PB99-964013
EPA541-R99-064
1999
EPA Superftmd
Record of Decision;
Cherry Point Marine Corps Air Station
OU2
Cherry Point, NC
9/29/1999
-------
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 4
ATLANTA FEDERAL CENTER
61 FORSYTH STREET
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303-8960
SEP 2 C) 1999
CERTIFIED MAIL -
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
4WD-FFB
Commanding General
MGEN Thomas A. Braaten
Marine Corps Air Station
Cherry Point, North Carolina 28533-0006
SUBJ: Record of Decision - Operable Unit 2
MCAS Cherry Point NPL Site
Cherry Point, North Carolina
Dear General Braaten:
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 4 has
reviewed the above subject decision document and concurs with the
selected remedy for the Remedial Action at Operable Unit 2. This
remedy is supported by the previously completed Remedial
Investigation, Feasibility Study and Baseline Risk Assessment
Reports.
The selected remedy consists of: institutional controls to
restrict groundwater use, prohibit intrusive activities, and
restrict use to industrial activities within the landfill
boundary, fencing with signage, in-situ soil vapor extraction
technology to treat soil hot spots to be protective oE
groundwater, monitored natural attenuation of groundwater, and
monitoring of groundwater, surface water and sediments. This
remedial action is protective of human health and the
environment, complies with Federal and State requirements that
are legally applicable or relevant and appropriate to the
remedial action and is cost effective.
Internet Address (URL) • http://www.apa.gcv
Recycled/Recyclable . Printed with Vegetable O« Based Inks on Recycled Paper (Mkiknum 25% Postconsumer)
-------
EPA appreciates the coordination efforts of the
Environmental Affairs Department and Atlantic Division, Naval
Facilities Engineering Command and the level of effort that was
put forth in the documents leading to this decision. EPA looks
forward to continuing the exemplary working relationship as we
move toward final cleanup of the NPL site.
Sincerely,
Richard D. Green
Director
Waste Management Division
cc:
Elsie Munsell, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy
Bill Powers, BAD MCAS Cherry Point
Lance Laughmiller, LANTDIV
Linda Raynor, NCDENR
-------
EPA appreciates the coordination efforts of the
Environmental Affairs Department and Atlantic Division, Naval
Facilities Engineering Command and the level of effort that was
put forth in the documents leading to this decision. EPA looks
forward to continuing the exemplary working relationship as we
move toward final cleanup of the NPL site.
Sincerely,
Richard D. Green
Director
Waste Management Division
cc: Elsie Munsell, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy
Bill Powers, EAD MCAS Cherry Point
Lance Laughmiller, LANTDIV
Linda Raynor, NCDENR
bcc: Allison Abernathy, FFRRO/OSWE
Bozeman
OTUI
ston Green
-------
-------
: v:- . •-^ase
*• JAMKS B. HUNT JR.-Sjs'jJ
.-.GOVERNOR ..~£fe'
•*•' - NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WASTE MANAGEMENT
May 24,1999
Commanding General, MGen. Thomas A. Braaten
Marine Corps Air Station - Cherry Point
Attention: Mr. William Powers
Environmental Affairs Department (L.N.)
Marine Corps Air Station, PSC Code 8006
Cherry Point, NC 28533-0006
Subject: Record of Decision for Operable Unit 2
(Document dated March 1999)
MCAS-Cherry Point, North Carolina
Dear General Braaten:
The NC Superfund Section has completed its review of the Record of
Decision (ROD) for Operable Unit 2 and concurs with the selected remedy.
The remedy selected for groundwater is a combination of natural attenuation
and institutional controls, and for soil and remaining landfill waste, the
remedy is a combination of soil vapor extraction and institutional controls.
This concurrence is based on the information presented in the ROD
(dated March 1999), the Remedial Investigation Report for OU-2 (dated April
1997) and the Feasibility Study Report (dated July 1997). Should the State
receive new or additional information that significantly affects this
concurrence, it may be modified or withdrawn with appropriate written notice
to the Navy, Air Station and EPA Region IV.
Our concurrence with this Record of Decision in no way binds the
State to concur in future decisions or commits the State to participate,
financially or otherwise, in the cleanup of the site. The State reserves the right
to review, comment, and make independent assessments of all future work
relating to the site.
If you have any questions regarding this concurrence, or any other
matter concerning Operable Unit 2, please call either Ms. Linda F. Raynor at
(919) 733-2801, extension 340, or myself at (919) 733-2801, extension 291.
Sincerely,
•over Nicholson
'ederal Remediation Branch
NC Superfund Section
4O1 OBERLIN ROAD, SUITE ISO, RALEIOH, NC 276O5
PHONE 919-733-4990 FAX OIO-7I 5-3SOS
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY /AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER - SO% RECTCLEO/J O% POST-CONSUMER PAPER
Encl (5)
-------
REVISION 5
MARCH 1999
* Institutional Controls, which include land use restrictions, groundwater/aquifer use restrictions, and
site access restrictions as specified and outlined in the attached Land Use Control Implementation
Plan (LUCIP).
Statutory Determinations
The selected remedy is protective of human health and the environment, complies with federal and State
requirements that are legally applicable or relevant and appropriate to the remedial action, and is cost-
effective. This remedy utilizes permanent solutions and alternative treatment technologies to the
maximum extent practicable and satisfies the statutory preference for remedies that employ treatment
that reduces toxicity, mobility, or volume as a principal element.
Because this remedy will result in hazardous substances remaining on site above levels that allow for
unlimited use and unrestricted exposure, a review will be conducted within five years after
commencement of remedial action to ensure that the remedy continues to provide adequate protection of
human health and the environment.
T.A. BRAATEN
Major General, U.S. Marine Corps
Commanding General
Marine Corps Air Station, Cherry Point
Date
119504/P
xi
CTO 0239
-------
Record of Decision
for
Operable Unit 2
Marine Corps Air Station
Cherry Point North Carolina
Atlantic Division
Naval Facilities Engineering Command
Contract Number N62472-90-D-1298
Contract Task Order 0239
March 1999
"It TETRA TECH NUS, INC.
-------
-------
119504/P
RECORD OF DECISION
FOR
OPERABLE UNIT 2
MARINE CORPS AIR STATION
CHERRY POINT, NORTH CAROLINA
COMPREHENSIVE LONG-TERM
ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION NAVY (CLEAN) CONTRACT
Submitted to:
Atlantic Division
Environmental Restoration Branch, Code 1823
Naval Facilities Engineering Command
1510 Gilbert Street
Norfolk, Virginia 23511-2699
Submitted by:
Tetra Tech NUS, Inc.
600 Clark Avenue, Suite 3
King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406-1433
CONTRACT NUMBER N62472-90-D-1298
CONTRACT TASK ORDER 0239
MARCH 1999
-------
-------
REVISION 5
MARCH 1999
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION - £=i2£
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS vi
DECLARATION • IX
DECISION SUMMARY
1.0 SITE NAME, LOCATION, AND DESCRIPTION 1-1
1 1 SITE 10 - OLD SANITARY LANDFILL 1-7
1 2 SITE 44A - FORMER SLUDGE APPLICATION 1-7
1 3 SITE 46 - POLISHING PONDS NO. 1 AND 2 1-7
1J4 SITE 76 - VEHICLE MAINTENANCE AREA (HOBBY SHOP) 1-7
2.0 SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES 2-1
2.1 SITE HISTORY • J-1
2.2 PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES 2-1
3.0 HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION .3/1
4.0 SCOPE AND ROLE OF OPERABLE UNIT 2 4'1
5.0 SITE CHARACTERISTICS 5'1
6.0 NATURE AND EXTENT OF CONTAMINATION 6'1
6.1 SOIL • 5":
6.1.1 Surface Soil — £~
6.1.2 Subsurface Soil • ^-4
613 Migration of Soil Contaminants to Groundwater 6'9
6.2 GROUNDWATER AND SURFACE WATER - °-9
6.2.1 Surficial Aquifer •
6.2.2 Yorktown Aquifer
6.2.3 Surface Water - °'"
6.3 SEDIMENT AND SEEPS - ™
6.3.1 Sediment ^"?I
6.3.2 Leachate Seeps
6.3.3 - Polishing Pond Sediment
7.0 CONTAMINANT
FATE AND TRANSPORT ........................... . ................. . .................................. 7'1
8.0 SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS
8.1 BASELINE HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
8.1 .1 Chemicals of Potential Concern
8.1 .2 Exposure Assessment ............................ .
8.1.3 Toxicity Assessment .........
8.1 .4 Risk Characterization
8.1.5 Risk Uncertainty
8.1.6 Human Health Risk Summary
8 2 ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT
:: CTO 0239
119504/P "
-------
REVISION 5
MARCH 1999
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
SECTION PAGE
9.0 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES 9-1
9.1 GROUNDWATER ALTERNATIVES 9-2
9.1.1 Groundwater Alternative 1 - No Action 9-2
9.1.2 Groundwater Alternative 2 - Natural Attenuation arid Institutional Controls 9-2
9.1.3 Groundwater Alternative 3 - Groundwater Extraction; Treatment and Discharge to
Slocum Creek or Pretreatment and Discharge to Sewage Treatment Plant (STP);
Institutional Controls 9-4
9.1.4 Groundwater Alternative 4 - Air Sparging/Soil Vapor Extraction; Institutional
Controls 9-5
9.2 SOIL ALTERNATIVES I!..!..."!....].!!! 9-5
9.2.1 Soil Alternative 1 - No Action 9-5
9.2.2 Soil Alternative 2 - Institutional Controls 9-6
9.2.3 Soil Alternative 3 - Soil Vapor Extraction; Institutional Controls 9-6
9.2.4 Soil Alternative 4 - Excavation, Consolidation, and Containment; Institutional
Controls 9-7
9.2.5 .Soil Alternative 5 - Excavation, Treatment and Onsite Disposal; Institutional
Controls 9--7
9.2.6 Soil Alternative 6 - Excavation and Offsite Disposal; Institutional Controls 9-8
9.3 APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS (ARARs)..!!.9-8
10.0 SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES , 10-1
10.1 THRESHOLD CRITERIA 10-3
10.1.1 Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment 10-3
10.1.2 Compliance with ARARs . 10-10
10.2 PRIMARY BALANCING CRITERIA 10-11
10.2.1 Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence. 10-11
10.2.2 Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume Through Treatment 10-12
10.2.3 Short-Term Effectiveness 10-12
10.2.4 Implementability 10-13
10.2.5 Cost .. 10-13
10.3 MODIFYING CRITERIA . 10-15
10.3.1 USEPA/State Acceptance 10-15
10.3.2 Community Acceptance . 10-15
11.0 SELECTED REMEDY .... 11-1
11.1 REMEDY SELECTION 11-1
11.2 ESTIMATED COSTS 11 -5
12.0 STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS ', 12-1
12.1 PROTECTION OF HUMAN HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT 12-1
12.2 COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE
REQUIREMENTS 12-1
12.2.1 Contaminant-Specific ARARs 12-2
12.2.2 Location-Specific ARARs 12-2
12.2.3 Action-Specific ARARs 12-2
12.2.4 Other Guidance Considered 12-2
12.3 COST-EFFECTIVENESS 12-2
119504/P Hi CTO0239
-------
REVISION 5
MARCH 1999
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
SECTION
12.4
PAGE
UTILIZATION OF PERMANENT SOLUTIONS AND ALTERNATIVE TREATMENT
TECHNOLOGIES (OR RESOURCE RECOVERY TECHNOLOGIES) TO THE
MAXIMUM EXTENT PRACTICABLE 12-2
12.5 PREFERENCE FOR TREATMENT AS A PRINCIPAL ELEMENT"."'."!!!!".!!!"!!."! 12-3
13.0 DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES 13-1
14.0 RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY.. 14-1
14.1 BACKGROUND ON COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT 14-1
14.2 SUMMARY OF COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING THE PUBLIC COMMENT
PERIOD AND NAVY RESPONSES 14-1
REFERENCES
.R-1
APPENDICES
A
B
C
GLOSSARY
LAND USE CONTROL IMPLEMENTATION PLAN (LUCIP)
TRANSCRIPT OF PUBLIC MEETING
119504/P
IV
CTO 0239
-------
REVISION 5
MARCH 1999
TABLES
NUMBER PAGE
6-1 Summary of Analytical Results - Surface Soil and Dry Leachate Seep Soil (0 to 2 Feet) 6-2
6-2 Subsurface Soil Analytical Results (>2 Feet) 6-5
6-3 Remedial Goal Options for Soil - Protection of Groundwater 6-10
6-4 Summary of Analytical Results - Surficial Aquifer (1994 and 1996) 6-17
6-5 Summary of Analytical Results - Yorktown Aquifer (1994) 6-24
6-6 Summary of Analytical Results - Turkey Gut Surface Water (1994) 6-26
6-7 Summary of Analytical Results - Slocum Creek Surface Water (1994) 6-2B
6-8 Summary of Analytical Results - Turkey Gut Sediment 6-30
6-9 Summary of Analytical Results - Slocum Creek Sediment 6-32
6-10 Summary of Analytical Results - Leachate Seep Water (1995) 6-33
6-11 Summary of Analytical Results - Polishing Pond Sediment/Soil 6-36
8-1 Media-Specific Chemicals of Potential Concern (COPCs) 8-3
8-2 Exposure Concentrations for Chemicals of Potential Concern (COPCs) 8-7
8-3 Exposure Assumptions - Current Land Use Receptors 8-10
8-4 Exposure Assumptions - Future Land Use Receptors 8-12
8-5 Dose-Response Parameters for Chemicals of Potential Concern 8-15
8-6 Summary of Cumulative Risks 8-24
8-7 Remedial Goal Options for Groundwater - Future Resident (6-Year) 8-28
8-8 Remedial Goal Options for Groundwater - Future Resident (30-Year) 8-29
8-9 Remedial Goal Options for Soil - Future Resident (6-Year) 8-30
8-10 Remedial Goal Options for Soil - Future Resident (30-Year) 8-31
8-11 Remedial Goal Options for Soil - Future Full-Time Employee 8-32
8-12 Groundwater COCs that Exceed MCLs or State Groundwater Standards 8-33
8-13 Remedial Options for Soil - Protection of Groundwater 8-34
9-1 Remedial Action Objectives -9-3
9-2 Potential Contaminant-Specific ARARs..... 9-10
9-3 Potential Location-Specific ARARs 9-11
9-4 Potential Action-Specific ARARs 9-12
10-1 Glossary of Evaluation Criteria 10-2
10-2 Summary of Evaluation of Groundwater Alternatives 10-4
10-3 Summary of Evaluation of Soil Alternatives 10-6
10-4 Cost Comparison of Alternatives 10-14
11-1 Groundwater Performance Standards 11-3
11-2 Soil Performance Standards 11-4
FIGURES
NUMBER PAGE
1-1 Location Map 1-2
1-2 General Air Station Map 1-3
1-3 Operable Unit 2 - General Site Location Map 1-5
6-1 Organic Constituents in Soil Exceeding RGOs 6-13
6-2 Inorganic Constituents in Soil Exceeding RGOs 6-15
6-3 Contaminants in Surficial Aquifer Exceeding State Standards 6-21
8-1 Conceptual Site Model ; 8-5
119504/P . v CTO0239
-------
REVISION 5
MARCH 1999
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
A
ARAB
B&R Environmental
BEHP
BGS
BMP
BTEX
CERCLA
GDI
CFR
CMS
CNS
COC
COPC
CSF
CY
DCE
DERA
DL
DON
ER-M
FS
Gl
GIS
HI
HNUS
HpCDD
HpCDF
HQ
HRS
HSWA
IAS
ILCR
Applicable
Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirement
Brown and Root Environmental
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Below Ground Surface
Base Master Plan
Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, Xylene
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act
Chronic Daily Intake
Code of Federal Regulations
Corrective Measures Study
Central Nervous System
Chemical of Concern
Chemical of Potential Concern
Cancer Slope Factor
Cubic Yards
Dichloroethene
Defense Environmental Restoration Account
Detection Limit
Department of the Navy
Effects Range-Medium
Feasibility Study
Gastrointestinal
Geographic Information System
Hazard Index
Halliburton NUS Environmental Corporation
Heptachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
Heptachlorodibenzo-p-furan
Hazard Quotient
Hazard Ranking System
Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments
Initial Assessment Study
Incremental Lifetime Cancer Risk
119504/P
VI
CTO 0239
-------
REVISION 5
MARCH 1999
IRP
kg
L
LUCAP
LUCIP
MCAS
MCL
mg
MSL
NA
NC
NCAC
NCDENR
NCP
ND
NPDES
NPL
NS
O&M
OCDD
OU
PAH
PCB
PCE
POL
PRAP
R&A
RAB
RCRA
RD/RA
RFI
RFA
RfD
RGO
Rl
Installation Restoration Program
Kilogram
Liter
Land Use Control Assurance Plan
Land Use Control Implementation Plan
Marine Corps Air Station
Maximum Contaminant Level
Milligram
Mean Sea Level
Not Applicable or Not Analyzed
North Carolina
North Carolina Administrative Code
North Carolina Department of Environmental and Natural Resources
National Contingency Plan
Not Detected
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
National Priorities List
No Standard
Operation and Maintenance
Octachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
Operable Unit
Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocabon
Polychlorinated Biphenyl
Tetrachloroethene
Petroleum, Oil, and Lubricants
Proposed Remedial Action Plan
Relevant and Appropriate
Restoration Advisory Board
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
Remedial Design/Remedial Action
RCRA Facility Investigation
RCRA Facility Assessment
Reference Dose
Remedial Goal Option
Remedial Investigation
119504/P
VII
CTO 0239
-------
REVISION 5
MARCH 1999
ROD
SARA
SNIP
STP
SVE
SWMU
TAL
TBC
TCA
TCDD
TCE
TCL
TDM
TEF
TRC
TSDF
UCL
UF
ig
use
USEPA
USGS
USMC
VOC
Record of Decision
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
Site Management plan
Sewage Treatment Plant
Soil Vapor Extraction
Solid Waste Management Unit
Target Analyte List
To Be Considered
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
Trichloroethene
Target Compound List
Technical Direction Memorandum
Toxicity Equivalence Factor
Technical Review Committee
Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facility
Upper Confidence Level
Uncertainty Factor
Microgram
United States Code
United States Environmental Protection Agency
United States Geological Survey
United States Marine Corps
Volatile Organic Compound
119504/P
VIII
CTO 0239
-------
-------
REVISION 5
MARCH 1999
DECLARATION
Site Name and Location
Operable Unit 2 (Site 10 - Old Sanitary Landfill, Site 44A - Former Sludge Application Area, Site 46 -
Polishing Ponds No. 1 and No. 2, and Site 76 - Vehicle Maintenance Area [Hobby Shop])
Marine Corp Air Station
Cherry Point, North Carolina
Statement of Basis and Purpose
This decision document presents the selected remedy for Operable Unit 2 (OU2) at the Marine Corp Air
Station (MCAS), Cherry Point, North Carolina. The remedy was chosen in accordance with the federal
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as
amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA), and the National Oil a»d
Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP)r This "decision is based on the Administrative
Record for OU2. Although this remedy is considered the final Record of Decision (ROD) under CERCLA,
under the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) this remedy is considered an Interim
Measure. Currently, the North Carolina Hazardous Waste Section, which administers the RCRA
program, has no regulations or guidance in place to allow for any cleanup levels in lieu of residential
levels.
The Department of the Navy (DON) and the Marine Corps have obtained concurrence from the State of
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR) and the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Region IV on the selected remedy.
Assessment of the Site
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from this operable unit, if not addressed by
implementing the response action selected in this ROD, may present a potential threat to public health,
welfare, or the environment.
Description of Selected Remedy
Operable Unit 2 is one of 15 operable units at MCAS Cherry Point. Separate investigations and
assessments are being conducted for these other sites at MCAS Cherry Point in accordance with.
CERCLA. Therefore, this ROD applies only to OU2. This remedy calls for the design and implementation
119504/P iX CTO0239
-------
REVISION 5
MARCH 1999
of response measures that will protect human health and the environment. This remedy addresses
sources of contamination as well as soil and groundwater contamination, which are the principal threats
posed by the site.
The selected remedy for groundwater is natural attenuation and institutional controls. The selected
remedy for soil and waste is soil vapor extraction and institutional controls.
The major components of the site-wide remedy are:
Monitored natural attenuation will be the selected remedy for the groundwater contamination. The
goals of this remediation are twofold: first to remediate the current levels of contamination in the
groundwater, and second to contain any future releases from the debris remaining in the landfill.
In-situ soil treatment by soil vapor extraction at known major soil "hot spots" (secondary source
areas) that are contaminated with organics and at any such areas identified during the Remedial
Design. This includes monitoring of air emissions and soil to evaluate the effectiveness~oftreatm
Long-term monitoring - MCAS Cherry Point shall conduct long-term monitoring to evaluate the
effectiveness of the natural attenuation process. Long-term monitoring will also serve to insure that
there are no further releases from the landfill debris still buried at the site, or other contaminated
media that will cause unacceptable risks to human health and the environment. A monitoring plan,
which shall be prepared and carried out in accordance with appropriate federal and State regulations
and guidance and with the concurrence of USEPA and NCDENR, will be created to detail the
frequency, media type, analysis, and locations of the long-term monitoring samples. The plan shall
require, at a minimum, collection and analysis of groundwater samples and of surface water and
sediment samples from Slocum Creek and Turkey Gut. Based on the results of the monitoring,
USEPA or NCDENR may require additional sampling and analysis, and/or remedial actions.
Changes to the monitoring plan (including changes to" sample frequency, media samples, sample
locations, analyses performed, and installation or abandonment of monitoring wells) may be required
by USEPA or NCDENR, or proposed by MCAS Cherry Point, based on review of results from the
regular monitoring program or other circumstances. Changes to the monitoring plan shall be
submitted to USEPA and NCDENR for concurrence as non-significant changes to the ROD.
Monitoring may be discontinued upon demonstration that continued attainment of remedial goals has
been achieved. Discontinuation of the monitoring program shall be submitted for USEPA and
NCDENR concurrence as a non-significant change to the ROD.
119504/P
CTO 0239
-------
REVISION 5
MARCH 1999
• Institutional Controls, which include land use restrictions, groundwater/aquifer use restrictions, and
site access restrictions as specified and outlined In the attached Land Use Control Implementation
Plan (LUCIP).
Statutory Determinations
X
The selected remedy is protective of human health and the environment, compiles with federal and State
requirements that are legally applicable or relevant and appropriate to the remedial action, and is cost-
effective. This remedy utilizes permanent solutions and alternative treatment technologies to the
maximum extent practicable and satisfies the statutory preference for remedies that employ treatment
that reduces toxicity. mobility, or volume as a principal element
Because this remedy will result in hazardous substances remaining on site above levels that allow for
unlimited use and unrestricted exposure, a review will be conducted within five years after
commencement of remedial action to ensure that the remedy continues to provide adequate protection of
human health and the environment
T. A. BRAATEN
Major General, U.S. Marine Corps
Commanding General
Marine Corps Air Station, Cherry Point
Date
119504/P Xi CTO0239
-------
-------
REVISION 5
MARCH 1999
DECISION SUMMARY
1.0 SITE NAME, LOCATION, AND DESCRIPTION
Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Cherry Point is part of a military installation located in southeastern
Craven County, North Carolina just north of the town of Havelock. The Air Station covers approximately
11,485 acres. Its boundaries are the Neuse River to the north, Hancock Creek to the east, North Carolina
Highway 101 to the south, and an irregular boundary line approximately three-quarters of a mile west of
Slocum Creek. The entire facility is situated on a peninsula north of Core and Bogue Sounds and south of
the Neuse River. The general location of the Air Station is shown on Figure 1-1.
The study area, Operable Unit 2 (OU2), is one of 15 operable units located within MCAS Cherry Point. An
"operable unit," as defined by the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan
(NCP), is a discrete action that comprises an incremental step toward comprehensively addressing site
problems. With respect to MCAS Cherry Point, operable units were developed to combine one or more
individual sites where Installation Restoration Program (IRP) activities are or will be implemented.
Operable Unit 2 is located in the west-central portion of the Air Station, as shown on Figure 1-2. It is
bounded by the MCAS Cherry Point Sewage Treatment Plant (STP) to the north, Roosevelt Boulevard to
the east, a residential area to the south, and Slocum Creek to the west (Figure 1-3). Operable Unit 2, the
subject of this ROD, consists of four sites:
• Site 10 - Old Sanitary Landfill (primary component of OU2)
• Site 44A - Former Sludge Application Area
• Site 46 - Polishing Ponds No. 1 and No. 2
• Site 76 - Vehicle Maintenance Area (Hobby Shop)
These sites have been grouped into one operable unit because of their proximity to each other (i.e.,
Site 44A - Former Sludge Application Area overlies portions of the Site 10 landfill and Site 46 - Polishing
Ponds No. 1 and 2 and Site 76 -. Vehicle Maintenance Area (Hobby Shop) are located adjacent to the
landfill). In addition. Site 44A and Site 46 both contain the same types of suggested contamination
derived from sewage treatment.
119504/P 1-1 CTO0239
-------
to
§
ACAD K-\CAOD\5J95\94a6B9BI DWC 86/18/97 MF
> 3>
§ m
•n 55
Jo °
-------
MARCH 1999
H*;m!l^/
OPERABLE UH1T 2
GENERAL AIH STATION MAP.
HCAS CHERRY POINT, NORTH CAMOUNA
MO
-
o«B_.
RCV1SIOS
1
BV
cmo
It,,.
APPO
mrtMNCts
._..
H C«M A IOWTK.IHKM - MV I - M/U/9?
CIO 0238
-------
'• {'( f} • ' {V \) < -' fi
Vi I./ .... U U II
-------
REVISION 5
MARCH 1999
1.1 SITE 10 - OLD SANITARY LANDFILL
Site 10 is located west^f Roosevelt Boulevard and south of Site 43 - Sewage Treatment Plant, on the east
side of Slocum Creek. The site consists of a sanitary landfill approximately 40 acres in size. Former sludge
impoundments that were closed in the mid-1980s are also located at this site. The sludge impoundment
area is included as a hazardous waste management unit in the Air Station's RCRA Part B permit. A fenced,
lined area formerly used for storage of drums of petroleum products is also located at Srte 10. The area « no
longer used for drum storage.
1.2 SITE 44A - FORMER SLUDGE APPLICATION
Site 44 consists of one of two areas in which sludge from the sewage treatment plant was applied. Liquid
sludge was removed from the digesters for land application every 30 days. Sludge was applied at Sites 10
and 21 Site 44A is located on Site 10 (OU2), and Site 44B is .ocated on Site 21 (OU13). Site 44B is not
discussed further, as it is not an OU2 site. The sludge contained organic material and other constants that
would not be digested during the sewage treatment process. Site 44A is also Included as a hazardous waste
management unit in the Air Station's RCRA Part B permit.
1.3 SITE 46 - POLISHING PONDS NO. 1 AND 2
This site consists of two inactive unlined ponds that served as aeration basins for wastewater from the
Sewage Treatment Plant (STP). The ponds are approximate* 12 feet deep. The STP was recently
upgraded and does not require the use of the ponds for aeration. The ponds may be used for future
stormwater management. Concurrence wil, be obtained from the USEPA and NCDENR prior to any
changes to the current use of these inactive ponds. Site 46 is also induded in the Air Station's RCRA Part B
permit.
1.4 SITE 76-VEHICLE MAINTENANCE AREA (HOBBY SHOP)
Site 76 consists of a building and parking lot where persona, vehic.es are repaired. Genera, auto
maintenance and auto body repair are typical work activities conducted at this facility.
_ CTO0239
119504/P W
-------
-------
REVISION 5
MARCH 1999
2.0 SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
The Air Station was commissioned in 1942 to maintain and support facilities, services, and materiel of a
Marine Aircraft Wing and other units as designated by the Commandant of the Marine Corps.
The following subsections describe the history (i.e.. the past land usages and waste disposal practices) of
Sites 10, 44A, 46, and 76 and summarize the previous site investigations/enforcement activities.
2.1 SITE HISTORY
Site 10 the Old Sanitary Landfill, served as the primary disposal site at the Air Station from 1955 until the
early to mid-1980s. Contaminated material and petroleum, oil, and lubricants (POLs) were .andspread,
burned stored in unlined pits, and buried at the landfill. The southern portion of Site 10 was used for (.re-
training exercises. Former sludge impoundments were located at the Site 10 landfill. These
impoundments were closed in the mid-1980s and were used for disposal of metal filings, plating sludges,
paints, organic solvents, oil and grease, and miscellaneous chemicals. Closure of the impoundments
consisted of sludge excavation, backfilling of the excavations, and capping. The former petroleum
storage area is currently inactive and no longer used to store drums of petroleum products.
Site 44A was used for landspreading of digested sludge from the sewage treatment plant. Sludge
removed between September and November 1987 was applied at Sites 44A and 44B. Site 44B is part of
another operable unit (OU13).
The Site 46 ponds, which are unlined. were used for aeration of sewage treatment plant wastewater.
They are no longer in use. A Closure Plan was submitted to the state for this site in December 1988.
USEPA Region IV is amenable to waiving the closure requirements and allowing the ponds to be
addressed under-the NCDENR solid waste management unit (SWMU) authority. Concurrence w,ll be
obtained from USEPA and NCDENR prior to any change in use of these ponds.
Site 76 is currently used for maintenance of personal vehicles by Air Station personnel. It is the only site
at OU2 that is active.
2.2 PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
The OU2 sites (10, 44A, 46. and 76) were identified in the Initial Assessment of Sites (IAS) prepared by a
Navy contractor. These sites were also included in a multi-task RCRA Section 3008(h) Administrative
CTO 0239
119504/P Z"1
-------
REVISION 5
MARCH 1999
Order on Consent signed by the Navy and the USEPA in December 1989. MCAS Cherry Point was
placed on the National Priorities List (NPL), which was established under CERCLA, in December 1994.
As a result, IR investigations are being conducted to meet the requirements of both CERCLA and RCRA.
The nature and extent of contamination at.OU2 has been under investigation since 1981. The work was
conducted using a phased approach that was based on the availability of funding and the prioritization of
sites in terms of potential environmental impacts. The work was conducted under several environmental
programs according to regulatory requirements in effect at the time. Information pertaining to these
investigations is contained in the following documents:
• Report on Hydrogeology, Contaminants Detected, and Corrective Action/Recommendations for the
Former Sludge Impoundments, January 1987 (NUS Corporation): Provides an evaluation of data
collected during closure of these impoundments.
• Remedial Investigation Interim Report, October 1988 (NUS Corporation): Provides the results of
groundwater, surface water, sediment, and leachate seep sampling and analysis conducted at Site 10
under the IR Program.
• Water Resources Investigations Report 89-615, 1990 (U.S. Geological Survey [USGS]): Provides the
results of groundwater sampling and analysis conducted by the USGS.
• Water Resources Investigations Report 89-4200, 1990 (USGS): Provides additional results of
groundwater sampling and analysis conducted by the USGS.
• RCRA Facility Investigations Report (RFI) - Units 5, 10, 16, and 17, May 1991 (NUS Corporation):
Provides results of additional investigations conducted at Site 10 following signing of the RCRA
Consent Order, including soil, surface water, sediment, and groundwater sampling and analysis.
• Evaluation and Recommendations - Unit 10 Former Sludge Impoundment Area, December 1991
(Halliburton NUS Corporation): Provides the results of soil sampling conducted before and after
closure of the former sludge impoundment area at Site 10.
• RCRA Facility Investigation and Corrective Measures Study Final Technical Direction Memorandum
(TDM) for Units 10 and 16, November 1992 (Halliburton NUS Corporation): Provides the results of
additional soil sampling conducted at Site 1.0 to address data gaps identified upon completion of the
RFI.
119504/P 2-2 CTO0239
-------
REVISION 5
MARCH 1999
• RCRA Facilities Investigation (RFI) - 21 Units, June 1993 (Halliburton NUS Corporation): Provides the
results of soil sampling and analysis at Site 44A (formerly Site 45) conducted following signing of the
RCRA Consent Order.
• Phase II Technical Direction Memorandum, June 1994 (Halliburton NUS Corporation): Provides the
results of additional soil sampling conducted to address data gaps identified upon completion of the
TDM.
• Remedial Investigation (Rl) Report, April 1997 (Brown & Root Environmental): Presents the results of
soil, groundwater, surface water, and sediment sampling conducted in 1994; soil and leachate seep
data collected in 1995; and surface water, soil, and groundwater data collected in 1996. Summarizes
previous data collected from past investigations.
The first remediation activity at OU2 was the closure of the former sludge impoundments at Site 10 in the
mid-1980s. The soil vapor extraction system was installed in the major "hot spots" in 1997.
119504/P 2-3 CT00239
-------
-------
REVISION 5
MARCH 1999
3.0 HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
Throughout the site's-history, the community has been an active participant in activities in accordance
with CERCLA Sections 113(k)(2)(B)(i-v) and 117. In 1988, a Technical Review Committee (TRC) was
formed to review recommendations for and monitor progress of the investigation and remediation efforts
at MCAS Cherry Point. The TRC was made up of representatives of the Navy. USEPA, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Forest Service, National Oceanographfc and Atmospheric
Administration, NCDENR, the Craven County Fire Marshal, and the U.S. Marine Corps. In June 1995, a
Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) was established as a forum for communications between the
community and decision-makers. The RAB absorbed the TRC and added members from the community.
The RAB members work together to monitor progress of the investigations and to review remediation
activities and recommendations at MCAS Cherry Point. RAB meetings are held regularly.
The RI/FS and PRAP documents for Operable Unit 2 at MCAS Cherry Point were released to the public in
July 1997 These documents were made available to the public in both the Administrative Record and
the information repositories maintained at the Havelock Public Library and MCAS Cherry Point Library.
The notice of the availability of these two documents was published in the Havelock News on July 16,
1997; the Windsock on July 17,1997; the CartPrPt County News-Times on July 20, 1997; and the Sun
Journal on July 21. 1997. A public comment period was held from July 23, 1997 to August 22. 1997. In
addition, a public meeting was held on July 29. 1997. At this meeting, representatives from the Navy,
MCAS Cherry Point, USEPA. and NCDENR answered questions about problems at the site and the
remedial alternatives under consideration. A response to the comments received during the public
comment period is included in the Responsiveness Summary, which is part of this Record of Dec,s,on
(Section 14). This decision document presents the selected remedial action for OU2, MCAS Cherry
Point, North Carolina, chosen in accordance with CERCLA, as amended by SARA, and the Nabonal
Contingency Plan. The decision for OU2 is based on the Administrative Record.
- 1 CTO 0239
119504/P •*''
-------
-------
REVISION 5
MARCH 1999
4.0 SCOPE AND ROLE OF OPERABLE UNIT 2
Fifteen operable units-have been defined at MCAS Cherry Point based on contaminant similarity, source
similarity, and/or physical proximity of the contaminated sites. The sites that comprise OU2 were
combined because of physical proximity to the landfill (Site 10), similar contaminants associated with
these sites, and the contaminated groundwater that is beneath or near all of the sites. One operable unit,
OU12. has been deferred to the State of North Carolina's underground storage tank program. The
remaining operable units at the Air Station are being investigated as part of a comprehensive Air Station
investigation. The timing and coordination of these investigations have been addressed in the MCAS
Cherry Point Site Management Plan (SMP).
This selected remedy is the first and final remedial action for OU2. The function of this remedy is to
reduce risks to human health and the environment associated with exposure to buried wastes and
contaminated groundwater and soil.
The potential exposure to contaminated soil and groundwater under a future residential exposure scenario
at OU2 constitutes the principal risks to human health. Buried wastes and areas of contaminated soil
("hot spots") are also sources of groundwater contamination. The selected remedy identified in this
Decision Summary for contaminated groundwater and soil/waste materials at OU2 will eliminate or
minimize future risks to human health and the environment.
The major components of the remedy are:
• Monitored natural attenuation of groundwater.
. An active soil treatment system that includes soil vapor extraction at major "hot spots" (secondary
source areas).
• Institutional controls.
. Groundwater, surface water, and sediment monitoring program to ensure that natural attenuation will
be effective and to confirm that contaminants are not migrating into the environment. The monitoring
program will continue until a five-year review concludes that the alternative has achieved continued
attainment of the performance standards (see Table 11-1) and remains protective of human health
and the environment.
A * CTO 0239
119504/P 4''
-------
REVISION 5
MARCH 1999
This remedy addresses the first and final cleanup action planned for OU2, where surficial aquifer
groundwater contains elevated concentrations of contaminants. Although this water-bearing zone is
affected, the contamination is not affecting the public drinking water supply. The purpose of this proposed
action is to prevent current and future potential exposure to buried wastes and contaminated soil and
groundwater and to reduce the migration of. contaminants.
This is the only ROD contemplated for OU2. Separate investigations and assessments are being
conducted for the other sites at MCAS Cherry Point in accordance with CERCLA. Therefore, this ROD
applies only to OU2.
119504/P
4-2
CTO 0239
-------
REVISION 5
MARCH 1999
5.0 SITE CHARACTERISTICS
This section of the ROD presents an overview of the physical characteristics of OU2.
MCAS Cherry Point is located in the Coastal Plain of North Carolina. Ground surface elevations at OU2
range from 22 to 30 feet at the highest points of Sites 46 and 10, respectively, to approximately 1.5 feet at
the banks of Slocum Creek.
Operable Unit 2 is bounded on the west by Slocum Creek, which flows northward past the site. Turkey
Gut is a perennial stream that flows through the central portion of Site 10 into Slocum Creek. Turkey Gut
separates the northern and southern areas of Site 10. Turkey Gut is a freshwater body, whereas Slocum
Creek is a tidal saltwater body. The soils at the site are generally poorly drained and acidic. They are also
subject to ponding and seasonal high water tables. Low-lying areas along the streams are subject to
flooding.
»
The knowledge of the stratigraphy at OU2 is derived from published U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
documents and the onsite boring logs. The surficial material at OU2 consists of both fill (sand, silt, and
clay mixed with refuse consisting of domestic trash, wood, plastic, rubber, glass, asphalt, concrete, and
metal fragments) and natural materials. As much as 26 feet of fill material was noted at Site 10.
Generally, the fill material is thickest at the center of the landfill area and thins gradually to the west and
abruptly to the east. Natural material at OU2 consists of orange, yellow, and brown silty sand, with trace
to some amounts of clay present in localized areas. The natural material, which contains the surficial
aquifer, ranges from at least 25 feet thick at Site 46 to a maximum of 52 feet in the southwest portion of
OU2.
The surficial aquifer is the uppermost aquifer of the study area and is exposed at the ground surface and
in streambeds throughout the Air Station. This aquifer consists of unconsolidated and interfingering beds
of fine sand, silt, clay, shell, and peat beds, as well as scattered deposits of coarser-grained material
believed to represent relic beach ridges and alluvium. Groundwater beneath the site was encountered in
the surficial aquifer at approximately 7 to 22 feet below ground surface (BGS), and water level elevations
ranged from approximately 2.6 to 22 feet mean sea level (MSL) in April 1996.
The groundwater in the surficial aquifer flows toward and discharges into either Slocum Creek or Turkey
Gut. Polishing Ponds No. 1 and No. 2 (Site 46) are unlined and act as a recharge zone for the surficial
aquifer. There are two distinct areas of water table mounding. A large mounding effect at the southeast
c ., CTO 0239
119504/P 5-1
-------
REVISIONS
MARCH 1999
comer of OU2 is due to a topographic high. A small mounding effect in the central area is observed in
wells that are located near trenches that act as recharge zones.
Underlying the surficial aquifer is the Yorktown confining unit. It consists of an olive green to grayish
green, dense, fine sand with varying amounts of shell fragments, clay, and silt. Six borings were extended
through this confining unit to install monitoring wells in the Yorktown aquifer. The confining unit has an
average thickness of 19 feet, as measured in these six locations. The Yorktown confining layer is
continuous throughout OU2.
The Yorktown aquifer is described as a gray silty sand with varying amounts of shell fragments. The
groundwater within the Yorktown Aquifer beneath OU2 flows westward and discharges into Slocum Creek.
The potentiometric surface (April 1996) of the Yorktown aquifer ranges from approximately 6 to 9.5 feet
MSL Generally, the vertical hydraulic gradients between the surficial and Yorktown aquifers are upward
in areas near Slocum Creek and downward in the central and eastern portion of the site.
A dark green, clayey silt and clayey sand was encountered in six of the Lower Yorktown wells at depths
ranging from 69 to 100 feet. These materials signify the presence of the underlying Pungo River confining
unit. The thickness of this confining unit was not determined because the unit was not penetrated during
the drilling activities.
Potable water used at the Air Station and in the adjacent town of Havelock comes from the Castle Hayne
aquifers. This unit lies at depths of approximately 195 feet or more below ground surface, below the
Pungo River aquifer and the Castle Hayne confining unit. All groundwaters at the Air Station are classified
as GA waters by the state of North Carolina. Such groundwater is considered to be an existing or
potential source of drinking water.
The Air Station has an active fish and wildlife management program designed to protect all native wildlife
species and their habitat, make fish and wildlife resources available on a continuing basis, and enhance
fish and wildlife resources. Numerous game and nongame species exist at the Air Station. In addition,
the Air Station has management programs for endangered and threatened species known to exist at or
migrate through the area. These include the bald eagle, American alligator, red-cockaded woodpecker,
and loggerhead turtle. Slocum Creek and its tributaries are designated as a critical environmental area
that is considered to be essential to the conservation and management of rare species (both state and
Federal).
119504/P 5-2 CT00239
-------
1
REVISION 5
MARCH 1999
6.0 NATURE AND EXTENT OF CONTAMINATION
Soil, groundwater, surface water, sediment and leachate seep samples were collected and analyzed for a
variety of parameters, in order to determine the nature and extent of contamination.
6.1 SOIL
6.1.1 Surface Soil
Until 1995, five soil samples had been collected at this site from depths of less than 2 feet. Three of
these samples were analyzed for target compound list (TCL) volatile and semivolatile organics and target
analyte list (TAL) metals. Two of the samples were only analyzed for RCRA List 2 metals. In 1995,
thirteen additional surface soil and leachate seep samples were collected and analyzed for the full
TCL/TAL, including cyanide. In 1996, two surface samples were collected and analyzed for the full
TCL/TAL including cyanide, and two surface soil samples were collected and analyzed for dioxins. Table
6-1 summarizes the surface soil sampling results.
Only a few volatile organic compounds were detected. These include single detections of
1,2-dichloroethene (20 micrograms per kilogram lug/kg]), methylene chloride (12 ug/kg), and chloroform
(9 ug/kg), the first two of which were found at the same location. Xylenes were detected in seven
samples at concentrations of 1 to 11 ug/kg, and toluene was found in three samples at concentrations of
11to42pg/kg.
One surface soil sample contained several polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) at concentrations
ranging from 140 ug/kg for indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene to 360 ug/kg for pyrene. This sample also contained
the highest concentrations of the DDT isomers (33 to 43 ug/kg). Several other pesticides were also
detected in surface soils, including chlordanes (1.9 to 29 ug/kg), dieldrin (3.8 to 20 ug/kg), endosulfan I
(1.8 to 7.6 ug/kg), endrin aldehyde (3.0 to 27 pg/kg), and heptachlor (2 ug/kg). The maximum
concentrations of pesticides were found in various samples throughout the site. Polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs) were detected in only three surface soil samples at concentrations ranging from
28 ug/kg (Aroclor-1254) to 630 ug/kg (Aroclor-1260).
Dioxins were detected in two surface soil samples. The congeners detected include oetachlorodibenzo-p-
dioxin (OCDD) and total heptachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (HpCDD). These are the least toxic of the dioxins.
Dioxins are evaluated using Toxicity Equivalence Factors (TEFs) relative to the toxicity of
2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD). TCDD equivalent concentrations ranged from 0.0001 to
0.001 ug/kg.
119504/P . 6-1 CT00239
-------
REVISION 5
MARCH 1999
TABLE 6-1
SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS - SURFACE SOIL AND DRY LEACHATE SEEP SOIL
(0 TO 2 FEET) - OPERABLE UNIT 2
MCAS CHERRY POINT, NORTH CAROLINA
PAGE 1 OF 2
Analyte
Frequency of
Detection
Average of
Positive
Detections
Range of
Positive
Detections
Background
Concentration'1 }
Volatile Organics frig/kg)
Toluene
Xylenes
1,2-Dichloroethene (total)
Methylene chloride
Chloroform
3/18
7/18
1/18
1/18
1/18
21.7
3.7
20
12
9
11 -42
1 -11
20
12
9
6.1
6.9
ND(2)
4<3>
g(3)
Semivolatile Organics
2,4-Dinitrophenol
4-Nitrophenol
Di-n-octylphthalate
Benzo(a)anthracerie
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo{g,h.i)perylene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Chrysene
Fluoranthene
lndeno{1 ,2,3-cd)pyrene
Pyrene
1/15
1/15
2/15
1/15
1/15
1/15
1/15
1/15
1/15
1/15
1/15
1/15
850
850
128.5
160
170
160
250
240
220
270
140
360
850
850
67-190
160
170
160
250
240
220
270
140
360
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Pesticides/PCBs/Dioxins/Furans (|jg/kg)
alpha-Chlordane
gamma-Chlordane
4,4'-DDD
4,4'-DDE
4,4'-DDT
Dieldrin
Endosulfan 1 •
Endrin aldehyde
Heptachlor
Aroclor-1254
Aroclor-1260
OCDD
Total HpCDD
7/15
2/15
2/15
6/15
7/15
4/14
2/15
6/14
1/15
2/15
1/15
2/2
1/2
8.9
20.5
23.4
22.9
14.4
10.7
4.7
10.7
2.0
29.5
630
0.58
0.026
1.9-27
12-29
3.8 - 43
4.2 - 69
4.7 - 35
3.8 - 20
1.8-7.6
3.0 - 27
2.0
28-31
630
0.141-1.012
0.026
1.20
1.09
2.36
0.625(3)
0.56(3>
1.1(3)
0.43<3)
ND
0.045(
ND
ND
NA(4)
NA(4)
119504/P
6-2
CTO 0239
-------
REVISION 5
MARCH 1999
TABLE 6-1
SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS - SURFACE SOIL AND DRY LEACHATE SEEP SOIL
(0 TO 2 FEET) - OPERABLE UNIT 2
MCAS CHERRY POINT, NORTH CAROLINA
PAGE 2 OF 2
Analyte
Frequency of
Detection
Average of
Positive
Detections
Range of
Positive
Detections
Background
Concentration0'
Inorganics (mg/kg)
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
18/18
4/18
20/20
20/20
1/20
8/20
17/18
20/20
13/20
18/20
18/18
17/20
14/18
18/18
10/18
15/20
12/18
6/20
2/20
8/18
3/20
19/20
19/20
4,541
2.3
2.4
24.7
0.28
2.0
20,416
14.0
0.73
11.0
8,552
29.3
678
37.3
0.30
2.2
578
0.98
2.1
124
2.6
9.7
43.1
1190-13,000
1.1 -3.6
0.68-17.1
3.3-103
0.28
0.29 - 6.4
210-209,000
2.2-51.2
0.22-1.6
1.1 -50.8
1,520-54,700
3.8 - 76.5
236-2,180
3.7-211
0.06-1.0
0.35 - 5.4
189-1140
0.30 - 3.1
0.43 - 3.7
40.3-424
0.47 - 6.7
3.2 - 24.2
4.8 - 209
9,268
ND
4.54
14.4
0.26
0.65
693
12.8
1.63
3.08
4,959
7.92
383
14.1
0.11
4.29
390
0.38
0.46
59.2
0.48{3)
15.5
10.6
1 Upper 95% Confidence Limit (UCL) concentration.
2 ND - Not detected.
3 95% UCL exceeded the maximum background concentration; therefore, maximum is reported.
4 NA - Not analyzed.
119504/P
6-3
CTO 0239
-------
REVISION 5
MARCH 1999
Metals of interest in the surface soil samples were cadmium, chromium, manganese, and thallium, which
were detected at maximum concentrations of 6.4 mg/kg, 51.2 mg/kg, 211 mg/kg, and 6.7 mg/kg,
respectively. No single sample location contained an overwhelming majority of the detected maximums.
The maximum values were detected at a number of sample locations.
6.1.2 Subsurface Soil
Past soil sampling programs were based on soil-gas and geophysical surveys, aerial photographs, and
knowledge of existing groundwater contamination. When anomalous areas or areas of groundwater
contamination were identified, soil borings and test pits were installed to collect subsurface soil samples.
Table 6-2 summarizes the subsurface soil sampling results.
The analytical results for subsurface soil show that volatile organic compounds were not detected
frequently, but were detected at notable concentrations in a limited number of samples. In addition, only
a limited number of samples were analyzed for semivolatile organic compounds and pesticides/PCBs.
Fuel-type constituents, including benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes (BTEX), were identified in
a number of subsurface soil samples. The vast majority of samples analyzed for BTEX did not contain
these compounds at detectable levels. The primary detections were scattered throughout the site, with
the highest concentrations reported in the areas used for fire training exercises in the southern portion of
the landfill. The highest concentrations of BTEX (primarily, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes, with
lower concentrations of benzene) ranged from 155,280 to 617,000 Mg/kg- The sample with the lower
concentration was collected near the water table. All other sample intervals were above the water table.
Other areas with BTEX contamination were in the area of the former sludge impoundments (1,900 to
7,500 ug/kg); one boring south of Turkey Gut (4,830 ug/kg); and in the east-central portion of the site
(2,174 to 10,993 ug/kg). All of the samples in these areas were collected from above the water table.
The presence oLthese constituents in soil appears to suggest potential source area(s) for BTEX in
groundwater.
Another group of compounds potentially relating -to observed groundwater contamination are chlorinated
solvents such as tetrachloroethene (PCE), trichloroethene (TCE), dichloroethenes (DCE), vinyl chloride,
and 1,1,1-trichloroethane (TCA). While not widespread, their presence also appears to correlate with
observed areas of these compounds in the surficial aquifer. There are a few areas with chlorinated
solvents in the soil, such as south of Turkey Gut (DCE at 6 to 4,700 ug/kg and vinyl chloride at
490 ug/kg), the area of the former sludge impoundments (PCE at 4,800 ug/kg, TCE at 800 to 880 ug/kg,
and TCA at 2,500 ug/kg) and in the east-central portion of the site (PCE at 38 pg/kg). All samples in.
these areas were collected above the water table.
119504/P 6-4 CTO0239
-------
1
TABLE 6-2
SUBSURFACE SOIL ANALYTICAL RESULTS (> 2 FEET)
OPERABLE UNIT 2
MCAS CHERRY POINT, NORTH CAROLINA
PAGE 1 OF 3
REVISION 5
MARCH 1999
Analyte
Concentration Range
Frequency of
Detection
Background
Concentration05
Volatile Organics (ug/kg)
Acetone
2-Butanone
4-Methyl-2-pentanone
2-Hexanone
Benzene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
Xylenes (total)
Chlorobenzene
Styrene
1 ,1 ,1 -Trichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethane
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
Chloroethane
Tetrachloroethene
Trichloroethene
1 ,2-Dichloroethene (total)
Vinyl chloride
Chloroform
Methylene chloride
Trichlorofluoromethane
trans-1 ,3-Dichloropropene
Carbon disulfide
4 - 5,300
11 -16,000
10-1,000
7-510
4-280
5 - 67,000
7-140,000
5 - 450,000
14-520
5
3 - 2,500
9-69
13
14
38 - 4,800
5 - 880
5 - 4,700
13-490
470 - 2,590
4-190,000
4.9 - 24
98
6-44
24/1 1 1
15/111
5/111
7/111
7/115
20/115
19/115
32/1 1 1
7/115
1/111
15/115
4/115
1/115
1/115
2/111
7/115
6/111
2/115
4/115
16/115
4/4
1/115
7/1 1 1
100(2!
5(2)
ND(3)
ND
ND
6.1
4(2>
6.9
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
5(2)
4(2)
ND
ND
ND
Semi volatile Organics (ug/kg)
Phenol
2,4-Dimethylphenol
4-Methylphenol
1 ,2-Dichlorobenzene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Di-n-butylphthalate
Diethylphthalate
Butylbenzylphthalate
Anthracene
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
43-12,000
52-4,100
590 - 27,000
430-2,000
49-11,000
110-360
55-160
140-2,300
1,000
1,100
420 - 20,000
4/20
5/20
2/16
2/20
9/20
5/20
2/20
2/20
1/20
1/20
4/20
ND
ND
ND
ND
75(2)
261
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
119504/P
6-5
CTO 0239
-------
TABLE 6-2
SUBSURFACE SOIL ANALYTICAL RESULTS (> 2 FEET)
OPERABLE UNIT 2
MCAS CHERRY POINT, NORTH CAROLINA
PAGE 2 OF 3
REVISION 5
MARCH 1999
Analyte
2-Methylnaphthalene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Dibenzofuran
Concentration Range
140-230,000
100-39,000
200 - 90,000
190
4.300-11,000
Frequency of
Detection
8/16
9/20
6/20
1/20
2/16
Background
Concentration01 '
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Pesticides/PCBs/Dioxins/Furans (ug/kg)
Aldrin
delta-BHC
alpha-Chlordane
gamma-Chlordane
4,4'-DDD
4,4'-DDE
4,4'-DDT
Dieldrin
Endosulfan 1
Endosulfan II
Endosulfan sulfate
Endrin
Heptachlor epoxide
1,2,3,4.6,7,8-HpCDD
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF
OCDD
Total HpCDD
Total HpCDF
3.6
4.6
3.9 - 630
1.2-2.8
1.4-3.5
2.5 - 30
120-130
7.2 - 53
2.2
32-47
36-67
15-21
7.7-18
0.0404
0.0061
0.210-0.651
0.0404
0.0075
1/14
1/14
3/9
3/10
4/11
2/13
. 2/13
4/14
1/14
2/12
2/14
2/14
2/12
1/2
1/2
2/2
1/2
1/2
ND
ND
1.20
1.09
2.36
0.625(2)
0.56(2)
1.10(2)
0.43(2)
0.64(2)
ND
ND
ND
NA(4>
NA
NA
NA
NA
Inorganics (mg/kg)
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
467-18,500
3.9 - 66.3
0.12-13.7
1.0-705
0.02 - 3.7
0.14-119.5
49.7-105,000
1.1 -122
0.50-16.7
0.24 - 2,370
717-62,600
32/32
15/111
113/118
38/40
38/117
26/127
32/32
120/127
14/34
76/127
32/32
9,268
ND
4.54
14.4
0.26
0.65
693
12.8
1.63
3.08
4,959
119504/P
6-6
CTO 0239
-------
TABLE 6-2
SUBSURFACE SOIL ANALYTICAL RESULTS (> 2 FEET)
OPERABLE UNIT 2
MCAS CHERRY POINT, NORTH CAROLINA
PAGE 3 OF 3
REVISION 5
MARCH 1999
Analyte
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
Concentration Range
0.82- 1,650
25.3 - 3,440
2.7-1,170
0.04 - 4.1
1.0-176
54.6-2,040
0.02 - 1 .5
0.09 - 90.0
30.6 - 2,250
0.12-7.4
4.0-27.2
0.58 - 2,650
Frequency of
Detection
118/127
32/32
32/32
12/115
54/127
22/32
38/117
11/125
19/32
6/117
27/34
113/127
Background
Concentration0'
7.92
383
14.1
0.11
4.29
390
0.38
0.46
59.2
0.48<2)
15.5
10.6
1 Upper 95% Confidence Limit (UCL) concentration.
2 95% UCL exceeded the maximum background concentration; therefore, maximum is reported.
3 ND - Not detected.
4 NA - Not analyzed.
,119504/P
6-7
CTO 0239
-------
REVISION 5
MARCH 1999
Other compounds of note in the subsurface soil include several phenols found in the area of the former
sludge impoundments. These compounds and the maximum concentrations included phenol
(12,000 ug/kg), 2,4-dimethylphenol (4,100 ug/kg), and 4-methylphenol (27,000 ug/kg). All samples in this
area were collected above the water table. In addition, several of the more soluble PAHs were detected
in the area formerly used for fire-training exercises in the southern portion of the landfill. The highest
concentrations were reported for fluorene (20,000 ug/kg), phenanthrene (90,000 ug/kg), naphthalene
(39,000 ug/kg), and 2-methylnaphthalene (230,000 ug/kg). The depth interval was at the water table.
Fourteen samples were collected and analyzed for pesticides, which produced infrequent detections.
Oieldrin was one of the most commonly detected pesticides and was found at a maximum concentration
of 53 ug/kg in the former sludge impoundment area. Other pesticides of note were chlordanes (630 ug/kg
maximum) and 4,4'-DDD (3.5 ug/kg maximum). The maximum concentrations of these pesticides were
detected in the southern portion of the landfill. Many of the maximum concentrations of these and other
pesticides were found at depths greater than 10 feet. This may indicate soil mixing or application of
pesticides for insect control when various areas were receiving waste material.
Dioxins and furans were detected in two subsurface soil samples. Congeners detected include OCDD,
HpCDD, and heptachlordibenzo-p-furan (HpCDF). These are the least toxic of the dioxins and furans.
TCDD equivalent concentrations ranged from 0.0003 to 0.0011 ug/kg.
Ketones were detected in several samples. Acetone was detected at concentrations up to 5,300 pg/kg
(southern portion of landfill), and 2-butanone was detected up to 16,000 ug/kg (east-central portion of
site).
A number of metals were detected in the subsurface soil samples. Many metals were detected in 90
percent or more of the samples, with the following metals detected less frequently: antimony (14
percent), mercury(10 percent), beryllium (32 percent), cadmium (20 percent), cobalt (41 percent), copper
(60 percent), nickel (43 percent), selenium (32 percent), silver (9 percent), thallium (5 percent), and
vanadium (79 percent). Metals that were detected in at least 90 percent of the samples include
aluminum, arsenic, barium, calcium, chromium, Iron, lead, magnesium, manganese, potassium, sodium,
and zinc. Several of the metals, including arsenic, vanadium, and zinc, were detected at concentrations
that are not significantly different from the background concentration range. The metals whose maximum
detected concentrations exceeded the background results the greatest were antimony, barium, cadmium,
copper, lead, manganese, and silver. These were not widespread or common contaminants in
subsurface soil at Operable Unit 2, although there are a limited number of locations with high
119504/P 6-8 CT00239
-------
REVISIONS
MARCH 1999
concentrations. Copper, lead, and zinc were those metals which were detected most frequently at
concentrations greater than background and which appeared to be the most widespread.
6.1.3 Mioration'of Soil Contaminants to Groundwater
Remedial Goal Options (RGOs) based on potential movement of contaminants from soil to groundwater
were developed as part of the Rl according to Method II Category S-3 contained in the North Carolina
Risk Analysis Framework guidance. Method II uses a transport model to calculate soil target
concentrations that would not likely exceed the groundwater target concentrations. The groundwater
target concentrations were either state Class GA groundwater standards or risk-based concentrations, for
chemicals with no numerical groundwater standard. Soil RGOs were developed for any chemical ever
detected in groundwater that exceeded the state groundwater standard plus products of potential
chemical transformations. Table 6-3 provides the Category S-3 soil RGOs along with the maximum soil
concentrations detected for each chemical. The following chemicals exceeded RGOs based on
protection of groundwater: benzene, 2-butanone, chlorobenzene, chloroform, 1,2-dichloroethane, cis-and
trans-1,2-dichloroethene, trans-1,3-dichloropropane, ethylbenzene, methylene chloride,
tetrachloroethene, toluene, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, trichloroethene, vinyl chloride, 2,4-dimethylphenol,
2-methylnaphthalene, 4-methylphenol, naphthalene, dieldrin, heptachlor epoxide, cadmium, iron, lead,
manganese, nickel, and silver. Figures 6-1 and 6-2 show the locations that exceed these RGOs for
organics and inorganics, respectively. Results for iron are not shown because the calculated RGO was
lower than the background concentration range.
6.2 GROUNDWATER AND SURFACE WATER
6.2.1 Surficial Aquifer
Table 6-4 summarizes the most recent surficial aquifer groundwater sampling results. Figure 6-3 shows
the locations where state groundwater standards were exceeded. The most commonly detected
contaminants in _the surficial aquifer were monocyclic aromatic fuel constituents (BTEX), halogenated
aliphatics (chlorinated solvents and breakdown products such as tetrachloroethene (PCE),
trichloroethene (TCE), dichloroethene (DCE), vinyl chloride, 1,1,1-trichloroethane (TCA), dichloroethanes
(DCA), and chloroethane), and chlorinated monocyclic aromatics (chlorobenzene and dichlorobenzenes).
Several items are of note in discussing the nature and extent of contamination in the surficial aquifer.
First, there is widespread contamination of groundwater with organic chemicals. Those listed above are
the most prevalent based on past and recent data. Second, the maximum detected concentrations of
many compounds have declined over the years.
119504/P 6-9
CTO 0239
-------
REVISION 5
MARCH 1999
TABLE 6-3
REMEDIAL GOAL OPTIONS FOR SOIL - PROTECTION OF GROUNDWATER
OPERABLE UNIT 2
MCAS CHERRY POINT, NORTH CAROLINA
PAGE 1 OF 2
Chemical
S-3 Target Concentration
Maximum Soil Concentration
Volatiles (ug/kg) ~ — : '
Benzene*11'
Bromodichloromethane
2-Butanone*
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene*
Chloroethane
Chloroform*
Chloromethane
Dibromochloromethane
1,1-Dichloroethane
1 ,2-Dichloroethane*
1,1-Dichloroethene
cis-1 ,2-Dichloroethene*
trans-1 ,2-Dichloroethene*
1 ,2-Dichloropropane
cis-1 ,3-Dichloropropene
trans-1 ,3-Dichloropropene*
Ethylbenzene*
2-Hexanone
Methylene chloride*
4-Methyl-2-pentanone
1 ,1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
Tetrachloroethene*
Toluene*
1 ,1 ,1 -Trichtoroethane*
1,1 ,2-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethene*
Vinyl chloride*
5.6
2.9
687
2.9
432
13,848
0.96
6.7
0.69
3,521
1.7
49.2
350
400
2.8
1.2
1.2
343
760
21.9
2,500
0.31
5.9
8,111
1,484
0.96
20.7
0.09
280
ND(2>
16,000
ND
520
14
2,590
ND
ND
69
13
ND '
4,700 (total)'31
4,700 (total)131
ND
ND
98
140,000
510
190,000
1,000
ND
4,800
67,000
2,500
ND
880
490
Semivolatiles (ug/kg)
Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
2,4-Dimethyiphenor
2-Methylnaphthalene*
2-Methylphenol
4-Methylphenol*
Naphthalene*
0.04
906,000
1,194
3,235
2,097
205
925
ND
11,000
4,100
230,000
ND
27,000
39,000
119504/P
6-10
CTO 0239
-------
REVISION B
MARCH 1999
TABLE 6-3
REMEDIAL GOAL OPTIONS FOR SOIL - PROTECTION OF GROUNDWATER
OPERABLE UNIT 2
MCAS CHERRY POINT, NORTH CAROLINA
PAGE 2 OF 2
Chemical
Nitrobenzene
2-Nitrophenol
S-3 Target Concentration
3.6
2,346
Maximum Soil Concentration
ND
ND
Pesticides (M9/kg)
Aldrin
alpha-BHC
beta-BHC
4,4'-DDD
4,4'-DDE
4,4'-DDT
Dieldrin*
Endosulfan I
Endosulfan II
Endrin aldehyde '
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxide*
203
0.31
1.1
5,601
17,881
10,521
1.8
2,059
2,059
348
226
6.7
3.6
ND
ND
43
69
130
53
7.6
47
27
2.0
18
Metals (mg/kg)
Arsenic
Cadmium*
Chromium
Iron*
Lead*
Manganese*
Nickel*
Silver*
26.2
2.7
21 ,000 (+3)
27.2 (+6)
151
270
65.2
56.4
0.22
17.1
119.5
122 (total)
62,600
1,650
1,170
176
90
1 Asterisk indicates exceedance of target concentration.
2 Not detected.
3 Samples were analyzed for total 1,2-dichloroethene.
119504/P
6-11
CTO 0239
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
REVISION 5
MARCH 1999
119504/P
6-12
CTO0239
-------
-------
;<5:G2
-------
MARCH 1999
TABLE 6-4
SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS - SURFICIAL AQUIFER (1994 AND 1996)
OPERABLE UNIT 2
MCAS CHERRY POINT, NORTH CAROLINA
PAGE 1 OF 3
Analyte
Frequency of
Detection
Average of Positive
Detections
Range of Positive
Detections
Background
Range
NC Class GA
Standard"1
Volatile Organics (pg/L)
Acetone .
2-Butanone
2-Hexanone*|S1
4-Methyi-2-pentanone"
Benzene*
Toluene
Ethylbenzene*
Xylenes
Chlorobenzene*
1 .2-Dichlorobenzene(t|
1 ,3-Dichlorobenzene(1)
1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene11'
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethane
1 ,2-Dichloroethane*
Chloroethane
Tetrachloroethene*
Trichloroethene"
1,1-Dichloroethene
cis-1 ,2-Dichloroethene*
trans-1 ,2-Dichloroethene
Vinyl chloride*
Methylene chloride
1 ,2-Dichloropropane*
Chloroform' —
3/9
2/17
1/46
5/46
21/46
7/46
7/46
11/46
22/46
15/76
2/79
26/79
2/46
18/46
3/46
12/46
6/46
11/46
1/46
16/46
6/46
16/46
3/45
5/46
2/46
19.0
76.0
1
17.0
19.6
41.6
13.0
49.9
42.3
B.5
2
10.7
4
27.6
3.7
27.3
7.4
11.3
2
29.2
1.8
8.3
1.5
1.2
2
7-32
69-83
1
3-64
2-230
2- 110
1 -38
2- 180
1 - 180
0.75 - 28
2
2.5-40
3-5
1 -79
2-5
1 -90
1 -21
1 -40
2
1 - 140
0.75 - 3
1 -26 .
1 -2
1 -2
1 -3
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
700
170
> OL!6)
>DL
1
1.000
29
530
50
620
620 . .
75
200
700
0.38
2,800
0.7
2.8
7
70
70
0.015
5
0.56
0.19
Sem IvolatHe Organics (pg/i.)
Phenol
2-Methylphenol*
4-Methylphenol*
2,4-Dimethylphenol*
Bis(2-ettiylhexyl)phthalate*
Diethylphthalate
2-Methylnaphthalene*
Naphthalene*
4/33
2/33
5/33
4/33
3/33
9/33
4/33
8/33
8.
8.5
32.7
77.3
33.0
18.2
8.3
14.6
3-16
6-11
3-65
4-280
4-66
4-53
4-18
3-41
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
300
>DL
>DL
>DL
3
5,000
>DL
21
119504/P
6-17
CTO 0239
-------
REVISION 5
MARCH 1999
TABLE 6-4
SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS - SURFICIAL AQUIFER {1994 AND 1996)
OPERABLE UNIT 2
MCAS CHERRY POINT, NORTH CAROLINA
PAGE 2 OF 3
Analyte
Nitrobenzene*
Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether'
Frequency of
Detection
1/33
1/33
Average of Positive
Detections
5
3
Range of Positive
Detections
5
3
Background
Range-
NA
NA
NC Class GA
Standard*4'
>OL
>DL
Pestlcldos/PCBs (ug/L)
Aldrin*
alpha-BHC*
gamma-BHC (Lindane)
alpha-Chlordane
gamma-Chlordane
4.4--DDE-
4.4'-DDT*
Endosulfan I*
Endosulfan II*
Endrin
Endrin aldehyde'
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epo»de*
1/32
2/30
2/28
5/30
1/31
1/30
1/31
1/32
3/26
3/32
5/29
1/31
2/30
0.0034
0.0094
0.024
0.0009
0.0085
0.0092
0.017
0.0090
0.021
0.013
0.22
0.0055
0.012
0.0034
0.0089 - 0.0098
0.0089 - 0.041
0.0054 - 0.014
0.0085
0.0092
0.017
0.0090
0.0033 - 0.056
0.00071 - 0.020
0.01 - 0.97
0.0055
0.0033 - 0.024
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
>DL
>DL
0.2
0.027
0.027
>DL
>DL
>DL
>DL
2
>OL
0.008
0.004
Inorganics (pg/L)
Aluminum
Arsenic*
Barium
Cadmium*
Calcium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron*
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese*
Nickel
Potassium
Sodium
Vanadium
Zinc
Cyanide
pH (units)*
29/46
27/46
44/46
2/46
45/45
10/46
2/46
43/46
9/46
46/46
46/46
2/46
46/46
46/46
4/46
14/46
1/46
37/37
347
42.6
78.5
5.6
32.502
32.5
6.2
34,774
2.8
8.116
400
18.6
7,526
27,452
6.0
22.8
28.0
5..9S'2'
15.0-4.840
3.9-126
16.0-306
5.2 - 6.0
1,170-93,850
8.6-81.0
1.7-10.6
69.9-100,500
0.75 - 7.3
1 ,080 - 34,900
5.4 - 3,270
15.3-22.0
923 - 36,900
1 ,070 - 95.900
1.8-9.0
6.0 - 90.5
28.0
3.22 - 7.28
ND""-2.500
ND-3.3
3.9-43.7
NO
ND-2,305
NO
NO
ND-4,370
ND-5.0
709-2,295
5.3-35.8
NO
ND-1,315
2.130-7,560
NO
ND-14.0
NA
NA
NS">
50
2,000
5
NS
NS
1,000
300
15
NS
50
100
NS
NS
NS
2,100
154
6.5 - 8.5
119504/P
6-18
CTO 0239
-------
REVISION 5
MARCH 1999
TABLE 6-4
SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS - SURFICIAL AQUIFER (1994 AND 1996)
OPERABLE UNIT 2
MCAS CHERRY POINT, NORTH CAROLINA
PAGE 3 OF 3
1 Measured in both volatile and semivolatite fraction.
2 Geometric average.
3 NA - Not analyzed.
4 15ANCAC2L0200.
5 Asterisk next to analyte indicates exceedance of state standard.
6 > DL - Greater than detection limit. Any detection is considered an exceedance of the standard.
7 NS - No standard.
8 ND - Not detected.
119504/P 6-19 CTO0239
-------
REVISION 5
MARCH 1999
This page intentionally left blank.
119504/P
6-20
CTO 0239
-------
I I REVISIONS
MARCH 19S9
621
-------
-------
REVISION 5
MARCH 1999
Third, although no distinct plumes are visible based on the most recent sampling event, several areas of
overall contamination can be outlined as general areas of concern. These areas of concern are those in
which certain contaminants exceed state and/or Federal groundwater or drinking water standards.
Benzene, TCE, and vinyl chloride were the compounds that exceeded the state groundwater quality
standards most often. Chlorobenzene, chloroethane, 1,1-dichloroethane, and cis-1,2-dichloroethene
were also detected frequently. The concentration of benzene over much of OU2 exceeds the state
standard of 1 microgram/liter (ug/L). Within this area of general benzene contamination, three areas of
solvent contamination were identified. One area is located west (downgradient) of the former sludge
impoundments and extends to the south side of Turkey Gut. Another area is centered on the eastern
edge of the landfill, and a third area is located in the southwest portion of OU2. This area may be
associated with the fire training areas and potential use of solvents there or in the adjacent vehicle
maintenance area (Site 76).
Several areas have chlorobenzene concentrations exceeding the state standard of 50 ug/L. These areas
are as follows: (1) coincident with the solvent contamination area south of Turkey Gut; (2) an area in the
upstream area of Turkey Gut; and (3) the areas surrounding sample OU2HP1, which is located southwest
of Turkey Gut.
Metals are not significant groundwater contaminants at this site. During the most recent sampling event,
only four metals (arsenic, cadmium, iron, and manganese) were found that exceeded state standards
(50 ug/L, 5 ug/L, 50 ug/L, and 300 pg/L, respectively). Cobalt and vanadium were detected in several
wells; however, they were not detected in background samples. Many detections of calcium, magnesium,
and potassium also exceeded background concentrations.
There is no significant difference in the analytical results for wells screened in the upper and lower
portions of the _surficial aquifer. These results, therefore, do not indicate a great potential for
nonaqueous-phase liquids at this site.
6.2.2 Yorktown Aquifer
Table 6-5 summarizes the most recent Yorktown aquifer groundwater sampling results. The analytical
results for the Yorktown aquifer indicate that metals are not significant contaminants except for iron and
manganese. Iron exceeded the state groundwater standard in most wells, and manganese exceeded the
standard in more than 50 percent of the wells. Organic compounds were detected in low concentrations
during the most recent (1994) sampling round. These include chloroform (1 and 2 ug/L). methylene
chloride (3 ug/l), and bis(2-ethylhexyl)Phthalate (BEHP) (25 ug/l), which are common laboratory
_ 0~ CTO 0239
119504/P
-------
REVISION 5
MARCH 1999
TABLE 6-5
SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS - YORKTOWN AQUIFER (1994)
OPERABLE UNIT 2
MCAS CHERRY POINT, NORTH CAROLINA
Analyte
NC
Groundwater
Standard01
Frequency
of
Detection
Average of
Positive
Detections
Range of
Positive
Detections
Volatile Organics (pg/L)
Chloroform*150
Methylene chloride
0.19
5
2/10
1/10
1.5
3
1 -2
3
Semivolatile Organics ((ig/L)
Bis(2-ethy!hexyl)phthalate*
3
1/8
25
25
Inorganics (pg/L)
Aluminum
Barium
Calcium
Iron'
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese*
Potassium
Sodium
Zinc
pH (units)*
NS13)
2,000
NS
300
15
NS
50
NS
NS
2,100
6.5 - 8.5
6/10
10/10
10/10
9/10
2/10
10/10
10/10
10/10
10/10
1/10
10/10
198
18.1
61,930
827
1.2
1,700
50.9
2,238
10,409
10.0
7.42(4)
25.0 - 936
2.0 - 44.0
49,500 - 68,600
279-2,010
1.2
783 - 2,380
12.0-90.0
858-7,510
1,280-32,000
10.0 '
6.99 - 8.59
1 15ANCAC2L.0200.
2 Asterisk indicates exceedance of state standard.
3 NS - No standard.
4 Geometric average.
119504/P
6-24
CTO 0239
-------
REVISIONS
MARCH 1999
contaminants, while BEHP is a commonly used plasticizer. However, none of these compounds were
found in QA/QC blanks at levels that would affect the data. Chloroform and BEHP exceeded the state
standards.
The concentrations of all metals found in the Yorktown aquifer during the most recent sampling event
were below drinking water standards or state grouridwater standards, except for iron and manganese.
The standards for iron and manganese are based on aesthetic concerns.
6.2.3 Surface Water
Tables 6-6 and 6-7 summarize the most recent surface water sampling results for Turkey Gut and Slocum
Creek, respectively. The analytical results for samples collected from Turkey Gut and Slocum Creek in
1994 indicate that the suite of compounds detected is similar to the types and classes of compounds
detected in onsite groundwater. However, the surface water concentrations were generally lower than
those detected in groundwater. In Turkey Gut, a sample that was located just upstream of an identifiable
leachate seep (in 1985) contained benzene, chlorobenzene, 1,4-dichlorobenzene, 1,1-dichloroethane,
chloroethane, cis-1,2-dichloroethene, and vinyl chloride. Most detections were 1 to 3 ug/L, although
chlorobenzene was detected at a concentration of 10 ug/L in this sample. This was the only Turkey Gut
sample that contained detectable concentrations of volatile organic compounds. In Slocum Creek,
chloroform was consistently detected at a concentration of 1 ug/l. Cis-1,2-dichloroethene which was
consistently found on site, was detected in Slocum Creek. Therefore, it can be assumed that
contaminated groundwater is discharging to Slocum Creek. The sample in which cis-1,2-dichloroethene
was detected is at the downgradient end of a contaminant plume emanating from the former sludge
impoundment area at Site 10 that was closed in the mid-1980s.
Pesticides were detected in several surface water samples, although their presence may be related to
suspended sediment material in the samples rather than actually dissolving in the surface waters.
Pesticides were detected at low concentrations in a number of groundwater samples, although no plume
or significant soil Source area could be identified that could result in the presence of these pesticides in
Turkey Gut or Slocum Creek. The source of these pesticides is most likely the prior or current application of
these materials throughout the watershed, followed by runoff.
It is notable that manganese, which was a prevalent groundwater contaminant at concentrations that
exceeded state groundwater standards, was also found in Turkey Gut. This is an additional indication of
discharge of shallow groundwater to Turkey Gut. Manganese was also detected in Slocum Creek.
119504/P 6-25 CTO0239
-------
REVISION 5
MARCH 1999
TABLE 6-6
SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS - TURKEY GUT SURFACE WATER (1994)
OPERABLE UNIT 2
MCAS CHERRY POINT, NORTH CAROLINA
PAGE 1 OF 2
Analyte
Frequency
of
Detection
Average of
Positive
Detections
Range of
Positive
Detections
NC Class C
Standard/
Criteria(4)
Volatile Organics (ug/L)
Benzene
Chlorobenzene
1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene0)
1,1-Dichloroethane
Chloroethane
cis-1 ,2-Dichloroethene
Vinyl chloride
1/4
1/4
1/8
1/4
1/4
1/4
1/4
1
, 10
2
2
3
1
1
1
10
2
2
3
1
1
71.4
21.000
2,600
19.8
860
7.0
525
Semivolatile Organics (ug/L)
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate*
2/4
4-6
5.9
Pesticides/PCBs (ug/L)
gamma-BHC (Lindane)
4,4'-DDD*
Heptachlor epoxide*
2/4
1/4
1/4
0.0049
0.028
0.0019
0.0016-
0.0081
0.028
0.0019
0.01
0.00084
0.0001 1
Inorganics (ug/L)
Aluminum*
Arsenic
Barium
Calcium*
Iron*
Lead
Magnesium*
Manganese*
Potassium*
Sodium*
Zinc
pH (units)
3/4
1/4
4/4
4/4
4/4
1/4
4/4
4/4
4/4
4/4
1/4
4/4
380
2.95
57.1
63,750
4,391
7.5
102,719
268
33,176
766,645
17.0
6.52(2)
29.0-1,010
2.95
40.5 - 90.0
21,400-
135,000
1,435-11,600
7.5
3,125-
393,000
80.5 - 458
1.840-
123,000
3,170-
3,030,000
17.0
6.01 - 6.95
87
50
1,400
7,300
1,000
25
200
100
30,000
400,000
50
6-9
Inorganics - Filtered (ug/L)
Antimony
Barium
1/4
4/4
11.5
54.5
11.5
39.0 - 86.0
4,300
1,400
119504/P
6-26
CTO 0239
-------
REVISIONS
MARCH 1999
1
TABLE 6-6
SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS - TURKEY GUT SURFACE WATER (1994)
OPERABLE UNIT 2
MCAS CHERRY POINT, NORTH CAROLINA
PAGE 2 OF 2
Analyte
Calcium*
Copper*
Iron*
Magnesium*
Manganese*
Potassium*
Sodium*
Zinc
Frequency
of
Detection
4/4
2/4
3/4
4/4
4/4
4/4
4/4
1/4
Average of
Positive
Detections,
64,550
16.1
2,526
101,246
232
31,430
796,685
12.0
Range of
Positive
Detections
22,100-
139,000
7.25-25.0
727 - 5,580
3,115-
387,000
71 .5 - 447
1,890-
116,000
3,200 -
3.150,000
12.0
NC Class C
Standard/
Criteria'4'
7,300
7
1,000
200
100
30,000
400,000
50
1 Measured in both volatile and semivolatile fractions.
2 Geometric average.
3 NA - Not applicable.
4 NCDENR, 1997. Asterisk next to analyte indicates exceedance of standard.
119504/P
6-27
CTO0239
-------
REVISION 5
MARCH 1999
TABLE 6-7
SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS - SLOCUM CREEK SURFACE WATER M9941
OPERABLE UNIT 2 '
MCAS CHERRY POINT, NORTH CAROLINA
Analyte
Volatile Organics (ug/L)
Acetone
cis-1 ,2-Dichloroethene
Chloroform
Frequency
of Detection
Average of
Positive
Detections
Range of
Positive
Detections
NC Class SC
Standards/ Criteria*3'
1/1
2/3
3/3
3
1.5
1
3
1 -2
1
500
NS14)
470
PestfcIdes/PCBs ftig/L) '
4.4--DDD*
Inorganics (ug/L)
Barium
Calcium
Copper*
iron
Magnesium
Manganese*
Potassium
Sodium
pH (un'rts)
Inorganics - Filtered (|ig/L)
Antimony
Barium
Calcium
Copper* -
Magnesium
Manganese
Potassium
Sodium
Zinc
3/3
0.033
0.027 - 0.039
0.00084
3/3
3/3
1/3
2/3
3/3
3/3
3/3
3/3
3/3
51.0
134,000
28.0
132
396.000
383
120,333
3,073,333
7.47(1)
37.0 - 60.0
132,000-
135,000
28.0
106-158
379,000 -
407,000
350 - 432
116,000-
123,000
2,950-000 -
3,150,000
7.55 - 7.87
1/3
3/3
3/3
3/3
3/3
2/3
3/3
3/3
1/3
7.4
32.0
140,333
27.7
401,667
6.0
119,000
3,140,000
7.0
7.4
28.0 - 37.0
138,000-
144,000
23.0 - 37.0
395,000 -
414,000
6.0
116,000-
124,000
3,090,000 -
3.210,000
7.0
1,400
NS
3
NS
NS
100
NS
NS
6-9
4,300
1,400
NS
3
NS
100
NS
NS
86
1
2
3
4
Geometric average.
NA - Not applicable.
NCDENR, 1997. Asterisk next to analyte indicates exceedance of standard
NS - No standard.
119504/P
6-28
CTO 0239
-------
REVISION 5
MARCH 1999
There is no general pattern or trend in contaminant distribution in either Turkey Gut or Slocum Creek.
6.3 SEDIMENT AND SEEPS
6.3.1 Sediment
Tables 6-8 and 6-9 summarize sediment sampling results for Turkey Gut and Slocum Creek, respectively.
Sediment analytical results indicate that pesticides and metals are the most frequently detected analytes.
A wide variety of pesticides was found in Turkey Gut. In Turkey Gut, the pesticides were found generally
in an upstream sample or in a sample collected from near the mouth of Turkey Gut. Some, but not all, of
the identified compounds were detected in surface soil samples. Some, but not all, of the pesticides
detected in Slocum Creek were also detected in surface soil samples. It is not known whether the site is
contributing to the presence of pesticides or whether such presence is a result of current or past use of
pesticides-at the Air Station.
The concentrations of metals in sediment in Slocum Creek and Turkey Gut do not appear to indicate the
presence of a major onsite source area. Many of the metals are found at concentrations within
approximately two times the background soil concentrations. Although this comparison is not totally valid
(i.e., soils are not the same as sediments), the fact still has credence in identifying whether onsite soils
may be contributing to the observed sediment contamination. The maximum concentrations of individual
metals were found at various Turkey Gut sample locations. Maximum concentrations in Slocum Creek
were generally detected in the most downstream location. No upgradient or upslope areas could be
identified as potential sources of these metals in Slocum Creek.
6.3.2 Leachate Seeps
The earliest leachate seep water and sediment samples were collected and analyzed in 1985 and 1987.
Additional leachate seep samples were collected in 1995. Samples were collected of surface water
(ifpresent) or sediment (if no surface water present) from near the four locations sampled between 1985
and 1987, along with a water sample from a new location. One of the water samples was from a leachate
seep/spring at the toe of the Site 10- landfill, and two were from areas of ponded surface water.
Table 6-10 summarizes the most recent leachate seep sampling results. Based on the 1995 results, the
actual leachate seep contained several volatile organic compounds (2 ug/L of benzene, 5 ug/L of
chloroethane, and 3 ug/L of vinyl chloride) that were also detected in the surficial aquifer, although at
higher concentrations. One of the areas of ponded water contained the only other detections of organic
chemicals (xylenes at 2 pg/L and several pesticides ranging from 0.0625 ug/L to 0.17 ug/L).
119504/P 6-29 CT00239
-------
REVISION 5
MARCH 1999
TABLE 6-8
SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS - TURKEY GUT SEDIMENT
OPERABLE UNIT 2
MCAS CHERRY POINT, NORTH CAROLINA
PAGE 1 OF 2
Analyto
Frequency of Detection
Average of Positive
Detections
Range of Positive
Detections
Volatile Organics (fig/kg)
2-Butanone
Ethyibenzene
Xylenes (total)
1 .1 -Dichloroethane
Chloroethane
Carbon bisulfide
3/10
1/10
2/10
1/10
1/10
1/8
191
11
24
19
75
20
9.25 - 540
11
5-43
19
75
20
Semlvolatile Organics (ug/kg)
Di-n-butylphthalate
4/6
494
350 - 640
Pestlcldes/PCBs (ug/Kg)
alpha-Chlordane
gamma-Chlordane
4,4'-DDD
4.4--DDE
4,4'-ODT
Dioldrin
Endosullan II
Endrin aldehyde
Endrin ketone
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxide
4/4
4/4
3/5
3/5
1/6
3/6
1/6
1/6
1/4
2/6
1/6
6.67
3.1
1.48
0.87
0.20
7.9
0.24
0.40
1.2
0.14
16
0.36 - 25
0.34 - 8.8
0.45 -'3.4
0.42 - 1 .4
0.20
0.52 - 22
0.24
0.40
1.2
0.13-0.15
16
Inorganics (mg/kg)
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
8/8
2/9
7/9
8/8
1/9
• 2/9
8/8
9/9
1/7
6/9
8/8
8/10
8/8
8/8
7230
15.0
3.3
30.7
0.20
2.5
4208
11.1
2.3
4.0
8480
22.5
494
45.1
1,630- 11,100
10.0-20.0
1.2-7.2
12.6-92.1
0.20
1.4-3.6
348 - 12,000
2.0 - 24.6
2.3
2.0 - 6.6
1,930-18,200
6.55 - 52.5
155-930
6.4-182
-------
MARCH 1999
TABLE 6-8
SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS - TURKEY GUT SEDIMENT
OPERABLE UNIT 2
MCAS CHERRY POINT, NORTH CAROLINA
PAGE 2 OF 2
Analyte
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Sodium
Vanadium
Zinc
Frequency of Detection
2/9
2/10
7/7
1/9
6/8
8/8
10/10
Average of Positive
Detections
0.14
9.5
400
0.70
304
15.9
23.5
Range of Positive
Detections
0.10-0.17
4.3- 14.7
123-679
0.70
40.7-1,090
4.8 - 26.7
2.0-73.1
tt95O4/P
6-31
CTO 0239
-------
REVISION 5
MARCH 1999
TABLE 6-9
SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS - SLOCUM CREEK SEDIMENT
OPERABLE UNIT 2
MCAS CHERRY POINT, NORTH CAROLINA
Analyte
Frequency of Detection
Average of Positive
Detections
Range of Positive
Detections
Volatile Organlcs (ug/kg)
2-Butanone
Chloro benzene
Chloromethane
1/7
1/7
1/7
13
61
16
13
61
16
Semlvolatlle Organlcs (ug/kg)
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phtrialate
Di-n-butylphthalate
1/5
3/5
430
430
430
190-800
Pestlcldas/PCBs (ug/kg)
alpha-Chlorda/ie
4.4--DDD
4.4'-DDE
1/3
1/4
1/5
1.5
2.7
2.8
1.5
2.7
2.8
Inorganics (mg/kg)
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium —
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Sodium
Vanadium
Zinc
5/5
1/7
5/7
5/5
5/5
3/7
1/5
2/7
5/5
4/7
4/5
5/5
1/7
1/7
3/5
1/7
5/5
2/5
6/7
2,289
10.6
8.1
10.6
1.732
21.7
3.4
10.9
11.122
13.5
1,036
111
0.60
3.0
444
0.89
3,006
3.5
26.1
382 - 8,760
10.6
0.30 - 32.7
1.1 -35.8
136-6,540
1.7-57.5
3.4
3.9 - 17.9
932 - 32.600
1.2-37.7
93.7 - 2,650
3.3-394
0.60
3.0
93.6-956
0.89
155-8.250
1.7-5.2
1.0-113
119504/P
6-32
CTO 0239
-------
REVISIOM5
MARCH 1999
TABLE 6-10
SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS - LEACHATE SEEP WATER (1995)
OPERABLE UNIT 2
MCAS CHERRY POINT, NORTH CAROLINA
PAGE 1 OF 2
Analyte
Frequency of
Detection
Average of
Positive
Detections
Range of
Positive
Detections
Volatile Organics (ug/L)
Benzene
Xylenes
Chloroethane
Vinyl chloride
1/3
1/3
1/3
1/3
2
2
5
3
2
2
5
3
Semivolatile Organics (ug/L)
Butylbenzylphtnalate
1/3
10
10
Pesticides/PCBs (pg/L)
Aldrin
gamma-BHC
4,4'-DDT
Dieldrin
Endrin
Heptachlor
1/3
1/3
1/3
1/3
1/3
1/3
0.0625
0.0725
0.17
0.155
0.165
0.0775
0.0625
0.0725
0.17
0.155
0.165
0.0775
Inorganics (ug/L)
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron —
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Sodium
Thallium
3/3
1/3
3/3
3/3
3/3
3/3
3/3
1/3
2/3
3/3
1/3
3/3
3/3
3/3
3/3
2/3
3/3
1/3
721.8
9.4
2.8
31.2
9.4
16,185
3.8
6.5
36.0
13,991
24.1
1,401.7
212.3
33.3
3,033.3
2.45
2,926.7
1.95
360.5-1,310
9.4
2.2 - 3.9
5.2 - 76.8
0.8 - 24.2
3,705 - 36,500
0.85 - 5.6
6.5
9.3 - 62.6
558 - 40,400
24.1
681 - 2,580
62.5 - 494
0.85 - 97.9
1,860-4,470
2.3 - 2.6
1,240-5,640
1.95
119504/P
6-33
CTO 0239
-------
REVISION 5
MARCH 1999
TABLE 6-10
SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS - LEACHATE SEEP WATER (1995)
OPERABLE UNIT 2
MCAS CHERRY POINT, NORTH CAROLINA
PAGE 2 OF 2
Analyte
Vanadium
Zinc
PH
Frequency of
Detection
3/3
3/3
3/3
Average of
Positive
Detections
3.5
299.2
6.11(1)
Range of
Positive
Detections
2.15-6.0
26.3-813
6.09-6.15
1 Geometric average.
2 NA - Not applicable.
119504/P
6-34
CTO 0239
-------
REVISION 5
MARCH 1999
Based on the 1995 results, the leachate seep contained the highest concentrations of all metals (except
thallium). In several cases, the concentrations of metals in this sample exceeded the maximum
detections in the surficial aquifer. These metals included antimony, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead,
nickel, selenium, and zinc. For all other metals, the concentrations in groundwater exceed the ieachate
water concentrations. Many of the metals (cadmium, iron, and manganese) were present at
concentrations that exceeded State groundwater standards and/or Federal drinking water standards. The
low flow rate of this seep makes it unlikely that leachate water would migrate to groundwater and cause
an exceedance of a groundwater standard. In addition, this leachate seep may be an area of
groundwater discharge.
The sediment samples collected in 1995 from previously identified (but visibly dry at the time of sampling)
leachate seep locations were similar in concentration to surface soil samples. The analytical results are
included with surface soil (Table 6-1). Only a few organic compounds were detected (monocyclic
aromatics, trihalomethanes, phthalate esters, and pesticides) at low concentrations. The organic
compounds detected at the highest concentrations were 2,4-dinitrophenol (850 ug/kg), 4-nitrophenol
(850 ug/kg), 4,4'-DDE (69 M9/kg), di-n-octylphthalate (67 ug/kg), and toluene (42 ug/kg). The
concentrations of all other organics ranged from 7.6 ug/kg (endosulfan I) to 25 ug/kg (alpha-chlordane).
The concentrations of metals in these two leachate seep sediment samples were also similar to those
reported for surface soil. However, some metals were found at higher concentrations while others were
found at lower concentrations. Some of the more notable metals detections include arsenic (17.1 mg/kg),
lead (76.5 mg/kg), and zinc (80.8 mg/kg).
6.3.3 Polishing Pond Sediment
Table 6-11 summarizes the polishing pond sampling results. Eight sediment and soil samples were
collected from the polishing ponds in 1994. The uppermost samples were collected from the pond
sediment, and the deeper samples were collected from the underlying natural soil material. The data
indicate that the sediments in the ponds contain a number of organic chemicals, whereas the underlying
soils are fairly free of organic contamination. For example, pond sediment contains ketones, monocyclic
aromatics, phthalate esters, PAHs, and pesticides at concentrations ranging from 0.063 ug/kg (gamma-
BHC) to 13,000 ug/kg [bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate]. The underlying natural soil material contains
chloroform (4 ug/kg), bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (130 ug/kg), di-n-butylphthalate (255 ug/kg), alpha-
chlordane (0.1 pg/kg), and heptachlor (up to 0.14 ug/kg). In general, the pond sediments contain higher
concentrations of metals than the underlying soils.
119504/P 6-35 CT00239
-------
TABLE 6-11
r>
SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS - POLISHING POND SEDIMENT/SOIL
OPERABLE UNIT 2
MCAS CHERRY POINT, NORTH CAROLINA
PAGE 1 OF 3
Analyte
Sediments0'
Concentration
Range
Average of Positive
Detections
Frequency of
Detection
SoiP
Concentration
Range
Average of Positive
Detections
Frequency
of Detection
Volatile Organics (ug/kg)
Semivolatile Organics (ug/kg)
Pesticides/PCBs (ug/kg)
Acetone
2-Butanone
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
Xylenes
Chloroform
Carbon disulfide
1,300
11-80
' 26
42
44
ND
31
1,300
34.3
26
42
44
--
31
1/4
3/4
1/4
1/4
1/4
--
1/4
ND<3)
ND
ND
ND
ND
4
ND
•-
~
-
.
-
4
-•
~
~
~
-
-
1/4
--
Bis(2-
ethylhexyOphthalate
Di-n-butylphthalate
Phenol
Fluoranthene
2-Methylnaphthalene
120-13,000
180-350
260
250
130
3,590
250
260
250
130
4/4
4/4
1/4
1/4
1/4
130
200 - 290
ND
ND
ND
130
255
--
--
--
1/4
4/4
-
•-
--
Aldrin
gamma-BHC (Lindane)
alpha-Chlordane
gamma-Chlordane
4,4'-DDD
4,4'-DDE
Dieldrin
Endosulfan 1
0.28 - 3.8
0.063-1.2
0.66-15
2.6
13
0.19-16
0.53 - 9.4
5.1
2.0
0.63
7.8
2.6
13
5.5
5.0
5.1
2/4
2/4
2/4
1/3
1/2
3/3
2/4
1/4
ND
ND
0.10
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
-
-
0.10
-
~
--
-
--
-
-
1/4
-
-
--
~
-
3)
m
-i O
BZ
to
-------
TABLE 6-11
SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS - POLISHING POND SEDIMENT/SOIL
OPERABLE UNIT 2
MCAS CHERRY POINT, NORTH CAROLINA
PAGE 2 OF 3
Analyte
Heptachlor
Methoxychlor
, Sediments01
Concentration
Range
0.11
0.44
Average of Positive
Detections
0.11
0.44
Frequency of
Detection
1/3
1/3
Soil(2)
Concentration
Range
0.068-0.14
ND
Average of Positive
Detections
0.099
-
Frequency
of Detection
3/3
-
Inorganics (mg/kg)
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Silver
Vanadium
Zinc
Cyanide
5,330 - 9.810
2.3-3.3
10.2-25.6
0.34
1.7-4.1
319-1,180
14.0-78.5
2.3-17.4
3,340-14,500
3.2 - 7.1
264-514
9.5-20.4
0.12-0.85
10.3
328-616
0.18-0.26
0.97 - 4.1
14.8-36.8
7.08 - 55.3
1.8
8,040
2.8
15.8
0.34
2.9
636
32.4
6.7
8,312
5.0
417.4
14.2
0.485
10.3
453
0.22
2.54
23.3
27.9
1.8
4/4
2/4
4/4
1/4
2/4
4/4
4/4
4/4
4/4
4/4
4/4
4/4
2/4
1/4
4/4
2/4
2/4
4/4
3/4
1/4
2,920-4/410
1.3-2.3
5.0 - 7.2
ND
ND
73.3 - 295
3.8-11.7
1.2-1.6
2,690 - 6,720
1.9-3.7
148-220
4.3-10.2
ND
ND
244 - 262
ND
ND
8.5-13.0
ND
ND
3,580
1.9
5.75
-
.
185
.7.55
1.47
4,368
2.4
184
6.5
-
-
235.5
•-
-
9.9
--
--
4/4
4/4
4/4
--
--
4/4
4/4
3/4
4/4
4/4
4/4
4/4
-
'
4/4
--
--
4/4
-•
--
a rn
51
si
-------
TABLE 6-11
*A
I SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS - POLISHING POND SEDIMENT/SOIL
I OPERABLE UNIT 2
MCAS CHERRY POINT, NORTH CAROLINA
PAGE 3 OF 3
1 Includes samples OU2SD08-1012, OU2SD09-1012, OU2SD10-1012, OU2SD10-1012-D, and OU2SD11-1012. Duplicate sample resits
are averaged and counted as one sample.
2 Includes samples OU2SD08-1214, OU2SD09-1214, OU2SD10-1214, and OU2SD11-1214.
3 ND- Not Detected. '
S
-»o
8*
-------
REVISION 5
MARCH 1999
7.0 CONTAMINANT FATE AND TRANSPORT
The primary contaminants at Operable Unit No. 2 are volatile organic compounds in soil and shallow
groundwater (surficial aquifer). Volatile organic chemicals are typically considered to be fairly soluble and
have a low capacity for retention to soil organic carbon. Therefore, they are the organic compounds most
likely to be detected in groundwater. These types of chemicals may migrate through the soil column to
groundwater as infiltrating precipitation solubilizes them. Some portion of these chemicals is retained by
the unsaturated soil, but most will continue migrating downward until they reach the water table. At that
time, migration is primarily lateral with the hydraulic gradient at a rate determined by the aquifer seepage
velocity and chemical retardation. Again, some portion of the chemical may be retained by the saturated
soil.
Several of these compounds have specific gravities less than that of water (e.g., benzene, xylenes).
These compounds are typically found in fuels, and if a large enough spill occurs (including using gasoline,
etc. as a fuel), these compounds may move through the soil column as a bulk liquid until they reach the
water table. There, instead of going into solution, the majority of the release may remain as a discrete fuel
layer on the water-table surface, with some of the material being dissolved at the water/fuel interface. No
floating fuel product was observed in any of the monitoring wells at OU2. The water table over much of
the study area is less than 15 feet deep.
Pesticides were widely used at the Air Station. Many of the compounds detected are no longer licensed
for general sale and use in the United States. Therefore, it is assumed that much of what was detected in
the soil and sediments is representative of past application for insect control. Pesticides as a class of
compounds are not considered to be very mobile in the environment. These chemicals, upon application
or disposal, tend to remain affixed to soil particles. Migration of pesticides occurs primarily by wind or
water erosion. Concentrations of pesticides are generally below 50 ug/kg, with a few exceptions such as
detections of DDT and ODD in subsurface soils.
119504/P . 7-1 CTO0239
-------
-------
1
REVISIONS
MARCH 1999
8.0 SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS
8.1 BASELINE HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
The baseline risk assessment provides the basis for taking action and indicates the exposure pathways
that need to be addressed by remedial action. It serves as the baseline indicating what risks could exist if
no action were taken at OU2. This section of the ROD reports the results of the baseline risk assessment
conducted for OU2.
8.1.1 Chemicals of Potential Concern
A human health risk assessment was conducted for Operable Unit 2 using the following current USEPA
risk assessment guidance and Region IV supplements:
• Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Volume I, Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part A)
(USEPA, December 1989).
• Exposure Factors Handbook (USEPA, May 1989).
• Human Health Evaluation Manual, Supplemental Guidance: Standard Default Exposure Factors
(USEPA, March 25,1991).
• Baseline Risk Assessment Guidance (USEPA Region IV, April 4, 1991).
• Dermal Exposure Assessment: Principles and Applications. Interim Report (USEPA, January 1992).
• Supplement to RAGS: Calculating the Concentration Term (USEPA, May 1992).
• Supplement to RAGS: Region IV Bulletins (1-5) - Human Health Risk Assessment (USEPA Region
IV, November 1995). - -
The first step in the risk assessment was to develop a list or group of chemicals referred to as chemicals
of potential concern (COPCs) for each medium sampled. Contaminant concentrations were then
compared to risk-based screening concentrations, background concentrations, and groundwater and
surface water standards. The risk-based concentrations were calculated to correspond to an individual
chemical incremental lifetime cancer risk of 1E-6 (1 x 10"6, or a one-in-one-million risk) and a Hazard
Index of 0.1 for specified, routine exposure. Residential exposure levels were used for soil and sediment.
119504/P 8-1 CT00239
-------
REVISION 5
MARCH 1999
Risk-based concentrations for residential use of groundwater were used for screening groundwater and
surface water contaminants.
Any COPC that is carried through the risk assessment process and has an incremental lifetime cancer
risk (ILCR) greater than 1E-6 or HI greater than 0.1 for any of the exposure scenarios is referred to as a
chemical of concern (COC). Contaminants that exceed a groundwater or surface water standard are also
retained as COCs.
Essential elements may be screened out of a risk assessment if it is shown that concentrations detected
are not associated with adverse health effects or do not exceed as groundwater or surface water
standard. Therefore, the following nutrients were eliminated: calcium, magnesium, potassium, and
sodium.
COPCs were developed for surface soil (less than 2 feet deep), all soils to a depth of 10 feet (the
maximum assumed depth of intrusive activities [e.g., excavation, utility lines]), groundwater, stream
surface water and sediment, leachate seeps, and Site 46 polishing pond sediment. Table 8-1 identifies
the COPCs for OU2.
8.1.2 Exposure Assessment
Whether a chemical is actually a concern to human health depends upon the likelihood of exposure (i.e.,
whether the exposure pathway is currently complete or could be complete in the future). A complete
exposure pathway (a sequence of events leading to contact with a chemical) is defined by the following
four elements:
• Source and mechanism of release.
• Transport medium (e.g., surface water, air) and mechanism of migration through the medium.
• Presence or potential presence of receptor at the exposure point.
• Route of exposure (ingestion, inhalation, dermal absorption).
If all four elements are present, the pathway is considered complete.
A conceptual site model was developed for OU2 to define potential receptors and the routes by which
they are likely to be exposed. Figure 8-1 represents the conceptual site model used to evaluate potential
receptors for Operable Unit 2. Identified receptors under current land use conditions included
maintenance workers, trespassers, and recreational users of Slocum Creek. In addition, potential future
119504/P 8-2 CTO0239
-------
CO
TABLE 8-1
MEDIA-SPECIFIC CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN (COPCs)
OPERABLE UNIT 2
MCAS CHERRY POINT, NORTH CAROLINA
PAGE 1 OF 2
Surface Soil
(0 to 2 Feet)
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranttiene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Chrysene
lndeno(1 ,2,3-cd)pyren8
Aroctor-1260
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Iron
Manganese
Thallium
All Soil ,
(OtolOFMt)
Arsenic
Cadmium
Lead
.
Groundwater
Surficlal Aquifer:
1,1-Dichlofoethene
1.2-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dlchloropropane
2-Butanone
2-Hexanone
4-Methyl-2-pentanone
Benzene
Chlorobenzene
Chtoroform
Chloroethane
cis-1 ,2-Dichloroethene
Ethylbenzene
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
Trichloroethene
Vinyl chloride
1,2-Dtehlorobenzene .
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
2-Methylnaphthalene
2-Methylphend
4-Methylphenol
2,4-Dimethylphenol
Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Naphthalene
Nitrobenzene
4,4'-DDE
4,4'-DDT
Aldrin
Leachate Seeps
Benzene
Chloroethane
Vinyl chloride
4,4'-DDT
Aldrin
gamma-BHC
Dieldrin
Heptachlor
Antimony
Arsenic
Cadmium
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Nickel
Thallium
•
i
Surface Water
Turkey Gut:
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalale
4.4'-DDO
Heptachlor epoxide
Arsenic
Sfocum Creek:
4,4'-DDD
Sediment
Turkey Gut:
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Beryllium
Iron
Manganese
Slocum Creek:
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Chromium
Iron
Manganese
Polishing Pond
Sediment
None
.
-* O
Sz
to w
-------
TABLE 8-1
MEDIA-SPECIFIC CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN (COPCs)
OPERABLE UNIT 2
MCAS CHERRY POINT, NORTH CAROLINA
PAGE 2 OF 2
Surface Soil
(Oto2FMt)
Alt Soil
(OtolOFMt)'
Groundwater
Surflclal Aquifer:
(Continued)
alpha-BHC
gamma-BHC
Endosulfan 1
Endosulfan II
Endrin Aldehyde
Heptachtor
Heptachlor epoxide
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Iron
Manganese
Yorktown Aquifer:
Chloroform
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Iron
Manganese
Leachate Seeps
Surface Water
Sediment
Polishing Pond
Sediment
i
i
8
8
-------
_A .
— *
^5
00
en
SOURCE
SUBSURFACE
DISPOSAL OF WASTE
(SITE 10}
FIRE TRAINING
EXERCISES (SITE IB)
SLUDGE APPLICATION •*»
(SITE 44A)
WASTEWATER TREATMENT
(SITE 46)
VEHICLE MAINTENANCE
(SITE 76)
PRIMARY RECEIVING/ SECDNOARY RECEIVING I'XPOSURF
RELEASE TRANSPORT RELEASE MEDIUM RoSlE?
MECHANISM MEDIUM MECHANISM "
-*J DEPOSITION 1 J snn DERMAL CONTACT
INCIDEN1AL INGESTION
INGESV10N
•J LEACHING j n GROUNDWATER L. INHAL/\TION
"^^ LEACHATC I-*" INCIDENTAL INGEST.ON
DISCHARGE AND FISH HGESTION
DEPOSITION
^ FUGITIVE DUST 1 SEDIMENT DERMAL CONTACT
| GENERATION f^j | I " | INCIDENTAL INGEST ON |
HAIR |- r
EMISSION OF
•*• VOLATILE *•
COMPONENTS
RECEPTORS
| FULL- T!ME EMPLOYEE
MAINTENANCE WORKS'?
CONSTRUCTION WORKER
ADOLESCENT TRESPASSER
>?ECR£»T!ONAL ADULT
ADULT RESIDENT
CHILD RESIDENT
t
-y
t
J
— 1
f
V
,/
~TT
f
V
y
.y
.,/
^
TT
^
y
,/
^
t
~~r
^/
^/
J
TT
,/
,f
^
,/
— n
1
KEY:
(r) BECAUSE OF LOW CONCENTRATIONS OF VOLATILE
CONSTITUENTS IN SURFACE MIL. EXPOSURE IS MINIMAL.
g CONCEPTUAL SITE MQDFI
| OPERABLE UNIT ?
MCAS CHERRY POINT, NORTH CAROLINA '
n C^\ IDCT o <
r *v?L/r\ir Q™1"" ]
REVISIONS
MARCH 1999
-------
REVISION 5
MARCH 1999
land use conditions were also considered for residents, full-time employees, and construction workers, j
Maintenance workers and full-time employees were assumed to be exposed only to surface soil via direct
contact during routine onsite activities. Trespassers were assumed to come into direct contact with
surface soil, surface water, leachate seeps, and sediment. Recreational users were assumed to be
exposed to surface water and sediment via direct contact. In addition, ingestion of fish was also
considered. Under future land use conditions, construction workers represent potential receptors who
could be exposed via direct contact to soils to a depth of perhaps 10 feet. Additional exposure routes
considered for construction workers are direct contact with groundwater in the bottom of an excavation
and inhalation of fugitive dust generated when the soil is disturbed. Future potential residents are
assumed to be exposed to surface soil and groundwater via direct contact.
Two scenarios that were not considered to be applicable to OU2 are inhalation of volatile emissions or
fugitive dust under current land use conditions. Volatile emissions are considered to be minimal, as only
low concentrations of volatile organic compounds were detected in the surface soil. Fugitive dust is not
considered because the site is currently well vegetated.
Exposure concentrations are based on a statistical development of the upper 95 percent confidence limit
on the data set. There are many instances where, with isolated detections of high concentrations among
many lower concentrations, the Upper Confidence Level (UCL) can exceed the maximum detected!
'concentrations. In these cases, the maximum detection is used as the exposure concentration. Since
this was the case for many COPCs in most media at OU2, the risk assessment is considered to be
extremely conservative. Exposure concentrations used to calculate human health risks are summarized
in Table 8-2. Parameters used to estimate potential exposures for current and future land use receptors
are summarized in Tables 8-3 and 8-4, respectively.
8.1.3 Toxicltv Assessment
A cancer slope factor (CSF) and a reference dose (RfD) are applied to estimate risk of cancer from an
exposure and the potential for noncarcinogenic effects to occur from exposure.
CSFs have been developed by USEPAs Carcinogenic Assessment Group for estimating excess lifetime
cancer risks associated with exposure to potentially carcinogenic COPCs. CSFs, which are expressed in
units of (mg/kg-day)'1, are multiplied by the estimated intake of a potential carcinogen, in mg/kg-day, to
provide an upper-bound estimate of the excess lifetime cancer risk associated with exposure at that
intake level. The term "upper bound" reflects the conservative estimate of risks calculated from the CSF.
Use of this approach makes underestimations of the actual cancer risk highly unlikely. CSFs are derived
from the results of human epidemiological studies or chronic animal bioassays to which animal-to-hum;
a R CTO 0239
119504/P 8-6
-------
CO
o
'TABLE 8-2
EXPOSURE CONCENTRATIONS FOR CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN (1>
OPERABLE UNIT 2 ;
MCAS CHERRY POINT, NORTH CAROLINA
PAGE1OF3
Clwmlcal
1,1-Dichtoroetrtene
1,2-DJchkxoethane
1,2-Dichtoropfopane
2-Butanone
2-Hexanone
4-Methyl-2-pentanone
Benzene
Chtorobenzene
Chloroethane
Chloroform
cis-1,2-Dichtoroethene
Ethyl benzene
Methytene chloride
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
Trichloroethene
Vinyl chloride
1 ,2-Dichtorobenzene
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
2,4-Dimethyiphenol
2-Methylnaphthalene
2-Methylphenol
4-Methylphenol
Surface
Sofl(0to2
feet)(mg/1cg
<2)
-'
-
-
—
-
•-
-
•-
••
~
-
••
••
All Soil
(0 to 10 feet
(mg/kg)
-
-
-•
«
-
-
-
•-
-
--
-
--
-
-
Groundwater (mg/L)
Surtlclal
Aquifer
0.00077
0.00097
0.00083
0.020
0.001
0.005
0.012
0.072
0.0087.
0.00087
0.015
0.0024
0.0015
0.0055
0.0035
0.0048
0.0029
0.0082
0.010
0.0057
0.0054
n mn
Yorktown
Aquifer
--
--
--
--
„
••
_,
..
0.002(3)
..
-
--
-
„
..
-
--
L_i
Surface Water (mg/L)
Slocum
Creek
..
_.
..
•-
„
^
--
-•
--
„
-
Turkey Qu
„
.,
— — —
_
--
— -f
_
-
--
""
_
..
--
J
Leachate
Seeps
•-
0.002(3)
0.00513'
-
..
0.003(3)
^ •!!•• i , ,_
M-
-
"
Sediment (mofea)
Slocum
Creek '
— •-
~ i
i ^-^^— •— —
-
„
•
»
—
Turkey
Gut
„
_
-"
i "•'" i m.
"
•— ^— m.-HBH..
"
•^^^•"•n i i •
-
__
X
-------
REVISION 5
MARCH 1999
4t
"oT
O
Q.
O
^^
cc
1
o
o
< <
= s
c _l
g o
6 1
Q. O
U. CM X
oa §|oS!
si Em'i uj
S ui < o O
P z cc £ <
W Ul w_ Q.
«• Q. 15
I°l
W I
z o
1 i
CC £
i
§
o
Ul
i
U)
o
1
1
1
^^
?
i
I
1
gft
I
i
1
f>
i *
P
B «
a $
V C/7
•J
(9
1
i •*
I6
c
II
11
If
= f a.
2 i f
o, ""
04 »
ro *?L
s t
== **•
(0 Q «**
S
1
o
1
1
:
'
I
S
d
a>
1
S
o
:
s
:
'
i
«
CM
d
§
"p1
.
1
'
1
n
n
fc
g
^5
d
.
g
d
:
1
Heptachlor
i
i
d
j
%j
d
:
t
Q
1
I
!
1
J
••
••
t
CO
d
o
Aroclor-126
W
X
>
•
119504/P
B.R
CTO 0239
-------
CO
TABLE 8-2
EXPOSURE CONCENTRATIONS FOR CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN (COPCs)(1>
OPERABLE UNIT 2
MCAS CHERRY POINT, NORTH CAROLINA
PAGE30F3
Chemical
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Thallium
Surface
Soll(0to2
foot) (mg/kg)
6.470
3.6
17.113'
~
0.15
2.2
24.1
•-
14.300
--
78.6
••
--
--
0.99
All Soil
(0 to 10 feet)
(mg/kg)
-
••
2.96
-
-
1.35
-
--
••
35.7
-
-•
--
-'
-
Groundwater (mg/L)
Surflclal
Aquifer
0.275
--
0.0967
0.0975
-
0.00269
-•
.-
100.5(3)
--
0.760
--
—
-
-•
Yorktown
Aquifer
• «
--
--
-
...
-
--
••
1.B
--
0.063
--
-•
-
••
Surface Water (mg/L)
Slocum
Creek
-•
--
--
--
-•
-
-
--
--
-
-
-
--
-•
-
Turkey Gut
-
--
0.0029513'
--
-•
--
-
-•
..
--
••
--
--
--
--
Leachate
Seeps
-
0.009413'
0.0039(3)
--
.. .
0.0242'3'
--
-
40.4(3)
.0.0241(3)
0.494131
--
0.097913'
--
0.00195131
Sediment (mg/kg)
Slocum
Creek '
8.76013'
10.6(3)
32.7131
--
--
--
57.5|3>
-- .
32.600131
--
394(3)
-•
-
-
--
Turkey
Gut
11.10013'
20.0131
72OI
--
0.2(3)
--
--
--
18,200(3)
-
182<3)
-
«
--
--
1 95 Percent upper confidence limit, unless otherwise noted
2 -- - Not a COPC for this medium
3 Maximum concentration
-* o
5o Z
to
-------
REVISION 5
MARCH 1999
TABLE 8-3
EXPOSURE ASSUMPTIONS - CURRENT LAND USE RECEPTORS
OPERABLE UNIT 2
MCAS CHERRY POINT, NORTH CAROLINA
PAGE 1 OF 2
Pathway Parameters
Maintenance
Worker
Adolescent
Trespasser
Adult
Recreational
User
Dermal Contact with Soil/Sediment
Skin Surface Area
Adherence Factor
Absorption Factor
Exposure Frequency
Exposure Duration
Body Weight
Averaging Time - Noncancer
Averaging Time - Cancer
3,160
1.0
CSV12'
12
25
70
9,125
25,550
4,570/4,1 40(1)
1.0
CSV
12
10
45
- 3,650
25,550
5,170
1.0
CSV
45
30
70
10,950
25,550
Incidental Ingestion of Soil Sediment
Ingestion Rate
Exposure Frequency
Exposure Duration
Body Weight
Averaging Time - Noncancer
Averaging Time - Cancer
200
12
25
70
9,125
25,550
100
12
10
45
3,650
25,550
100
45
30
70
10,950
25,550
Dermal Contact with Surface Water/Leachate
Skin Surface Area
Permeability Constant
Exposure Time
Exposure Frequency
Exposure Duration
Body Weight
Averaging Time - Noncancer
Averaging Time -€ancer
NA(4)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
4,570/1 ,540(3)
CSV
1
12
10
45
3,650
25,550
19,400
CSV
1
45
30
70
10,950
25,550
Incidental Ingestion of Surface Water/Leachate
Ingestion Rate
Exposure Time
Exposure Frequency
Exposure Duration
Averaging Time - Noncancer
Averaging Time - Cancer
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.05/0.005'3'
1
12
10
3,650
25,550
0.05
1
45
30
10,950
25.550
Units
cm2
mg/cm2
unitless
days/year
years
kg
days
days
mg/day - -.
days/year
years
years
days
days
cm2
cm/hour
hours/day
days/year
years
kg
days
days
liters/day
hours/day
days/year
years
days
days
119504/P
8-10
CTO0239
-------
REVISION 5
MARCH 1999
TABLE 8-3
EXPOSURE ASSUMPTIONS - CURRENT LAND USE RECEPTORS
OPERABLE UNIT 2
MCAS CHERRY POINT, NORTH CAROLINA
PAGE 2 OF 2
Pathway Parameters
Maintenance
Worker
Adolescent
Trespasser
Adult
Recreational
User
Units
Ingestioh of Fish
Bioconcentration Factor
Fraction Ingested from
Contaminated Source
Ingestion Rate
Exposure Frequency
Exposure Duration
Body Weight
Averaging Time - Noncancer
Averaging Time - Cancer
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
CSV
0.1
0.284
48
30
70
10,950
25,550
liters/kg
unitless
kg/meal
meals/year
years
kg
days
days
1 soil/sediment'
2 CSV - chemical specific value
3 surface water/Ieachate
4 NA - Not applicable
119504/P
8-11
CTO0239
-------
TABLE 8-4
EXPOSURE ASSUMPTIONS - FUTURE LAND USE RECEPTORS
OPERABLE UNIT 2
MCAS CHERRY POINT, NORTH CAROLINA
PAGE 1 OF 2
REVISION 5
MARCH 1999
Pathway Parameters
Adult Resident
Child Resident
Full-Time
Employee
Construction
Worker
Units
Inhalation of Fugitive Dust
Inhalation Rate
Absorption Factor
Exposure Time
Exposure Frequency
Exposure Duration
Body Weight
Averaging Time - Noncancer
Averaging Time - Cancer
NA(1)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
4.8
0.1 25 -lungs
0.625 - gut
B
180
1
70
365
25,550
m3/hour
uniHess
hours/day
days/year
year
kg
days
days
Dermal Contact with Soil
Skin Surface Area
Adherence Factor
Absorption Factor
Exposure Frequency
Exposure Duration
Body Weight
Averaging Time - Noncancer
Averaging Time - Cancer
5,230
1.0
0.01/0.00112'
350
6/24(3)
70
2,190/8,760
25,550
3.910
1.0
0.01/0.00112'
350
6
15
2,190
25,550
3,160
1.0
0.01/0.001(Z)
250
25
70
9.125
25,550
4.300
1.0
0.01/0.001121
180
1
70
365
25.550
cm1
mg/cm2
unitiess
days/year
years
kg
days
days
Incidental Ingestion of Sol)
Ingestion Rate
Exposure Frequency
Exposure Duration
Body Weight
Averaging Time - Noncancer
Averaging Time - Cancer
200
350
6/24
70
2.190/8.760
25.550
200
350
6
15
2,190
25,550
50
250
25
70
9,125
25,550
480
180
1
70
365
25,550
rng/day
days/year
years
kg
days
days
D«rmal Contact with Groundwater
Skin Surface Area
Permeability Constant
Exposure Tune
Exposure Frequency
Exposure Duration
Body Weight
Averaging Time - Noncancer
Averaging Time - Cancer
19,400
CSV14'
12
350
6/24
70
2,190/8,760
25,550
7,280
CSV
12
350
6
15
2,190
25,550
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
4,300
CSV
240
180
1
70
365
25.550
cm2
cm/hour
minutes/day
days/year
years
kg
days
days
119504/P
fl-19
CTO 0239
-------
REVISIONS
MARCH 1999
TABLE 8-4
EXPOSURE ASSUMPTIONS - FUTURE LAND USE RECEPTORS
OPERABLE UNIT 2
MCAS CHERRY POINT, NORTH CAROLINA
PAGE 2 OF 2
I • -.
Pathway Parameter§
Adult Resident
Ingestion of Groundwater
Ingestion Rate
Exposure Frequency
Exposure Duration
Body Weight
Averaging Time - Noncancer
Averaging Time - Cancer
Inhalation of Volatiles In Grour
Inhalation Rate
Shower Duration
Total Time in Bathroom
Air Exchange Rate
Exposure Frequency
Exposure Duration
Body Weight
Averaging Time - Noncancer
Averaging Time - Cancer
2
— '
350
6/24
70
2,190/8,760
25.550
idwater
10
12
20
0.0083
350
6/24
70
2,190/8,760
25,550
I Child Resident
^ .
1
350
6
15
2,190
25,550
10
20
0.0083
-
350
6
15
2,190
25,550
']
Foll-Time
Employee
— — —
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
— — — — ^— _____
NA
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
"I ~
Construction
I Worker
NA
• NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Units
days/year
years
ka
days
davs
liters/minute
minutes
minutes
per minute
showers/year *
years
kg
davs
days
I
.
1 NA - not applicable
2 organics/inorganics
3 adult evaluated for exposure durations of 6 and 24 years
4 CSV - chemical-specific value
119504/P
8-13
CTO 0239
-------
REVISION 5
MARCH 1999
extrapolation and uncertainty factors have been applied (e.g., to account for the use of animal data to
predict effects on humans).
Based on data collected from human studies, USEPA has developed weight of evidence classifications.
Group A includes human carcinogens. Group B includes probable human carcinogens. B1 indicates that
limited data are available. B2 indicates sufficient evidence in animals and inadequate or no evidence in
humans. Group C includes possible human carcinogens. Chemical in Group D are not classifiable as to
human carcinogenicity. Group E indicates evidence of noncarcinogenicity for humans.
The increased cancer risk is expressed by terms such as 1E-6. To state that a chemical exposure
causes a 1E-6 added upper limit risk of cancer means that if one million people are exposed, one
additional incident of cancer is expected to occur. The calculations and assumptions yield an upper limit
estimate that assures that no more than one case is expected and, in fact, there may be no additional
cases of cancer. USEPA policy has established that an upper limit cancer risk falling below or within the
range of 1E-6 to 1E-4 is acceptable.
»
RfDs have been developed by USEPA for indicating the potential for adverse health effects from
exposure to a COPC exhibiting noncarcinogenic effects. RfDs, which are expressed in units of mg/kg-
day, are estimates of lifetime daily exposure for humans, including sensitive individuals. Estimated
intakes of COPCs from environmental media (e.g.. the amount of a COPC ingested from contaminated
drinking water) can be compared to the RfD. RfDs are derived from human epidemiological studies or
animal studies to which uncertainty factors have been applied (e.g., to account for the use of animal data
to predict effects on humans). If the estimated exposure to a chemical, expressed as mg/kg-day, is less
than the RfD, exposure is not expected to cause any noncarcinogenic effects, even if exposure is
continued for a lifetime. In other words, if the estimated dose divided by the RfD is less than 1.0, there is
no concern for adverse noncarcinogenic effects.
Dose-response parameters (CSFs, RfDs, absorption factors, and weight of evidence) used in the risk
assessment are summarized in Table 8-5.
8.1.4 ' Risk Characterization
For carcinogens, risks are estimated 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:
119504/P
8-14 CTO0239
-------
TABLE 8-5
Volatile Organic*
DOSE-RESPONSE PARAMETERS FOR CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN0'
OPERABLE UNIT 2
MCAS CHERRY POINT, NORTH CAROLINA
PAGE 1 OF 7
Chemical
phronlc/Subchronlc Rf 0 (mgflcg/day)'2'
Inhalation
Oral
Dermal
CSF(Kg-day/mg)(3)
Inhalation
Oral
Dermal
Gl(4>
Absorption
Factor i
Weight of
Evidence
1.1-Dichlofoethene
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dtehloropropane
2-Butanone
2-Hexanone
4-Methyt-2-pen(anone
Benzene
Chlorobenzene
Chloroethane
1.14E-3
(UF=300; nasal
hyperplasia)
2.B6E-1
(UF=1000; birth
wt)
' 2.29E-2127'
2.29E-1.
2.29E-2061
(UF=1 00/1 000;
liver, kidney)
1.71E-3191
(UF=1000;
hematopoietic
system
5.71E-3"6)
(UF=10,000; liver,
kidney)
2.86E+0
(UF=300; fetus)
7E-3
(UF=1000; liver)
2.86E-319'
(UF=3000; CNS. Gl
tract, liver, kidney)
6E-1
(UF=3000; birth wt)
8E-2(27>
BE-1.8E-21'61
(UF=300/3000; liver,
kidney)
3E-41*"
2E-2
(UF=1 000; liver)
4E-1<91
9E-3
2.3E-3
4.8E-1
6.4E-2
6.4E-2
3E-4
6.2E-3
3.2E-1
1.75E-1
(kidney)
9.1 E-2
2.9E-2
(leukemia,
neoplasia)
6E-1
(adrenal tumors)
9.1 E-2
(hemangiosarcoma)
6.8E-2"6'
(liver)
2.9E-2
(leukemia,
neoplasia)
7.5E-1
1.1E-1
8.5E-2
2.9E-2
0.80(5>
0.8015'
0.80(5)
0.80|5)
0.80(5)
0.80|5)
1.0(8)
0.31(10)
0.80(5)
C
B2 •
B2
A
D
a\
§
-------
TABLE 8-5
Swnlvolatlle Organlcs
DOSE-RESPONSE PARAMETERS FOR CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN10
OPERABLE UNIT 2
MCAS CHERRY POINT, NORTH CAROLINA
PAGE 2 OF 7
Chemical
Chlorofoim
cls-1 ,2-Dich!oroethene
Ethylbenzene
Methytsne chloride
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
Trichloroethene
Vinyl chloride
Chronlc/Subchronlc RID (mg/kg/day)1*'
Inhalation
2.86E-1
(UF=300;
development)
8.57E-1061
(UF=100; liver)
1.14E-1
(UF=300; CNS;
nasal mucosa)
Oral
1E-2
(UF=1000; liver) '
1E-2"6'
(UF=3000; Wood)
1E-1
(UF=1000; liver,
kidney)
6E-2
(UF=100; liver)
1E-2
(UF=1000; liver)
2E-1
(UF=1000; liver,
kidney)
6E-319'
Dermal
1E-2
8E-3
8E-2
6E-2
1E-2
1.6E-1
6E-3
CSF(kg-day/mg)p>
Inhalation
8.05E-2
(liver)
1.64E-3
(liver; respiratory)
2.03E-319'
(liver)
6.0E-319'
(liver)
3.0E-1"6'
(liver)
Oral
6.1E-3
(kidney)
7.5E-3
(liver; respiratory)
5.2E-219'
(liver)
1.1E-2'26'
(liver)
1.9E+0(16)
(lung, liver)
Dermal
6.1 E-3
7.5E-3
5.2E-2
1.1E-2
2.38E+0
Gl(4»
Absorption
Factor
1.0""
0.80(5)
0.80(5>
1.0<12)
1.0(13)
0.80(5>
1.0(U)
0.80(5)
Weight of
Evidence
B2
D
B2
B2/C
D
A
1 ,2-Dichlorobenzene
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
4E-21161
(UF=1000; whole
body)
2.29E-1
(UF=100; liver)
9E-2
(UF=1000)
9E-2
2.4E-2"6'
(liver)
2.4E-2
1.0(6)
1.01"
D
B2
o se
-< £ 31
O > S
1 ' ll
• A A »1
* y ^F r "* ^F S o»
-------
TABLE 8-5
!
A
N
O
3
o
ro
DOSE-RESPONSE PARAMETERS FOR CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN1
OPERABLE UNIT 2
MCAS CHERRY POINT, NORTH CAROLINA
PAGE 3 OF 7
Chemical
2,4-Dimethylprienol
2-Mettiytnaphthalene
2-Methylphenol
4-Methylphenol
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Bis(2-cWoroethyt)etrver
Bis(2-ethythexyt)phthalate
Chrysene
lndeno(1 ,2,3-cd)pyrene
Naphthalene
Phronlc/Subchronlc RfD (mg/kg/day)pl
Inhalation
Oral
2E-2
(UF=3000; lethargy,
blood)
4E-2<">
5E-2
(UF=1 000; body wt,
neurotoxicity
5E-3116'
(UF=1000;CNS,
respiratory)
2E-2
(UF=1000; liver)
4E-2(26)
Dermal
1E-2
2E-2
- 2.5E-2
2.5E-3
t.tE-2
2E-2
CSF(kg-day/rng)(3)
Inhalation
3.1E-11291
3.1E+01251
(respiratory tract)
3.1E-11291
3.1E-2129'
1.16E+0
(hepatoma)
3.1E-3(29)
3.1E-1(?9)
Oral
7.3E-11291
(liver)
7.3E+0 (forestomach,
liver, esophagus)
7.3E-1(M)
(liver)
7.3E-11291
(liver)
1.1E+0
(hepaloma)
1.4E-2
(liver)
7.3E-3(M|
7.3E-1(M)
Dermal
3.65E-1
3.65E+0
3.65E-1
3.65E-2
2.2E+0
2.55E-2
3.65E-3
3.65E-1
Gl<4)
Absorption
Factor i
0.50(5)
0.50(5)
0.50(S|
0.50(6)
0.50161
0.50(6)
0.50(5)
0.50(S|
0.50(5)
0.55"51
0.50151
0.50(5>
0.50151
Weight of
Evidence
C
B2
B2
B2
B2
B2
B2
B2
B2
D
Si
51
-------
TABLE 8-5
oo
—4
00
o
Pestlcldes/PCBs
DOSE-RESPONSE PARAMETERS FOR CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN11'
OPERABLE UNIT 2
MCAS CHERRY POINT, NORTH CAROLINA
PAGE 4 OF 7
Chemical
Nitrobenzene
Chronlc/Subchronlc RfO (mg/kg/day)1"
Inhalation
5.71E-4"61
(UF-10.000;
bkxx), liver,
kidney)
Oral
5E-4
(UF=10000; Wood.
liver, kidney)
Dermal
2.5E-4
CSF(kg-day/mg)p)
Inhalation
Oral
Dermal
Gl">
Absorption
Factor
0.50(5t
Weight of
Evidence
D
4.4'-DDD
4.4'-DDE
4,4'-DDT
AkJrin
alpna-BHC
gamma-BHC
CHeWrin
Endosulfan 1
Endosulfan II
Endrin aldehyde
5E-4
(UF = 100; liver)
3E-5
(UF=1 000; liver)
3E-4
(UF=1000; liver.
kidney)
5E-5
(UF=100; liver)
6E-3(27)
(UF=100; body wt)
6E-3127'
(UF=100;bodywt)
3E-4'27'
4E-4
1.5E-5
1.5E-4
2.5E-5
3E-3
3E-3
1.5E-4
3.4E-1
(liver)
1.71E+1
(liver)
6.3E+0
(liver, kidney)
1.61E+1
(liver)
2.4E-1
(liver)
3.4E-1
(liver)
3.4E-1
(liver)
1.7E+1
(liver)
6.3E+0
(liver, kidney)
1.3E+006'
(liver)
1.6E+1
(liver)
2.5E-1
4.2E-1
4.2E-1
3.4E+1
1.3E+1
2.6E+0
3.2E+1
' 0.80(30)
0.80(30)
o.eo(30)
0.50|5)
0.50151
0.50151
0.50151
0.50(5)
0.50151
0.50(5)
B2
B2
B2
B2
B2/C
B2
> 3D
31 ni
0<
X CO
-* o
-------
TABLE 8-5
co
en
I
to
§
S
DOSE-RESPONSE PARAMETERS FOR CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN(1)
OPERABLE UNIT 2
MCAS CHERRY POINT, NORTH CAROLINA
PAGE 5 OF 7
Chemical
Haptachlof
Heptachlor epoxide
Aroclor-1260
Inorganics
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium VI
Copper
,Chronlc/Subchronlc RID (mg/kg/day)(2)
Inhalation
1.43E-4"6'
(UF=1 000; fetus)
Oral
5E-4
(UF=300; liver)
1.3E-5
(UF=1000; liver)
Dermal
2.5E-4
6.5E-6
CSF(kg-day/mg)("
Inhalation
4.55E+0
(liver)
9,1 E+0
(liver)
Oral
4.5E+0
(liver)
9.1E+0
(liver)
7.7E+0
(liver)
Dermal
9.0E+0
1.82E+1
1.5E+1
1E+0(9)
4E-4
(UF=1000; whole
body, Wood)
3E-4
(UF=3; skin)
7E-2
(UF=3; cardiovascular
system)
5E-3
(UF=100)
5E-4
(UF=10; kidney)
5E-3
(UF=500)
4E-2(9)
(gastrointestinal
system)
2E-1
8E-5
2.85E-4
1.4E-2
5E-5
1.5E-5
5E-5
2.4E-2
1.51E+1
(lung)
8.4E+0
(lung;
osteosarcomas)
6.3E+0
(lung; trachea)
4.2E+1
(lung)
1.5E+0
(skin)
4.3E+0
(lung; osteosarcomas)
1.6E+0
4.3E+2
Gl(4)
Absorption
Factor *
0.50(5!
0.5015'
0.50(S)
0.20(5)
0.20(5)
0.95(t7)
0.20(5)
0.01"8'
0.03|I9)
0.01'20'
0.60(21)
Weight of
Evidence
B2
B2
B2
A
B2
B1
A
-O
co 01
-------
CD
rb
o
o
3
8
8
TABLE 8-5
DOSE-RESPONSE PARAMETERS FOR CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN0*
OPERABLE UNIT 2
MCAS CHERRY POINT, NORTH CAROLINA
PAGE 6 OF 7
Chemical
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Thallium
Chronlc/Subchronlc RID (mg/kg/day)1'1
Inhalation
1.43E-5
(UF=1000; CNS)
8.57E-5"6'
(UF=30; CNS)
Oral
3E-1(9)
(none)
2.4E-2
(UF=3; CNS)
3E-4116'
(UF=1000; kidney)
2E-2
(UF=300; body
weight)
5E-3
(UF=3; argyria)
7E_5(22.26)
(UF=3000; liver,
blood, hair)
Dermal
6E-2
4.6E-3
6E-5
8E-4
1E-3
1.4E-5
CSF(kg-day/mg)(:1)
Inhalation
Oral
Dermal
Gl'4'
Absorption
Factor i
0.2015'
0.20(5)
0.20(5)
0.40(23)
0.20(5)
0.20(6)
Weight of
Evidence
B2
D
D
D
1 All values from USEPA, May 1996 (IRIS) unless otherwise noted
2 RID - Reference Dose
3 CSF - Cancer Slope Factor
4 Gl - Gastrointestinal
5 USEPA Region IV default value (November 1995)
6 Assumed equal to 1,4-dichlorobenzene
7 ATSDR, October 1991a
8 ATSDR. October 1991b
9 ECAO provisional value
10 ATSDR. October 1989a
11 ATSDR. October 1991C
12 ATSDR. October 1991d
13 ATSDR. October 1991e
14 ATSDR. January 1988
i|
si
to en
-------
TABLE 8-5
DOSE-RESPONSE PARAMETERS FOR CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN01
OPERABLE UNIT 2
MCAS CHERRY POINT, NORTH CAROLINA
PAGE 7 OF 7
15 ATSDR, October 19911
16 HEAST FY-1995 (USEPA. May 1995) '
17 ATSDR, October 1991g
18 ATSDR. October 1991h
19 ATSDR. October 19911
20 ATSDR, October 1991]
21 ATSDR, October 1989b
22 Thallic oxide; HEAST FY-1990 (USEPA, January 1990)
24 USEPA Region IV provisional value identified in comments received on Rl report. Uncertainty factor and target organs not available.
25 Provisional value listed in USEPA Region IV, November 1995.
26 Withdrawn from IRIS.
27 Surrogate value provided.
28 Other USEPA document referenced in USEPA Region III, May 1996.
29 Based on USEPA Region IV Toxicity Equivalence Factors (TEFs; USEPA Region IV, November 1995).
30 ATSDR 1992.
to
S*
S3
§5)
** 6
«g z
2> ai
-------
REVISION 5
MARCH 1999
Risk = GDI x CSF
Where:
Risk = a unitless probability (e.g., 2E-6) of an individual developing cancer
GDI = chronic daijy intake averaged over 70 years (mg/kg-day)
CSF = cancer slope factor, expressed as (mg/kg-day)'1
These risks are probabilities that are generally expressed in scientific notation (e.g., 1E-6). An excess
lifetime cancer risk of 1 E-6 indicates that, as a reasonable maximum estimate, an individual has a one in
one million chance of developing cancer as a result of site-related exposure to a carcinogen over a 70-
year lifetime under the specific exposure conditions at OU2.
The potential for noncarcinogenic effects is evaluated by comparing an exposure level over a specified time
period (e.g., lifetime) with a reference dose derived for a similar exposure period. The ratio of exposure to
toxic'rty is called a Hazard Quotient (HQ). By adding the HQs for all COPCs that affect the same target
organ (e.g, liver) within a medium or across all media to which a given population may be reasonably
exposed, the Hazard Index (HI) can be generated.
The HQ is calculated as follows:
Non-cancer HQ = CDI/RfD
Where:
GDI = chronic daily intake
RfD = reference dose
GDI and RfD are expressed in the same units and represent the same exposure period (i.e., chronic,
subchronic, or short-term).
To evaluate cancer risks, a risk level lower than 1 E-6 is considered a minimal or de minimis risk. The risk
range of 1E-6 to 1E-4 is an acceptable risk range and would not be expected to require a response
action. A risk level greater than 1E-4 would be evaluated further, and remedial action to decrease the
estimated risk is considered.
119504/P
8-22
CTO 0239
-------
REVISIONS
MARCH 1999
An HI of less than unity (1.0) indicates the exposures are not expected to cause adverse health effects.
An HI greater than 1.0 requires further evaluation. For example, although HQs of the several chemicals
present are added and exceed 1.0, further evaluation may show that their toxicities are not additive
because each chemical affects different target organs. When total effects are evaluated on an effect and
target organ basis, the HI of the separate chemicals may be at acceptable concentrations.
Carcinogenic risks and noncarcinogenic hazards were evaluated for potential exposures to media-specific
COPCs in surface soil, subsurface soil, surface water, sediment, leachate seeps, and ground water (both
surficial aquifer and Yorktown aquifer). Receptor populations that may potentially be exposed are
maintenance workers, construction workers, adolescent trespassers, adult recreational users, full-time
employees, and adult and child residents who could, theoretically, use groundwater for a household water
source. Risks and hazards estimated for the identified receptors at OU2 are provided in Table 8-6.
The risks shown in Table 8-6 indicate that even under the conservative assumptions made during the risk
assessment (e.g., frequent use of the maximum detected contaminant concentration as the exposure
concentration), risks are within the target risk range except for the adult resident (Hazard Index and
cancer risk) and child resident (Hazard Index and cancer risk).
The majority of the cancer risk to future residents is from ingestion of shallow groundwater (surficial
aquifer) containing arsenic and vinyl chloride. For noncarcinogenic risks, individual exposure routes with
His greater than 1 were ingestion of soil containing arsenic by a child resident and ingestion of
groundwater containing arsenic and iron by adults and children. The exposure scenario for soil was
based on the maximum detected concentration of arsenic; therefore, the HI is an extremely conservative
value.
For the sake of completeness, a 30-year residential exposure scenario was also evaluated. This scenario
is highly unlikely to occur as long as the property remains in military use (i.e., a 30-year residence is
extremely conservative). Incremental cancer risks associated with exposure to soil for this receptor
assume 6 years of exposure as a small child and an additional 24 years of exposure as an older child and
adult. The incremental cancer risk for the adult receptor under this exposure scenario is 2.5E-3 (which
exceeds the USEPA target risk range). Arsenic and vinyl chloride are the major risk drivers for
groundwater, and arsenic drives the soil risks.
119504/P 8-23 CT00239
-------
REVISION 5
MARCH 1999
TABLE 8-6
SUMMARY OF CUMULATIVE RISKS
OPERABLE UNIT 2
MCAS CHERRY POINT, NORTH CAROLINA
Receptor
Maintenance Worker
Construction Worker
Adolescent
Trespasser
Adult Recreational
User
Full-Time Employee
Adult Resident
(6 year)
. Child/Adult Resident
(30 year)(2)
Child Resident
Exposure Pathway
Direct contact with surface soil.
Direct contact with soil and
groundwater; inhalation of fugitive
dust.
Direct contact with surface soil and
leachate seeps.
Direct contact with Slocum Creek
water and sediment.
Direct contact with Turkey Gut water
and sediment.
Direct contact with Slocum creek
water and sediment; ingestion of fish.
Direct contact with surface soil.
Direct contact with groundwater
(surficial aquifer) and surface soil.
Direct contact with groundwater
(Yorktown aquifer) and surface soil.
Direct contact with groundwater
(surficial aquifer) and surface soil.
Direct contact with groundwater
(Yorktown aquifer) and surface soil.
Direct contact with groundwater
(surficial aquifer) and surface soil.
Direct contact with groundwater
(Yorktown aquifer) and surface soil.
Cancer Risk
1.0E-6
7.6E-7
3.9E-7
2.8E-7
1 .3E-7
4.0E-5
6.4E-6
3.8E-4*0'
4.9E-6
2.5E-3*
5.6E-5
9.2E-4*
3.6E-5
Hazard Index
0.016
0.61
0.020
0.016
0.0081
0.044
0.10
22*
0.55
51V22*
2.8*/0.55
51*
2.8*
1 An asterisk indicates an "unacceptable" risk.
2 Includes 6 years as child and 24 years as adult. The 30-yr child/adult cancer risk was obtained
by adding the 6-yr. child cancer risk and the 24-yr. adult cancer risk. His are not additive. This
first HI value is for a 6-yr. child, and the second value is for a 24-yr. adult.
119504/P
8-24
CTO 0239
-------
REVISIONS
MARCH 1999
In addition to the future potential exposure to the surficial aquifer, potential potable use of the Yorktown
aquifer and exposure to surface soil was also considered. Both aquifers would not be used as a source
of potable water at the same time. The only noncarcinogenic risk is from ingestion of soil containing
arsenic by a child resident.
8.1.5 Risk Uncertainty
The intent of this section is to identify important uncertainties and limitations associated with the baseline
human health risk assessment. Exposure scenarios based on USEPA guidance use conservative
assumptions, which means actual risk will not be greater than that estimated and may be lower. For this
reason, estimated cancer risks based on USEPA guidance, such as those presented in this document,
may not represent actual risks to the population.
Because of data set limitations, the 95th percentile may exceed the maximum concentration reported in
some evaluations. This may occur when there are a large number of nondetects and the detection limits
are unusually high due because of interferences in the analyses. In these cases, consistent with USEPA
Region IV guidance, the maximum reported values were used as exposure point concentrations'to
estimate human exposures. Although the use of maximum values is generally recognized as an
appropriate screening approach, it should be recognized that this procedure may overestimate actual
exposure.
This is also the case for use of detection limits as nondetect values when a chemical has been reported
as not detected in most of the samples collected and analyzed. Since some nondetects may be zero,
assuming that a concentration equal to half the detection limit is present instead of zero may overestimate
actual chemical concentrations on site. This is particularly true if interfering chemicals affect the
analyses, and the nondetect value is elevated.
Environmental sampling and analysis can contain significant errors and artifacts. At OU2, data used in
the risk assessment are believed to adequately and accurately represent current conditions.
When long-term health effects are evaluated, it is assumed that chemical concentrations are constant for
the exposure period being evaluated. This may not be accurate since reported chemical concentrations
are changing because of various degradation processes (e.g., dilution by uncontaminated water, sorption,
dispersion of contaminated groundwater, volatilization, biodegradation, chemical degradation,
photodegradation). Use of steady-state conditions will likely overestimate exposure.
Exposures to vapors at the site, fugitive dust (except for future construction workers), dermal contact with
groundwater from household uses other than bathing (e.g., laundry, washing dishes), and other possible
119504/P 8-25 CTO0239
-------
REVISION 5
MARCH 1999
exposures to site media were not evaluated. Although these and other exposures could occur, the
magnitudes of these exposures are expected to be much lower than the exposures evaluated and would
not quantitatively affect the total health impact from the site.
Since groundwater from the surficial and Yorktown aquifers in the surrounding area is not used for
drinking water or other household water needs, exposures related to drinking and bathing are theoretical
and relate to potential future exposures. This is unlikely because the Air Station has a separate potable
water distribution system.
In hazard and risk evaluations, risks or hazards presented by several chemicals reported for the same
exposure have been added to provide a sum of estimated total risk or hazard for that particular exposure.
This is a conservative assumption and is scientifically accurate only in those instances where health
effects of individual chemicals are directed at the same effect and same target organ. Effects may be
additive, synergistic, or antagonistic. Since a large number of chemicals have no similarity as to their
noncarcinogenic action or target of their action, this approach may overestimate risk.
Risks calculated from slope factors are derived using a linearized multistage procedure; therefore, they
are likely to be conservative upper-bound estimates. Actual risks may be much lower.
Toxicity information is not available for all COPCs. Because RfDs, CSFs, and other toxicity criteria are
not available for all identified chemicals, it is impossible to qualitatively or quantitatively assess the risks
associated with exposure to some substances. Some compounds were not selected as COPCs based
on screening values for similar compounds. There is not toxicity information for lead.
Some uncertainty is associated with the evaluation of carcinogenic effects from oral exposure to arsenic,
and there is no published oral CSF. The uncertainties associated with the ingestion of arsenic are high,
such that estimated risks may be overestimated by as much as an order of magnitude.
8.1.6 Human Health Risk Summary
Risk and hazards associated with exposure to all environmental media (and combinations) were within
the USEPA generally acceptable ranges for the current maintenance worker, adolescent trespasser, and
adult recreational user and the future construction worker and full-time employee.
For the unlikely hypothetical future site resident, exposure media were shown to exceed acceptable
residential goals. These media include surface soil and surficial aquifer groundwater.
119504/P 8-26 CTO0239
-------
REVISION 5
MARCH 1999
For future residents, several chefhicals have individual cancer risks greater than 1E-6 and/or an HI
greater than 0.1, making them chemicals of concern for groundwater. These analytes are as follows:
benzene, chlorobenzene, 1,1-dichlorothene, vinyl chloride, bis(2-chloroethyl)ether, 1,4-dichlorobenzene,
4-methylphenol, nitrobenzene, heptachlor epoxide, arsenic, cadmium, iron, and manganese.
Exposure to surface soil at OU2 results in unacceptable risks (His) only for future child residents. There
are however, several chemicals that contributed individual ICRs greater than 1E-6 or His greater than 0.1
for residential or full-time employee exposures, making them chemicals of concern for soil. These
chemicals are as follows: benzo(a)pyrene, antimony, arsenic, beryllium, chromium, iron, and thallium.
USEPA Region IV requires, as part of the risk assessment, an estimation of Remedial Goal Options
(RGOs) for three risk range levels for any receptor for which an individual chemical has an ICR greater
than 1 E-6 or an HI greater than 0.1.
Tables 8-7 and 8-8 present RGOs for groundwater for the 6-year resident and 30-year resident
exposures, respectively. These tables also contain MCLs and state groundwater standards.
Tables 8-9, 8-10, and 8-11 present RGOs for surface soil for the 6-year resident, 30-year resident, and
full-time employee exposures.
In addition to the COCs based on risk (i.e., protection of human health), many groundwater analytes
exceed state standards and/or MCLs and several soil analytes exceed concentrations based on
protection of groundwater, also making them COCs. Table 8-12 presents the chemicals that exceed state
groundwater standards and/or MCLs. Table 8-13 presents soil contaminants that exceed RGOs based
on protection of groundwater.
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from OU2. if not addressed by implementing the
remedy selectedJn this ROD, may present a potential threat to public health, welfare, or the environment.
8.2 ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT
There are no critical habitats or endangered species or habitats that are affected by site contamination.
Several wetland areas were identified at OU2 during a field survey conducted in April 1995. The
119504/P . 8-27
CTO 0239
-------
CO
tn
TABLE 8-7
REMEDIAL GOAL OPTIONS FOR GROUNDWATER - FUTURE RESIDENT (6-YEAR)
OPERABLE UNIT 2
MCAS CHERRY POINT, NORTH CAROLINA
Analyte
Benzene
Chlorobenzene
1,1-Dichloroethene
Vinyl chloride
Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether
1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene
4-Methylphenol
Nitrobenzene
Heptachlor epoxide
Arsenic
Cadmium
Iron
Manganese
RGOs for Target Cancer Risk (ug/L)
1E-6
3.8
NA(2)
0.25
0.086
0.16
6.9
NA
NA
0.019
0.1
NA
NA
NA
1E-5
38
NA
2.5
0.86
1.6
69
NA
NA
0.19
1.0
NA
NA
NA
1E-4
380
NA
25
8.6
16
690
NA
NA
1.9
10
NA
NA
NA
RGOs for Target Hazard Quotient (pg/L)
0.1
4.4
26
J't
NA
NA
3,400
7.6
0.77
-
0.47
0.74
460
7.8
1
44
260
-
NA
NA
34,000
76
7.7
-
4.7
7.4
4,600
78
10
440
2,600
-
NA
NA
340,000
760
77
-
47
74
46,000
780
NC Class GA
Standards
(M9/L)
'1.0
50
7.0
0.015
DL(5>
75
DL
DL
0.004
50
5.0
300
50
Federal
MCL
1 (H9/L)
5.0
100
7.0
2.0
NS®
75
NS
NS
0.2
50
5.0
300(4)
50<4>
co
1 Concentration of contaminant at site results in a Hazard Index less than 0.1.
2 NA - Not applicable. No cancer slope factor or Reference Dose for this chemical.
3 NS - No standard.
4 Secondary MCL
5 DL - Detection Limit. Any detection is considered an exceedance of state standard.
-------
TABLE 8-8
REMEDIAL GOAL OPTIONS FOR GROUNDWATER - FUTURE RESIDENT (30-YEAR)
OPERABLE UNIT 2
MCAS CHERRY POINT, NORTH CAROLINA
Analyte
Benzene
Chlorobenzene
1,1-Dichloroethene
Vinyl chloride
Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
4-Methylphenol
Nitrobenzene
Heptachlor epoxide
Arsenic
Cadmium
Iron
Manganese
RGOs for Target Cancer Risk (^g/L)
1E-6
1.6
NA(2)
0.097
0.032
0.059
2.5
NA
NA
0.0069
0.038
NA
NA
NA
1E-5
16
NA
0.97
0.32
0.59
25
NA
NA
0.069
0.38
NA
NA
NA
1E-4
160
NA
9.7
3.2
5.9
250
NA
NA
0.69
3.8
NA
NA
NA
RGOs for Target Hazard Quotient (^g/L)
0.1
3.6
18
.(1)
NA
NA
610
5.3
0.54
0.014
0.33
0.52
330
5.4
1
36
180
-
NA
NA
6,100
53
5.4
0.14
3.3
5.2
3,300
54
10
360
1,800
-
NA
NA
61,000
530
54
1.4
33
52
33,000
540
NC Class GA
Standards
(ng/L)
1.0
50
7.0
0.015
DL(5>
75
DL
DL
0.004
50
5.0
300
50
Federal
MCL
(H9/L)
5.0
100
7.0
2.0
NS(3)
75
NS
NS
0.2
50
5.0
300(4>
sow
03
1 Concentration of contaminant at site results in a Hazard Index less than 0.1.
2 NA - Not applicable. No cancer slope factor or Reference Dose for this chemical.
3 NS - No standard.
4 Secondary MCL.
5 DL - Detection Limit. Any detection is considered an exceedance of state standard.
o
-------
REVISION 5
MARCH 1999
TABLE 8-9
REMEDIAL GOAL OPTIONS FOR SOIL - FUTURE RESIDENT (6-YEAR)
OPERABLE UNIT 2
MCAS CHERRY POINT, NORTH CAROLINA
Analyte
Benzo{a)pyrene
Antimony
Arsenic
Beryllium
Chromium (IV)
Iron
Thallium
RGOs for Target Cancer Risk
(mg/kg)
1E-6
0.12
NA
0.51
0.072
NA
NA
NA
1E-5
1.2
NA
5.1
0.72
NA
NA
NA
1E-4
12
NA
51
7.2
NA
NA
NA
RGOs for Target Hazard
Quotient (mg/kg)
0.1
NA(1)
2.9
2.3
13.3
13.3
2,140
0.5
1
NA
29
23
133
133
21,400
5.0
10
NA
290
230
1,330
1,330
214,000
50
NA - Not applicable. No cancer slope factor or Reference Dose for this chemical.
119504/P
8-30
CTO 0239
-------
1
REVISION 5
MARCH 1999
TABLE 8-10
REMEDIAL GOAL OPTIONS FOR SOIL - FUTURE RESIDENT (30-YEAR)
OPERABLE UNIT 2
MCAS CHERRY POINT, NORTH CAROLINA
Analyte
Benzo(a)pyrene
Antimony
Arsenic
Beryllium
Chromium (VI)
Iron
Thallium
RGOs for Target Cancer Risk
(mg/kg)
1E-6
0.088
NA
0.35
0.038
NA
NA
NA
1E-5
0.88
NA
3.5
0.38
NA
NA
NA
1E-4
8.8
NA
35
3.8
NA
NA
NA
RGOs for Target Hazard Quotient
(mg/kg)
0.1
NA(1)
2.5
2.1
11
12
1,900
0.45
1
NA
25
21
110
120
19,000
4.5
10
NA
250
210
1,100
1,200
190,000
45
NA - Not applicable. No cancer slope factor or Reference Dose for this chemical.
119504/P
8-31
CTO 0239
-------
REVISION 5
MARCH 1999
TABLE 8-11
REMEDIAL GOAL OPTIONS FOR SOIL - FUTURE FULL-TIME EMPLOYEE
OPERABLE UNIT 2
MCAS CHERRY POINT, NORTH CAROLINA
Analyte
Benzo{a)pyrene
Antimony
Arsenic
Beryllium
Chromium (VI)
Iron
Thallium
RGOs for Target Cancer Risk
(mg/kg)
1E-6
J1>
NA
1.2
0.18
NA
NA
NA
1E-5
-
NA
12
1.8
NA
NA
NA
1E-4
-
NA
120
18
NA
NA
NA
RGOs for Target Hazard Quotient
(mg/kg)
0.1
NA<2)
-
-
140
140
46,600
-
1
NA
-
-
1,400
1,400
466,000
.
10
NA
-
-
14,000
14,000
4,660,000
-
1 Concentration of contaminant at site results in a cancer risk less than 1E-6 or Hazard Index less
than 0.1.
2 NA - Not applicable. No cancer slope factor or Reference Dose for this chemical.
119504/P
8-32
CTO 0239
-------
REVISION 5
MARCH 1999
TABLE 8-12
GROUNDWATER COCs THAT EXCEED MCLs OR STATE GROUNDWATER STANDARDS
OPERABLE UNIT 2
MCAS CHERRY POINT, NORTH CAROLINA
Chemical of Concern
Benzene
Chlorobenzene
Chloroform
1,2-Dichloroethane
cis-1 ,2-Dichloroethene
1 ,2-Dichloropropane
Ethylbenzene
2-Hexanone
4-Methyl-2-pentanone
Tetrachloroethene
Trichloroethene
Vinyl chloride
Bis(2-ch!oroethyl)ether
Bis(2-ethylhexy))phthalate
2,4-Dimethylphenol
2-Methylnaphthalene
2-Methylphenol
4-Methylphenol
Naphthalene
Nitrobenzene
Aldrin
alpha-BHC
4,4'-DDE
4,4'-DDT
Endosulfan I
Endosulfan II -
Endrin aldehyde
Heptachlor epoxide
Arsenic
Cadmium
Iron
Manganese
NC Class GA Standard (pg/L)
1
50
0.19
0.38
70
0.56
29
DL<1)
DL
0.7
2.8
0.015
DL
3
DL
DL
DL
DL
21
DL
DL
DL
DL
DL
DL
DL
DL
0.004
50
5
300
50
Federal MCL (pg/L)
5
100
100
5
70
5
700
NS(2)
NS
5
5
2
NS
6
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
0.2
50
5
300(3)
50(3)
1 DL - Detection limit. Any detection is considered an exceedance of state standard.
2 NS - No standard.
3 Secondary MCL.
119504/P
8-33
CTO 0239
-------
REVISION 5
MARCH 1999
TABLE &-13
REMEDIAL OPTIONS FOR SOIL - PROTECTION OF GROUNDWATER
OPERABLE UNIT 2
MCAS CHERRY POINT, NORTH CAROLINA
Chemical of Concern
NC S-3 Target Concentration
Organics (jig/kg)
Benzene
2-Butanone
Chlorobenzene
Chloroform
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
cis-1 ,2-Dichloroethene
trans-1 ,2-Dichloroethene
trans-1 ,3-Dichloropropene
Ethylbenzene
Methylene chloride
Tetrachloroethehe
Toluene
1 ,1 ,1 -Trichloroethane
Trichloroethene
Vinyl chloride
2,4-Dimethylphenol
2-Methylnaphthalene
4-Methylphenol
Naphthalene
Dieldrin
Heptachlor epoxide
5.6
687
432
0.96
1.7
350
400
1.2
343
21.9
5.9
8,111
1,484
20.7
0.09
1,194
3,235
205
925
1.8
6.7
Metals (mg/kg)
Cadmium
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Nickel
Silver
2.7
151
270
65.2
56.4
0.22
119504/P
8-34
CTO 0239
-------
REVISION 5
MARCH 1999
wetlands are adjacent to Slocum Creek and Turkey Gut and are classified as Coastal Plain Small Stream
Swamp areas..
The maximum surface water and sediment exposure point concentrations and estimated dose received
by receptors were compared to benchmark values that are protective of ecological receptors. The
maximum and mean (i.e., average of positive detections) soil exposure point concentrations and estimate
dose received by receptors were also compared to benchmark values that are protective of ecological
receptors. Contaminants exceeding these values were regarded as ecological COPCs, and their
toxicological properties were summarized. The relative potential risks that each of these COPCs might pose
to ecological receptors inhabiting the area near OU2 were then evaluated in the form of Hazard Quotients.
Only a few COPCs were identified in Turkey Gut surface waters, and their HQs were relatively low. The
organic COPCs were only detected at one location. The inorganic COPCs were also detected above
benchmark values in the most upstream sample. Potential risks to aquatic receptors from surface water
contamination alone are expected to be minimal. In Turkey Gut sediments, only a few COPCs were
identified, and related HQs were relatively low. Most of the benchmark values were only exceeded at one
location. The concentrations at these locations were below or close to ER-M levels. The pesticide
COPCs identified may be a concern because of their tendency to persist and bioaccumulate. However,
these pesticides are no longer in use and were not COPCs in OU2 site soil. In addition, pesticides were
also detected in background soil samples collected at the Air Station (not only at OU2). Some of the
detections do not appear to be solely related to activities at OU2.
Only two COPCs (4,4'-DDD and copper) were identified in Slocum Creek surface water. The COPCs
were detected at similar concentrations in all samples collected from Slocum Creek, including the location
upstream of OU2. Therefore, these detections do not appear to be solely related to activities at OU2, and
OU2 may not be only contributor of these COPCs. Only a few COPCs were identified in Slocum Creek
sediment, and the concentrations that exceeded benchmark values were only detected at one location.
The exceedances of benchmarks are considered to be isolated occurrences and are not believed to be a
significant concern. Slocum Creek has been designated as a separate operable unit that will be
evaluated at a later date.
Based on maximum contaminant concentrations, the benchmark values for the soil COPCs were only
exceeded at six sample locations, suggesting a lack of widespread contamination. In addition, some of
the benchmark values were based on human health or agricultural scenarios. Based on average
concentrations and ecologically-based benchmarks, Aroclor-1260 was the only COPC. This chemical was
only detected in one surface soil sample. As a result, risks to terrestrial receptors from contamination in
OU2 soils appear to be insignificant.
119504/P 8-35 CT00239
-------
REVISION 5
MARCH 1999
The results of the ecological assessment indicate that some contaminants are present in concentrations
that result in HQs indicative of potential risk. However, risks impled by these exceedances are mitigated
by several factors.
• Only a few COPCs were identified at OU2.
• HQs for surface water, sediment, and soil COPCs based on comparisons with benchmark toxicity
values were relative low.
• Detections of any of the COPCs were isolated or may not be entirely site related. Exceedances of
benchmark toxicity values in Slocum Creek and Turkey Gut were limited to single locations or
exceedances occurred at locations upstream of OU2. Based on maximum concentrations, soil
benchmark toxicity values were only exceeded at six widely spaced locations. Based on average
concentrations, the benchmark values were only exceeded at one location.
• Most of the contaminants posing potential risk from exposure to Turkey Gut sediment were also
detected in background soil samples collected at the Air Station (not only at OU2).
• Risk numbers generated from the food chain models were based on scattered detections of
chemicals. The models conservatively assumed that the receptors would be exposed to the
detections their entire life. In addition, the risk values were mainly driven by uncertainty in toxicity
data, rather than actual risk.
119504/P 8-36 CT00239
-------
REVISION 5
MARCH 1999
9.0 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES
The OU2 FS presentslhe results of the detailed analysis of four potential remedial action alternatives for
groundwater and six potential remedial action alternatives for soil. These alternatives have been
developed to provide a range of remedial actions for the site. This section of the ROD summarizes the
alternatives that are described in the FS.
The following alternatives have been developed for groundwater at OU2.
• Groundwater Alternative 1 - No Action.
• Groundwater Alternative 2 - Natural Attenuation and Institutional Controls.
• Groundwater Alternative 3 - Groundwater Extraction; Treatment and Discharge to Slocum Creek or
Pretreatment and Discharge to Sewage Treatment Plant (STP); Institutional Controls.
• Groundwater Alternative 4 - Air Sparging/Soil Vapor Extraction; Institutional Controls.
The following alternatives have been developed for soil and buried waste at OU2:
• Soil Alternative 1 - No Action
• Soil Alternative 2 - Institutional Controls
• Soil Alternative 3 - Soil Vapor Extraction; Institutional Controls
• Soil Alternative 4 - Excavation, Consolidation, and Containment; Institutional Controls
• Soil Alternative 5 - Excavation, Treatment, and Onsite Disposal; Institutional Controls
• Soil Alternative 6 - Excavation and Offsite Disposal; Institutional Controls
The remedial action alternatives for soil and groundwater were developed to address contaminated
groundwater and soil and various areas of concerns (or soil hot spots) within OU2. The areas of concern
were identified by comparing media-specific contaminant concentrations detected at OU2 to media-
specific remediation goals developed in the FS. The areas of concern and soil hot spots for OU2 include:
• Contaminated soil above risk-based levels
9 Contaminated soil above performance standards based on protection of groundwater (i.e., S-3 target
concentration RGOs)
119504/P 9-1
CTO 0239
-------
REVISION 5
MARCH 1999
• Contaminated groundwater above performance standards (i.e., MCLs and state groundwater
standards)
Figures 6-1 and 6-2 showed the locations where organic and inorganic constituents, respectively, in soil
exceed RGOs based on protection of groundwater. Figure 6-3 showed the surficial aquifer well locations
where contaminant concentrations exceed MCLs or state groundwater standards. These standards are
exceeded in most of the surficial aquifer beneath OU2. Only three locations had contaminant
concentrations that resulted in an HI above 1.0 for the future hypothetical residential scenario; however,
these are not presented on a separate map because future residential use of OU2 is extremely unlikely.
Table 9-1 summarizes the remedial objectives for soil and groundwater. A concise description of how
each alternative will address contamination at OU2 as well as estimated cost follows.
9.1 GROUNDWATER ALTERNATIVES
9.1.1 Groundwater Alternative 1 - No Action
The No Action Alternative is required under CERCLA to establish a baseline for comparison. Under this
alternative, no actions will be performed to contain, remove, or treat groundwater contaminated above
performance standards. There are no capital or annual operation and maintenance (O&M) costs
associated with this alternative.
9.1.2 Groundwater Alternative 2 - Natural Attenuation and Institutional Controls
Under Groundwater Alternative 2, institutional controls will be imposed to eliminate or reduce pathways of
exposure to contaminants at OU2. In addition a monitoring program will be developed to confirm the
effectiveness of natural attenuation.
Natural attenuation refers to inherent processes that affect the rate of migration and concentration of
chemicals in groundwater. The most important processes are biodegradation, advection, hydrodynamic
dispersion, dilution from recharge, sorption.and volatilization.
The institutional controls would involve groundwater and aquifer use restrictions. All groundwater
beneath OU2 would be restricted from any use, other than monitoring purposes. No wells would be
installed, except for monitoring wells constructed pursuant to 15A NCAC 2C.0108 as determined by
NCDENR.
119504/P
g.2 CTO 0239
-------
REVISION 5
MARCH 1999
TABLE 9-1
REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVES
OPERABLE UNIT 2
MCAS CHERRY POINT, NORTH CAROLINA
Objective
Protect groundwater
from leachable organics
Protect groundwater
from leachable
inorganics
Groundwater (surficial
aquifer)
Location
Area 1 (locations B1, B2, B3/B4,
B5/B6, 10B01, 10B02, 10B03,
10B04, 10SISB1, 10SISB3, and
10SISB4)
Area 2 (locations 10SB-E63 and
10TP15)
Area 3A (location 10TP18)
Area 3B (locations OU2SB05,
OU2SB07, and OU2SB08)
Area 4 (locations 10SB-B5, 10TP02,
and10TP14
Other areas (isolated locations - see
Figure 6-1)
Isolated areas (see Figure 6-2)
Entire site
Estimated
Volume
6,200 CY
260 CY
560 CY
370 CY
370 CY
930 CY
2,700 CY
220 Million
Gallons
Rationale
Organic compounds
above performance
standards.
Organic compounds
above performance
standards.
Organic compounds
above performance
standards.
Organic compounds
above performance -.
standards.
Organic compounds
above performance
standards.
Organic compounds
above performance
standards.
Metals above
performance
standards.
Organics and metals
above performance
standards.
119504/P
9-3
CTO 0239
-------
REVISION 5
MARCH 1999
Monitoring would consist of sampling of groundwater and surface water and sediment in Slocum Creek
and Turkey Gut. The objectives of monitoring would be to determine the effectiveness of the remedy and
to confirm that contaminants are not migrating off site.
The estimated net present worth of this alternative is $729,000 over 30 years, with no capital cost and an
annual operation and maintenance (O&M) cost of $43,800 per year.
9.1.3 Groundwater Alternative 3 - Groundwater Extraction; Treatment and Discharge to
Slocum Creek or Pretreatment and Discharge to Sewage Treatment Plant (STP):
Institutional Controls
9.1.3.1 Groundwater Alternative 3A - Groundwater Extraction; Treatment and Discharge to
Slocum Creek; Institutional Controls
Groundwater Alternative 3A will involve the same institutional controls and media monitoring as discussed
in Groundwater Alternative 2. In addition, a groundwater extraction and treatment system would be
»
installed to contain the contaminants in the surficial aquifer by restricting lateral and vertical migration of
the groundwater.
The groundwater extraction system would consist of wells installed in the surficial aquifer near the '
boundaries of Slocum Creek and Turkey Gut. Groundwater extraction would continue until the
performance standards for each of the contaminants of concern are achieved.
The treatment of contaminated groundwater will involve physical and chemical treatment. The
groundwater would be treated to levels that attain state surface water standards for Slocum Creek or
NPDES discharge limits that would be established. The treated groundwater would be discharged
directly to Slocum Creek.
The estimated time to implement this alternative is one to two years. Modeling studies have indicated <•»
that it would take approximately 60 years to attain most-performance standards. The estimated net
present worth of this alternative is $10.5 million over 30 years, with a capital cost of $4.3 million and an
annual O&M cost of $395,000 per year. "
9.1.3.2 Alternative 3B - Groundwater Extraction; Pretreatment and Discharge to STP;
Institutional Controls
would be pretreated and discharged to the STP instead of.Slocum Creek. Pretreatment of extracted
119504/P 9-4 CT00239
-------
REVISIONS
MARCH 1999
groundwater would be less rigorous but would include physical and chemical treatment. The groundwater
would be pretreated to levels that meet STP influent requirements, which are the same as the STP
effluent discharge limits. The pretreated groundwater would be discharged to the STP.
The estimated time to implement this alternative is one to two years. Modeling studies have indicated
that it would take approximately 60 years to attain most performance standards. The estimated net
present worth of this alternative is $5.3 million over 30 years, with a capital cost of $2.2 million and an
annual O&M cost of $198,000 per year.
9-1-4 Groundwater Alternative 4 - Air Sparging/Soil Vapor Extraction; Institutional Controls
Groundwater Alternative 4 would involve the same institutional controls and media monitoring as
discussed in Groundwater Alternative 2. In addition, an in-situ groundwater treatment system would be
installed to remove volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from the surficial aquifer.
Groundwater contaminated with VOCs would be treated in-situ using air sparging/soil vapor extraction
(AS/SVE) technologies. The AS/SVE system would consist of a series of injection wells screened near
the bottom of the aquifer and a series of extraction wells screened in the vadose zone above the water
table. Extracted air, which would contain the VOCs removed from the groundwater, would be treated, if
necessary, prior to discharge to the atmosphere.
The estimated time to implement this alternative is less than one year. Modeling studies have indicated
that it would take approximately 11 years to attain performance standards for VOCs. It would take
approximately 60 years to attain performance standards for most other contaminants. The estimated net
present worth of this alternative is $4.5 million over 30 years, with a capital cost of $2.1 million and an
annual O&M cost of $248,000 per year.
9.2 SOIL ALTERNATIVES
9.2.1 Soil Alternative 1 - No Action
The No Action Alternative is required under CERCLA to establish a baseline for comparison. Under this
alternative, no actions would be taken to contain, remove, or treat soil contaminated above performance
standards. There are no capital or annual O&M costs associated with this alternative.
119504/P 9.5 CT00239
-------
REVISION 5
MARCH 1999
9.2.2 Soil Alternative 2 - Institutional Controls
Under Soil Alternative 2, institutional controls would be imposed to eliminate or reduce pathways of
exposure to soil contaminants and buried waste at OU2. In addition, a monitoring program would be
implemented.
The institutional controls would involve land use restrictions and designation of the area as a restricted or
limited use industrial area. The land use at OU2 would be restricted to industrial uses only. Prohibited
land uses include, but would not be limited to, residences, schools, playgrounds, day cares, and
retirement centers. No intrusive activities (e.g., excavation of ground surface or insertion of objects into
the ground surface, except for monitoring purposes) would be allowed, unless prior approval has been
obtained from USEPA and NCDENR. Site access would be restricted to authorized personnel only. Site
access controls would include the installation of a fence around the polishing ponds, repair and
replacement of existing fencing around the OU2 landfill, and the placement of warning signs along the
fence, Slocum Creek, and Turkey Gut to warn all unauthorized persons to stay out.
Monitoring would consist of sampling of groundwater and surface water and sediment in Slocum Creek
and Turkey Gut. The objectives of monitoring would be to confirm that contaminants are not migrating to
groundwater or surface water.
The estimated net present worth of- this alternative is $800,000 over 30 years, with a capital cost of
$70,900 and an annual O&M cost of $43,800 per year.
9.2.3 Soil Alternative 3 - Soil Vapor Extraction; Institutional Controls
Soil Alternative 3 would involve the same institutional controls and media monitoring as discussed in Soil
Alternative 2. In addition, soil containing VOCs at concentrations greater than the performance standards
and that constitute a secondary source area would be treated in-situ using soil vapor extraction (SVE).
The SVE systems at the secondary source areas would use wells screened in the vadose zone for
capture and extraction of VOCs from the soil. Extracted air, contaminated with VOCs, would be treated
using an aboveground off-gas treatment system, if required. Air monitoring and soil sampling would be
implemented to evaluate the effectiveness of treatment.
The estimated time to implement this alternative is less than one year. The estimated net present worth
of this alternative is $1.5 million over 30 years, with a capital cost of $720,000 and an annual O&M cost of
$91,400 per year.
119504/P
9.6 CT00239
-------
REVISION 5
MARCH 1999
9 2.4 Soil Alternative 4 - Excavation. Consolidation, and Containment; Institutional Controls
Soil Alternative 4 includes the same institutional controls and media monitoring as Soil Alternative 2. In
addition, soil contaminated at levels higher than performance standards would be excavated,
consolidated, and capped using a multilayer cap to reduce the migration of soil contaminants due to
infiltration, surface water runoff, and wind erosion.
Soil with concentrations higher than the performance standards for various organic and inorganic
contaminants would be excavated and placed in a consolidation area. To minimize excavation and
transportation requirements, the consolidation area would be the largest single area of contaminated soil.
This area is located approximately 150 feet south of the former sludge application area (Site 44A) in the
vicinity of the former sludge impoundments.
The consolidation area would be covered with a multi-layer cap to contain the contaminated soil to
minimize infiltration and erosion. The consolidation area would be closed as a landfill in accordance with
the requirements of RCRA Subtitle C and ISA. NCAC 13A. The cap would cover an area of
approximately 0.5 acre.
The estimated time to implement this alternative is less than one year. The estimated net present worth
of this alternative is $1.9 million over 30 years, with a capital cost of $1.2 million and an annual O&M cost
of $43,800 per year.
g.2.5 Soil Alternative 5 - Excavation. Treatment and Onsite Disposal: Institutional Controls
Soil Alternative 5 includes the same institutional controls and media monitoring as Soil Alternative 2. In
addition, soil contaminated at levels higher than the performance standards would be excavated and
treated, based on the contaminants of concern, to immobilize and/or remove contaminants. Metals
contamination in the soil would be immobilized using chemical fixation/solidification technologies that bind
the chemical to a solid matrix which is resistant to leaching. Soil contaminated with volatile organics
would be treated using thermal desorption technologies. These technologies use indirect or direct
heating of the soil to thermally desoro or volatilize organic contaminants. Off-gas from the process would
be treated through a secondary treatment system if needed.
Soil that exceeds performance standards for volatile organic contaminants and soil that exceeds
performance standards for inorganic and nonvolatile organic contaminants would require excavation and
treatment. The soil that contains inorganics and nonvolatile organics would be treated using a cement-
based solidification process. The solidified soil would be placed in a consolidation area and capped. The
CTO 0239
119504/P
-------
REVISION 5
MARCH 1999
cap design is the same as for Soil Alternatives 4. Soil that contains volatile organics would be treated
using low-temperature thermal desorption. The thermally treated soil would be used as general backfill.
The estimated time to implement this alternative is one year. The estimated net present worth of this
alternative is $5.4 million over 30 years, with a capital cost of $4.7 million and an annual O&M cost of
$43,800 per year.
9.2.6 Soil Alternative 6 - Excavation and Offsite Disposal; Institutional Controls
Soil Alternative 6 includes the same institutional controls and media monitoring as Soil Alternative 2. In
addition, soil contaminated at levels higher than the performance standards would be excavated and
disposed off site.
Soil contaminated at levels higher than the performance standards would be excavated and hauled to an
offsite landfill. Based on previous testing, the contaminated soil would not be classified as a RCRA
hazardous waste.- Clean fill would be placed and compacted in the excavated areas. Topsoil would be
placed on top of the compacted fill, and the areas would be revegetated.
The estimated time to implement this alternative is one year. The estimated net present worth of this
alternative is $3.5 million over 30 years, with a capital cost of $2.8 million and an annual O&M cost of
$43,800 per year.
9.3 APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS (ARARS)
The remedial action for OU2, under CERCLA Section 121(d), must comply with Federal and state
environmental laws that are either applicable or relevant and appropriate. Applicable requirements are
those standards, criteria, or limitations promulgated under Federal or state law that specifically address a
hazardous substance, pollutant, contaminant, remedial action, location, or other circumstance at a
CERCLA site. Relevant and appropriate requirements are those that, while not applicable, still address
problems or situations sufficiently similar to those encountered on site that their use is well-suited to a
particular site. To-be-considered (TBC) criteria are nonpromulgated advisories and guidance that are not
legally binding, but should be considered in determining the necessary level of cleanup to protect health
or the environment. While TBCs do not have the status of ARARs, the approach to determining whether
a remedial action is protective of human health and the environment involves considering TBCs along
with ARARs.
The affected groundwater in the aquifers beneath OU2 has been classified by North Carolina and USEPA
and Class GA and Class 2A, a potential source of drinking water, respectively. It is the policy of North
119504/P 9-8 CTO0239
-------
REVISIONS
MARCH 1999
Carolina and USEPA that groundwater resources be protected and restored to their beneficial uses.
North Carolina groundwater classification is defined in 15A NCAC 2L. A complete definition of the
USEPA groundwater classification is provided in the Guidelines for Groundwater Classification under the
EPA Groundwater Protection Strategy. Final Draft, December 1986.
The site has sources of groundwater contamination that must be addressed in order to utilize Monitored
Natural Attenuation as the selected remedy for groundwater. Four hot spots have been identified as
potential sources of groundwater contamination. The site itself is a landfill; therefore, all possible sources
cannot be identified. However, the natural attenuation monitoring plan will serve as a control for any other
potential releases from the site. If other sources are identified during the course of the monitored natural
attenuation, they will be addressed in a manner that satisfies the State ARAB, 15A NCAC 2L0106{f)(3) and
(0(4).
Contaminant-specific ARARs are health- or risk-based numerical values or methodologies that, when
applied to site-specific conditions, result in the establishment of numerical values. These values establish
the acceptable amount or concentration of a chemical that may be found in, or discharged to, the ambient
environment. Examples of chemical-specific ARARs include the MCLs specified under the Safe Drinking
Water Act and North Carolina groundwater standards. Since there are usually numerous chemicals of
concern for any remedial site, various numerical quantity requirements can be ARARs. Table 9-2 lists
potential contaminant-specific ARARs for OU2.
Location-specific ARARs are restrictions placed on the concentration of hazardous substances or the
conduct of activities solely because they are in specific locations. Examples of location-specific ARARs
include state and Federal requirements to protect floodplains, critical habitats, and wetlands and solid and
hazardous waste facility siting criteria. Table 9-3 summarizes the potential location-specific ARARs for
OU2.
Action-specific ABARs are technology- or activity-based requirements or limitations on actions taken with
respect to hazardous wastes. These requirements are triggered by the particular remedial activities that
are selected to accomplish a remedy. Since there are usually several alternative actions for any remedial
site, very different requirements can be ARARs. Table 9-4 lists potential action-specific ARARs and
TBCs for OU2.
119504/P 9-9 CTO0239
-------
REVISION 5
MARCH 1999
TABLE 9-2
POTENTIAL CONTAMINANT-SPECIFIC ARARs
OPERABLE UNIT 2
MCAS CHERRY POINT, NORTH CAROLINA
Citation
Description
Category
Safe Drinking Water Act
40 CFR 141 - National Primary Drinking
Water Standards
Establishes MCLs which are health-based
standards for public water systems.
Establishes MCLGs set at levels of no known
or anticipated adverse health effects.
R&A
R&A
Clean Water Act
40 CFR 131 - Ambient Water Quality
Standards
Suggested ambient standards for the
protection of human health and aquatic life.
R&A
Clean Air Act
40 CFR 50 - National Primary and
Secondary Ambient Air Quality Standards
Establishes standards for ambient air quality
to protect public health.
R&A -.
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
40 CFR 264, Subpart F - Releases from
Solid Waste Management Units
Establishes groundwater protection
standards.
A
State of North Carolina Regulations
15A NCAC 2D .0400 - Ambient Air
Quality Standards
15A NCAC 2B - Surface Water
Classifications and Standards
15A NCAC 2L - Groundwater Quality
Standards
1 5A NCAC 1 8 - Water Quality Standards
(Draft) North Carolina Risk Analysis
Framework
Establishes standards for ambient air quality
to protect human hearth.
Establishes water quality standards for all
waters of the state
Establishes minimum water quality standards
for groundwater.
Establishes MCLs for drinking water.
Establishes cleanup levels for contaminants in
soil and groundwater.
R&A
A
A
R&A
TBC
A - Applicable
R&A - Relevant and appropriate
TBC - To-Be-Considered Criteria
119504/P
9-10
CTO 0239
-------
REVISION 5
MARCH 1999
TABLE 9-3
POTENTIAL LOCATION-SPECIFIC ARARs
OPERABLE UNIT 2
MCAS CHERRY POINT, NORTH CAROLINA
Citation
Executive Order 1 1 990 Wetlands
Protection Policy
Endangered Species Act (16 USC
1 531/40 CFR 502)
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
(16 USC 661)
Fish and Wildlife improvement Act
(16 USC 742a) and Fish and
Wildlife Conservation Act (16 USC
2901)
EPA Groundwater Protection
Strategy
North Carolina Coastal Area
Management Act (1 5A NCAC 7)
Description
Requires Federal agencies to take action to
minimize the destruction, loss, or degradation of
wetlands and to enhance their natural and
beneficial values. Wetlands are located along
Slocum Creek and Turkey Gut.
Requires Federal agencies to ensure that any
action authorized,funded, or carried out by the
agency is not likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of any endangered or threatened species
or adversely affect its critical habitat.
Requires Federal agencies to consult with
appropriate state agency for the modification of any
body of water.
Provide for consideration of the impacts on
wetlands and protected habitats. Wetlands are
located along Slocum Creek and Turkey Gut.
This policy is to protect groundwater for its highest
usage.
Provides guidelines for areas of environmental
concern, including estuarine waters and estuarine
shorelines.
Category
TBC
R&A
R&A
R&A '
TBC
R&A
R&A - Relevant and Appropriate
TBC - To-be-considered Criteria
119504/P
9-11
CTO 0239
-------
TABLE 9-4
POTENTIAL ACTION-SPECIFIC ARARs
OPERABLE UNIT 2
MCAS CHERRY POINT, NORTH CAROLINA
PAGE 1 OF 2
REVISION 5
MARCH 1999
Citation
Description
Category
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
40 CFR 261 - Identification and Listing of
Hazardous Wastes
40 CFR 262 - Standards Applicable to
Generators of Hazardous Waste
40 CFR 263 - Standards Applicable to
Transporters of Hazardous Waste
40 CFR 264 - Standards for Owners and
Operators of Hazardous Waste Treatment,
Storage, and Disposal Facilities
40 CFR 268 - Land Disposal Restrictions
Characterization of hazardous wastes
General. requirements managing hazardous
wastes and manifest requirements.
Requirements for offsite transportation of
hazardous waste.
Establishes minimum national standards that
define acceptable management of
hazardous wastes.
Certain classes of hazardous waste are
restricted from land disposal without
acceptable treatment.
A
A
A
A
A
Clean Water Act
40 CFR 122 - National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System
Governs point source discharges to surface
water.
Other Federal Acts and Requirements
49 CFR 107 and 171-179 - Department of
Transportation Rules for Hazardous
Materials Transport
29 CFR 1910, 1926, and 1904 -
Occupational Safety and Health
Administration
Regulates the offsite transportation of
hazardous materials (including hazardous
and solid waste).
Regulates occupational safety and health
requirements for workers engaged in
remedial activities.
R&A
A
A
State of North Carolina Regulations
15A NCAC 13A -.Solid Waste
Management Regulations
1SA NCAC 13B - Hazardous Waste
Management Regulations
15A NCAC 2B and 2H - Water Pollution
Control Regulations
15A NCAC 2H - Stormwater Runoff
Disposal
15A NCAC 4 - Erosion and Sedimentation
Control
Establishes standards for management of
solid (nonhazardous) waste.
Establishes standard for management of
hazardous waste.
Regulates wastewaters discharged to
surface water.
Regulates pollutants associated with
Stormwater runoff.
Establishes standards to control damage
from land disturbing activities.
A
A
A
A
A
119504/P
9-12
CTO 0239
-------
. TABLE 9-4
POTENTIAL ACTION-SPECIFIC ARARs
OPERABLE UNIT 2
MCAS CHERRY POINT, NORTH CAROLINA
PAGE 2 OF 2
REVJSION 5
MARCH 1999
15A NCAC 2C - Well Construction
Standards
15A NCAC 2L.0106 - Corrective Action for
Groundwater
NCGS 130A - 310.8 - Recordation of
Inactive Hazardous Substance or Waste
Disposal Site
A - Applicable
R&A - Relevant and appropriate
TBC - To-be-considered criteria
Establishes criteria for design and
installation of monitoring wells.
Requirements for corrective action when
jroundwater has been degraded.
Requirements for filing notice of site with
County Register of Deeds Office
119504/P
9-13
CTO 0239
-------
-------
REVISION 5
MARCH 1999
10.0 SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
This section of the ROD provides the basis for determining which alternative provides the best balance
with respect to the statutory balancing criteria in CERCLA Section 121 (42 DSC 9621) and in the NCR (40
CFR 300.430). The major objective of the FS was to develop, screen, and evaluate alternatives for
remediation of groundwater and soil at OU2. A variety of technologies and alternatives were identified as
candidates to remediate the contamination at OU2. These were screened based on their feasibility with
respect to the contaminants present and site characteristics. After the initial screening, the remaining
alternatives/technologies were combined into potential remedial alternative and evaluated in detail. The
remedial alternative was selected from the screening process using the following nine evaluation criteria:
• Overall protection of human health and the environment.
• Compliance with applicable and/or relevant Federal or state public health or environmental standards.
• Long-term effectiveness and permanence.
• Reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume through treatment.
• Short-term effectiveness
• Implementability
• Cost
• USEPA/State acceptance
• Community acceptance
A glossary of the evaluation criteria is provided in Table 10-1.
The NCP categorizes the nine criteria into three groups:
• Threshold Criteria - Overall protection of human health and the environment and compliance with
ARARs (or invoking a waiver) are threshold criteria that must be satisfied in order for an alternative to be
eligible for selection.
• Primary Balancing Criteria - Long-term effectiveness and permanence; reduction of toxicity, mobility, or
volume through treatment; short-term effectiveness; implementability; and cost are primary balancing
factors used to weigh major trade-offs among alternative hazardous waste management strategies.
• Modifying Criteria - USEPA/State and community acceptance are modifying criteria that are formally
taken into account after public comments are received on the proposed plan and incorporated in the
ROD. .
119504/P 10-1 CTO0239
-------
REVISION 5
MARCH 1999
TABLE 10-1
GLOSSARY OF EVALUATION CRITERIA
• Overall Protection of Human Health and Environment - Addresses whether or not an alternative
provides adequate protection and describes how risks posed through each pathway are eliminated,
reduced, or controlled through treatment, engineering controls, or institutional controls.
• Compliance with ARARs - Addresses whether or riot an alternative will meet all of the applicable or
relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs), other criteria to be considered (TBCs), or other
Federal and state environmental statutes and/or provide grounds for invoking a waiver.
• Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence - Refers to the magnitude of residual risk and the ability of
an alternative to maintain reliable protection of human health and the environment over time once
cleanup goals have been met.
• Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume through Treatment - Addresses the anticipated
performance of the treatment options that may be employed in an alternative.
• Short-term Effectiveness - Refers to the speed with which the alternative achieves protection, as well
as the remedy's potential to create adverse impacts on human health and the environment that may
result during the construction and implementation period.
• Implementability - Addresses the technical and administrative feasibility of an alternative, including the
availability of materials and services needed to implement the chosen solution.
• Cost - Includes capital and operation and maintenance costs. For comparative purposes, provides
present-worth values.
* USEPA/State Acceptance - Evaluates the technical and administrative issues and concerns that the
USEPA and the State of North Carolina have regarding each of the alternatives. This criterion is
addressed in the ROD once comments on the RI/FS report and the Proposed Plan have been received.
• Community Acceptance - Evaluates the issues and concerns the public may have regarding each of
the alternatives. This criterion is addressed in the ROD once comments on the RI/FS report and
Proposed Plan have been received.
119504/P
10-2 cjooaag
-------
1
REVISIONS
MARCH 1999
The selected alternative must meet the threshold criteria and comply with all ARARs or be granted a waiver
for compliance with ARARs. Any alternative that does not satisfy both of these requirements is not eligible
for selection. The Primary Balancing Criteria are the technical criteria upon which the detailed analysis of
alternatives is primarily based. The final two criteria, known as Modifying Criteria, assess the acceptance of
the alternative. The following analysis summarizes the evaluation of alternatives for remediating
groundwater and soil at OU2 under each criterion. Each groundwater alternative and each soil alternative is
compared for achievement of a specific criterion.
Tables 10-2 and 10-3 present summaries of the detailed analysis for groundwater and soil, respectively.
10.1 THRESHOLD CRITERIA
All alternatives considered for selection must comply with the threshold criteria of overall protection of
human health and the environment and compliance with ARARs.
10.1.1 Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
This criterion evaluates, overall, the degree of protectiveness afforded to human health and the
environment. It assess the overall adequacy of each alternative. For all alternatives, the waste buried in the
landfill would remain and may act as a continuing source of contamination that could not feasibly be
removed.
10.1.1.1 Groundwater Alternatives
Groundwater concentrations exceed state standards and pose an unacceptable risk to human health from
ingestion under a hypothetical future residential exposure scenario.
Groundwater Alternative 1 does not reduce potential risks to human health and the environment; therefore,
this alternative is not protective and will no longer be considered in the discussion.
Groundwater Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would employ institutional controls, with monitoring, to reduce the
unacceptable risks to human health from ingestion of groundwater. The sampling and analysis program
would confirm that contaminants are not migrating from the site, and institutional controls would restrict
land use and groundwater use and limit site access.
Groundwater Alternative 2 relies on natural attenuation processes to reduce organic and inorganic
contaminant concentrations that exceed state groundwater standards and pose an unacceptable risk to
119504/P 10-3 CT00239
-------
REVISION 5
MARCH 1999
TABLE 10-2
SUMMARY OF EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER ALTERNATIVES
OPERABLE UNIT 2
MCAS CHERRY POINT, NORTH CAROLINA
PAGE 1 OF 2
Evaluation Criteria
GroundwaterAlternative!: No
Action
Groundwater Alternative 2: Natural
Attenuation, Institutional Controls, and
Monitoring
Threshold Criteria
Overall Protection of Human Health
and Environment
Compliance with ARARs
Chemical-Specific ARARs
Location-Specific ARARs
Action-Specific ARARs
No reduction in potential risks except
through natural attenuation of the
groundwater.
No active effort to reduce contaminant
levels to below federal or state
ARARs.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Natural attenuation, institutional controls, and
monitoring will reduce potential risks to human
health and the environment under realistic
exposure scenarios.
Would comply with state groundwater
regulations.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Primary Balancing Criteria
Long-Term Effectiveness and
Permanence
Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or
Volume through Treatment
Short-Term Effectiveness
Implementability
Costs:
Capital
O&M _
NPW
Allows risk to remain uncontrolled.
No treatment
Not applicable, no short term
impacts/concerns at site.
Nothing to implement. No monitoring
to show effectiveness.
$0
$0
$0
Monitoring and use restrictions provide
adequate and reliable controls.
No treatment
Minor risks to workers involved in monitoring of
groundwater, surface water, and sediment. No
impacts to community upon implementation of
institutional controls. Less than one year to
implement
Enforcement of institutional controls at military
site is proven to be effective and reliable.
Monitoring will demonstrate effectiveness.
$0
$43,800
$729,000
Modifying Criteria
USEPA/State Acceptance
Not acceptable to USEPA and
NCDENR.
Acceptable to USEPA and NCDENR.
119504/P
10-4
CTO 0239
-------
MARCH 1999
TABLE 10-2
SUMMARY OF EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER ALTERNATIVES
OPERABLE UNIT 2
MCAS CHERRY POINT, NORTH CAROLINA
PAGE 2 OF 2
Evaluation Criteria
Groundwater Alternative 3: Groundwater
Extraction; Treatment and Discharge to
Slocum Creek or Pretreatment and
Discharge to STP; Institutional Controls
Groundwater Alternative 4: Air
Sparging/Soil Vapor Extraction;
Institutional Controls
Threshold Criteria
Overall Protection of Human Health
and Environment
Compliance with ARARs
Chemical-Specific ARARs
Location-Specific ARARs
Action-Specific ARARs
Institutional controls and monitoring provide
some protection of human health and the
environment. Groundwater containment
using extraction wells provides some
additional protection.
Would comply with state groundwater
regulations.
Can be designed to attain ARARs that apply.
Can be designed to attain ARARs that apply.
Institutional controls and monitoring provide
some protection to human health and the
environment. Groundwater treatment using
AS/SVE provides some additional protection.
Would comply with state groundwater
regulations.
Can be designed to attain ARARs that apply.
Can be designed to attain ARARs that apply.
Primary Balancing Criteria
Long-Term Effectiveness and
Permanence
Reduction of Toxicity. Mobility, or
Volume through Treatment
Short-Term Effectiveness
Implementability
Costs:
Capital
O&M
NPW
Removal of contaminated groundwater will
reduce site hazards to potential land users.
Institutional controls will further limit risks.
The volume and toxicity of contaminated
groundwater would be reduced through
active remediation. Residuals created that
require disposal.
Proper system management will limit short
term hazards associated with contaminated
media treatment. Groundwater RGOs
achieved in about 60 years. One to two
years to implement
Alternative consists of common treatment
practices, which are readily
available/implementable. Monitoring will
demonstrate effectiveness.
Slocum Creek STP
$4.340.000 $2,181,000
$395.000 $198.000
$10.466.000 $5.278,000
In-situ treatment of contaminated groundwater
will reduce site hazards to potential land
users. Institutional controls will further limit
risks.
Active remediation will reduce the volume and
toxicity of contaminated groundwater.
Residuals generated that require disposal.
Proper system management will limit short
term hazards associated with contaminated
media treatment and potential exposure to
workers during alternative implementation.
Groundwater RGOs achieved in about 60
years. Two to three years to implement.
Alternative consists of common treatment
practices, which are readily
available/implementable. Monitoring will
demonstrate effectiveness.
$2.089,000
$248,000
$4,514.000
Modifying Criteria
USEPA/State Acceptance
Acceptable to USEPA and NCDENR.
Acceptable to USEPA and NCDENR.
119504/P
10-5
CTO 0239
-------
TABLE 10-3
SUMMARY OF EVALUATION OF SOIL ALTERNATIVES
OPERABLE UNIT 2
MCAS CHERRY POINT, NORTH CAROLINA
PAGE 1 OF 4
Evaluation Criteria
Soil Alternative: No Action
Soil Alternative 2: Institutional Controls and
Monitoring
Soil Alternative 3: Soil Vapor Extraction;
Institutional Controls
Threshold Criteria
Overall Protection of Human Health and
the Environment
No reduction in potential risks.
Institutional controls and monitoring will prevent
unacceptable risks to human health by
eliminating exposure to contaminants.
Institutional controls and monitoring will prevent
unacceptable risks to human health by
eliminating exposure to contaminants.
Treatment of major secondary source areas will
provide protection of groundwater and surface
water.
o
d>
Compliance with ARARs
Chemical-Specific ARARs
Location-Specific ARARs
Action-Specific ARARs
No active effort to reduce contaminant
levels to attain ARARs.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
No active effort to reduce contaminant levels to
attain ARARs.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Would only comply with S-3 target concentrations
for volatile organics.
Can be designed to attain ARARs that apply.
Can be designed to attain ARARs that apply.
Primary Balancing Criteria
Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence
Allows risks to remain uncontrolled.
Monitoring and use restrictions provide
adequate and reliable controls.
Removal of volatile organics from secondary
source areas will reduce risks to the environment.
Monitoring and use restrictions provide adequate
and reliable controls.
Reduction of Toxtelty, Mobility, and Volume
Through Treatment
No treatment.
No treatment.
Toxicity reduced by removal of volatile organics
from major secondary sources areas. No
reduction of mobility or volume. Residuals
created that require disposal.
\3
jj
XI
O
8
-------
TABLE 10-3
SUMMARY OF EVALUATION OF SOIL ALTERNATIVES
OPERABLE UNIT 2
MCAS CHERRY POINT, NORTH CAROLINA
PAGE 2 OF 4
Evaluation Criteria
Short-Term Effectiveness
Implementability
Costs:
Capital
O&M
NPW
, Soil Alternative 1: No Action
Not applicable. No short-term impacts
or concerns.
Nothing to implement. No monitoring
to show effectiveness.
$0
$0
$0
Soil Alternative 2: Institutional Controls and
Monitoring
Minor risks to workers involved in installation of
fencing and warning signs and monitoring of
groundwater, surface water, and sediment. No
impacts to community or environment. Less
than one year to implement.
Alternative is readily implementable.
$70,900
$43.800
$800,000
Soil Alternative 3: Soil Vapor Extraction;
Institutional Controls
Proper system management wil/ limit short-term
hazards associated-with contaminated media
treatment. Minor risks to workers involved in
installation of fencing and warning signs and
monitoring of groundwater, surface water, and
sediment. No impacts to community or
environment. Potential risks from air emissions
can be adequately controlled. SVE systems are
expected to operate for one to two years.
Alternative consists of common treatment
practices, which are readily available and
implementable. Treatability study may be
necessary.
$720,000
$91.400
$1,538,000
Modifying Criteria
USEPA/State Acceptance
Not acceptable to USEPA or
NCDENR.
Not acceptable to USEPA and NCDENR,
Acceptable to USEPA and NCDENR.
-------
TABLE 10-3
SUMMARY OF EVALUATION OF SOIL ALTERNATIVES
OPERABLE UNIT 2
MCAS CHERRY POINT, NORTH CAROLINA
PAGE 3 OF 4
Evaluation Crittrla
Soil Alternative 4: Excavation,
Consolidation, and Containment;
Institutional Controls
Soil Alternative 5: Excavation, Treatment,
and Onslte Disposal; Institutional Controls
Threshold Criteria
Soil Alternative 6: Excavation and Offslte
Disposal; Institutional Controls
o
CD
Overall Protection of Human Health and
the Environment
Compliance with ARARs
Chemical-Specific ARARs
Location-Specific ARARs
Action-Specific ARARs
Institutional controls and monitoring will
reduce potential risks to human health
and the environment. Consolidation
and containment of all secondary
source areas will provide additional
protection of groundwater and surface
water.
Would comply with S-3 target
concentrations for volatile organics and
metals.
Can be designed to attain ARARs that
apply.
Can be designed to attain ARARs that
apply.
Institutional controls and monitoring will reduce
potential risks to human health and the
envitonment. Removal of volatile organics from
and stabilization and capping of all secondary
source areas will provide additional protection of
groundwater and surface water.
Would comply with S-3 target concentrations for
volatile organics and metals.
Can be designed to attain ARARs that apply.
Can be designed to attain ARARs that apply.
Primary Balancing Criteria
Institutional controls and monitoring will reduce
potential risks to human health and the
environment. Removal of all secondary source
areas will provide additional protection of
groundwater and surface water.
Would comply with S-3 target concentrations for
volatile organics and metals.
Can be designed to attain ARARs that apply.
Can be designed to attain ARARs that apply.
Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence
Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, and Volume
Through Treatment
Containment of contaminants from all
secondary source areas will reduce
risks to the environment. Monitoring
and use restrictions provide adequate
and reliable controls.
Mobility reduced by containment of all
contaminants from secondary source
areas beneath a cap. No reduction of
toxteity or volume.
Treatment of contaminants from all secondary
source areas will reduce risks to the
environment. Monitoring and use restrictions
provide adequate and reliable controls.
Toxicity reduced by removal of volatile organics
from all secondary source areas. Residuals
created that require disposal. Mobility reduced
by solidification of secondary source areas
contaminated with non-volatile organics and
metals. Volume would,.increase.
Removal of all secondary source areas will
reduce risks to the environment. Monitoring and
use restrictions provide adequate and reliable
controls.
No treatment.
10 01
-------
TABLE 10-3
SUMMARY OF EVALUATION OF SOIL ALTERNATIVES
OPERABLE UNIT 2
MCAS CHERRY POINT, NORTH CAROLINA
PAGE 4 OF 4
Evaluation Criteria
Short-Term Effectiveness
Implementability
Costs:
Capital
O&M
NPW
Soil Alternative 4: Excavation,
Consolidation, and Containment;
Institutional Controls
Proper system management will limit
short-term hazards associated with
containment of contaminated media.
Minor risks to workers involved in
installation of fence and warning signs
and monitoring of groundwater, surface
water, and sediment. No impacts to
community or environment. Less than
one year to implement.
Alternative consists of common
remediation practices, which are readily
available and implementable.
$1,214,000
$43,800
$1,943,000
Soil Alternative 5: Excavation, Treatment,
and Onslte Disposal; Institutional Controls
Proper system management will limit short-term
hazards associated with contaminated media
treatment. Minor risks to workers involved in
installation of fence and warning signs and
monitoring of groundwater, surface water, and
sediment. No impacts to community or
environment. Less than one year to implement.
Alternative consists of common treatment and
remediation practices, which are readily
available and implementable. Treatability study
may be required.
$4,713,000
$43,800
$5,442,000
Soil Alternative 6: Excavation and Offslte
Disposal; Institutional Controls
i
Proper system management will limit short-term
hazards associated with handling of
contaminated media. Minor risks to workers
involved in installation of fence and warning signs
and monitoring of groundwater, surface water,
and sediment. No impacts to community or ,_. r
environment. Less than one year to implement.
Alternative consists of remediation practices,
which are readily available and implementable.
$2.808,000
$43,800
$3,537,000
Modifying Criteria
USEPA/State Acceptance
Acceptable to USEPA and NCDENR.
Acceptable to USEPA and NCDENR.
Acceptable to USEPA and NCDENR.
Is
ii
-------
REVISION 5
MARCH 1999
human health from ingestion. Groundwater Alternatives 3 and 4 involve active groundwater remediation
systems that provide additional protection of the environment by preventing migration of contaminated
groundwater to surface water, which could result in exceedances of state surface water standards.
Groundwater Alternative 3 would remove organics and inorganics. Groundwater Alternative 4 would
remove mainly volatile organics.
10.1.1.2 Soil Alternatives
Soil concentrations exceed levels based on protection of groundwater and pose an unacceptable risk to
human health under a hypothetical future residential exposure scenario.
Soil Alternative 1 does not reduce potential risks to human health and the environment; therefore, it is not
protective and will no longer be considered in this discussion. Soil Alternative 2 does not reduce potential
risks to the environment because soil concentrations would exceed levels based on protection of
groundwater; therefore, it is not protective and will no longer be considered in this discussion.
•
Soil Alternatives 3,4, 5, and 6 would employ institutional controls, with monitoring, to reduce risks to human
health from exposure to contaminated soil and buried waste material. The sampling and analysis program
would confirm that contaminants are not migrating to the environment. Institutional controls would restrict
tend use and groundwater use and limit site access.
Soil Alternatives 3 and 5 involve soil treatment that protects the environment by removing soil contaminants
that could migrate to groundwater and surface water and cause an exceedance of state standards. Soil
Alternatives 4 and 5 involve containment of untreated or solidified contaminated soil which protects the
environment by reducing the potential for migration of contaminants to groundwater and surface water. Soil
Alternative 6 involves removal and offsite disposal of soil which protects the environment by eliminating the
potential for migration to groundwater and surface water.
10.1.2 Compliance with ARARs
10.1.2.1 Groundwater Alternatives T
Groundwater Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 will meet all of their respective ARARs. Groundwater ARARs include
North Carolina groundwater standards and MCLs that establish chemical-specific limits on certain
contaminants in groundwater and community water systems, respectively.
Groundwater Alternative 2 would eventually comply with ARARs through natural attenuation, otherwise a
waiver of state groundwater standards is needed or the surficial aquifer could be reclassified from drinking ^^
119504/P -10-10 CT00239
-------
REVISION 5
MARCH 1999
water (Class GA) to either restricted designation (Class RS) or water supplies for purposes other than
drinking (Class GC).
Groundwater Alternative 3 would actively remove organics and inorganics. Groundwater Alternative 4
would remove mainly volatile organics; other contaminants would be removed by natural attenuation.
Groundwater Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would be able to meet all of the location- and action-specific ARARs
that apply to them.
For all groundwater alternatives, waste buried in the landfill would continue to be a potential source of
groundwater contamination. The volume of buried waste is substantially greater than the volume of soil "hot
spot" soil that would be addressed under one of the remedial alternatives for soil.
10.1.2.2 Soil Alternatives
Soil Alternatives 3, 4, 5, and 6 would meet all of their respective ARARs. Soil ARARs include North
Carolina S-3 target concentrations (TBC criteria) that establish chemical-specific limits on contaminants
based on protection of groundwater. Soil Alternatives 3, 4, 5, and 6 would be able to meet all location- and
action-specific ARARs, as noted in Table 10-3.
10.2 PRIMARY BALANCING CRITERIA
10.2.1 Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence
The main concerns under this criterion are the reliability of controls over the residual risks associated with
contaminants that remain at the site and the permanence of the effectiveness of each alternative. Although
residual risks associated with environmental media will be minimal under realistic exposure scenarios,
untreated waste (landfill waste) will remain at the site under all alternatives. Until such time that no residual
risk remains at the site, all alternatives will require five-year reviews to ensure that adequate protection of
human health and the environment is maintained.
Groundwater Alternative 3 is the most effective, because all contaminants would be actively removed from
the surficial aquifer. Groundwater Alternative 4 is less effective than Alternative 3, because only volatile
organics would be actively removed. Groundwater Alternative 2 is the least effective, because
contamination would not be actively removed. However, natural attenuation processes would effectively
remove contaminants not removed by active remediation processes. Groundwater Alternatives 2, 3, and 4
provide continued monitoring, aquifer use restrictions, and land use restrictions which are all adequate and
reliable controls. The monitoring programs are used to determine that the alternatives remain effective.
119504/P 10-11 CT00239
-------
REVISION 5
MARCH 1999
Soil Alternative 6 is the most effective, because all contaminants that exceed RGOs would be removed from
the site and be disposed off site. Soil Alternative 5 is less effective than Alternative 6, because only organic
compounds would be removed by treatment; however, the mobility of the remaining contaminants would be
reduced using solidification and capping. Soil Alternative 3 is less effective than Alternative 5 because only
volatile (and some semivolatile) organic compounds would be removed. Soil Alternative 4 is the least
effective, because contaminants would be contained beneath a cap rather than being removed. Soil
Alternatives 3, 4, 5, and 6 provide continued monitoring, fencing, and land use restrictions which are all
adequate and reliable controls. The containment, treatment, and removal components of these alternatives
are well-proven technologies that would provide adequate performance.
Barring remediation of contamination to unrestricted exposure levels, any private ownership of the land in
the future would be controlled under a restrictive covenant.
10.2.2 Reduction of Toxicitv. Mobility, or Volume Through Treatment
The criterion addresses the reduction in toxicity, reduction in mobility, or reduction of volume of
contaminants provided through treatment processes.
Groundwater Alternative 2 does not involve active treatment processes to reduce toxicity, mobility, or
volume.
Groundwater Alternatives 3 and 4 use active groundwater treatment to reduce toxicity, mobility, or volume.
Alternative 3 uses physical/chemical treatment following groundwater extraction, and Alternative 4 uses in-
s'rtu AS/SVE. Both of these alternatives satisfy the CERCLA statutory preference for treatment.
Soil Alternatives 4 and 6 do not involve active treatment processes to reduce toxicity, mobility, or volume.
Soil Alternative 3 uses soil vapor extraction to remove volatile organics, thereby reducing toxicity and
mobility. Soil Alternative 5 uses thermal desorption to remove volatile organics, thereby reducing toxicity
and mobility. This alternative also uses solidification to reduce mobility; however, there would be an
increase in volume. Both of these alternative satisfy the CERCLA statutory preference for treatment.
10.2.3 Short-Term Effectiveness
The main concern for this criterion would be potential effects to the remedial workers, community, and
environment during implementation of the remedial action. An additional concern is the time for each
alternative to achieve the remedial action objectives.
119504/P 10-12 CT00239
-f.
-------
REVISION 5
MARCH 1999
No risks to the community or environment are anticipated for any of the groundwater or soil alternatives.
Groundwater Alternatives 3 and 4 create some risks to workers during installation of extraction wells,
treatment plants, and the AS/SVE system. Soil Alternatives 3, 4, 5, and 6 also create risks to workers
during excavation, handling, consolidation, and treatment of contaminated soils. All potential risks to
workers can be adequately controlled.
The institutional controls component of all alternatives could be implemented in less than one year.
The time in which Groundwater Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 will achieve the remedial action objectives for
surficial aquifer groundwater is estimated to be 11 years for organics and 60 years for metals. The time to
achieve the performance standards cannot be accurately estimated because the contribution from the
primary source of contamination (buried waste) is unknown. Evaluation of future monitoring results may
allow for an estimate of the effect of landfill material on groundwater remediation times.
The SVE systems for Soil Alternative 3 are expected to achieve the performance standards in one to two
years. For Soil Alternatives 4, 5, and 6, the excavation, consolidation, capping, treatment, and offsite
disposal activities could be implemented in less than one year.
10.2.4 Implementabilitv
The major concerns in the category consist of the ease of implementation, including availability of
equipment and services, the technical complexity of the processes, and the ease of obtaining permits or
approvals.
Groundwater Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 use conventional, well-demonstrated, and commercially available
technologies that are reliable and readily implementable. For Groundwater Alternative 3, it may be more
difficult to implement the discharge to Slocum Creek option. The treatment system for discharge to Slocum
Creek would be more complex than for discharge to the sewage treatment plant.
Soil Alternatives 3, 4, 5, and 6 also use conventional, well-demonstrated, and commercially available
technologies that are reliable and readily implementable. Soil Alternatives 3 and 5 present certain additional
concerns because treatabilrty studies would probably be required. Soil Alternatives 3, 4, 5, and 6 require
verification of soil contamination volumes.
10.2.5 Cost
Cost details are provided in the FS and are summarized in Table 10-4.
119504/P .10-13 CT00239
-------
REVISION 5
MARCH 1999
TABLE 10-4
COST COMPARISON FOR ALTERNATIVES
OPERABLE UNIT 2
MCAS CHERRY POINT, NORTH CAROLINA
Alternative
Direct and Indirect
Costs
Annual O&M Costs
Total Net Present
Worth
Groundwater
Alternative 1
Alternative 2
Alternative 3
Alternative 4
None
None
$4,340,000(1)
$2,181,000(2)
$2,089,000
None
$43,800
$395,000(1)
$198,000(2>
$248,000
None
$729,000
$1 0,466,000<1 '
$5,278,000(2)
$4,514.000
Soli
Alternative 1
Alternative 2
Alternative 3
Alternative 4
Alternative 5
Alternative 6
None
$70,900
$720,000
$1,214,000
$4,713,000
$2.808,000
None
$43,800
$91,400
$43,800
$43,800
$43,800
None
$800,000
$1,538.000
$1,943.000
$5,442,000
$3,537,000
1 Discharge to Slocum Creek.
2 Discharge to Sewage Treatment Plant.
119504/P
10-14
CTO 0239
-------
REVISION 5
MARCH 1999
For the groundwater alternatives, Alternative 2 (natural attenuation) has the lowest present worth cost and
Alternative 3 (extraction, treatment, and discharge to Slocum Creek) has the highest. The STP discharge
option for Alternative 3 and Alternative 4 (AS/SVE) have similar costs. Alternative 3 with discharge to
Slocum Creek is significantly more expensive because of the treatment plant construction and operation
costs. Groundwater Alternative 2 provides the best ratio of costs to benefit received through the permanent
reduction of risks to human health and the environment.
For the soil alternatives, Alternatives 3 (SVE) and 4 (capping) have the lower present worth costs, and
Alternative 5 (treatment and onsrte disposal) and 6 (offsite disposal) have the highest. Alternatives 5 and 6
are more expensive because of the onsite treatment costs and the offsite transportation and disposal costs,
respectively. Soil Alternative 3 provides the best ratio of costs to benefit received through the permanent
reduction of risks to human health and the environment.
10.3 MODIFYING CRITERIA
10.3.1 USEPA/State Acceptance '
The USEPA and State of North Carolina have concurred with the selection of Groundwater Alternative 2
and Soil Alternative 3 to remediate OU2.
10.3.2 Community Acceptance
Based on comments expressed at the July 29,1997 public meeting and receipt of written comments during
the comment period, it appears that the community generally agrees with the selected remedy. Specific
responses to issues raised by the community can be found in Section 14, the Responsiveness Summary.
119504/P 10-15 CT00239
-------
-------
REVISION 5
MARCH 1999
11.0 SELECTED REMEDY
11.1 REMEDY SELECTION
Based upon consideration of the requirements of CERCLA, the NCR, the detailed analysis of alternatives,
current and proposed exposure scenarios, and USER A, state, and public comments, MCAS Cherry Point
and the Navy have selected Groundwater Alternative 2 (Natural Attenuation and Institutional Controls) and
Soil Alternative 3 {Soil Vapor Extraction and Institutional Controls) for remedial action at OU2. At the
completion of this remedy, the risk associated with this site will be protective of human health and the
environment.
The selected site-wide alternative for OU2 is consistent with the requirements of Section 121 of CERCLA
and the NCP. The selected alternative will reduce the mobility, toxicity, and volume of contaminated soil on
site. In addition, the selected site-wide alternative is protective of human heatth and the environment, will
attain Federal and state ARARs {unless a waiver is justified), is cost-effective, and uses permanent
solutions to the maximum extent practicable.
Based on the information available at this time, the selected alternatives represent the best balance among
the criteria used to evaluate remedies.
The preferred site-wide remedy is anticipated to meet the following objectives:
• Prevent exposure to contaminated soil and buried waste.
• Restrict current and future land use at OU2.
• Prevent exposure to contaminated groundwater at OU2.
• Prevent future potential use of the groundwater at OU2.
• Allow for natural attenuation of the groundwater at OU2.
• Mitigate migration of contaminants from the soil (major secondary source areas) to the environment.
The only unacceptable risks to human health are for the future hypothetical residential exposure. The
majority of the risks are due to ingestion of surficial aquifer groundwater and surface soil. All other
potential risks to human health under the remaining current and future exposure scenarios are within the
USEPA "acceptable" risk range. The future residential exposure pathway for groundwater is extremely
unlikely because the surficial aquifer is not used as a source of drinking water, and the Air Station has a
separate potable water supply system.
The major components of the site-wide remedy are:
CTO 0239
119504/P
11-1
-------
REVISION 5
MARCH 1999
• Monitored natural attenuation of groundwater contaminants will be the means of remediating the
groundwater and Containing any future releases from the debris remaining in the landfill. Long-term
monitoring shall be utilized to confirm the effectiveness of the natural attenuation processes in attaining
the performance standards in Table 11-1.
• In-situ treatment using soil vapor extraction at known major soil "hot spots" (secondary source areas)
that are contaminated with organics and any such areas identified during the Remedial Design. This
includes air monitoring and sampling of soil to ensure that the performance standards in Table 11 -2 are
met.
• Institutional controls will be implemented at the site to limit possible exposure to contaminants and to
protect human health and the environment. The details of the institutional controls for this ROD are
presented in the LUCIP, Appendix B.
•
The records on the presence of contamination at OU2 and the specific restrictions for site use listed
above (including land use and groundwater use restrictions) will be recorded in the MCAS Cherry Point
Base Master Plan. This will insure that at the time of any future land development, the Air Station will be
able to take adequate measures to minimize adverse human health and environmental effects. The
USEPA and NCDENR will be properly notified of proposed construction plans at OU2 prior to
commencement of any construction activities. Barring remediation to unrestricted exposure levels, any
private ownership of the land in the future would be controlled under a restrictive covenant.
The fencing and warning signs will be installed, replaced, and repaired, as necessary, to restrict access to
OU2, thereby minimizing human exposure to landfilled wastes. The warning signs will be installed along the
fence and the banks of Slocum Creek and Turkey Gut.
Monitoring will consist of the sampling of groundwater in the surficial and Yorktown aquifers to assess the
progress of natural attenuation in meeting the groundwater performance standards (i.e., North Carolina
groundwater standards) and to confirm that site contaminants are not migrating into the environment.
Monitoring will also consist of the sampling of air emissions from the soil vapor extraction systems and
soil in the secondary source areas to be treated. The soil sampling results will be compared to the soil
performance standards (i.e., North Carolina S-3 target concentrations). Monitoring will also consist of
sampling surface water and sediment in Slocum Creek and Turkey Gut to confirm that site contaminants
are not migrating into the environment. The details of the monitoring will be contained in the long term
monitoring plan that will be developed with Federal and State concurrence. The marine ecological risk
assessment was separated from the Rl and will be performed under a different operable unit. Monitoring
119504/P 11-2 CTO0239
-------
TABLE 11-1
REVISION 5
MARCH 1999
GROUNDWATER PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
OPERABLE UNIT 2
MCAS CHERRY POINT, NORTH CAROLINA
Contaminant
Performance Standard'1' (ug/kg)
ORGANICS
Benzene
Chlorobenzene
50
Chloroform
0.19
1,2-Dichloroethane
0.38
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
70
1,2-Dichloropropane
0.56
Ethylbenzene
29
2-Hexanone
cDl
(2)
4-Methyl-2-pentanone
=DL
Tetrachloroethene
0.7
Trichloroethene
2.8
Vinyl chloride
.0.015
Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether
cDL
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
2.4-Dimethylphenol
-------
REVISION 5
MARCH 1999
TABLE 11-2
SOIL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
OPERABLE UNIT 2
MCAS CHERRY POINT, NORTH CAROLINA
Contaminant
Benzene
2-Butanone
Chlorobenzene
Chloroform
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
cis-1 ,2-Dichloroethene
trans-1 ,2-Dichloroethene
trans-1 ,3-Dichloropropene
Ethyibenzene
Methytene chloride
Tetrachforoethene
Toluene
1 ,1 , 1 -Trichloroethane
Trichloroethene
Vinyl chloride
2,4-Dimethylphenol
2-MethylnaphthaIene
4-Methylphenol
Naphthalene
Dieldrin
Heptachlor expoxide
Performance Standard0' (pg/kg)
5.6
687
432
0.96
1.7
350
400
1.2
343
21.9
5.9
8,111
1,484
20.7
0.09
1,194
3,235
205
925
1.8
6.7
North Carolina S-3 Target Concentration for Protection of Groundwater
119504/P
11-4
CTO 0239
-------
REVISION 5
MARCH 1999
of surface water and sediment in Slocum Creek will be used to further evaluate conditions in Slocum
Creek. A monitoring plan will be developed with Federal and State concurrence. Based on the results of
the monitoring, additional sampling and analysis and/or remedial actions may be required.
11.2 ESTIMATED COSTS
The estimated net present worth of Groundwater Alternative 2 is $729,000, with no capital cost, an annual
O&M cost of $43,800 per year for 30 years, and a 5-year cost (for the site review) of $20,000. The annual
costs are for groundwater, surface water, and sediment monitoring.
The estimated net present worth of Soil Alternative 3 is $1,538,000, with a capital cost of $720,000, an
annual O&M cost of $47,600 per year for 2 years (SVE system), an annual O&M cost of $43,800 per year
(monitoring), and a 5-year cost of $20,000.
It should be noted that the cost estimate was calculated for the FS and should not be considered a
construction-quality cost estimate. An FS cost estimate should have an accuracy of +50 or -30 percent.
The remedy could change somewhat as a result of the remedial design and construction process. Such
changes, in general, reflect modifications resulting from the engineering design process. In addition, the
monitoring program will be developed at the remedial design stage and could be revised during the 5-year
reviews as a result of evaluation of the data collected.
It should also be noted that the cost estimate does not include the cost to remediate any additional
secondary source areas that may be identified during the remedial design.
119504/P • 11-5
CTO 0239
-------
-------
REVISION 5
MARCH 1999
12.0 STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
Under CERCLA Section 121, the Navy and MCAS Cherry Point must select remedies that are protective of
human health and the environment, comply with applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements
(unless a statutory waiver is justified), are cost-effective, and utilize permanent solutions and alternative
treatment technologies or resource recovery technologies to the maximum extent practicable. In addition,
CERCLA includes a preference for remedies that employ treatment that permanently and significantly
reduces the volume, toxicity, or mobility of hazardous wastes as their principal element. The following
sections discuss how the selected remedy for OU2 meets the statutory requirements.
12.1 PROTECTION OF HUMAN HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT
The selected remedy protects human health and the environment by eliminating, reducing, and controlling
risk through institutional controls, natural attenuation of groundwater, and in-situ soil treatment. The only
"unacceptable" risks posed by OU2 are under a future hypothetical residential exposure scenario. The
majority of the risk is from ingestion of contaminated groundwater from the shallow aquifer and surface soil.
Land use restrictions, as detailed in the LUCIP, would prevent future residential use of the site and invasive
construction activities, aquifer use restrictions would prevent the installation of wells (other than for
monitoring) and use of contaminated groundwater, and fencing and warning signs would control
unauthorized uses of the site. Soil treatment would remove secondary sources of groundwater
contamination. Monitoring would provide a means of evaluating future releases of hazardous constituents
from landfill materials to the environment, confirming there is no offstte migration of contaminants, and
evaluating the effectiveness of natural attenuation and soil treatment. There are no short-term threats
associated with the selected remedy that cannot be readily controlled. In addition, no cross-media impacts
are expected from the remedy.
12.2 COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE
REQUIREMENTS
Remedial actions performed under CERCLA must comply with all ARARs. All alternatives considered for
OU2 were evaluated based on the degree to which they complied with these requirements. The selected
remedy was found to meet identified ARARs, unless a waiver was justified, identified in Tables 9-2, 9-3, and
9-4. CERCLA Section 121(d)(4)(C) provides that an ARAR may be waived when compliance is technically
impracticable from an engineering perspective. The following is a short narrative in support of attainment of
pertinent ARARs.
119504/P 12-1 CT00239
-------
REVISION 5
MARCH 1999
12.2.1 Contaminant-Specific ARARs
North Carolina Class GA groundwater standards are the groundwater protection standards identified in this
ROD as performance standards for remedial action.
12.2.2 Location-Specific ARARs
Performance standards are consistent with ARARs identified in Table 9-3.
12.2.3 Action-Specific ARARs
Performance and treatment standards are consistent with RCRA ARARs identified in Table 9-4, and these
regulations will be incorporated into the design and implementation of this remedy.
12.2.4 Other Guidance Considered
Other guidance TBCs include health-based advisories and guidance and the Draft North Carolina Risk
Analysis Framework. TBCs have been used in estimating incremental cancer risk numbers for remedial
activities at the site and in determining RCRA applications to contaminated media. The state Risk Analysis
Framework was used to develop the performance standards for remediation of secondary source areas.
12.3 COST-EFFECTIVENESS
The Navy and MCAS Cherry Point believe this remedy will control the risks to human health and the
environment at an estimated net present worth of $2,300,000 over 30 years. Therefore, based on realistic
exposure scenarios, the selected remedy provides an overall effectiveness proportionate to its costs, such
that it represents a reasonable value for the money that will be spent.
12.4 UTILIZATION OF PERMANENT SOLUTIONS AND ALTERNATIVE TREATMENT
TECHNOLOGIES (OR RESOURCE RECOVERY TECHNOLOGIES) TO THE MAXIMUM
EXTENT PRACTICABLE
The Navy and MCAS Cherry Point, with USEPA and North Carolina concurrence, have determined that the
selected remedy represents the maximum extent to which permanent solutions and treatment technologies
can be utilized in a cost-effective manner for final remediation of OU2. Of those alternatives that are
protective of human health and the environment and comply with ARARs, the Navy and MCAS Cherry
Point, with USEPA and North Carolina concurrence, have determined that this selected remedy provides
the best balance of trade-offs in terms of long-term effectiveness and permanence; reduction in toxicity,
mobility, or volume through treatment; short-term effectiveness; implementability; and cost, while also
119504/P 12-2 CT00239
-------
REVISIONS
MARCH 1999
considering the statutory preference for treatment as a principal element and considering USEPA/State and
community acceptance.
The selected alternative would provide permanent, long-term remedies through provision and enforcement
of institutional controls in the Air Station Base Master Plan to restrict entry, to prohibit invasive construction
activities and installation of wells, and limit the area to nonresidential and/or industrial type uses; by
implementing soil treatment; and monitoring the effectiveness of groundwater natural attenuation processes.
The selected remedy treats the principal threats posed by contaminated soil (secondary source areas),
achieving significant reductions of volatile organics. This remedy provides the most cost-effective treatment
and will cost less than offsite disposal. The selection of treatment of the contaminated soil is consistent with
program expectations that indicate that highly toxic and mobile waste are a priority for treatment and often
necessary to ensure the long-term effectiveness of a remedy.
12.5 PREFERENCE FOR TREATMENT AS A PRINCIPAL ELEMENT
By treating the secondary source area soils using soil vapor extraction, the selected remedy addresses one
of the principal threats posed by the site through the use of treatment technologies. By utilizing treatment as
a significant portion of the remedy, the statutory preference for remedies that employ treatment as a
principal element is satisfied.
1
119504/P . 12-3
CTO 0239
-------
-------
REVISION 5
MARCH 1999
13.0 DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES
The Proposed Plan for Operable Unit 2 was released for public comment on Wednesday, July 23, 1997.
The Proposed Plan idintified Groundwater Alternative 2 - Natural Attenuation and Institutional Controls and
Soil Alternative 3 - Soil Vapor Extraction and Institutional Controls as the preferred alternative for
remediation. The Navy and MCAS Cherry Point reviewed all written and verbal comments submitted during
the public comment period. Upon review of these comments, it was determined that the State of North
Carolina has expressed some concerns regarding the exceedances of surface water standards and
sediment screening criteria and about the reliability of the uptake modeling of contaminants through the
ingestion of fish tissues by human. The Navy and Marine Corps have agreed to collect some fish tissue
samples to evaluate the uptake modeling and assist in assessing the risk to human health through ingestion
of fish tissue by humans.
The fish tissue sample collection was completed in October 1998, and the analytical results were
received in January 1999. The evaluation of the analysis of the fish tissue samples shows no potential
unacceptable risk to human health from fish tissue ingestion in Slocum Creek.
The Navy will compare the results of the fish tissue samples to the OU2 uptake model, which used
surface water data to predict fish tissue concentrations, and will assess its use at other sites. The State of
North Carolina and the Navy will evaluate this comparison and then make a determination as how to
proceed with the evaluation of human health from fish tissue ingestion in future investigations and
evaluate the use of this approach at other sites. The State of North Carolina currently recommends
against the use of surface water data in uptake models to predict fish tissue concentration. The State
advocates the collection of fish tissue samples when the surface water standards or sediment screening
criteria are exceeded.
119504/P1 13-1 CT00239
-------
-------
REVISION 5
MARCH 1999
14.0 RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
14.1 BACKGROUND ON COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT
Community relations activities to date are summan'zed below:
• Established information repositories.
• Established the Administrative Record for all of the sites at the Air Station.
• Released the Proposed Plan for public review in repositories.
• Released public notice announcing public comment and document availability of the Proposed Plan.
• Held public meeting on July 29, 1997 to solicit comments and provide information. The public meeting
transcript is available in the repositories and is included in Appendix C.
14.2 SUMMARY OF COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD AND
NAVY RESPONSES
Following is a summary of the responses to comments received during the public comment period. All
comments were received during the public meeting.
1. What was the source of metals at Site 44A?
Response: The metals were most likely present in the wastewater that was treated at the sewage
treatment plant. During treatment, the metals would have been removed from the wastewater and
became part of the sludge. The sludge was then applied to the ground at Site 44A.
2. Will the selected remedy be reviewed every five years for effectiveness and to update
technologies?
Response: As required by the Superfund law, five year reviews are required when hazardous
substances remain on site at concentrations above health-based levels. The results of the long-
term monitoring will be reviewed at least every five years to confirm that the selected remedy
remains effective and protective of human health and the environment. The feasibility of using new
technologies could also be evaluated at that time.
119504/P 14-1 CT00239
-------
REVISION 5
MARCH 1999
3. How long will it take until the site is clean?
Response: Tbe active treatment component, soil vapor extraction, is expected to operate for two to
three years. Natural attenuation of groundwater will take longer. Based on modeling, the organic
compounds would be removed in 10 to 15 years, most of the metals would be removed in 60 years,
and a few metals may not be removed for a very long time. It is difficult to estimate the exact time
for natural remediation because of the landfill material present at the site. The site will never be
totally clean because the landfill material will not be removed.
4. Is the waste that is present below the water table causing a significant contribution to any of the
groundwater contamination?
Response: There was little correlation between groundwater contaminant concentrations in the
surficial aquifer and whether or not the waste was above or below the water table. There is no
significant groundwater contamination in the Yorktown aquifer.
•>
5. How many wells have been installed at OU2? Are they at different depths?
Response: There are approximately 60 permanent monitoring wells installed in the surficial aquifer.
Approximately 40 wells are screened in the upper portion of this aquifer, and the remainder are
screened in the lower portion of this aquifer. There are sixteen wells installed in the Yorktown
aquifer.
6. Will soil vapor extraction remove all of the contaminants, and will any breakdown products be
produced?
Response: This technology should not result in toxic breakdown products. Soil vapor extraction is
effective lor volatile organics. It could also stimulate some biological activity and reduce some of
the less volatile organic compounds. It would not be effective for removal of metals. Volatile
organics are the main contaminants of concern at OU2.
7. How often will the groundwater be tested?
Response: The frequency of monitoring will be specified in a monitoring plan that will be developed
during the Remedial Design, with the consensus of the Navy, MCAS Cherry Point, and the
regulatory agencies. The initial monitoring program may be modified in the future based on a
review of the results.
119504/P 14-2 CTO 0239
-------
REVISION 5
MARCH 1999
8. Has another Operable Unit been added to address contamination in Slocum Creek upstream of
OU2 and OU3? Is groundwater discharging to surface water causing the contamination in Slocum
Creek?
Response: Because the source(s) of this contamination and the potential for adverse ecological
effects on Slocum Creek are not known, it was decided to implement remedial actions at OU2 and.
OU3 to address the known sources of contamination. Additional studies will be conducted as part
of Operable Unit 15 to define other potential contaminant sources and their impacts on Slocum
Creek near OU2 and OU3. Although the concentrations of some chemicals in Slocum Creek are
higher than state surface water standards, OU2.does not appear to be the source {or only source)
of this. The main contaminants of concern in the groundwater at OU2 are volatile organics;
however, the potential contaminants of concern in Slocum Creek are pesticides and metals. The
monitoring plan to be developed during the Remedial Design will include sampling of Slocum Creek
to confirm that OU2 groundwater is not causing problems in Slocum Creek.
»
9. Are the primary balancing criteria weighted equally during the evaluation of alternatives and
selection of the remedy? Shouldn't long-term effectiveness and reduction of toxicrty, mobility, and
volume have the highest weighting so that eventually the fencing and warning signs can be
removed?
Response: All of the balancing criteria have an equal weighting. The purpose of the evaluation is
to identify important trade-offs among the alternatives, and professional judgment is also used.
Most of OU2 is a landfill; therefore, it would not be feasible, and would be very costly, to remove or
treat all of the wastes. For this reason, the fences and warning signs will always be needed, and
long-term monitoring will be required.
1Ao CT00239
119504/P . 14-d
-------
-------
REVISION 5
MARCH 1999
REFERENCES
ATSDR (Agency for Texic Substances and Disease Registry), January 1988. Draft Toxicoloaical Profile for
Trichloroethvlene. Atlanta, GA.
ATSDR (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry), October 1989a. Draft Toxicoloaical Profile for
Chlorobenzene. Atlanta, G A.
ATSDR (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry), October 1989b. Draft Toxicoloaical Profile for
Copper. Atlanta, GA.
ATSDR (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry), October 1991 a. Draft Toxicoloaical Profile for
1.4-Dichlorobenzene. Atlanta, G A.
ATSDR (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry), October 1991b. Draft Toxicoloaical Profile for
Benzene. Atlanta, GA.
ATSDR (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry), October 1991c. Draft Toxicoloaical Profile for
Chloroform. Atlanta, GA.
ATSDR (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry), October 1991d. Draft Toxicoloqical Profile for
Methvlene Chloride. Atlanta, GA.
ATSDR (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry), October 1991e. Draft Toxicoloaical Profile for
Tetrachloroethviene. Atlanta, GA.
ATSDR (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry), October 1991f. Draft Toxicoloaical Profile for
Bis(2-ethvlhexvnphtnalate. Atlanta, GA.
ATSDR (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry), October 1991 g. Draft Toxicoloqical Profile for
Arsenic. Atlanta, GA.
ATSDR (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry), October 1991h. Draft Toxicoloqical Profile for
Beryllium. Atlanta, GA.
f
119504/P R-1
CTO 0239
-------
REVISION 5
MARCH 1999
ATSDR (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry), October 1991L Draft Toxicological Profile for
Cadmium. Atlanta, GA.
ATSDR (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry), October 1 991 j. Draft Toxicological Profile for
Chromium. Atlanta, GA.
ATSDR (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry), October 1992. Draft Toxicolooical Profile for
4.4'-DDT. 4.4'-DDE. 4.4'-DDD. Atlanta, GA.
NCDENR, 1997. Water Quality Criteria or Standards. Developed by D. Reid, Water Quality Section, June 2,
1997, Raleigh, NC.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). May 1989. Exposure Factors Handbook. EPA/600/8-89-
043. Office of Health and Environmental Assessment. Washington. DC.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency^. December 1989. Risk Assessment Guidance for
Superfund: Volume I. Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part A>. EPA 540/1-89-002. Office of Emergency
and Remedial Response. Washington. DC.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), January, 1990. Health Effects Assessment Summary
Tables - First/Second Quarters FY-1990. Washington. DC.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Aqencvl. March 25. 1991. Human Hearth Evaluation Manual.
Supplemental Guidance: Standard Default Exposure Factors. OSWER Directive 9285.6-03. Washington.
DC.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection AgencvV January 1992. Dermal Exposure Assessment: Principles
and Applications - Interim Final. EPA/600-8-91 -011 B. Office of Research and Development. Washington.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agencvi. Mav 1992. Supplemental Guidance to RAGS: Calculating
the Concentration Term. OSWER Publication No. 9285.7-081. Washington. DC.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), May 1995. Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables -
FY-1 995 Annual. Washington, DC.
119504/P R-2 CT00239
-------
REVISION 5
MARCH 1999
USEPA(U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), May 1996. IRIS On-line Data Base. Washington, DC.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) Region III, May 1996. Risk-Based Concentration Table.
January-June 1996. Philadelphia, PA.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Aaencv> Region IV. April 4. 1991. Baseline Risk Assessment
Guidance. Waste Management Division. Atlanta. GA.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) Region IV, November 1995. Supplemental Guidance to
RAGS: Region 4 Bulletins. Atlanta, GA.
119504/P R-3
CTO 0239
-------
-------
APPENDICES
t- f
-------
1"
-------
APPENDIX A
GLOSSARY
-------
-------
REVISION 5
MARCH 1999
This glossary defines terms used in this Record of Decision (ROD) describing CERCLA activities. The
definitions apply specifically to this ROD and may have other meanings when used in different
circumstances.
Administrative Record: A file that contains all information used by the lead agency to make its decision in
selecting a response under CERCLA. This file is to be available for public review and a copy is to be
established at or near the site, usually at one of the information repositories. Also a duplicate is filed in a
central location, such as a regional or state office.
Aquifer: An underground formation of materials such as sand, soil, or gravel that can store and supply
grouhdwater to wells and springs. Most aquifers used in the United States are within a thousand feet of the
earth's surface.
Baseline Risk Assessment: A study conducted as a supplement to a remedial investigation to determine
the nature and extent of contamination at a Superfund site and the risks posed to public health and/or the
environment.
Carcinogen: A substance that may cause cancer.
Cleanup: Actions taken to deal with a release or threatened release of hazardous substances that could
affect public health and/or the environment. The noun "cleanup" is often used broadly to describe various
response actions or phases of remedial responses such as Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study.
Comment Period: A time during which the public can review and comment on various documents and
actions taken, either by the Department of Defense installation or the USEPA. For example, a comment
period is provided when USEPA proposes to add sites to the National Priorities List.
Community Relations: The Navy and MCAS Cherry Point, program to inform and involve the public in the
Superfund process and response to community concerns.
119504/P . A-1 CTO0239
-------
REVISIONS
MARCH 1999
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA): A Federal law
passed in 1980 and modified in 1986 by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA). The
act created a special tax that goes into a trust fund, commonly known as "Superfund," to investigate and
clean up abandoned or uncontrolled hazardous waste sites. Under the program USEPA can either (1) pay
for site cleanup when parties responsible for the contamination cannot be located or are unwilling or unable
to perform the work or (2) take legal action to force parties responsible for site contamination to clean up the
site or reimburse the Federal government for the cost of the cleanup.
Defense Environmental Restoration Account (DERA): An account established by Congress to fund
Department of Defense hazardous waste site cleanups, building demolition, and hazardous waste
minimization. The account was established under the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act.
Drinking Water Standards: Standards for the quality of drinking water that are set by both the USEPA and
NCDEHNR.
Explanation of Differences: After adoption of a final remedial action plan, if any remedial or enforcement
action is taken, or if any settlement or consent decree is entered into, and if the settlement or decree differs
significantly from the final plan, the lead agency is required to publish an explanation of significant differences
and why they were made.
Feasibility Study: See Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study.
Groundwater: Water beneath the earth's surface that fills pores between materials such as sand, soil, or
gravel. In aquifers, groundwater occurs in sufficient quantities that it can be used for drinking water,
irrigation, and other purposes.
Hazard Ranking System (HRS): A scoring system used to evaluate relative risks to public health and the
environment from releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances. USEPA and states use the
HRS to calculate a site score, from 0 to 100, based on the actual or potential release or hazardous
substances from a site through air, surface water, or groundwater to affect people. The score is the primary
factor used to decide if a hazardous site should be placed on the NPL.
Hazardous Substances: Any material that poses a threat to public health and/or the environment. Typical
hazardous substances are materials that are toxic, corrosive, ignitable, explosive, or chemically reactive.
119504/P A-2 CT00239
-------
REVISION 5
MARCH 1999
Information Repository: A file containing information, technical reports, and reference documents
regarding a Superfund site. Information repositories for Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point are at the
Havelock Public Library, 300 Miller Boulevard, Havelock, North Carolina and the MCAS Cherry Point Library,
PSC Box 8019, Building 298, "E" Street, Cherry Point, North Carolina.
Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL): National standards for acceptable concentrations of contaminants in
public drinking water systems. These are legally enforceable standards for suppliers of drinking water set by
the USEPA under the Safe Drinking Water Act.
Monitoring Wells: Wells drilled at specific locations on or off a hazardous waste site where groundwater
can be sampled at selected depths and studied to assess the groundwater flow direction and the types and
amounts of contaminants present.
National Priorities List (NPL): The USEPAs list of the most serious uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous
waste sites identified for possible long-term remedial response using money from the trust fund. The list is
based primarily on the score a site receives in the Hazard Ranking System. USEPA is required to update the
NPL at least once a year.
Parts Per Billion (ppb)/Parts Per Million (ppm): Units commonly used to express low concentrations of
contaminants. For example, one ounc'e of trichloroethene in a million ounces of water is 1 ppm. One ounce
of trichloroethene in a billion ounces of water is 1 ppb. If one drop of trichloroethene is mixed in a
competition-size swimming pool, the water will contain about 1 ppb of trichloroethene.
Preliminary Remediation Goals: Screening concentrations that are provided by the USEPA and NCDENR
and are used in the assessment of the site for comparative purposes prior to remedial goals being set during
the baseline risk assessment.
Proposed Plan: A public participation requirement of SARA in which the lead agency summarizes for the
public the preferred cleanup strategy and the rationale for preference, the alternatives presented in the
detailed analysis of the Feasibility Study, and presents any waivers to cleanup standards of CERCLA Section
121(d)(4) that may be proposed. This may be prepared either as a fact sheet or a separate document. In
either case, it must actively solicit public review and comment on all alternatives under agency consideration.
Record of Decision (ROD): A public document that explains which cleanup altemative(s) will used at NPL
sites. The Record of Decision is based on information and technical analysis generated during the Remedial
Investigation/Feasibility Study and consideration of public comments and community concerns.
119504/P A-3 CTO0239
-------
REVISION 5
MARCH 1999
Remedial Action (RA): The actual construction or implementation phase that follows the remedial design of
the selected cleanup alternative at a site on the NPL.
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (Rl/FS): Investigation and analytical studies usually performed at
the same time in an interactive process and together referred to as the "Rl/FS." They are intended to (1)
gather the data necessary to determine the type and extent of contamination at a Superfund site, (2)
establish criteria for cleanup up the site, (3) identify and screen cleanup alternatives for remedial action, and
(4) analyze in detail the technology and costs of the alternatives.
Remedial Response: A long-term action that stops or substantially reduces a release or threatened release
of hazardous substances that is serious, but does not pose an immediate threat to public health and/or the
environment.
Removal Action: An immediate action performed quickly to address a release or threatened release of
hazardous substances.
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA): A Federal law that established a regulatory system to
track hazardous wastes from the time of generation to disposal. The law requires safe and secure
procedures to be used in treating, transporting, storing, and disposing of hazardous wastes. RCRA is
designed to prevent new uncontrolled hazardous waste sites.
Response Action: As defined by Section 101(25) of CERCLA, means remove, removal, remedy, or
remedial action, including enforcement activities related hereto.
Responsiveness Summary: A summary of oral and written public comments received by the lead agency
during a comment period on key documents and the response to these comments prepared by the lead
agency. The responsiveness summary is a key part of the ROD, highlighting community concerns for
decision-makers.
Secondary Drinking Water Standards: Secondary drinking water regulations are set by the USEPA and
NCDEHNR. These guidelines are not designed to protect public health. Instead they are intended to protect
"public welfare" by providing guidelines regarding the taste, odor, color, and other aesthetic aspects of
drinking water that do not present a health risk.
119504/P A-4 CTO0239
-------
REVISIONS
MARCH 1999
Superfund: The trust fund established by CERCLA that can be drawn upon to plan and conduct cleanups of
past hazardous waste disposal sites and current releases or threats of releases of non-petroleum products.
Superfund is often divided into removal, remedial, and enforcement components.
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA): The public law enacted on October 17,1986,
to reauthorize the funding provisions and to amend the authorities and requirements of CERCLA and
associated laws. Section 120 of SARA requires that all Federal facilities "be subject to and comply with this
act in the same manner and to the same extent as any non-government entity."
Surface Water: Bodies of water that are above ground, such as rivers, lakes, and streams.
Volatile Organic Compound (VOC): An organic (carbon-containing) compound that evaporates (volatilizes)
readily at room temperature.
119504/P . A-5 CT00239
-------
-------
APPENDIX B
LAND USE CONTROL IMPLEMENTATION PLAN (LUCIP)
MCAS CHERRY POINT OU2
-------
-------
REVISION 5
MARCH 1999
ATTACHMENTS
LAND USE CONTROL IMPLEMENTATION PLAN (LUCIP)
MCAS CHERRY POINT OU#2 (Sites 10, 44a, 46, & 76)
GENERAL
By separate Memorandum of Agreement, hereinafter referred to as the Land Use Control Assurance Plan
(LUCAP), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA); the North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR); and the Department of the Navy (Navy) on behalf of U.S.
Marine Corps Air Station, Cherry Point, agreed that the Navy and the United States Marine Corps (Marine
Corps) shall follow certain procedures for implementing and maintaining site-specific land use controls.
Those procedures are contained in the LUCAP, and, for Operable Unit No. 2 (OU#2), this Land Use
Control Implementation Plan (LUCIP). The LUCAP is intended to ensure that all of the Department of the
Navy's site-specific selected remedies with land use controls remain protective of human health and the
environment. This LUCIP and its requirements are part of the selected remedy within the Final Record of
Decision (ROD).
The parties to the LUCAP also agree that the efficacy/protectiveness of the land use controls within this
Land Use Control Implementation Plan is contingent upon the Department of the Navy's substantial good-
faith compliance with those procedures applicable to the selected remedy. Should such compliance not
occur or should the LUCAP be terminated, the parties agree that the protectiveness of the selected
remedy may be reconsidered by any party and additional remedial measures may be necessary to ensure
the selected remedy remains protective of human health and the environment.
This document is the LUCIP for MCAS Cherry Point OU#2. OU#2 is comprised of the following sites: Site
10 •• Old Sanitary Landfill, Site 44A - Former Sludge Application Area, Site 46 - Polishing Ponds No. 1 and
No. 2, and Site 76 - Vehicle Maintenance Area (Hobby Shop). This LUCIP is an attachment to and a part
of the ROD for these sites.
The Navy and the Marine Corps will, pursuant to the LUCAP, include the land use controls set forth in this
LUCIP within the Installation's Geographic Information System (GIS) and the base master planning
process. Pursuant to the LUCAP paragraph IV.a, the Installation will provide written notification to the
State and U.S. EPA when the requirements of this paragraph have been met.
119504/P . B-1 CTO0239
-------
REVISION 5
MARCH 1999
All proposed changes to this LUCIP will be submitted to the State and U.S. EPA for review and
concurrence prior to implementation. Changes to this LUCIP will, if required under the National
Contingency Plan, be reflected in changes to the selected remedy made through the appropriate process
(e.g., Explanation of Significant Differences, ROD amendment).
The parties agree that the Navy's annual certification of land use control implementation is necessary for
as long as the Navy retains ownership of the site. NCDENR maintains this annual certification is part of
the selected remedy. The Navy and Marine Corps maintain this annual certification is a procedure to
implement the selected remedy and is not a part of the selected remedy. Nevertheless, all parties agree
that a written certification is desirable. Accordingly, pursuant to the LUCAP paragraph V.b., MCAS Cherry
Point will provide that certification annually to U.S. EPA and NCDENR that the land use controls within the
ROD remain implemented
SITE BOUNDARY IDENTIFICATION
The geographic boundary for these sites is identified in ROD Figure B-1. This boundary indicates the
outermost border of all controlled portions of the site (i.e., no areas subject to land use controls lie outside Jlk
this boundary).
The geographic boundary of the current soil contamination is identified in ROD Figure B-1. This boundary
indicates the limits of soil contamination and the area of restricted land use, intrusive activities, and site
access for soil.
The geographic boundaries of the current shallow and deep groundwater contamination are identified in
ROD Figure B-2. These boundaries indicate the current limits of groundwater contamination .
SITE USE CONTROLS y
The land use at OU2 would be restricted to industrial uses only. Prohibited land use includes, but would
not be limited to, residences, schools, playgrounds, day cares, and retirement centers. v
Unless specifically excepted by both NCDENR and U.S. EPA, intrusive activities (e.g., excavation of soil
or insertion of objects into the ground - except for monitoring purposes) are prohibited below the water
table within the geographic boundary of the Site. See Figure B-1.
r ,
119504/P • B-2 CTO0239
-------
REVISION 5
MARCH 1999
AQUIFER USE CONTROLS
Except for monitoring purposes or as specifically excepted by NCDENR or U.S. EPA, all use of
groundwater beneath OU#2 is prohibited. In addition, the installation of any well, other than those
constructed for monitoring purposes, is prohibited except as authorized by North Carolina Administrative
Code Title 15A, Chapter 2C as amended, Well Construction. See Figure B-2 (Boundary of Aquifer Use
Controls).
SITE ACCESS CONTROLS
Site access is restricted to authorized personnel only. Site access controls will include the installation and
maintaining of a fence around the polishing ponds, repair and replacement of existing fencing around the
OU2 landfill, and the placement of warning signs along the fence, Slocum Creek, and Turkey Gut to warn
all unauthorized persons to stay out. The signs shall contain the following warning - Restricted Area, For
Entry , and shall contain a phone number for a point of contact.
NOTIFICATION
Following the procedures contained within the LUCAP, MCAS Cherry Point shall file a Notification of
Inactive Hazardous Substance or Waste Disposal Site meeting the requirements of NCGS 130A-310.8.
119504/P B-3 CTO0239
-------
REVISION 5
MARCH 1999
-~ ' ~==s, •• r' ^-^
:>i^-- -^ •:* >\t
•SIM78
VttOOt MclKMnmae*
ATM (Hobby Shop)
Boundary of Land Use
! [_\ Controls for Intrusive Activies
fft) Ten Tech NU8. Inc.
OO2 Bound«y of Und UM Control for mttvth* ActMVei
MCAS Ctany Point. North C«nj!ln«
119504/P
B-4
-------
1
REVISION 5
MARCH 1999
%•• — '—? .—
rV • ~": ': ' 'f™v'
Boundary for Aquifer Use Controls I
~~
Groundwatar Sampling I
UPPER SURFIOAL
• LOWER SURFICIAL
• UPPER YORKTOWN
• LOWER YORKTOWN
OU2 Boumtaiy For Aquttar UM Controto
MCAS CtMny Pokrt. North Cmglliw
n.c
CTO023&
-------
-------
APPENDIX C
TRANSCRIPT OF PUBLIC MEETING
-------
-------
MCAS CHERRY POINT MEETING
HAVELOCK CITY AUDITORIUM
1 HATTERAS AVENUE
HAVELOCK, NORTH CAROLINA
TUESDAY, JULY 29, 1997
**********************
CAPTAIN MATT MCLAUGHLIN
PUBLIC AFFAIRS OFFICER
U.S. MARINE CORPS
REPRESENTATIVES OF BROWN & ROOT ENVIRONMENTAL:
MR. MATTHEW COCHRAN
MR. KIM TURNBALL
REPRESENTATIVES OF THE U.S. NAVY:
MR. LANCE LAUGHMILLER
REPRESENTATIVES OF CHERRY POINT:
MS. RACHEL JOHNSON
MR. JOHN MEYERS
REPRESENTATIVES OF THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA:
MR. RICHARD POWERS
MS. LINDA RAYNOR
COURT REPORTER: JOAN T. HUNT
CAROLINA COURT REPORTERS, INC.
102 Oakmont Professional Plaza
Greenvflle, North Carolina 27868
TEL: (919) 355-4700 (800) 849-8448
FAX: (919) 355-2100
-------
MCAS PUBLIC HEARING 7/97
1 CAPTAIN MATT MCLAUGHLIN: WELL, I'D LIKE TO THANK
2 EVERYBODY FOR COMING HERE THIS VERY WET CAROLINA EVENING. MY
3 NAME IS CAPTAIN MATT MCLAUGHLIN; I'M THE PUBLIC AFFAIRS
4 OFFICER FOR OUR NEIGHBOR, CHERRY POINT AIR STATION, HERE.
5 WHAT WE'RE HERE TO DO THIS EVENING IS TO DISCUSS THE PROPOSED
6 REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN THAT OUR FOLKS AT ENVIRONMENTAL AND OUR
7 FRIENDS AT BROWN AND ROOT HAVE PUT TOGETHER FOR US THIS
8 EVENING, SO THAT WE CAN BETTER UNDERSTAND AND BETTER STUDY
9 OU2 AND HOW WE CAN CLEAN THIS UP FOR THE BETTERMENT OF THE
10 COMMUNITY AND THE BETTERMENT OF OUR AIR STATION. CHERRY
11 POINT IS IN A UNIQUE POSITION IN THE NORTH CAROLINA COMMUNITY
12 HERE, AND WE STRIVE TO DO OUR VERY BEST TO MAKE SURE THAT WE
13 ARE ENVIRONMENTALLY AWARE, AND WE DO OUR PART IN THE BIGGER
14 PICTURE TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE THE LEADERS,
15 • ENVIRONMENTALLY. RECENTLY, LET'S SEE, OUR LAST
16 ACCOMPLISHMENT THAT I CAN THINK OF DIDN'T HAPPEN VERY LONG
17 AGO; IN FACT, WE HAD SOME KIDS OUT THERE HELPING US FROM
18 ARTHUR EDWARDS ELEMENTARY, WITH A PROJECT AT OU3,
19 OCCUPATIONAL UNIT THREE, WHERE WE PUT TOGETHER SOME LONG LEAF
20 PINES. WE WERE TRYING TO GET THAT AREA BACK UP TO PAR.
21 THIS EVENING WE HAVE THE PLEASURE, BECAUSE I KNOW I'M
22 NOT THE EXPERT ON THIS, TO HAVE WITH US MR. KIM TURNBALL FROM
23 BROWN AND ROOT. BROWN AND ROOT IS THE RESTORATION,
24 INSTALLATION RESTORATION PROGRAM CONTRACTOR, WHO IS HELPING
25 OUT THE DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY AND THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE,
Carolina Court Reporters, Inc.
Greenville, North Carolina
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MCAS PUBLIC HEARING 7/97
HELPING US CLEAN UP OUR WASTE SITES. WHAT HE'S GOING TO DO
HERE THIS EVENING IS HE'S GOING TO LET YOU KNOW SEVERAL
DIFFERENT COURSES OF ACTION THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO CONSIDER
PURSUING TO CLEAN UP OU2. OPERATIONAL UNIT TWO IS ABOUT A
SEVENTY-ACRE SITE WHICH COMPOSES FOUR SUB-SITES WITHIN IT..
WHAT WE'D LIKE TO DO IS ADDRESS CLEANING UP THIS SITE FROM A
GROUND/SOIL POINT OF VIEW AND FROM A WATER POINT OF VIEW AND,
WELL, AND HE WILL ADDRESS TO YOU COURSES OF ACTION TO CLEAN
UP BOTH OF THOSE TWO. WHAT WE WILL THEN DO IS WE WILL LET
YOU KNOW WHAT WE FEEL THE BEST COURSE OF ACTION IS, AND THEN
WE WILL SOLICIT PUBLIC COMMENT FROM YOU; AND THAT'S REALLY
THE PURPOSE OF WHY WE'RE HERE THIS EVENING, TO GET THAT
PUBLIC COMMENT, BECAUSE WE REALIZE WE'VE GOT A LOT OF FACTS
AND FIGURES, AND WE THINK WE KNOW WHAT'S BEST; BUT REALLY,
WHAT THIS WHOLE SUPERFUND CLEAN UP PROJECT IS ABOUT IS
SOLICITING PUBLIC COMMENT FROM YOU TO MAKE SURE WE'VE GOT THE
WHOLE PICTURE HERE. AT THE CONCLUSION OF MR. TURNBALL'S
PRESENTATION, HE'LL ALLOW A PORTION OF TIME FOR QUESTIONS AND
ANSWERS, AND I REALLY URGE YOU TO USE THIS TIME TO GET THOSE
DEEP QUESTIONS OFF OF YOU. IF YOU'VE GOT REALLY IN DEPTH
QUESTIONS, GET THEM OUT THERE AND LET'S GET THEM AIRED, AND
LET'S MAKE SURE YOU GET SATISFACTION ON THOSE QUESTIONS. IF
YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS THAT ARE NOT ABLE TO BE
ADDRESSED THIS EVENING OR YOU DON'T WISH TO ADDRESS THEM THIS
EVENING, THERE'S A WONDERFUL TUPPERWARE COMMENT BOX IN THE
Carolina Court Reporters, Inc.
Greenville, North Carolina
-------
MCAS PUBLIC HEARING 7/97
1 BACK THAT WE'VE PROVIDED FOR YOU. FEEL FREE TO JOT DOWN
2 THOSE QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS, AND WE WILL COLLECT THEM AND
3 WE'LL GET THEM ANSWERED FOR YOU; WE'LL GET ANSWERS FOR YOU.
4 WHILE WE'RE DEALING WITH THIS WHOLE ISSUE HERE, SOME
5 FOLKS, LIKE SOME OF- YOU IN THE ROOM, ARE COMING INTO IT WITH
6 A LOT OF INFORMATION; SOME FOLKS, LIKE ME, WHO ARE-A LITTLE
7 BIT NEWER TO IT, ARE STILL TRYING TO GAIN INFORMATION ON THE
8 WHOLE ISSUE. IF, IN THE COURSE OF YOUR MEDITATION, YOUR
9 THOUGHT, YOUR STUDY, YOUR QUESTIONS; GIVE US SOME MORE
10 QUESTIONS; YOU WANT TO REVIEW SOME OF THE CORP'S MATERIAL,
11 SOME OF THE SOURCE DOCUMENTS I WOULD CALL THEM, THESE
12 DOCUMENTS RESIDE IN TWO PLACES. THEY RESIDE AT HAVELOCK
13 PUBLIC LIBRARY FOR YOUR VIEW, AND THEY ALSO RESIDE IN THE
14 CHERRY POINT PUBLIC LIBRARY; AND I WELCOME AND INVITE YOU TO
15 GO AND VIEW THESE DOCUMENTS, READ THEM, AND GET INTIMATELY
16 INVOLVED AND UP-TO-DATE ON WHAT'S GOING ON. I ALSO BELIEVE
17 THAT THE RECORDS OF THIS MEETING WILL BE IN BOTH OF THOSE
18 DEPOSITORIES SHORTLY AFTER THE MEETING CONCLUDES. LET'S SEE
19 IF I HAVE HIT EVERYTHING ON MY LIST HERE. IF YOU HAVE ANY
20 OTHER QUESTIONS AFTER YOU'VE REVIEWED THAT MATERIAL OUT
21 THERE, OR SIMPLY AFTER THE MEETING, AND WE DON'T GET A CHANCE
22 TO HIT THEM NOW, AND YOU DON'T GET A CHANCE TO PUT THEM IN
23 THE COMMENT BOX, PLEASE FEEL FREE TO ADDRESS THEM TO MY
24 OFFICE, THE PUBLIC AFFAIRS OFFICE AT CHERRY; THE ADDRESS IS
25 ON THE SECOND PAGE OF THE LAMINATED HANDOUT THAT YOU HAVE,
Carolina Court Reporters, Inc.
Greenville, North Carolina
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
IB
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MCAS PUBLIC HEARING 7/97
AND WE'LL MAKE SURE WE GET THOSE OVER TO ENVIRONMENTAL, OVER
TO BROWN AND ROOT, OVER TO WHO'S EVER ABLE TO BEST ANSWER
THOSE QUESTIONS FOR YOU; AND WE'LL MAKE SURE WE GET THOSE
ANSWERS FOR YOU.
FINALLY, AS I ALLUDED TO BEFORE, PART OF THIS PROCESS
IS INFORMING THE PUBLIC AND MAKING SURE YOU HAVE THE ABILITY
TO COMMENT ON THESE PROPOSED ACTIONS THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO
TAKE. WE DON'T HAVE ALL THE ANSWERS, AND WE KNOW THAT YOU DO
HAVE SOME OF THOSE ANSWERS; AND WE REALLY NEED, AND I'M
ASKING, I'M SOLICITING FROM YOU, THOSE GOOD COMMENTS AND
QUESTIONS; BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING IN STONE RIGHT NOW.
WE HAVE WHAT WE THINK IS THE BEST IDEA, AND WE WELCOME FROM
YOU ANY INPUT THAT YOU MAY HAVE. MR. TURNBALL, THANK YOU.
MR. TURNBALL: THANK YOU. OPERABLE UNIT TWO IS
ONE OF FIFTEEN OPERABLE UNITS AT THE AIR STATION. OPERABLE
UNITS ARE USED TO ASSEMBLE SITES TOGETHER, OR SITES THAT ARE
CLOSE TOGETHER, FOR INVESTIGATION PURPOSES. OPERABLE UNIT TWO
IS LOCATED IN THIS PART OF THE AIR STATION [INDICATING ON
VISUAL AID OF COVER MAP OF HANDOUT]. THE SEWAGE TREATMENT
PLANT IS LOCATED JUST NORTH OF IT. THIS IS ROOSEVELT
BOULEVARD, AND THIS IS SLOCUM CREEK GOING IN THIS DIRECTION
THERE.
[INDICATING VISUAL AID ENTITLED, AERIAL VIEW.] THIS
POSTER SHOWS A FEW MORE DETAILS OF THE SITES. SITE TEN IS
THE OLD SANITARY LANDFILL. IT'S THE LARGEST PORTION OF
Carolina Court Reporters, Inc.
Greenville, North Carolina
-------
MCAS PUBLIC HEARING 7/97
1 OPERABLE UNIT TWO, COVERING ABOUT FORTY ACRES. IT WAS USED
2 AS THE PRIMARY DISPOSAL AREA FOR THE AIR STATION FROM THE MID
3 1950'S TO THE MID 1980'S. THERE IS ALSO A SMALL SLUDGE PILE
4 ON TOP OF THE LANDFILL; THAT AREA WAS CLOSED DOWN IN THE
5 EARLY 1980'S; THE SLUDGE WAS EXCAVATED AND THE AREA WAS BACK-
6 FILLED. THERE IS ANOTHER SLUDGE APPLICATION AREA, SITE 44A,
7 UP IN HERE. IT WAS USED FOR A TWO MONTH PERIOD IN 1987 TO
8 DISPOSE OF SLUDGE FROM THE SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT. RELATED
9 TO THAT IS POLISHING PONDS ONE AND TWO, WHICH IS SITE 46;
10 THESE WERE AERATION BASINS THAT WERE USED AS PART OF THE
11 WASTE WATER TREATMENT PROCESS. THE LAST SITE IS SITE 76,
12 DOWN IN HERE, THIS AREA IS WHERE AIR STATION PERSONNEL CAN
13 WORK ON THEIR CARS OR SO BE IT.
14 [INDICATING VISUAL AID ENTITLED, SUPERFUND PROCESS.]
!5 THIS POSTER HERE SHOWS THE SUPERFUND PROCESS THAT'S LAID OUT
16 IN THE SUPERFUND LAW. THERE ARE SPECIAL STEPS IN CLEANING UP
17 A SITE. THE FIRST IS THE REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION TO FIND OUT
18 WHAT PROBLEMS ARE THERE. THE SECOND STAGE IS THE FEASIBILITY
19 STUDY ON WHAT CAN WE DO TO ADDRESS OR CLEAN UP THESE
20 PROBLEMS. THE THIRD STEP IS THE PROPOSED REMEDIAL ACTION
21 PLAN WHICH IS PART OF THIS PROCESS HERE, WHERE WE« SOLICIT
22 PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THE PREFERRED REMEDY. AFTER THE REMEDY
23 HAS BEEN DECIDED UPON, THERE'S A DOCUMENT, CALLED A RECORD OF
24 DECISION, THAT DOCUMENTS, LEGALLY, THE FINAL SELECTION OF THE
25 REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE SITE. THE FOLLOWING STEPS ARE THE
Carolina Court Reporters, Inc.
Greenville, North Carolina
-------
MCAS PUBLIC HEARING 7/97
1 REMEDIAL DESIGN OF HOW TO IMPLEMENT THE REMEDY, THE REMEDIAL
2 ACTION WHICH IS ACTUALLY IMPLEMENTING THAT REMEDY, AND IN
3 SOME CASES THERE IS GOING TO BE LONG TERM OPERATION AND
4 MAINTENANCE WHICH COULD INCLUDE LONG-TERM MONITORING. I'LL
5 LEAVE THIS ONE UP EERE BECAUSE I'LL BE REFERRING BACK TO IT.
6 [INDICATING VISUAL AID ENTITLED, REMEDIAL
7 INVESTIGATION.] THIS POSTER SHOW THE VARIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL
8 MEDIA THAT WERE INVESTIGATED, INCLUDING SURFACE SOIL,
9 SUBSURFACE SOIL, GROUNDWATER IN THE SUPERFICIAL OR SHALLOWEST
10 AQUIFER AND ALSO GROUNDWATER IN THE YORKTOWN AQUIFER, WHICH
11 IS DIRECTLY BENEATH THE SUPERFICIAL AQUIFER; AND THEY ARE
12 SEPARATED BY A CLAY LAYER THAT IMPEDES THE FLOW FROM ONE
13 AQUIFER TO THE LOWER AQUIFER. ALSO INVESTIGATED WERE TURKEY
14 GUT, WHICH IS A STREAM THAT RUNS THROUGH THE MIDDLE OF SITE
15 TEN, SURFACE WATER SEDIMENT SETTLES; AND SLOCUM CREEK WHICH
16 FLOWS ALONG THE SITE IS BEING INVESTIGATED AS A SEPARATE
17 COMPARABLE UNIT. IN THE SURFACE SOIL, THERE WAS MINIMAL
18 CONTAMINATION? HOWEVER, THERE WERE A FEW AREAS THAT WOULD
19 CAUSE AN UNACCEPTABLE RISK TO HUMAN HEALTH UNDER A FUTURE
20 HYPOTHETICAL RESIDENTIAL SCENARIO, MEANING IF SOMEBODY LIVED
21 THERE FOR A SIX YEAR PERIOD. THERE WAS ALSO SPORADIC,
22 WIDESPREAD AREAS WHERE SOIL CONTAMINATION COULD CAUSE
23 GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION; AND THAT'S THROUGH AND ACTION OF
24 PRECIPITATION RUNNING THROUGH THE SOIL AND PICKING UP
25 CONTAMINANTS, AND THEN THEY WOULD END UP IN THE GROUNDWATER.
Carolina Court Reporters, Inc.
Greenville, North Carolina
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MCAS PUBLIC HEARING 7/97
FOR SUBSURFACE SOIL, THERE WAS NO CONTAMINATION THAT
PRESENTED AN UNACCEPTABLE RISK TO HUMAN HEALTH UNDER CURRENT
LAND USE OR POTENTIAL FUTURE LAND USE. AGAIN, CONTAMINATION
LEVELS WERE HIGHER THAN IN THE SURFACE SOIL, BUT AGAIN, WERE
NOT LIFE THREATENING; THEY WERE IN LOW AREAS AND THEY WERE
ALSO IN CONCENTRATIONS THAT COULD ADVERSELY AFFECT ~
GROUNDWATER. THE GROUNDWATER BENEATH OPERABLE UNIT TWO WAS
CONTAMINATED WITH MANY METALS AND ORGANIC COMPOUNDS. MOST OF
THE AREA WITHIN THIS OUTLINE HERE IS CONTAMINATED AT
CONCENTRATIONS THAT EXCEED STATE GROUNDWATER STANDARDS. FOR
TURKEY GUT SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT, THERE WAS NO
CONTAMINATION THAT PRESENTS AN UNACCEPTABLE RISK TO HUMAN
HEALTH OR THE ENVIRONMENT.
[INDICATING VISUAL AID ENTITLED, BASEWIDE GEOLOGY.]
THIS POSTER HIGHLIGHTS A LITTLE MORE, THE, WHEN I TALK ABOUT
THE DIFFERENT AQUIFERS BENEATH THE SITE. THERE'S A
SUPERFICIAL AQUIFER IN A CONFINING UNIT, AS I SAID, A CLAY
LAYER, THAT IMPEDES FLOW DOWNWARD. THIS IS THE YORKTOWN AND
PUNGO RIVER AQUIFER. DOWN HERE IS THE CASTLE HAYNE AQUIFER,
AND THIS IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE THE AIR STATION DRAWS THEIR
WATER SUPPLY FROM THIS AQUIFER.
SO THAT WAS A BRIEF SUMMARY OF REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION
WHERE WE DETERMINE THE NATURE AND EXTENT OF CONTAMINATION,
POTENTIAL RISKS OF HUMAN HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT. THE
NEXT STEP IS A FEASIBILITY STUDY WHERE WE DEVELOP OBJECTIVES
8
•/ •
Carolina Court Reporters, Inc.
Greenville, North Carolina
-------
MCAS PUBLIC HEARING 7/97
1 AND GOALS OF WHAT THE CLEAN UP SHOULD BE, DEVELOP
2 ALTERNATIVES THAT CAN ADDRESS THOSE PROBLEMS, AND COMPARE
3 THESE ALTERNATIVES? AND THAT IS ALL DOCUMENTED IN THE
4 FEASIBILITY STUDY.
5 [INDICATING VISUAL AID ENTITLED, EVALUATION
6 CRITERIA. ] THESE ARE THE EVALUATION CRITERIA THAT ARE LAID
7 OUT IN THE SUPERFUKD LAW AND THE EPA GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS. THE
8 FIRST CRITERIA, OVERALL PROTECTIVENESS OF HUMAN HEALTH AND
9 THE ENVIRONMENT; AND COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT
10 AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS; THESE WOULD BE THINGS LIKE
11 SURFACE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS AND STATE GROUNDWATER QUALITY
12 STANDARDS. ANY ALTERNATIVE THAT IS SELECTED MUST MEET THESE
13 TWO CRITERIA. THE FOLLOWING FIVE CRITERIA ARE BALANCING
14 CRITERIA, SORT OF TO EVALUATE TRADE OFF BETWEEN DIFFERENT
15 ALTERNATIVES. THESE CRITERIA ARE LONG TERM EFFECTIVENESS;
16 REDUCTION OF TOXICITY, MOBILITY OR VOLUME THROUGH TREATMENT;
17 SHORT-TERM EFFECTIVENESS; IMPLEMENTABILITY, WHICH IS SORT OF
18 HOW EASY IT WOULD BE TO BUILD; AND COST. THERE ARE TWO OTHER
19 CRITERIA THAT COULD MODIFY ALTERNATIVES PRESENTED TODAY,
20 BEING EPA/STATE ACCEPTANCE WHICH IS INVOLVED IN THEIR REVIEW
21 OF THE DOCUMENTS TEAT ARE PRODUCED; AND COMMUNITY ACCEPTANCE
22 WHICH IS ONE OF THE PURPOSES OF TODAY'S MEETING.
23 [INDICATING VISUAL AID ENTITLED, REMEDIAL
24 ALTERNATIVES.] THIS POSTER HERE SHOWS THE ALTERNATIVES WE
25 CONSIDERED FOR BOTH GROUNDWATER AND SOIL. THE FIRST
Carolina Court Reporters, Inc.
Greenville, North Carolina
-------
MCAS PUBLIC HEARING 7/97
GROUNDWATER IS NO ACTION; AND THIS WOULD BE DOING NOTHING AT
THE SITE; JUST WALKING AWAY WITH NO MONITORING OR NO CONTROLS
OR ANYTHING OP THAT.NATURE. THE NEXT ALTERNATIVE IS NATURAL
ATTENUATION AND INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS. NATURAL ATTENUATION
IS USING INHERENT PROCESSES IN NATURE THAT WOULD REDUCE
CONTAMINANT CONCENTRATIONS. THERE WOULD ALSO BE MONITORING
INVOLVED WITH THAT TO EVALUATE WHETHER IN FACT THOSE
CONTAMINANT CONCENTRATIONS ARE DECREASING. ALONG WITH THAT
IS INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS, AND THEY COULD INCLUDE THINGS LIKE
MONITORING OR FENCING OR RESTRICTIONS ON LAND USE OR USE OF
GROUNDWATER BENEATH THE SITE. THE THIRD ALTERNATIVE IS
CALLED GROUNDWATER EXTRACTION, WHICH IS .REALLY JUST PUMPING
GROUNDWATER TO THE SURFACE, TREATING IT TO REMOVE CHEMICAL
CONTAMINANTS, DISCHARGING THE WATER EITHER TO SLOCUM CREEK OR
TO THE SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT AT THE AIR STATION. THE FOURTH
ALTERNATIVE FOR GROUNDWATER IS CALLED AIR SPARGING AND SOIL
VAPOR EXTRACTION. AIR SPARGING IS BASICALLY BLOWING AIR INTO
THE GROUNDWATER; CONTAMINANTS CAN BE ATTACHED TO THAT AIR,
AND THEN YOU WOULD PUMP OUT THE VAPOR AND CONTAMINANTS THAT
WERE IN THE GROUNDWATER.
WE ALSO LOOKED AT SIX ALTERNATIVES FOR SOIL, AND
THESE ARE THE'SOIL HOT SPOTS THAT I ALLUDED TO BEFORE; THESE
DO NOT INCLUDE THE WASTE THAT'S BURIED IN THE LANDFILL. THE
FIRST ACTION, OR FIRST ALTERNATIVE, IS NO ACTION. THE SECOND
ALTERNATIVE IS INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS. THE THIRD ONE IS SOIL
10
"" iCarolirUCourt Reporters, Inc.
Greenville, North Carolina
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MCAS PUBLIC HEARING 7/97
VAPOR EXTRACTION, WHICH WAS SIMILAR TO THIS EXCEPT YOU'RE
JUST APPLYING PRESSURE TO BASICALLY SUCK OUT CONTAMINANTS.
THE FOURTH ALTERNATIVE WOULD BE EXCAVATION OR DIGGING UP THE
MATERIAL, CONSOLIDATING IT IN ONE LOCATION ON TOP OF A
LANDFILL, AND CONTAINMENT, WHICH WOULD BE COVERING IT WITH A
CAP THAT WOULD IMPEDE RAINWATER FROM INFILTRATING THROUGH AND
PUMPING CONTAMINANTS OUT OF THE SOIL. THE FIFTH ALTERNATIVE
INVOLVES DIGGING UP THE WASTE, TREATING IT ON SITE TO REMOVE
THE CONTAMINANTS, AND THEN DISPOSING OF THE TREATED MATERIAL
ON TOP OF THE LANDFILL. THE LAST ALTERNATIVE IS EXCAVATION
AND OFF-SITE DISPOSAL WHERE THE SOIL WOULD BE DUG UP AND
HAULED AWAY TO A NONHAZARDOUS WASTE LANDFILL. BASED ON THE
FIVE EVALUATION, OR THE EVALUATION CRITERIA HERE DOWN THROUGH
COST, THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE FOR GROUNDWATER IS NATURAL
ATTENUATION AND'INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS; AND THE PREFE.RRED
ALTERNATIVE FOR SOIL IS SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION AND
INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS.
[INDICATES VISUAL AID ENTITLED, PREFERRED
ALTERNATIVE.] THIS LEADS US TO THE NEXT STEP OF OUR PROCESS,
TEE PROPOSED REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN. THIS IS MORE DETAILS OF
THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE THAT'S IDENTIFIED IN THAT PLAN.
THE OBJECTIVES WOULD BE TO PREVENT POTENTIAL EXPOSURE TO
CONTAMINATED SOIL AND FILL MATERIAL. THE SECOND OBJECTIVE
WOULD BE PREVENT POTENTIAL EXPOSURE TO CONTAMINATED
GROUNDWATER. THE THIRD WOULD BE PREVENT POTENTIAL USE OF
11
"' Carolina Court Reporters, Inc.
Greenville, North Carolina
-------
MCAS PUBLIC HEARING 7/97
1 CONTAMINATED GROUNDWATER IN THE FUTURE. THE FOURTH OBJECTIVE
2 WOULD BE RESTRICT CURRENT AND FUTURE USE OF THE SITES. THE
3 LAST OBJECTIVE WOULD BE TO MINIMIZE THE IMPACT OF SOIL "HOT
4 SPOTS"'ON GROUNDWATER. THIS WOULD BE DONE THROUGH VARIOUS
5 ACTIONS; THE FIRST BEING RECORDS OF THE CONTAMINATION WOULD
6 BE MAINTAINED IN TEE CHERRY POINT MASTER PLAN. THE MASTER
7 PLAN IS THE DOCUMENT THAT SETS OUT RESTRICTIVE OR DESIGNATED
8 LAND USES FOR VARIOUS AREAS OF THE AIR STATION. THE SECOND
9 ITEM IS AN INSTITUTIONAL CONTROL USING THE MASTER PLAN THAT
10 WOULD RESTRICT OR LIMIT USE OF GROUNDWATER AND LAND AT OU2.
11 IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE HERE, TOO, THAT THE AIR STATION HAS
12 IT'S OWN SEPARATE WATER SUPPLY; AND THE WELLS ARE NOT LOCATED
13 ANYWHERE NEAR OU2. IN ADDITION, GROUNDWATER, SURFACE WATER,
14 AND SEDIMENT WOULD BE MONITORED; ONE REASON FOR THIS IS TO
15 . DETERMINE IF THE CONTAMINATION IS REMAINING AT OU2 OR
16 MIGRATING OFF INTO THE ENVIRONMENT; ANOTHER PURPOSE OF THIS
17 WOULD BE TO CONFIRM THE EFFECTIVENESS OF NATURAL ATTENUATION
18 AS A GROUNDWATER REMEDY. ANOTHER COMPONENT WOULD BE
19 INSTALLATION, REPAIR AND REPLACING OF FENCING; THERE IS
20 CURRENTLY A FENCE AROUND THE LANDFILL PORTION OF OU2;
21 ADDITIONAL FENCING WOULD BE INSTALLED AND REPAIRED IN THE
22 FUTURE AS NEEDED. WARNING SIGNS WOULD ALSO BE POSTED ON THE
23 FENCE. AGAIN, THE LAST COMPONENT WOULD BE TREAT THE MAJOR
24 SOIL "HOT SPOTS" WITH THIS SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION; AGAIN, THAT
25 WOULD BE TO MINIMIZE THE IMPACT OF SOIL ON FUTURE GROUNDWATER
12
* " ~ Carolina Court Reporters, Inc.
Greenville, North Carolina
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MCAS PUBLIC HEARING 7/97
CONTAMINATION.
AFTER ALL OF THE COMMENTS ARE RECEIVED, THEY ARE
ADDRESSED IN A DOCUMENT CALLED THE RECORD OF DECISION, WHICH
IS THE FINAL, LET ME SAY THIS IS THE LEGAL DOCUMENT THAT
STATES WHAT HAS TO BE DONE AT OU2. THAT'S THE END OF MY
PRESENTATION, IF ANYONE HAS ANY QUESTIONS.
MR. EUGENE SMITH: YOU HAD ON ONE OF YOUR EARLIER
CHARTS, SECTION 44.
MR. TURNBALL: SITE 44A?
MR. SMITH: YES. YOU SAID THERE WAS SEWER SLUDGE
AND YOU ALSO SAID METALS. WHY WOULD YOU HAVE METALS IN THE
SEWER PLANT? THEY WOULDN'T BE PART OF ANY METALS THAT WERE
ADDED THAT DID NOT GET THROUGH THE TREATMENT PLANT WOULD IT?
DO YOU FOLLOW WHAT I'M SAYING?
MR. TURNBALL: THE SOURCE OF THE METALS OF THE
SLUDGE?
MR. SKITH: YES, WHERE DID THE METALS COME FROM?
DID THEY GET THROUGH THE TREATMENT PLANT?
MR. TDRNBALL: THEY PROBABLY WENT THROUGH THE
TREATMENT PLANT AND ENDED UP IN THE SLUDGE. THEY PROBABLY
WERE REMOVED FROM THE WATER AND ENDED UP IN THE SLUDGE, WHICH
IS WHAT WAS SPREAD IN THIS AREA.
MR. SMITH: I JUST THOUGHT IT WAS KIND OF STRANGE
TO HAVE METALS END UP THROUGH THE TREATMENT CENTER, BUT THEN
YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT WAS HERE AND WHAT WENT IN.
13
Carolina Court Reporters, Inc.
Greenville, North Carolina
-------
MCAS PUBLIC HEARING 7/97
1 MR. TURNBALL: RIGHT, AND AGAIN, THIS WAS TEN
2 YEARS AGO, SO IT'S DIFFICULT TO SPECULATE.
3 MR. LANCE LAUGHMILLER: THERE WAS A LOT OF
4 METALS, OR FAIRLY A LOT, IN THAT AREA; YOU KNOW A LOT OF
5 METALS THAT ARE CALLED CONTAMINANTS, THINGS LIKE IRON AND
6 MANGANESE AND THINGS, WE'RE NOT TALKING . . .
7 MR. SMITH: TEN YEARS AGO I DON'T THINK WE
8 WORRIED TOO MUCH ABOUT WHAT WE WERE DUMPING IN THE GROUND.
9 YOU AND I JUST CARRIED STUFF OUT IN THE WOODS AND THREW THEM
10 OFF THE BACK OF A PICK-UP TRUCK.
11 MR. LAUGHMILLER: NOT ME. TWENTY YEARS AGO
12 MAYBE; MAYBE 1977.
13 MR. RICHARD POWERS: ISN'T IT MY UNDERSTANDING
14 THAT EVERY FIVE YEARS THIS PLAN IS TO BE REVIEWED FOR
15 EFFECTIVENESS AND TO UPDATE TECHNOLOGIES AND SO FORTH AND SO
16 ON?
1? MR. TURNBALL: THAT IS CORRECT. WHAT WOULD HAPPEN
18 WOULD BE THE RESULTS OF THE MONITORING WOULD BE REVIEWED AT
19 LEAST EVERY FIVE YEARS TO DETERMINE THAT THE PREFERRED REMEDY
20 REMAINS EFFECTIVE AND PROTECTIVE OF PEOPLE AND HEALTH AND THE
21 ENVIRONMENT; AND THAT'S ALSO PART OF THE SUPERFUND LAW, THAT
22 ANY TIME THERE'S ANY CONTAMINATION LEFT, YOU'RE REQUIRED TO
23 DO THAT.
24 MR. POWERS: TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF NEW
25 TECHNOLOGIES OR ASSESS NEW TECHNOLOGIES?
14
\ •" Carolina Court Reporters, Inc.
Greenville, North Carolina
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
6
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MCAS PUBLIC HEARING 7/97
MR. TURNBALL: THAT COULD BE ONE OF THE PURPOSES.
MR. SMITH: WHAT'S YOUR TIME FRAME BEING
PROJECTED, WHEN YOU CAN SAY THIS SITE IS CLEAN; WE CAN TURN
THE ELECTRICITY OFF AND QUIT PUMPING IT WITH AIR? WHAT ARE
WE TALKING ABOUT, FORTY YEARS? FIFTY YEARS?
MR. LAUGHMILLER: THE ACTIVE TREATMENT COMPONENT,
WHICH IS THE SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION; THAT'S EXPECTED TO LAST,
ONCE IT'S OPERATIONAL AND FINE TUNED, FOR TWO OR THREE YEARS;
PROBABLY EVEN LESS THAN THAT.
MR. SMITH: I FIGURED IT WOULD BE A LONGER TIME
FRAME THAN THAT, JUST BY READING IT.
MR. LAUGHMILLER: NOW AGAIN, THE NATURAL
ATTENUATION MAY TAKE LONGER, YOU KNOW, THROUGH SOME UNKNOWN.
THE THING THAT'S DIFFICULT TO, I GUESS, QUANTIFY, OR SEE HOW
BAD OF A PROBLEM WOULD BE, WOULD BE A LOT OF THE WASTE IN THE
LANDFILL, WE REALLY DIDN'T GO IN AND SAMPLE THAT, AND SO
IT'S—WE DID DO SOME MODELING AND WE SHOWED SOME OF THE
ORGANIC COMPOUNDS COULDN'T FLUSH OUT IN A TEN OR FIFTEEN YEAR
PERIOD. SOME OF THE METALS WOULD TAKE LONGER, AND THERE ARE
SOME METALS THAT WOULD TAKE A VERY LONG TIME.
MS. PATRICIA MCCLELLAN: THE SURVEY FOR SOME. OF
THE LANDFILL AREAS ALLUDED THAT SOME OF THE SITES THE LAND
WAS BELOW THE WATER TABLE; ARE THOSE THE REGIONS THAT PRODUCE
THE CONTAMINATION, OR IS THE WASTE THAT YA'LL FOUND THERE IN
THE CONCRETE AND STUFF? ~
15
Carolina Court Reporters, Inc.
Greenville, North -Carolina
-------
MCAS PUBLIC HEARING 7/97
1 MR. TURNBALL: WE LOOKED AT - MOST OP OUR SAMPLES
2 WE TRY TO TAKE ABOVE THE WATER TABLE ANYWAY, SO WE, YOU KNOW,
3 TO GET AN IDEA IF THERE'S GROUNDWATER IN THE SAMPLE. WE DID
4 LOOK AT SOME OP THE DATA OF SOIL SAMPLES AND GROUNDWATER
5 SAMPLES IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO THOSE. WE REALLY COULDN'T GET
6 MUCH CORRELATION.
7 MS. MCCLELLAN: SO YOU DON'T THINK THAT'S
8 CONTRIBUTING SIGNIFICANTLY TO ANY OF THE GROUNDWATER
9 CONTAMINATION?
10 MR. TURNBALL: I DON'T KNOW. LIKE I SAID, IN A
11 LOT OF THE AREAS WE DID NOT ACTUALLY TAKE SAMPLES OF THE
12 WASTE OR BORE DOWN THROUGH THE WASTE. A LOT OF THE AREAS
13 WERE ON THE EDGES OF THE LANDFILL WHERE THE WASTE WAS NOT,
14 MAY NOT HAVE BEEN BURIED THAT DEEP.
15. MS. MCCLELLAN: WELL ACCORDING TO THIS, IT WASN'T
16 AS DEEP.
17 MR. TURNBALL: WE DID GO HAVE, WE DID GO FIND
18 SOME, YOU KNOW, THERE WERE SOME CONTAMINATED AREAS THAT WERE
19 RIGHT ABOVE OR AT THE WATER TABLE. SOME OF THOSE AREAS ARE
20 BEING ADDRESSED BY SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION.
21 MS. MCCLELLAN: THIS SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION, WILL
22 THAT REMOVE ALL OF THE CONTAMINANTS; OR WILL IT CAUSE
23 PRODUCTION OF, LIKE, SOME BREAK DOWN PRODUCTS OR SOMETHING?
24 MR. TURNBALL: IT SHOULD NOT CAUSE ANY BREAK DOWN
25 PRODUCTS; IT WOULD REMOVE MOSTLY VOLATILE ORGANICS WHICH
16
i •/ •
Carolina Court Reporters, Inc.
Greenville, North Carolina
-------
MCAS PUBLIC HEARING 7/97
1 EASILY EVAPORATE; IT COULD ALSO STIMULATE SOME BIOLOGICAL
2 ACTIVITY AND REDUCE SOME OF THE LESS VOLATILE COMPOUNDS. IT
3 WILL PROBABLY NOT EE EFFECTIVE FOR METALS; BUT THE BIGGEST
4 PROBLEM WE SAW .IN GROUNDWATER WAS FROM THE VOLATILE ORGANICS,
5 AND ALSO IN THE SOIL.
6 MS. MCCLELLAN: HOW MANY MONITORING WELLS DO YOU
7 HAVE AROUND THE AREA?
8 MR, TURNBALL: AT LEAST FIFTY.
9 MS. MCCLELLANI AND THEY'RE AT DIFFERENT DEPTHS,
10 RIGHT? SOME GO DOWN IN THE GROUNDWATER?
11 . MR. TURNBALL: THERE ARE MONITORING WELLS FOR
12 SCREENING IN THE SUPERFICIAL AQUIFER, BOTH IN THE UPPER
13 PORTION OF IT AND THE LOWER PORTION OF IT; PLUS, IN THE
14 YORKTOWN AQUIFER, THERE'S NOT AS MANY WELLS IN THE YORKTOWN
15 AQUIFER; I BELIEVE THERE ARE FIFTEEN OR SIXTEEN; BUT MOST OF
16 THE WELLS ARE IN THE SUPERFICIAL, SO WE BASICALLY SCREEN TWO
17 LEVELS IN THE SUPERFICIAL AQUIFER AND ALSO MONITORING THE
18 YORKTOWN AQUIFER.
19 MR. LAUGHMILLER: I HAVEN'T SEEN ANY SIGNIFICANT
20 CONTAMINATION IN THE YORKTOWN AQUIFER. ALL THE CONTAMINATION
21 HAS BEEN IN THE SUPERFICIAL AQUIFER RIGHT BELOW THE LANDFILL?
22 SO THE IDEA IS, SINCE WE DON'T HAVE ANY REAL EVIDENCE THAT
23 THE CONTAMINATION HAS MIGRATED DOWN IN ANY SIGNIFICANT WAY,
24 THE NATURAL PROCESSES WILL REMOVE BOTH BY REMEDIATION AND
25 ABSORPTION, A PORTION OF PROCESSES THAT WORK ON -
17
t .,. Carolina Court Reporters, Inc.
Greenville, North Carolina
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MCAS PUBLIC HEARING 7/97
CONTAMINATION, OR REMOVE THE CONTAMINATION, BEFORE IT HAS ANY
IMPACT ON THE DRINKING WATER AQUIFER; AND THAT'S ONE OF THE
MAIN REASONS FOR A MONITORING PROGRAM, TO CONFIRM THAT THAT'S
ACTUALLY TAKING PLACE AND THAT IT'S BEING EFFECTIVE.
MRS. GRACE EVANS: HOW OFTEN DO YOU TEST? ONE OF
THE COMMENTS WAS, I THINK HE SAID, TAKE THAT OUT; SO HOW
OFTEN DO YOU ACTUALLY MONITOR?
MR, TURNBALL: THAT WILL BE DETERMINED DURING THE
REMEDIAL DESIGN, TEE EXACT MONITORING PROGRAM. WE MAY HAVE
USED THE ANNUAL JUST FOR ALL DETERMINANTS FOR JUST A COMMON
COST BASIS, BUT THIS WILL HAVE TO BE—THE EXACT MONITORING
PROGRAM WILL HAVE TO BE HANDLED, A CONSENSUS BETWEEN THE NAVY
AND THE AIR STATION AND REGULATORY AGENCIES.
MR. MATT COCHRAN: THE TYPICAL APPROACH TO THE
MONITORING PROGRAM IS TO COLLECT A GREATER NUMBER OF SAMPLES
IN THE EARLY STAGES OF MONITORING; FOR INSTANCE, YOU MAY TAKE
SAMPLES OVER A QUARTERLY MONITORING PERIOD, THAT IS FOUR
SAMPLES PER YEAR, AND EVALUATE THAT INFORMATION; AND THEN, AS
YOU'RE SEEING TRENDS OVER TIME, YOU MAY DECREASE THE
FREQUENCY THAT YOU COLLECT THOSE SAMPLES TO TWO TIMES A YEAR;
AND TAILING IT OFF TO ONE TIME A YEAR, OR MAYBE ONCE EVERY
SEVERAL YEARS ONCE YOU HAVE ESTABLISHED SOME SORT OF A BASE
FIND TREND WITH YOUR INITIAL ROUNDS OF DATA.
MS. RACHEL JOHNSON: THE EXACT NUMBER OF WELLS TO
SAMPLE AND WHAT TO SAMPLE FOR WILL BE DECIDED AS A" CONSENSUS
18
Carolina Court Reporters, Inc.
Greenville, North Carolina
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MCAS PUBLIC HEARING 7/97
DECISION BETWEEN TEE STATE, NAVY, EPA AND STATION PERSONNEL.
MR. TURNBALL: DID SOMEBODY HAVE A QUESTION OVER
HERE?
MS. EVANS: YES, ON SOME OF THE ORIGINAL
INFORMATION THAT WE WERE GIVEN, THIS WAS ON LINE TO BE
DECIDED IN 1996, WE'RE ABOUT A YEAR BEYOND WHAT I ORIGINALLY
READ ABOUT OU2; AND I WONDERED, SINCE THIS IS AN UNKNOWN
QUANTITY OR AN UNKNOWN SOMETHING THAT SEEMS TO BE AFFECTING
THIS SITE UPSTREAM, AND SO I GUESS ANOTHER OPERABLE UNIT HAS
BEEN ADDED UP SLOCUM CREEK?
MR. LAUGHMILLER: LET ME ADDRESS THIS RIGHT NOW.
ONE OF THE THINGS WE'VE GOT, WE'VE GOT A SMALL AMOUNT OF
MAINLY METALS THAT WE'RE CONCERNED ABOUT THAT IS IN SLOCUM
CREEK NEXT TO OPERABLE UNIT TWO AND OPERABLE UNIT THREE.
IT'S HARD TO DETERMINE AT THIS POINT WHERE THAT'S COMING
FROM; THERE'S A COUPLE—SOME OF THE CONTAMINANTS ARE SIMILAR
TO THE ONES AT OPERABLE UNIT TWO; SOME ARE SIMILAR TO THE
ONES IN THE OPERABLE UNIT THREE; SOME OF THEM ALSO, MAYBE,
HAVE COME FROM OLD, NON-POINT SOURCE RUN-OFF SITES THAT WERE
PERMEATED; SO WE'VE GOT SEVERAL DIFFERENT AVENUES OF WHERE
THE CONTAMINATION MAY HAVE COME FROM; AND SOMETHING THAT'S
GOING TO TAKE A MORE COORDINATED EFFORT, BECAUSE WHEN YOU
START TALKING ABOUT ECOLOGICAL EFFECTS IN A SURFACE WATER
BODY, IT'S NOT NEARLY AS AN EXACT SCIENCE AS WHAT WE'VE BEEN
DEALING WITH. SO, FOR CONVENIENCE, AND TO GO AHEAD AND PUSH
19
•t •
Carolina Court Reporters, Inc.
Greenville, North Carolina
-------
MCAS PUBLIC HEARING 7/97
1 OUR REMEDIES THROUGH, WE DECIDED TO SEPARATE THAT ASPECT AWAY
2 FROM THOSE OPERABLE UNIT TWO AND OPERABLE UNIT THREE SO WE
3 CAN FOCUS OUR CONCENTRATIONS ON GETTING WHAT WE KNOW AND WHAT
4 WE UNDERSTAND TAKEN CARE OF. NOW WE'RE BEGINNING THE PROCESS
5 OF COMING BACK AND PUTTING TOGETHER SOME OF THE ECOLOGICAL
6 EFFECTS FROM THIS PARTICULAR AREA, SLOCUM CREEK, AND TRY TO
7 DETERMINE WHAT IMPACT THEY HAVE.
8 MS. EVANS: WHAT I WAS TRYING TO MAKE OUT WAS
9 WHETHER OR NOT IT WOULD BE A CONTINUANCE, IF IT IS COMING
10 FROM BOTH STREAMS, WHICH IS APPARENTLY WHAT IS GOING TO BE
11 LOOKED AT; THEN, KNOWING AS SURFACE WATER AND GROUNDWATER
12 RUNS ALONG, WHETHER OR NOT THIS WOULDN'T KEEP, WHETHER WE
13 SHOULD KNOW WHERE IT'S COMING FROM, SOME OF THESE. IN
14 LOOKING AT THE THINGS, THE NUMBER OF ITEMS OR POLLUTANTS THAT
15 ' WERE CHECKED, AND LOOKING AT SOME OF THE PERCENTAGES THAT
16 WERE FOUND, AND ARE STILL GOING TO BE CHECKED FOR WITH
17 CLEANUP GOALS; IT SEEMS THAT WE HAVE MORE PROBLEMS THAN CAN
18 BE CLEANED UP BY USING TWO AND THREE TO CLEAN THEM. AND I
19 WONDER IF SOME OF THE INFORMATION WAS CHECKING THE SEDIMENT
20 BUT THEN CHECKING THE SOIL BENEATH IT; I KNOW THE SEDIMENT,
21 AND I GUESS I THINK OF IT AS BEING LIGHTER THAN SOIL
22 UNDERNEATH; WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE THERE?
23 MR. TURNBALL: BETWEEN SEDIMENT AND SOIL?
24 MS. EVANS: YES, SEDIMENT AND SOIL, UNDERLYING
25 SOIL?
20
* ' Carolina Court Reporters, Inc.
Greenville, North Carolina
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15 -
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MCAS PUBLIC HEARING 7/97
MR. TURNBALL: OKAY, WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT,
SURFACE SOIL AND SUBSURFACE SOIL, THAT'S ON REGULAR LAND.
MS. JOHNSON: WHAT SHE'S REFERRING TO
SPECIFICALLY IS IN THE PLAN AND IT'S FOUND ON PAGE FIVE.
MR. COCHRAN: GRACE, YOU ARE CORRECT THAT SLOCUM
CREEK WOULD BECOME, OR A PORTION OF SLOCUM CREEK ADJACENT TO
OU2 AND OU3 WILL BECOME A SEPARATE OPERABLE UNIT AND
INVESTIGATED ON ITS OWN.
MS. EVANS: I JUST WONDERED IF UPSTREAM, WHETHER
OR NOT YOU WOULD BE READY TO CLEAR THAT UP?
MR. TURNBALL: NO THAT'S REFERRING TO THESE
POLISHING PONDS HEBE; THAT SECTION OF THE DOCUMENT. WE TOOK
SAMPLES OF THE SEDIMENT OR THE SLUDGE THAT WAS IN THE BOTTOM
OF THOSE PONDS; WE ALSO WENT BENEATH THAT TO SEE IF THERE
WERE ANY EFFECT OF CONTAMINANTS MOVING FROM THAT SLUDGE
MATERIAL INTO THE NATURAL SOIL UNDERNEATH, AND THAT WHAT THAT
WAS REFERRING TO THERE.
MS. EVANS: THE SEDIMENT AND SOIL?
MR. TURNBALL: IT WAS ACTUALLY THE SEDIMENT IN
THE PONDS WHICH WOULD BE THE RESIDUAL MATERIAL THAT WOULD
SETTLE OUT IN THOSE PONDS. THE SOIL THAT WOULD BE THERE IF
THE PONDS WEREN'T THERE. SO THAT WASN'T REFERRING TO EITHER
SLOCUM CREEK OR TURKEY GUT.
MS. EVANS: NO, NO, RIGHT; I UNDERSTAND THAT.
IT'S JUST BECAUSE, AFTER WE HAD THAT VERY INTERESTING MEETING
21
Carolina Court Reporters, Inc.
Greenville, North Carolina
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
B
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MCAS PUBLIC HEARING 7/97
LAST TIME DOWN IN KOREHEAD, AND LOOKING AT THE OSGS
INFORMATION ABOUT 2HE GROUND CHANNELS, VALLEY OF CHANNELS,
AND I THINK WHEN WE WERE—SOMEONE SAID, AFTER THAT MEETING,
WE'D BETTER LOOK AT THE BENZINE; I DON'T THINK IT WAS AT THIS
UNIT; IT WAS AT ANOTHER UNIT; BUT, IF THERE'S SOMETHING GOING
ON THAT WE DON'T KNOW ABOUT, I JUST WONDER WHETHER THAT'S IT.
WHAT I'M TRYING TO DO IS PROTECT SLOCUM CREEK. I WANT YOU TO
EVEN ADD ANOTHER OPERABLE UNIT AND GET RID OF THAT ELBOW DOWN
AT THE RIVER.
MR. COCHRAN: GRACE, WE ARE IN THE PROCESS NOW OF
TAKING EXISTING DATA THAT HAS BEEN COLLECTED, AND THERE'S
BEEN NUMEROUS STUDIES THAT HAVE BEEN DONE IN THE PAST, AND
PUTTING THAT DATA TOGETHER AND SUMMARIZING THE DATA, SO THAT
WE CAN PINPOINT WHAT HAS BEEN DONE IN THE PAST SO THAT WE CAN
ASSESS THAT, AND DETERMINE WHAT WE NEED TO DO IN THE FUTURE.
IN ASSOCIATION WITH OU2 AND 3.
MS. EVANS: IS THAT, DO YOU MEAN WHAT HAS GONE ON
BEFORE OR WHAT—SAY LIKE THE EIGHT STUDY WHERE METALS WERE
FOUND?
MR. TURNBALL: REALLY ASSESSING BOTH, WHAT HAVE
BEEN CONTRIBUTORS, AND WHERE THOSE CONTRIBUTIONS ARE AT,
WHERE THE CONTAMINANTS ARE AT.
MS. EVANS: I CAN'T FIND PICTURES OF CONTRIBUTORS
UPSTREAM, SO IT WOULD SEEM THAT THAT WOULD BE THE GROUNDWATER
COMING THROUGH; AND THAT IT'S COMING FROM SOMEWHERE, AND SO—
22
• t'
Carolina Court Reporters, Inc.
Greenville, North Carolina
-------
f
MCAS PUBLIC HEARING 7/97
1 BECAUSE MAYBE THERE WAS SOMETHING UPSTREAM ON SLOCUM OR ON
2 TURKEY AND IT'S COMING THROUGH IN THE GROUNDWATER. SHOULDN'T
3 WE FIGURE THAT OUT BEFORE WE MAKE A DECISION?
4 MR. LAUGHMILLER: WHAT WE'VE DONE WITH THIS STUDY
5 IS WE LOOKED AT THE CONTAMINANTS THAT ARE IN OU2. WE SAY,
6 OKAY, WE'VE GOT SOME CONTAMINANTS IN THE SOIL; WE'VE GOT SOME
7 CONTAMINANTS IN THE GROUNDWATER. WE HAVE TO—THE WAY WE TELL
8 WHETHER OUR REMEDY IS EFFECTIVE, ARE ANY OF THESE
9 CONTAMINANTS GOING TO LEACH DOWN THROUGH THE SOIL, OUT
10 THROUGH THE GROUNDWATER AND INTO THE CREEK THAT WILL CAUSE
11 'ELEVATED LEVELS, LEVELS ABOVE STATE STANDARDS FOR SURFACE
12 WATER. IF WE CAN'T INTERRUPT THAT, OR IF THAT'S HAPPENING,
13 THEN WE HAVE TO REMEDY THAT, OR PREVENT THAT. RIGHT NOW, THE
14 LEVELS OF CONTAMINATION THAT ARE COMING OUT INTO THE CREEK
15 ARE BELOW THAT LEVEL; IT'S NOT A CORRELATED—IT'S NOT—WE
10 HAVEN'T FOUND ANY CONTAMINANTS THAT ARE GOING DOWN THROUGH
17 THIS MEDIA, COMING OUT OF OU2, THAT ARE CAUSING A DIRECT
18 EFFECT THAT IS ABOVE THE LEVELS OF SLOCUM CREEK VOLATILES.
19 MS. LINDA RAYNOR: WE'RE EXPERIENCING—WE'RE
20 CLEANING UP MOST OF THE VOLATILES AT OU2 AREAS. THE AQUATIC
21 TOXICOLOGY PEOPLE WITH THE STATE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT METALS
22 AND PESTICIDES IN SLOCUM CREEK, SO WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT
23 INVESTIGATING SLOCUM CREEK CONTINUALLY FOR THE PESTICIDES AND
24 METALS, AND SO I'VE MET WITH THE AQUATIC TOXICOLOGY PEOPLE TO
25 RELAY INFORMATION TO LINK THE MARINE CORPS AND CONTRACTORS OF
23
i '/ •
Carolina Court Reporters, Inc.
Greenville, North Carolina
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15.
16
17
.18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MCAS PUBLIC HEARING 7/97
WHAT THEY KIND OP HAVE IN MIND AS FAR AS THE INVESTIGATION.
SO, WHAT WILL HAPPEN NOW, THE MARINE CORPS AND THE
CONTRACTORS WILL PREPARE A PROPOSAL OF WHERE THEY'RE GOING TO
SAMPLE AND WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO SAMPLE. THEY'RE GOING TO
HAVE TO SAMPLE FISE TISSUES AND THINGS LIKE THAT, AND THEN
ALSO SUBMIT IT TO THE AQUATIC TOXICOLOGY PEOPLE, AND -THEN
THEY WILL EVALUATE IT, AND SO THAT WILL BE STARTING THE
INVESTIGATION OF SLOCUM CREEK. YOUR CONCERN, I GUESS, IS FOR
THE CONTAMINANTS THAT ARE COMING UP GRADIENT FROM THESE
SITES; AND THEY WILL HAVE TO BE ADDRESSED. WHEN WE FIND THE
SOURCE, AND I THINK WE'VE KIND OF MADE SOME HEADWAY, THEN
WE'LL HAVE TO ADDRESS THAT AND TAKE CARE OF IT. SO, YOU
KNOW, WE'LL FIND OUT AS WE GO. BUT I THINK THE REASON OU2
AND 3--I MEAN THOSE ARE THE ONES WE'RE CLEANING UP FIRST, AND
THERE'S A WHOLE BUNCH OF OTHER PLACES TO CLEAN UP, AND WHEN
WE FIND THAT MAYBE THE ONES UP GRADIENT IS A HIGHER PRIORITY,
WE'LL TRY TO WORK THAT WAY AND FOCUS ON THAT; SO WE CAN
ADDRESS THAT ALSO.
MS. EVANS: I GUESS THAT WILL SEEM TO TAKE CARE
OF THE UPGRADING, IF WE THINK THIS IS NOT COMING FROM THAT,
BEFORE WE TAKE CARE OF THIS, BECAUSE WOULDN'T IT JUST BE
CUMULATIVE? '
MS. RAYNOR: WELL, IN THE MEANTIME, WITH GETTING
THIS LITTLE PIECE, THE SOIL LEVELS, THE CONTAMINATION IN THE
SOILS ARE HIGHER THAN THE STATE ALLOWS ON THE GROUND SERVICE;
24
J
Carolina Court Reporters, Inc.
Greenville, North Carolina
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
.21
22
23
24
25
MCAS PUBLIC HEARING 7/97
THAT'S WHY THEY'RE DOING THE SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION, AND WE'RE
GOING TO TRY NATURAL ATTENUATION, AND HOPEFULLY THAT WILL
TAKE CARE OF THE PROBLEM. THAT'S WHY WE'RE GOING TO TAKE
CARE OF THOSE AREAS THAT WERE INVESTIGATED; AND AS WE GO,
WE'RE GOING TO ADD ON, AND IF THE UP GRADIENT SOURCES ARE A
HIGHER PRIORITY, WE'LL CONCENTRATE ON THEM.
MR. POWERS: THAT'S CERTAINLY WHAT THE RAB IS
FOR, IS TO HELP ASSIGN THOSE PRIORITIES.
MS. EVANS: WELL, I'M GOING TO ASK SOMETHING
ELSE, TOO. IS, IN DECIDING UPON WHICH ALTERNATIVE YOU'RE
GOING TO USE, IS EVERYTHING EQUAL; OR ARE YOU WEIGHING SOME
OF THESE HIGHER? FOR ME, I WOULD THINK THE LONG-TERM
EFFECTIVENESS AND PERMANENCE AND REDUCTION OF TOXICITY,
MOBILITY, OR VOLUME; THOSE WOULD GET A HIGHER VALUE TO ME
THAN SHORT-TERM EFFECTIVENESS, COST AND IMPLEMENTABILITY.
THAT'S IMPORTANT, AND COST CERTAINLY IS IMPORTANT, BUT THE
COSTS ARE SO INCREDIBLE ANYWAY; BUT, MY HIGHEST, FOR ME IT
WOULD BE THE LONG-TERM EFFECTIVENESS; SO EVENTUALLY THESE
FENCES CAN COME DOWN AND WARNING SIGNS WON'T HAVE TO BE
DOTTING THE BASE, AND CERTAINLY THE REDUCTION OF TOXICITY AND
MOBILITY ARE THE BIG ONES.
MR. LAUGHMILLER: THIS SITE IS KIND OF UNIQUE IN
THE SENSE THAT THE MAIN PROBLEM WITH THE SITE IS THAT IT'S A
FORTY ACRE LANDFILL, SO IT'S NEVER—WE'RE NEVER GOING TO WALK
AWAY FROM IT; I MEAN, WE PUT GARBAGE OVER THERE FOR YEARS AND
25
• s •
Carolina Court Reporters, Inc.
Greenville, North Carolina
-------
MCAS PUBLIC HEARING 7/97
1 YEARS AND YEARS, AND IT'S A LANDFILL, AND THAT'S WHERE THE
2 LANDFILL EXISTS. AS FAR AS THE MONITORING, WE'RE PROBABLY
3 ALWAYS GOING TO HAVE TO MONITOR TO SOME EXTENT, BECAUSE WE
4 DON'T KNOW EXACTLY EVERYTHING THAT'S IN IT. I MEAN, THERE
5 MAY BE ONE LITTLE DRUM OF SOMETHING IN THERE SOMEWHERE THAT
6 TAKES FIFTY YEARS TO PUNCTURE? AND WE WON'T KNOW THAT UNTIL
7 WE CATCH IT IN THE MONITORING, AND IT MAY NEVER HAPPEN; SO,
8 IN THAT SENSE, THIS SITE IS A LITTLE UNIQUE AS FAR AS OUR
9 OTHER SITES. WE'RE NEVER GOING TO DROP THE SIGNS DOWN AND
10 WALK AWAY FROM THIS ONE, BECAUSE OF THE LANDFILL; BUT BY
11 WORKING WITH THE STATE, AND COMING UP WITH AN ALTERNATIVE TO
12 USE THE NATURAL PROCESSES FOR THE LEVELS OF CONTAMINATION
13 THAT ARE CURRENTLY IN THERE, WE SAVED ABOUT FOUR MILLION
14 DOLLARS THAT WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO PUT TOWARDS BRINGING SEVERAL
15' OTHER OPERABLE UNITS UP ON LINE AND PUSHING THEM FORWARD,
16 TOOK OUR BUDGET BASICALLY AND MOVED EVERYTHING TWO YEARS
17 FORWARD; SO THAT WAS A GREAT ACCOMPLISHMENT BECAUSE OF THE
18 STATE COMING UP WITH SOME CREATIVE ALTERNATIVES. THAT'S WHY
19 WE BALANCE THE COSTS WITH SOME OF THE DIFFERENT THINGS.
20 MS. EVANS: I UNDERSTAND HOW TO DO THAT; I JUST
21 WANT THE CANAL, BECAUSE IT'S THERE ON THE WATER; WE'VE GOT
22 ENOUGH PROBLEMS WITH THE WATER AND WITH THE SAME METALS AND
23 POLLUTION AND EVERYTHING ELSE COMING DOWNSTREAM FROM WEST,
24 THAT I STILL DON'T WANT RIGHT HERE; IT'S GETTING TOO CLOSE TO
25 HOME. BUT IT'S ALSO THE UNDERGROUND WATER, THE GROUNDWATER
26
t "* Carolina Court Reporters, Inc.
Greenville, North Carolina
-i
-------
1
2
3
4
5.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MCAS PUBLIC HEARING 7/97
THAT IS OF GREAT CONCERN, BECAUSE THAT'S MOVING; IT MIGHT
COME OVER TO THE OTHER SIDE OF THE RIVER. I'M BEING A LITTLE
FACETIOUS THERE, BUT IT'S JUST WE'RE ALWAYS INTERESTED TO
KNOW WHETHER IT'S GOING TOWARDS HAVELOCK.
MS. RAYNOR: RICHARD AND I WENT AND SAMPLED THE
CITY OF HAVELOCK WELL RECENTLY, IN MAY; WE SAMPLED IT FOR
VOLATILES AND SEMI-VOLATILES AND NOTHING SHOWED.
MS. EVANS: UNDERGROUND.
MR. POWERS: NO, OF COURSE, THOSE WELLS WERE
UNDERLYING THE WATER TABLE IN CASTLE HAYNE.
MS. RAYNOR: AND REMEMBER, LIKE CHARLES DANIELS
WAS SAYING, THERE WAS A POSSIBILITY OF PUMPING ...
MS. EVANS: AND IN FACT THE TWO WELLS—WHERE
WERE THE TWO WELLS ON BASE THAT HAD TO BE CLOSED; WERE
THEY ...
MR. LAUGHMILLER: THERE ARE RIGHT DOWN ON THE
SOUTHEAST, SOUTHWEST END, NOT FAR FROM THE MAIN GATE.
MR. POWERS: ONE WAS PRIMARILY FROM A GAS TANK
LEAKING AT THE MWR GAS STATION.
MR. JOHN MYERS: YOU'RE CORRECT.
MR. POWERS: THAT WAS LITERALLY FROM HERE TO THE
DOOR.
MR. SMITH: HAVE WE LEARNED ANYTHING, LESSONS
FROM WHAT WE WERE DOING, AS YOU SAID, EVEN TWENTY YEARS AGO,
TEN YEARS AGO; ARE WE DOING THINGS DIFFERENTLY ON~THE AIR
27
.,. Carolina Court Reporters, Inc.
Greenville, North Carolina
-------
MCAS PUBLIC HEARING 7/97
1 STATION NOW?
2 MR. MYERS: YES SIR, QUITE A BIT, WE CERTAINLY
3 ARE.
4 MR. SMITH: WE'RE NOT.CREATING PROBLEMS FOR
5 TODAY'S UNBORN GRANDCHILDREN WHO ARE NOW SUFFERING IN A
6 SENSE?
7 MR. COCHRAN: I GUARANTEE THAT THE WASTE
8 MANAGEMENT PROGRAM THAT THEY HAVE, THE WASTE MINIMIZATION
9 THAT THEY HAVE AT CHERRY POINT, IS ON THE CUTTING EDGE.
10 MR. SMITH: YOU MEAN, THE TUSCARORA LANDFILL OR
11 WHAT?
12 MR. COCHRAN: NO, AT THE AIR STATION; THEY HAVE
13 A PROGRAM IN EFFECT FOR MINIMIZING WASTE; IN SOME CASES THERE
14 ARE WASTE STREAMS THAT WERE USED, THAT WERE DEVELOPED TEN
15 YEARS AGO THAT THEY NO LONGER GENERATE; THERE ARE WASTE
16 TREATMENTS THAT THEY DON'T EVEN GENERATE ANYMORE, AND THEY
17 HAVE A VERY AGGRESSIVE APPROACH OF INVENTORYING THEIR
18 MATERIALS AND WASTE MINIMIZATION THAT REALLY KEEPS THINGS TO
19 A MINIMUM.
20 MR. MYERS: AND AS YOU OPERATE, YOU'RE BOUND TO
21 HAVE SPILLS ONCE IN A WHILE; THERE'S NONE OF THAT WHOLESALE
22 SPILLING, BUT'WHEN THERE IS A SPILL, THE AIR STATION HAS AN
23 AGGRESSIVE PROGRAM OF RESPONSE AND CLEANING UP.
24 MR. LAUGHMILLER: AS OPPOSED TO WHAT WE USED TO
25 HAVE.
28
4 "•
Carolina Court Reporters, Inc.
Greenville, North Carolina
-------
r
MCAS PUBLIC HEARING 7/97
1 MR. SMITH: WE NO LONGER TAKE A CONTAINER OF
2 CONTAMINATED FUEL AND THROW IT IN THE BACK OF A PICK-UP TRUCK
3 AND HAUL IT IN THE WOODS AND JUST DROP THE BARREL OUT? I
4 THINK THAT WAS GOING ON TWENTY OR THIRTY YEARS AGO.
5 MR. MYERS: NO SIR.
6 MS. EVANS: YOU HAVE PEOPLE WHO STILL PARK THEIR
7 CAR OVER A DITCH AND CHANGE THE OIL, RIGHT IN THE DITCH.
8 MR. SMITH: THAT'S PAMLICO COUNTY STYLE; WE
9 DON'T DO THAT HERE.
10 MS. EVANS: COME ON OVER AND WATCH. THERE WAS
11 ONE, IN TALKING ABOUT LEACHATE SEEPS, AND THAT'S SEDIMENT
12 SAMPLES IN REGARD TO LEACHATE SEEPS, AND THAT GOES ON; ONE
13 LOCATION HAD CONCENTRATION OF CHLOROFORM AND DIELDRIN THAT
14 WERE HIGHER THAN CLEANUP GOALS BASED ON PROTECTION OF
15 GROUNDWATER. I DON'T KNOW LEACHATE SEEPS?
16 MR. TURNBALL: THAT WOULD BE WHERE WATER HAD,
17 RAINWATER HAD SEEPED THROUGH LANDFILL MATERIAL AND MAY HAVE
18 COME OUT, YOU KNOW, JUST ON THE GROUND SURFACE AS A WET SPOT
19 OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT; ORDINARILY A STAINED AREA ON THE
20 GROUND. MOST OF TKE GROUNDWATER DISCHARGES TO, WELL ALL OF
21 THE SHALLOW GROUNDWATER DISCHARGES TO TURKEY GUT OR SLOCUM
22 CREEK; BUT THERE MAY HAVE BEEN SOMETHING THAT CAUGHT,
23 PREVENTED THAT GROUNDWATER FROM GOING ALL THE WAY DOWN. IT
24 MIGHT HAVE COME OUT ON THE SURFACE. THE TERM, LEACHATE, IS
25 KIND OF A TECHNICAL TERM FOR WATER THAT'S GONE THROUGH
29
Carolina Court Reporters, Inc.
Greenville, North Carolina
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MCAS PUBLIC HEARING 7/97
GARBAGE AND PICKED UP ALL THE STUFF IN IT.
MS. EVANS: YES, WE HAVE A LOT OF TROUBLE WITH
THE REGIONAL ONE, WHERE THAT WAS GOING TO GO. CHERRY POINT
WAS GOI'NG TO TAKE IT; HAVELOCK WAS GOING TO TAKE IT; NEWPORT
WAS GOING TO TAKE IT, THE LEACHATE FROM THERE.
MR. TURNBALL: YES, THAT WAS NOT A — WE -DID NOT
FIND MANY OF THOSE AREAS, LEACHATE SEEPS, AT ALL. MOST OF
THEM APPEARED TO BE JUST STAINS UPON THE GROUND.
MS. EVANS: I JUST WANTED TO GET THIS STRAIGHT
IN MY HEAD, AS FAR AS THE WEIGHING OF THE CRITERIA. MY
CRITERIA THAT WOULD WEIGH HEAVIEST FOR ME WOULD BE
EFFECTIVENESS AND REDUCTION; IS THERE A WEIGHING OF THOSE, IS
ONE WORTH TEN AND . . .
MR. TURNBALL: THE WEIGHING OF THAT WAS ALL DONE
EQUALLY.
MS. EVANS: EVERYTHING WAS EQUAL? WAS COST AS
EQUAL AS LONG TERM EFFECTIVENESS?
MR. TURNBALL: YES.
MR. LAUGHMILLER: IF YOU'LL LOOK ON PAGE ELEVEN,
IT TALKS ABOUT THE PRIMARY BALANCING CRITERIA.
MS. EVANS: RIGHT.
MR. LAUGHMILLER: THIS LITTLE TABLE SHOWS THAT,
THAT BASICALLY RANKED, THE ONES THAT ARE ONE, TWO, AND THREE,
AND THESE ARE ALTERNATIVES TWO, THREE, AND FOUR. THE WAY WE
TYPICALLY DO THESE THINGS IS, WE DO THIS AS A FIRST CUT TO
30
Carolina Court Reporters, Inc.
Greenville, North Carolina
-------
MCAS PUBLIC HEARING 7/97
1 TRY TO SEE WHICH OF THEM OBVIOUSLY DON'T LOOK LIKE THEY'RE
2 GOOD IDEAS; BUT IT'S KIND OF A NEGOTIATION. WE LOOK AT, YOU
3 KNOW, IT'S NOT A BLACK AND WHITE; THIS ONE'S WORTH TEN
4 POINTS; THIS IS WORTH THREE POINTS; AND WHATEVER FALLS,
5 THAT'S WHAT WE DO. A LOT OF TIMES IT TAKES A PROFESSIONAL
6 JUDGMENT TO SAY, OKAY, WELL THESE TWO ARE ABOUT THE SAME,
7 WHICH ONE MAKES MORE SENSE. DO WE DO, WHEN WE ADDED IT UP,
8 THIS ONE HAD ONE MORE POINT THAN THE OTHER ONE BUT IT COST
9 TEN MILLION MORE DOLLARS. WELL, DOES IT REALLY MAKE SENSE TO
10 DO THIS, OR SHOULD WE DO THIS, OR TWO ARE THE SAME AND COST
11 THE SAME, AND ONE IS OF MORE INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY THAT MAY
12 WORK A LITTLE FASTER; THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS THAT WE WORK TO
13 BALANCE IT, AND THE NAVY, MARINE CORPS, STATE, AND EPA WORK
14 TOGETHER TO LOOK AT THESE ALTERNATIVES AND SAY, WHICH ONE DO
15' WE THINK IS THE BEST ALTERNATIVE; AND IT ISN'T ALWAYS A ONE
16 TO ONE COMPARISON. USUALLY THESE THINGS FALL OUT.
17 MS. EVANS: IT LOOKS PRETTY GOOD TO ME ON THE
18 SOIL ALTERNATIVE; BUT ON GROUNDWATER, WHEN IT CAME TO—OUT OF
19 THE THREE ALTERNATIVES THERE, THAT REDUCTION OF TOXICITY,
20 THAT HAD THE LEAST EFFECTIVENESS OF THE THREE ALTERNATIVES.
21 MR. POWERS: YES, THAT SHOWS A RANKING OF NUMBER
22 THREE THERE, VERSUS THE ONE AND TWO COURSE. IF I MAY SAY,
23 WORKING WITH THE STATE GROUNDWATER SECTION, AND THE
24 DEPARTMENT AS A WHOLE, AND UNDERSTANDING OUR LEGISLATORS TO A
25 GREAT POINT, THERE HAS BEEN MORE AND MORE OF A MOVE TO THE
31
t ' f -
Carolina Court Reporters, Inc.
Greenville, North Carolina
-------
MCAS PUBLIC HEARING 7/97
1 NATURAL ATTENUATION AND INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS FOR, AS LANCE
2 MENTIONED EARLIER, PARTICULARLY LARGE ASSIGNMENTS LIKE THIS,
3 LIKE THESE LANDFILLS, LARGE SPRAY IRRIGATION FIELDS; AND IT
4 is FINE; IT is APPROPRIATE; IT'S CERTAINLY BEING MONITORED
5 AND EVALUATED FOR EFFECTIVENESS, AS YOU MENTIONED,
6 PERIODICALLY; IN THIS CASE, EVERY FIVE YEARS, WHICH IS COMING
7 UP IN A YEAR OR TWO. AND CERTAINLY AT THAT TIME, SAY, YOU
8 KNOW, THE BASE WERE TO GET THOSE HORNETS HERE, AND ALL OF A
9 SUDDEN THERE IS A EUGE DEMAND FOR LAND, YOU KNOW/ THEN IT
10 MIGHT BE MORE APPROPRIATE FOR THAT THREE TO BECOME A ONE, AND
11 GO AHEAD AND DO PROACTIVE PUMPING AND STUFF. MORE AND MORE
12 WE'RE GOING TO SEE THE NATURAL ATTENUATION/DEGRADATION
13 PROCESSES, AS LONG AS THERE IS NOT IMMINENT THREAT TO OR
14 REASONABLE THREAT TO HUMAN HEALTH AND SAFETY, AS BEING
15 ACCEPTED FOR CLEANUP. IT'S JUST A WAY THAT'S ROLLING ACROSS
16 THE NATION RIGHT NOW; THE BRANFIELDS INITIATIVE; THAT'S A
17 PERFECT EXAMPLE.
18 MS. RAYNOR: THE AQUATIC TOXICOLOGY PEOPLE, THEY
19 WERE CONCERNED SOME VOLATILES WERE GETTING INTO THE SURFACE
20 WATER, BUT THEY WEREN'T REALLY THAT CONCERNED ABOUT THE
21 VOLATILES; THEY WERE MORE CONCERNED ABOUT THE PESTICIDES.
22 THAT'S WHY THAT ADDITIONAL OPERABLE UNITS IS GOING TO BE
23 STUDIED.
24 MS. EVANS: WHEREVER THAT OPERABLE UNIT MAY BE.
25 MS. RAYNOR: WELL, IT'S GOING TO BE~ON SLOCUM
32
. ,,. Carolina Court Reporters, Inc.
Greenville, North Carolina
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MCAS PUBLIC HEARING 7/97
CREEK.
MS. STEPHANIE MAXON: THERE HAVE BEEN A LOT OF
ADDITIONAL STUDIES DONE, ON, YOU KNOW, THE PHYSICAL
INFLUENCES, THE REDUCTION OF CONTAMINANTS. THERE HAVE BEEN A
NUMBER OF STUDIES THAT HAVE TRIED TO DEFINE WHAT INFLUENCES
THE MOBILITY, WHERE ANY CONTAMINANTS ARE COMING FROM; PUTTING
THAT NEXT TO THE HISTORY OF WHAT HAS BEEN PRODUCED IN THOSE
AREAS, YOU CAN GET A PRETTY GOOD IDEA OF WHERE THIS HAS COME
FROM, WHERE IT IS BOW, AND AT WHAT LEVELS. THEY CAN EVEN
TELL YOU WHAT VARIES, AND HOW MUCH A DANGER IT HAS BEEN. SO
THERE HAVE BEEN ENOUGH STUDIES DONE THAT WE CAN FEEL SECURE
ABOUT THEIR ATTENTION TO THE PROBLEM, IN MY OPINION.
MR. LAUGHMILLER: WE SHOULD PROBABLY INTRODUCE
YOU; GRACE, DO YOU KNOW STEPHANIE?
MS. EVANS: NO.
MS. MAXON: I'M STEPHANIE MAXON, AN
ENVIRONMENTALIST WITH DUKE. DUKE HAS VOLUNTEERED TO SPEND
TIME AT CHERRY POINT LOOKING AT THE MATERIAL AND
TRYING TO ...
MS. EVANS: WILL YOU PUBLISH SOME OF THIS. THIS
SOUNDS LIKE THINGS THAT WE OUGHT TO KNOW IN GENERAL.
MS. MAXON: THERE ARE A LOT OF STUDIES. IF YOU
WOULD LIKE TO READ MY DATA, I WOULD BE GLAD TO GIVE IT TO
YOU.
MS. EVANS: BECAUSE IT ISN'T JUST VALID JUST TO
33
•f -
Carolina Court Reporters, Inc.
Greenville, North Carolina
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MCAS PUBLIC HEARING 7/97
HERE, IT'S VALID EVERYWHERE.
MS. JOHNSON: WHAT STEPHANIE IS WORKING ON IS
LOOKING AT ALL THE STUDIES THAT HAVE BEEN DONE IN PAST,
SPECIFICALLY AT THE SEDIMENT AT SLOCUM CREEK, AND WITH HER
INPUT, NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE STATE AND EPA, THAT'S WHAT'S
GOING TO—WE'RE GOING TO TAKE ALL THIS INPUT AND ALL THE DATA
THAT'S BEEN COLLECTED IN THE PAST AND SIT DOWN AND LOOK AT
SLOCUM CREEK AS A SEPARATE OPERABLE UNIT, OU15. SO, IN THAT
SENSE, YOU WILL AS A PART OF, AS A RAB MEMBER, YOU WILL LOOK
AT THAT AS PART OF OU15; SO YOU WILL BE INTIMATELY INVOLVED
WITH ALL OF THE DECISIONS THAT COME OUT OF THOSE
DISCUSSIONS.
MS. EVANS: COULD I PUT IN FOR GETTING RID OF
THE ELBOW AT THE END? THEY JUST DID A CREEK IN WILMINGTON
AND IT'S WORKED. IT'S WORKED DOWN THERE. IT'S AT SNYDER,
AND IT HAS CLEANED UP THAT CREEK.
MS. RAYNOR: WHERE IS IT.
MS. EVANS: THEY GOT PERMISSION TO TAKE UP DOWN
AT THE END WHERE THAT SLOCUM CREEK MEETS THE NEUSE RIVER.
STUFF WASHED OUT AND DOWN FROM THE BASE AND CLOSED IT OFF SO
THAT THERE IS A GOOD FLOW OUT.
CAPTAIN MCLAUGHLIN: FOLKS, WHAT OTHER QUESTIONS
DO WE HAVE FOR MR. TURNBALL? WE SHOULD-I'M NOT SAYING THAT
TO SPEED IT UP; I WAS JUST TRYING TO HONE IN OUR CONVERSATION
TO WHAT WE ARE INTO RIGHT NOW.
34
" • Carolina Court Reporters, Inc.
Greenville, North Carolina
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MCAS PUBLIC HEARING 7/97
MS. EVANS: WHEN WILL THIS DECISION BE MADE ON
THIS? AS I SAID, I KNOW WE'RE A YEAR BEHIND THE ORIGINAL
SCHEDULE.
MR. LAUGHMILLER: WE'RE TRYING TO HAVE THE DRY
DOCUMENT COMPLETED BY THE END OF SEPTEMBER AND THE SIGNATURES
FOR IT BEING LEGAL. WE'RE WORKING WITH THE STATE WITH SOME
GENERAL LEGAL ISSUES FOR HOW TO IMPLEMENT INSTITUTIONAL
CONTROLS, BUT WE SHOULD HAVE AN AGREE UPON DOCUMENT, AS FAR
AS THE TECHNICAL ASPECT, AT THE END OF SEPTEMBER.
MS. EVANS: AND THEN WE'LL GO ON THEN TO?
MR. POWERS: BIGGER AND BETTER THINGS.
CAPTAIN MCLAUGHLIN: FOLKS, THANK YOU FOR COMING
THIS EVENING. ONE SECOND BEFORE EVERYBODY GETS UP; I INVITE
YOU ONE MORE TIME TO TAKE A LOOK AT THOSE DOCUMENTS, EITHER
AT HAVELOCK PUBLIC LIBRARY, OR AT THE LIBRARY ON THE AIR
STATION AND BECOME EVEN MORE FAMILIAR WITH THE PROBLEM. THE
22ND OF AUGUST IS THE LAST DATE THAT PUBLIC OPINION,
COMMENTS, QUESTIONS, WE'LL BE ABLE TO ACT ON THOSE; AND I
INVITE YOU TO MAIL THOSE QUESTIONS TO MY OFFICE, AND I'LL
MAKE SURE WE GET THEM TO THE RIGHT FOLKS. THANK YOU, ONCE
AGAIN, FOR COMING.
THE MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:03 P.M.
*******************************
35
Carolina Court Reporters, Inc.
Greenville, North Carolina
-------
END OF DEPOSITION
Carolina Court Reporters, Inc.
Greenville, North Carolina
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17"
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF CARTERET
C-E-R-T-I-F-I-C-A-T-I-O-N
I, JOAN T. HUNT, A COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC
IN AND FOR THE AFORESAID COUNTY AND STATE, DO HEREBY CERTIFY
THAT THE FOREGOING PAGES ARE AN ACCURATE TRANSCRIPT OF THE
PUBLIC MEETING IN HAVELOCK, NORTH CAROLINA, ON JULY 29, 1997.
I FURTHER CERTIFY THAT I AM NOT FINANCIALLY
INTERESTED IN THE OUTCOME OF THIS ACTION, A RELATIVE,
EMPLOYEE, ATTORNEY OR COUNSEL OF ANY OF THE PARTIES, NOR A
RELATIVE OR EMPLOYEE OF SUCH ATTORNEY OR COUNSEL.
WITNESS, MY HAND AND SEAL, THIS DATE: AUGUST 4,
1997.
2FOAN T. HUNT
*COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC
CAROLINA COURT REPORTERS, INC.
102 OAKMONT PROFESSIONAL PLAZA
GREENVILLE, NC 27858
Carolina Court Reporters, Inc.
Greenville, North Carolina
-------
f
1
-------
^ u 0
CTJ _
5>E
£ a>
CD o 05
CLjS^c
+j CLOn
0
f
*
%
-8 E
zo<2.£
Reproduced by NTIS
National Technical Information Service
Springfield, VA 22161
This report was printed specifically for your order
from nearly 3 million titles available in our collection.
For economy and efficiency, NTIS does not maintain stock of its vast
collection of technical reports. Rather, most documents are printed for
each order. Documents that are not in electronic format are reproduced
from master archival copies and are the best possible reproductions
available. If you have any questions concerning this document or any
order you have placed with NTIS, please call our Customer Service
Department at (703) 605-6050.
About NTIS
NTIS collects scientific, technical, engineering, and business related
information — then organizes, maintains, and disseminates that
information in a variety of formats — from microfiche to online services.
The NTIS collection of nearly 3 million titles includes reports describing
research conducted or sponsored by federal agencies and their
contractors; statistical and business information; U.S. military
publications; multimedia/training products; computer software and
electronic databases developed by federal agencies; training tools; and
technical reports prepared by research organizations worldwide.
Approximately 100,000 new titles are added and indexed into the NTIS
collection annually.
For more information about NTIS products and services, call NTIS
at 1-800-553-NTIS (6847) or (703) 605-6000 and request the free
NTiS Products Catalog, PR-827LPG, or visit the NTIS Web site
http://www.ritis.gov.
NTIS
Your indispensable resource for government-sponsored
information—U.S. and worldwide
-------
-------
|