locations and migration information should be conducted to determine if the lakes could become contaminated.

PUBLIC HEALTH ACTION PLAN - LAKES AND CREEKS ON BASE

CONCLUSIONS

  1. Currently, eating fish from Lake Fretwell poses no apparent public health hazard for recreational fisherman.


  2. Contamination is possible in other lakes' fish from past disposal areas, spills, and state-wide deposition of mercury, however, it is unlikely that those lakes would support enough fish for consumption.


  3. New lakes or enlargement of existing lakes in the future may inadvertently bring contamination to the water bodies from nearby remaining source areas (soil and groundwater). Future use of the lakes and streams has not been determined, and they may in the future be stocked with sufficient fish to support recreational or subsistence fishing, and therefore, warrant periodic reassessment

RECOMMENDATIONS

  1. ATSDR recommends that a review of the potential for fish and turtles to become contaminated in the future be investigated as part of the Superfund Comprehensive Five Year Review.


  2. If fish are sampled, the following information should be collected:


    • How long had fish been stocked before sampling
    • Were fish considered wild or breeding populations
    • Size fish, age, sex of fish sampled
    • Types, genus, and species of fish sampled
    • Skin on or off filets
    • Were fish trimmed of fat
    • Lipid content of fish
    • Wet weight and dry weight concentration of COPC
    • Documentation of abnormalities or lack of abnormalities
    • Documentation of presence of egg masses.
    • Sample Specific Quantization Limit (SQL)
    • Cross reference of information on fish with samples and concentrations on CD-Rom

F. UNEXPLODED ORDNANCE HAZARDS - Unexploded ordnance (UXO) could be a future explosion hazard for people digging or excavating near many areas on the Main Base and on the Yellow Water Weapons Area.

The Navy has evaluated a number of areason the Main Base and Yellow WaterWeapons Area where explosives andordnance may have been located. At leastten primary areas were identified withunexploded ordnance (UXO). The type ofordnance found was generally smaller,less powerful rounds that require muchforce to cause them to explode. However,more powerful, 20 mm rounds and rocketwarheads, were also found in one area onthe Main Base (PSC 18 - AmmunitionDisposal Area). A 500-pound highexplosive blast and fragmentation bomb(inert) was found at site 15. Because themore powerful munitions were found in acreek (Sal Taylor Creek), people shoulduse caution in waterways, ponds, lakes,and wetlands as those areas have not beenfully investigated. The Navy also used atleast four off-base areas during the WWIIera for bombing ranges. These areas havebeen identified by the Army as formerlyused defense sites. Those areas arecurrently developed. No UXOinvestigations have taken place there.

UXO investigations do not find all UXOitems. UXO in waterways and wetlandsare extremely unlikely to be discovered asare bulk explosives or any UXO buriedbelow two meters.

The Navy should coordinate with the ArmyCorps of Engineers and new tenants toensure the proper program provides public education on the locations and hazards associatedwith disturbing UXO. Institutional controls (i.e., no digging) may be needed in multiple areas.The Navy should verify emergency phone numbers and reporting information and provideclearing and reporting procedures to residents, developers, utility contractors, andmunicipalities before people dig or excavate in UXO locations.

Background and Land Use

Several activities in the NAS Cecil Field mission used or stored munitions and explosivesincluding: training ranges for aircraft bombing, small arms firing ranges, and explosive andmunition storage. After construction of NAS Cecil Field in 1941, the Navy used the base forflight training operations during WWII (Hardin Lawson, 1999). At least four bombing ranges(now off-base) were used until 1947 for training missions (U.S. COE, 2000). Part of the trainingmission included small arms firing ranges. Munitions storage in storage bunkers was also a partof the mission here.

Exposure Evaluation and Public Health Implications

In 1994, the Navy conducted geophysical surveys in several areas on the Main Base and YellowWater Weapons Area to locate possible unexploded ordnance (UXO). Excavation of suspectareas identified by the surveys was also performed. The UXO survey areas were identified basedon records search, aerial photograph review, and interviews with Navy personnel (HardingLawson, 1999).

At least ten primary UXO areas were identified on base. The type of munitions found wasgenerally smaller, less powerful rounds that require much force to cause them to explode.However, more powerful, 20 mm rounds and rocket warheads were also found in one area on theMain Base (PSC 18 Ammunition Disposal Area near Sal Taylor Creek). Because the morepowerful munitions were found in a creek, people should use caution in waterways, lakes, ponds,and wetlands as those areas have not been fully investigated. ATSDR's review of the availableinformation shows that approximately 3-4% of the base has been geophysically investigated andthose investigations covered up to four feet deep.

The Navy also used at least four off-base areas during the WWII era for bombing ranges. Thoseareas are currently developed, and no UXO investigations have taken place there.

A summary of ATSDR's review of the available documents referencing ordnance or explosivesis provided in the table below. The on-base locations are on Figure 10. More information on theoff-base area can be found at the bibliography of bombing ranges listed with the References.

List of known UXO areas on NAS Cecil Field and on previously owned Navy (FUDS) property nearby
Location ID or Name Location Description of use/ UXO found
Main Base Areas
Ammunition Disposal Area (PSC 18) East of the runways along Sal Taylor Creek Waste ordnance explosive waste materials were trucked from 1940-1950. Recovered 231 UXO items.

75-2.75 rocket war heads, 50-20-mm rounds, 1-MK4 cartridge, 1-50 caliber round
Army Corps of Engineers Note: High water may have prevented discovery of items believed to be in the creek under the bridge

Aviation Ordnance Area Northeast of runways in the Main Base area 2,000 acres with 30 Magazines, Buildings 225-230, 515-534, and 594-597
Bore Site Range (Site 8) Southwest corner of runways near old Fire fighter training area. Was used as a machine gun and small arms practice range. Spent bullets and casings found.
Dummy bomb discovery areas unknown locations Dummy bombs with spotting charges found in one location, possibly dropped as part of training mission.
Pistol Range (AOI 24) Northeast of Main Base
Roswell Creek Ordnance Disposal Area (AOI 34) Western perimeter at intersection of Perimeter Road and Roswell Creek MK 24 flare
Yellow Water Weapons Area
Mobile Target Area - PSC 4
Site 14 Used for open burning and detonation of high explosives
Site 15 One 500-pound blast and fragmentation bomb (inert) found. Visual inspection did not locate other UXO.

Used for the combustion of munitions in a chamber and subsequent spreading of the munition residues and ashes over the surrounding ten acres

Skeet Range (PSC 49) Likely used for small arms practice.
Target Range Likely used for small arms practice.
60-Acre Naval Gun School Area is in St Johns River basin. Old Yellow Water Road and unpaved sections of McCracken Road cut across the Old Gunnery School. 60-acre parcel, Yellow Water Weapon Area used for Naval Gunnery school activities. Navy firing range 1945 to late 1950. In the Fall 1995, UXO survey conducted in some areas. Munitions/UXO found on site included: two 50 caliber bullets, several spent 20 mm, 7.62mm and .45 caliber and .50 caliber shells, numerous spent .50 caliber projectiles and castings on north side of Old Yellow Water Road. Site covered with dense undergrowth. The report (US Navy, 1996a) states that electrical current needed to detonate the 20 mm round but a .50 caliber rounds could detonate if sufficient energy is imparted to the firing mechanisms of the bullet. The report notes ".. A full disclosure of UXO Survey Results and the fact that there is potential for the presence of additional live rounds should be made available to potential lessees for their evaluation and references (ABB-ES, 1996b).
*11 areas surveyed on map. Some overlap of the above sites Small arms ammunition found (7.62 mm primarily)

Areas Evaluated By US Army Corps of Engineers and Determined to be Formerly Used Defense Sites
Chafee Bomb Target Site Duval County, Florida; USGS 7.5' quadrangle topographic map, Marietta, FL; SE portion: Section 36, T2S, R24E, and in Section 1 T3S, R24E.

Site is located on the western side of Chaffee Road, approximately ½ mile north of Normandy Boulevard, adjacent to Naval Air Station (NAS) Cecil Field.

Between September 1941 and November 1947, the United States acquired 435.45 acres of land in fee, by condemnation, for use by the U.S. Navy as a bomb target site. Property use prior to Federal acquisition was rural/agricultural. The property was used by the Navy as an auxiliary naval air station and as a bombing range. Records on file at the Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville.

The property was transferred to the Duval County Board of Public Instruction by a quitclaim deed dated 24 July 1952. The quitclaim deed states that the property was used as a naval air station and bomb target site; that various types of ordnance were introduced; and the federal government could not certify that the property had been completely decontaminated. Current property records indicate ownership is divided between 4 major land owners and several other landowners with smaller interests. USCOE conducted a site visit on 17 July 1991. Both properties are used for a golf course, residential, and agricultural purposes at this time. The owner of Great Meadows Golf Course, was interviewed on the site. He stated that ordnance items were found regularly (approximately 10-15 in the most recent years) in working on the golf course. He did not know if the ordnance was live or practice type, and did not know of any explosions which had occurred. He knew of no injuries associated with the ordnance. No other visual evidence of the former facility remained on the property.

Clay Bomb Target Site Clay county Prior to 1942 the United States leased approximately 664 acres for a naval bomb target site. There is no indication that the Navy constructed anything at this site other than a target in the shape of a ship and fencing. Correspondence dated 14 January 1947 stated the leasehold had been canceled, but did not specify the date.

USCOE conducted a site visit on 28 May 1993. The site is privately owned and is currently a planted pine forest and has been logged and replanted since used as a bomb target. The only discovered information available for the site is an engineering drawing which shows the location and details of site design. No evidence was found of cratering in 1953 aerial photos.

Keystone Bomb Target Site Near Keystone Heights, Clay County, Florida; USGS 7.5' quadrangle topographic map, Gold Head Branch, FL; SW portion: Section 15, T85, R23E. Site is located approximately 2.5 miles northeast of the town of Keystone Heights. In the early part of World War II, the U.S. government apparently leased the property for use as a bombing target site in support of training operations at Naval Air Station (NAS) Jacksonville near Jacksonville, Florida. In addition, the War Department used the site as an auxiliary infantry replacement training target range for the Camp Blanding military reservation. An office memorandum dated 14 November 1944 from the U.S. Government (Chief of the War Department's Real Estate division) to the U.S. Army's acquisition branch at Camp Blanding, Florida, described the site as one entire section (640.0 acres; Section 15, T85, R23E). At that time the property was under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Navy Department. A final project ownership map dated 14 November 1947 for Camp Blanding shows the area relinquished by the War Department to the Navy on 18 July 1946. The Navy subsequently relinquished the property to the owners. Current property records indicate the property has been extensively subdivided and numerous roads have been built on the area.
Spencer Bomb Target Site Located in Clay County approximately four miles southeast of the NAS Cecil Field. The Navy utilized the site as a bomb target range and constructed a concrete block building, security fencing and drainage ditches. The site was active until August 1958 when its mission was completed and the site was no longer needed. The Navy declared the entire site, consisting of 372.71 acres of fee land, excess to the General Services Administration (GSA) on 11 February 1959. Between July 1959 and September 1959, GSA sold the 372.71 acres of fee land to five individuals or corporations. The five quitclaim deeds from GSA did not contain any restrictions, recapture clauses or warranties, but were subject to existing easements for roads, highways, railroads, pipelines, and public utilities. The property is now being used for residential, agricultural, and logging purposes.
References: Harding Lawson, 1999; U.S. COE, 2000 . Bibliography of information on the Off-Base Bombing Ranges (in Ref List)

PUBLIC HEALTH ACTION PLAN - UNEXPLODED ORDNANCE

CONCLUSIONS

  1. Although munitions and explosives storage were a major part of the NAS Cecil Field mission, most do not remain on base. UXO surveys have not recovered substantial amounts of ordnance. The primary UXO discovered were smaller, less powerful rounds in 10-15 primary areas on base although some higher explosives was discovered (20 mm rounds, rocket warheads) and one 500-pound blast and fragmentation bomb (inert). The possibility of finding UXO still exist and disturbing UXO presents a health hazard.

RECOMMENDATIONS

  1. The Navy should coordinate with the Army Corps of Engineers and new tenants to ensure the proper program provides public education on the locations and hazards associated with disturbing UXO. Institutional controls (i.e., no digging) may be needed in some areas.


  2. The Navy should verify emergency phone numbers and reporting information and provide clearing and reporting procedures to residents, bombing range owners, developers, utility contractors, and municipalities before people dig or excavate in UXO locations.


III. COMMUNITY HEALTH CONCERNS

ATSDR briefed the NAS Cecil Field Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) in 1997 and 1998 onour intent to complete a public health assessment and solicited comments and concerns fromthose attending. No concerns were expressed by the people present. ATSDR also phoned theRAB Community Co-Chair who confirmed the same issues we have identified (groundwater,lead in soil, and UXO) and on the past use of radioactive materials. ATSDR conductedinterviews of local, state, and other federal government officials to identify any communityhealth concerns. During these interviews, no additional community health concerns were broughtto our attention.

Did NAS Cecil Field use, store, or dispose of radioactive materials on-base? Could reuse in those area be harmful to people's health?

A complete radiological survey of the entire base was not accomplished. ATSDR currently hasno indication that high-level radioactive material remains on NAS Cecil Field. Some low-levelradiation may still be present in landfills from past disposal of dials, etc. ATSDR recommendsthat a re-evaluation of all information, including the evaluation of data gaps, be part of theSuperfund Comprehensive Five Year Review.

If you have concerns you would like to relay to ATSDR, please direct them to the following address.

Program Evaluation, Records, and Information Services Branch
Re: NAS Cecil Field
ATSDR, Division of Health Assessment and Consultation
1600 Clifton Road, MS E-56
Atlanta, GA 30333

Questions may also be directed to Robert Safay, the ATSDR senior regional representative inRegion 4, at 404-562-1782 or to the ATSDR information line at 888-42ATSDR or 888-422-8737. Please mention that you are calling about NAS Cecil Field.

A. ATSDR Child Health Initiative

ATSDR's Child Health Initiative recognizes that the unique vulnerabilities of infants andchildren demand special emphasis in communities faced with contamination of their water, soil,air, or food. Children are at greater risk than adults from certain kinds of exposures to hazardoussubstances emitted from waste sites and emergency events. They are more likely to be exposedbecause they play outdoors and they often bring food into contaminated areas. They are shorterthan adults, which means they breathe the dust, soil, and heavy vapors close to the ground.Children are also smaller, resulting in higher doses of chemical exposure per body weight. Thedeveloping body systems of children can sustain permanent damage if toxic exposures occurduring critical growth stages. Most importantly, children depend completely on adults foridentifying behaviors and situations that may place their health at risk and for access to medicalcare (ATSDR, 1998).

Conclusions about Child Health at NAS Cecil Field

ATSDR evaluated the likelihood for children living on-base or in the community around NASCecil Field to be exposed to base contaminants at levels of health concern. ATSDR identifiedone current and one future scenario and two situations in the past in which children may havebeen exposed to lead at the NAS Cecil Field. The first population is, in the future, children mayplay on the unremediated parts of Site 15 in the Yellow Water Weapons Area (YWWA). Thesecond population is those children who attended Building 24 Day Care operations at the base.The third population are children who lived in base housing. The 1995 surveys determined thatBase Officer Family Housing and Base Enlisted Housing units have lead-based painted surfaces.These situations are discussed in greater detail within their corresponding section headings in thebody of the document. Plus, might be better to put in list form rather than sentence form, like:


IV. HEALTH OUTCOME DATA

ATSDR conducts a review of existing health outcome data (e.g., birth and death certificates,birth defects registries, cancer registries, etc.), when available, if people have been exposed tosite contaminants in concentrations possibly posing a public health hazard or if the communityhas concerns related to specific health outcomes. The evaluation of health outcome data maygive a general picture of the health of a community, or it may confirm the presence of excessdisease or illness in a community. However, elevated rates of a particular disease may notnecessarily be caused by hazardous substances in the environment. Other factors such aspersonal habits, socioeconomic status, and occupation, also may influence the development ofdisease. In contrast, even if elevated rates of disease are not found, a contaminant may still havecaused illness or disease.

At NAS Cecil Field, ATSDR did not review health outcome data because records were notavailable or the exposed population was too small to evaluate the trends of adverse healtheffects. For on-base exposure to lead, records were not available since routine testing was notdone. Without blood level data at the time of exposure, ATSDR cannot verify exposure to lead inthe soils and paint. Furthermore, examining current blood samples for lead will not identify pastexposure because the half-life of lead in blood is approximately 32 days, in soft tissue 40 days,and in bone approximately 27 years. Blood and soft tissue lead levels will likely fall afterexposure ceases with slow replenishment from the bone. However, the much higher half-life inblood would keep blood lead levels low. Therefore, examining current blood levels will notprovide information about past exposure to lead. Further, examining current lead levels in bonewould not provide exposure information about a single source, such as lead in soils, since bonelead levels represent a lifetime of exposure from many sources. Lead is prevalent in theenvironment. Since troop rotations were five to nine years and the houses have been vacant fortwo years, people in the houses could have been exposed before they moved to NAS Cecil Fieldor after. Therefore, current blood lead data would provide information about lead exposure from all sources and not just base housing or the day care facility.


V. SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Exposure Situation and Hazard Summary Table - Cecil Field Naval Air Station, FL
Exposure Situation When/People Exposed Hazard Actions Taken/Planned Recommendations Comments
ON-BASE GROUNDWATER

Groundwater contamination on a major portion of the main base migrating into indoor air and deep drinking water wells.

Contaminants: TCE & other solvents, metals, jet fuel

current & future - possible Indoor Air
current - No hazard

future - Indeterminate (more data needed)

DW wells
current & future

-No hazard

Actions
  • The Navy notifies new property owners are of existing groundwater contamination by way of the Findings of Suitability to Transfer (FOST) document. The owners are subject to groundwater use restrictions by way of deed restrictions in those areas where groundwater contamination has been identified.
Indoor Air
  1. The Navy should distribute educational material to developers and future occupants informing building occupants of possible indoor air contaminant hazards.
  2. Developers should consider installing vapor barriers when building in areas with shallow groundwater contamination.
  3. Developers should also consider sampling indoor air in new or restructured buildings. That sampling should include biogenic gasses (e.g., methane, ethane, etc.), chlorinated hydrocarbons (e.g., TCE, TCA, etc.), and hydrocarbons (e.g., benzene, ethylbenzene, etc.).
  4. EPA and the Navy should consider implementing an assessment of new or restructured buildings at risk for indoor air contamination as part of the Superfund Comprehensive Five Year Review.

Use of On-base Groundwater

  1. Routine drinking water sampling (possibly every 3 years) should continue to be done by the operators of any systems fed by wells on base. The analysis should include metals, VOCs, and SVOCs. ATSDR is also recommending sampling for additives.
  2. Well owners should implement wellhead protection and evaluation of the casing integrity starting with the wells closest to the plumes.
  3. Notification of the groundwater hazards should be given to developers and be on file with the city and county. The information should include groundwater flow directions in each of the aquifers, 3-dimensional delineation of the contaminant plumes, and the cone of influence for the current supply wells, and a check of the casing integrity. This information should also be provided in th Findings of Suitability to Transfer (FOST).
  4. The St. Johns River Management District, State, or county, whichever is appropriate, should restrict new well installation in areas near groundwater contamination without wellhead protection, corrosion resistant casings, aquifer protection during drilling, and if needed, perform water treatment.
  5. EPA and the Navy should consider implementing an assessment of new and existing wells at risk for contamination as part of the Superfund Comprehensive Five Year Review.
  • Groundwater contamination could seep into the indoor air of buildings (particularly enclosed buildings) Utility lines (water, sewage, etc.) could aid this.
  • The old well casing could breakdown and carry contamination to DW zone

Summary- Need for indoor air sampling should be re-evaluated, info on upgraded well head protection plan, and notification of future well users.

JET FUEL PIPELINE

Jet fuel (JP-4 and JP-5) migrating to private wells and indoor air in homes and businesses from the 103rd Street pipeline. (15 miles underneath Roosevelt, Timaquana, and 103rd Streets between NAS Jacksonville and NAS Cecil Field in the City of Jacksonville).

Contaminants: Jet fuels, other fuels, metals

current & future - possible DW wells
current & future-Indeterminate hazards - more data needed

Indoor Air
past- No (apparent) hazard
current & future - Indeterminate (more data needed)

Actions
  • Migration and degradation of known groundwater contamination is being monitored.
  • The pipeline wall thickness anomalies checked in 1990, 1994, 1996, and 1999. No major failures/ fractures discovered, but between 32 and 90 anomalies requiring further investigation.
Recommendations
Wells
  • As soon as possible, but within 6 months, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection should provide educational material (such as radio or television broadcast or printed material in the newspaper) warning well owners of the possible regional contamination hazards prompting them to have their well sampled annually. Alternatively, a complete well survey can be conducted and people notified individually.
  • Because individual private, and especially shallow, wells can be affected by fuel leaks, improperly functioning septic tanks, small industrial waste disposal practices, and residential use and disposal of pesticides, people should have their wells tested for volatile organic compounds, semi-volatile organic compounds, pesticides, and metals.
  • Florida Department of Environmental Protection should provide notification/information to planning/permitting departments on the possibility of local groundwater contamination so that developers or residents can be informed that new wells need wellhead protection, the aquifer should be protected during drilling, and water may need treatment before consumption.

Indoor Air

  1. Building occupants should report fuel odors in indoor air to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Emergency Response 1-800 320-0519 or (904) 807-3300 or the local fire department.
  • For 43 years, 200,000 gallons/ day flowed through fuel pipeline extending from NAS Jacksonville to NAS Cecil Field. Even a very small loss per day would result in thousands of gallons of fuel over that time period.
  • There could be many private wells in the area with conduits in the area (sewers, waterlines, etc.) that could move the contamination to wells & indoors.
  • Other sources along 103rd, especially old gas stations, could also possibly pollute the GW.

SITE 15 (BLUE

Contact with contaminated soils (primarily lead) at Site 15 (Blue 10 Ordnance) and consumption of fish and turtles caught in Yellow Water and Sal Taylor Creek.

Contaminants: lead, mercury, other metals, PAHs, pesticides, UXO

Soil & Fish
current & future - possible

Soil Contact
Recreational current - No apparent

future- Indeterminate

Eating Fish/Biota
current - No apparent

  • Site 15 is currently posted with signs alerting recreational users of the YWWA roads and trails to the chemical hazards in this area.
  • ATSDR will review the Proposed Plan for Site 15 clean-up when it becomes available to ensure that the proposed remedy is protective of recreational users.
Contact with soils
  • ATSDR recommends that the Cecil Field Reuse Planning Commission retain sign postings at Site 15 to aid in protection of the health of future recreational users of the YWWA until the Proposed Plan clean-up activities are completed.
  • ATSDR recommends stakeholder evaluation of the effectiveness of the signs in keeping individuals from entering the area (e.g., query the nearby neighbors, look for signs of trespassing, etc.), especially if Site 15 is left unremediated. This is required as part of the Superfund Comprehensive Five Year Review.
  • When making choices on soil cleanup levels, the Navy should consider the bioavailability of lead at Site 15, lead particle size, and the correlation of sample results at different depths to get a better average concentration for surface soil samples. Additionally, the Navy should verify where the ash spread area was located.
  • ATSDR recommends continuing evaluation of the land use controls during the Superfund Comprehensive Five Year Review to determine if changes in the economy or the regional vision for NAS Cecil Field redevelopment result in a proposed residential reuse or recreational activities where children could have frequent (i.e., several times a week) contact with the soils.
Eating locally caught fish and turtles
  • If Site 15 soils are left unremediated (thus allowing more soluble lead and possibly other metals to enter drainage areas), the increased use and harvesting of fish and turtles from this area should be evaluated as part of the Superfund Comprehensive Five Year Review.
Contact with Unexploded Ordnance
  • Since unexploded ordnance has also been found at and near Site 15, clearing and notification procedures need to be in place if future use includes digging and excavation. Educational material should be developed and distributed by the Navy.
Use of Groundwater
  • ATSDR’s review of the Navy’s shallow groundwater data shows that there are some contaminants (e.g., antimony (46.2 ppb) and lead (21.7 ppb)) in the groundwater at Site 15 that would exceed the drinking water standards set by EPA. Therefore, we recommend that the groundwater use situation be part of the Superfund Comprehensive Five Year Review.
  • EPA and Naval Facilities Engineering Command - Southern Division (NAVFACENGCO M-SOUTHDIV) have met with the Cecil Field Reuse Planning Committee and stressed that recreational activities planned for the Yellow Water Weapons Area should avoid Site 15 within the wildlife corridor.
  • The Navy plans remediation or removal activities as needed to reduce the levels of contaminated soils.
  • Unexploded ordnance (UXO) at Site 15 is likely left over from the firing range and would be smaller, less powerful rounds that would require lots of force to cause them to explode.

FORMER HOUSING AND OTHER BUILDING HAZARDS

Lead based paint, lead in piping, and asbestos insulation in on-base buildings to be reused.

Contaminants:
lead and asbestos

current & future - possible Lead in Paint, DW, Asbestos Insulation
current & future-
Indeterminate hazard
  • In 1995, the Navy conducted a lead based paint survey.
  • In 1999, the Navy sampled the drip lines (soil under the roof where water falls to the ground) and yards near housing units.
  • The Navy plans to inform new occupants of the lead hazards.
  • The Navy confirmed that the cooper piping has lead solder.
  • The Navy or the redevelopment authority should provide information to new residents, developers, and tenants on not only the location of the lead paint and asbestos buildings, but how to manage those hazards.


  • The Navy should determine if the lead solder is leaching into the drinking water at action levels (15 ppb). If so, either remove the lead hazard or provide information to new occupants on tap water flushing techniques.


  • If the lead hazards remain unabated, future occupants and frequent visitors should consult with their health care provider as to whether routine (annual) blood lead sampling is needed based on their medical condition. Those at greatest risk are children under 6 years old, elderly, and women of child bearing age.
Summary - More information is needed on lead in drinking water and on the notification of lead and asbestos hazards to future users.
LAKE HAZARDS

Eating fish and other biota caught in lakes/creeks on-base (Lake Fretwell, Lake Newman, Lake Wright, Lake Yellow Water, Lake Burrel)

Contaminants: mercury, lead, others?

future -possible Eating Fish
current- No apparent

future- Indeterminate hazard (more data needed)

  • The Navy has sampled fish from Lake Fretwell. The sampling has depleted the fish population so accumulation is less likely in new fish.
  • ATSDR recommends that a review of the potential for fish and turtles to become contaminated in the future be investigated as part of the Superfund Comprehensive Five Year Review.


  • If fish are sampled, the following information should be collected:


    • How long had fish been stocked before sampling
    • Were fish considered wild or breeding populations
    • Size fish, age, sex of fish sampled
    • Types, genus and species of fish sampled
    • Skin on or off filets
    • Were fish trimmed of fat
    • Lipid content of fish
    • Wet weight and dry weight concentration of COPC
    • Documentation of abnormalities or lack of abnormalities
    • Documentation of presence of egg masses.
    • Sample Specific Quantization Limit (SQL)
    • Cross reference of information on fish with samples and concentrations on CD-Rom
UNEXPLODED ORDNANCE

Unexploded ordnance and other physical hazards at least 10 major locations on-base and four former bombing ranges off-base.

current & future - possible UXO Contact
current & future-
Hazard
  • The Navy has identified possible UXO locations on the main base and Yellow Water Weapons area.
  • The Navy should coordinate with the Army Corps of Engineers and new tenants to ensure the proper program provides public education on the locations and hazards associated with disturbing UXO. Institutional controls (i.e., no digging) may be needed in some areas.


  • The Navy should verify emergency phone numbers and reporting information and provide clearing and reporting procedures to residents, bombing range owners, developers, utility contractors, and municipalities before people dig or excavate in UXO locations.
Summary- need map of possible UXO locations and educational material. Need information on planned notification of new residents, utility contractors, and developers.


VI. PREPARERS OF REPORT

This report was prepared under the direction and supervision of the following individuals:

Charles Grosse, M.S., REM
Environmental Health Scientist
Federal Facilities Assessment Branch
Division of Health Assessment and Consultation
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry

Diane Jackson
Chief, Defense Facilities Section B
Federal Facilities Assessment Branch
Division of Health Assessment and Consultation
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry

Carole Hossom
Environmental Health Scientist
Federal Facilities Assessment Branch
Division of Health Assessment and Consultation


Assistance Provided by:

Aimee Tucker
Research Assistant
Federal Facilities Assessment Branch
Division of Health Assessment and Consultation

Archana Joshi
Research Assistant
Federal Facilities Assessment Branch
Division of Health Assessment and Consultation


VII. REFERENCES

ABB-ES. 1994a. Asea Brown Boveri Environmental Services, Inc. NAS Cecil Field. BaseRealignment and Closure Environmental Baseline Survey Report. November.

ABB-ES. 1995a. Asea Brown Boveri Environmental Services, Inc. NAS Cecil Field. Base Realignment and Closure Environmental Baseline Survey Report, Addendum C, 103rd Street Jet Fuel Pipeline. August 1995.

ABB-ES. 1996b. Asea Brown Boveri Environmental Services, Inc. NAS Cecil Field.Unexploded Ordnance Survey Report for Naval Air Station ,Cecil Field, Jacksonville Florida:Prepared for Southern Division , Naval Facility Engineering Command.

ABB-ES. 1997a. Asea Brown Boveri Environmental Services, Inc. NAS Cecil Field. RemedialInvestigation. Operable Unit 5, Sites 14 and 15. Jacksonville, Florida. October 1997.

ABB-ES. 1997b. Asea Brown Boveri Environmental Services, Inc. NAS Cecil Field. Draft LakeFretwell Fish Sampling Report. June 26, 1997.

ABB-ES. 1997c. Asea Brown Boveri Environmental Services, Inc. NAS Cecil Field. LakeFretwell Ecological Risk Assessment Presentation Summary.

AFCEE. 1999. Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence, Pro_Act Fact Sheet TI#19206Petroleum Fuels: Basic Composition and Properties. February 1999.

ATSDR. 1992a. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Impact of Lead-Contaminated Soil on Public Health. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

ATSDR. 1998a. ATSDR Child Health Initiative: About ATSDR's Child Health Initiative.Accessed January, 1998 at http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/.

ATSDR. 1999a. Toxicological Profile for Lead (Update), Atlanta, GA. July.

ATSDR. 2001a. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Personal communicationwith EPA's Dr. Ted Simon.

ATSDR. 2001b. Landfill gas primer: an overview for environmental health professionals.Atlanta: US Department of Health and Human Services. Available at: URL: <http://atsdr1.atsdr.cdc.gov/HAC/landfill/html/intro.html>. (Accessed August 2002).

Arthur Andersen LLP. 1996. Prepared for: The Cecil Field Development Commission. Preparedby: NASCF Base Reuse Plan (Final). February

Bechtel. 1996. Bechtel Environmental, Inc. Addendum, Remedial Action Plan for the NAS CecilField Jet Fuel Line at 103rd Street. Jacksonville, Florida. July 1996.

BRAC (Base Realignment and Closure) Environmental Fact Sheet, Spring, 1999.< http://www.dtic.mil/envirodod/Policies/BRAC/BCP_factsheet_final.pdf >

CDC. 1991a. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. U.S. Department of Health andHuman Services (DHHS). Preventing Lead Poisoning in Young Children. October, 1991.

City of Jacksonville. 2000. Cecil Field Development Office. Website accessed August 2000.(http://www.coj.net/Departments/Jacksonville+Economic+Development+Commission/Cecil+Commerce+Center/Land+Uses.htm)

Connecticut DEP (Department of Environmental Protection). Reference Table A, DEP-PERD-EHR-FS-100, Volatile Organic Substances to Identify Significant Environmental HazardNotification Threshold Concentrations including those for Volatile Organic Compounds Beneatha Building for both groundwater concentrations and for Soil Vapor Concentrations. This tablemay be found at

Crews. J. 1998. Correspondence from J. Lloyd Crews (NAS Cecil Field) to J. Corkran (ATSDR). Responses to ATSDR correspondence dated October 24, 1997. January 26, 1998.

Delaney, K.F. 1996. Response from K. F. Delaney, Rear Admiral, U.S. Navy to CongressionalRequest from Honorable Stephen R. Wise, Representative, District 13 (May 23, 1996). June 26,1996.

Department of the Navy. 1969. U.S. Explosive Ordnance. January 15, 1969

Duggan, M.J. and Inskip, M.J. 1985. Childhood Exposure to Lead in Surface Dust and Soil: ACommunity Health Problem

Exploration Technologies, Inc., Geochemical Services, TX. 1998 http://www.eti-geochemistry.com/anaerobic/#biogenic Accessed 8/5/02

Florida DEP (Department of Environmental Protection). Undated. Memorandum. NAS CecilField Fish Sampling: April 24 - 27, 1995.

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2000. Health Advisories for Mercury inFlorida Fish, 1989-1996. August 2000

Glass, Scott. 1999. Personal Communication. Naval Facilities Engineering Command, SouthernDivision.

Glass, Scott. 2000. Personal Communication. Naval Facilities Engineering Command, SouthernDivision.

Harding Lawson Associates. 1999. Unexploded Ordnance Report. Naval Air Station Cecil Field,Jacksonville, FL. May 1999.

Hillford, K., J. 1996. Groundwater Flow in the Surficial Aquifer System and Potential Movementof Contamination form selected Waste-Disposal Sites at Cecil Field Naval Air Station,.Jacksonville, Florida. U.S. Geological Survey, Administrative Release, prepared in cooperationwith Southern Division, Naval Engineering Command, U.S. Navy, Tallahassee, Florida.

Jamal. 1990. Jamal & Associates, Inc. Contamination Assessment Report: 103rd Street Jet FuelLine. May 1990.

Kemron Environmental Services, Inc. 1995. Final Lead-Based Paint Management Plan NavalAir Station (NAS) Cecil Field. Volume III, Book 1; Volume III Addendum. October.

Lancaster, D. 1997. Personal communication with Diane Lancaster, Environmental Programs,NAS Jacksonville. May 27, 1997.

NAS Cecil Field Installation Restoration Program (IRP). 1996a. Update on Fishing Restrictionsat Lake Fretwell.

NAS Cecil Field. 1997a. Restoration Advisory Board, Meeting Minutes. October 21.

NAS Cecil Field. 1997b. Situation Report (SitRep),103rd Street Pipeline Spill Site. August1997.

NAS Cecil Field. 1997c. Situation Report (SitRep) #5,:Situation Report on the Lake FretwellSampling Results. August 1997.

NAS Jacksonville, Public Works files. 1997. Drinking Water Results for 6952 103rd Street,Jacksonville, Florida: Results dated 11/87, 7/89, 3/90, 12/90, 7/91, 1/93, 2/95. Obtained fromDiane Lancaster, NAS Jacksonville, May 27, 1997.

Naval Facilities Engineering Command. 1999. Draft Final Guide for IncorporatingBioavailability Adjustments into Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessments at U.S. Navyand Marine Corps Facilities. April 20, 1999.

National Research Council. 1999. Committee on Environmental Remediation at Naval Facilities,National Research Council, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 1999.

Newell, C.J., Gonzales, J. Miller, R.N., Rifai, S.H., Wiedemeier, T.H., and J.A. Winters. 1995. Modeling intrinsic remediation with multiple electron acceptors: results from seven sites. In Proceedings of Petroleum Hydrocarbons and Organic Chemicals in Ground Water: Prevention, Detection and Restoration. Houston, Texas Nov 29-Dec 1, NGWA., pp. 33-47.

Oregon DEQ (Department of Environmental Quality).1999. Appendix 1: Oregon DEQ Tier 1Look-up Table.

PM&A. 1992. PM&A Consulting Engineers, Inc. Preliminary Report for Repairs to Jet FuelLine at NAS Cecil Field. November 1992.

ProAct Fact Sheet TI#17472. June 1998. U.S. Air Force environmental research service andinformation exchange clearinghouse ProAct Fact Sheet TI#17472: Lead Contamination in Soilsat Military Small Arms Firing Ranges, June 1998. http://www.afcee.brooks.af.mil/pro-act/fact/june98a.asp

Professional Service Industries, Inc. 1991. Remedial Action Plan for the NAS Cecil Field JetFuel Line at 103rd Street. Jacksonville, Florida. August 1991.

RAB Cecil Fielder update, 2000 (Cecil Field Restoration Advisory Board, RAB Cecil Fielder,Tuesday, July 18, 2000) Cecil Field Commerce Center and Cecil Field Airport RestorationAdvisory Board

Technical Memorandum for Supplemental Sampling at Operable Unites 1, 2, and 7. September1992.

Tetra Tech 1999a. Tetra Tech, NUS, Inc. Contaminated Assessment Plan for Naval Air StationJacksonville to Naval Air Station Cecil Field Fuel Transfer Pipeline at Naval Air Station CecilField. Contact Number N62467-94-D-0888, Contract Task Order 0072. January 1999

Tetra Tech. 2000. Tetra Tech NUS, Inc. Five-Year Review, Naval Air Station Cecil Field.Jacksonville, FL. May 2000.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE). 2000. Rock Island District. The Project InformationRetrieval System (PIRS), Formerly Used Defense Site (FUDS). August 2000

U.S. EPA. 1992a. OERR Guidance for Data Useability in Risk Assessment (Part A). 1992 PB963356

U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 1995a. Memorandum from T. Simon, Toxicologist(Office of Health Ass, U.S. EPA Region IV) to B. Reedy, Remedial Project Manager (FederalFacilities Branch, BRAC, U.S. EPA Region IV). Subject: Risk Assessment for Fish Ingestion atLake Fretwell based on Fish Tissue Sampling in April, 1995. June 29, 1995.

U.S. EPA. 1996a. Environmental Response Team, SOP# 2042 Soil Gas Sampling, June 1, 1996.

U.S. EPA. 1997a. Office of Air and Radiation, Mercury Study, Report to Congress: Volume VI:An Ecological Assessment for Anthropogenic Mercury Emissions in the United States, December 1997.

U.S. EPA. 1997b.Office of Air and Radiation, Mercury Study, Report to Congress: Volume VI:An Ecological Assessment for Anthropogenic Mercury Emissions in the United States,"December 1997.

U.S. EPA. 1999. Federal Register. 40 CFR Part 372. Lead and Lead Compounds; Lowering ofReporting Thresholds; Community Right-to-Know Toxic Chemical Release Reporting; ProposedRule, August 3, 1999.

U.S. EPA. 2000. EPA's website by Region IV accessed August 7, 2000. www.epa.gov/region4/waste/npl/nplfln/cecnasfl.htm/

U.S. EPA. 2001. EPA's website by the Technology Innovation Office accessed February 2001.www.epa.gov/swertio1/

U.S. Navy.1996a. Southern Division Naval Facility Engineering Command, EnvironmentalBaseline Survey for Lease: 60 Acre Parcel - Yellow Water Weapons Area

U.S. Navy. 1997a. Department of the Navy Environmental Restoration for Fiscal Years 1997-2000. Cecil Field Naval Air Station. March.

U.S. Navy. 1997b. Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Disposal and Reuse of Naval AirStation Cecil Field, Jacksonville, Florida. April.

U.S. Navy. 1998a. Final Environmental Impact Statement, Disposal and Reuse of Naval AirStation Cecil Field Jacksonville, Florida, October 1998.

U.S. Navy. 1999a. Southern Division Naval Facilities Engineering Command. Table 2, Site Description Chart Petroelum Program, NAS Cecil Field, Jacksonville, Florida. pp 1-4. Site Management Plan, Second Quarter Update for Fiscal Year 1999, Naval Air Station Cecil Field, Jacksonville, Florida, April 1999.

U.S. Navy. 1999b. Southern Division Naval Facilities Engineering Command. Lead in Soil Sampling, NAS Cecil Field, Jacksonville, Florida. June 1999 (Prepared by Cape Environmental Management)

U.S. Navy. 2001a. Southern Division Naval Facilities Engineering Command. Comments toNaval Air Station, Cecil Field Public Health Assessment. August 2001.

Vaughan-Wright, D. 1998. Personal Communication. Debbie Vaughan-Wright, U.S. EPARemedial Project Manager. March 26, 1998.

Vaughan-Wright, D. 1999. Personal Communication. Debbie Vaughan-Wright, U.S. EPARemedial Project Manager.

Vaughan-Wright, D. 2000. Personal Communication. Debbie Vaughan-Wright, U.S. EPARemedial Project Manager.

Vyas, N.B., et al. 2000. Lead Poisoning Of Passerines At A Trap And Skeet Range. Environmental Pollution 107(1):159-166. 2000

Wiedemeier, T.H., Kampbell, D.H., Miller, R.N., and J.T. Wilson. 1995. Significance ofanaerobic processes for the intrinsic bioremediation of fuel hydrocarbons. In Proceedings ofPetroleum Hydrocarbons and Organic Chemicals in Ground Water: Prevention, Detection andRestoration. Houston, Texas Nov 29-Dec 1, NGWA., pp. 49-61.


Bibliography of Information on Off-Base Bombing Ranges

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Rock Island District, The Project Information Retrieval System(PIRS), Formerly Used Defense Site (FUDS), "Bell Target, Bell, FL, Site # I04FL0892, " August 2000

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Rock Island District, The Project Information Retrieval System(PIRS), Formerly Used Defense Site (FUDS), " Clay Bomb Target, Clay County, FL , Site #I04FL0905, " August 2000

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Rock Island District, The Project Information Retrieval System(PIRS), Formerly Used Defense Site (FUDS), "Chaffee Bomb Target Site, Duval County, FL, Project # I04FL085600, " August 2000 <><><><><><>

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Rock Island District, The Project Information Retrieval System(PIRS), Formerly Used Defense Site (FUDS), "Keystone Bomb Target Site, Clay County, FL, Site # I04FL0891 , " August 2000

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Rock Island District, The Project Information Retrieval System(PIRS), Formerly Used Defense Site (FUDS), "Spencer Bomb Target Site Clay County, FL, Site # I04FL0828, " August 2000

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Rock Island District, The Project Information Retrieval System(PIRS), Formerly Used Defense Site (FUDS), "Switzerland Bomb Target Site, St. John's, FL, Site # I04FL083200, " August 2000

Next Section       Table of Contents

  
 
USA.gov: The U.S. Government's Official Web PortalDepartment of Health and Human Services
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, 4770 Buford Hwy NE, Atlanta, GA 30341
Contact CDC: 800-232-4636 / TTY: 888-232-6348

A-Z Index

  1. A
  2. B
  3. C
  4. D
  5. E
  6. F
  7. G
  8. H
  9. I
  10. J
  11. K
  12. L
  13. M
  14. N
  15. O
  16. P
  17. Q
  18. R
  19. S
  20. T
  21. U
  22. V
  23. W
  24. X
  25. Y
  26. Z
  27. #