PB99-963803
EPA541-R99-080
1999
EPA Superfund
Record of Decision:
Naval Weapons Station Earle (Site A)
OU4
Colts Neck, NJ
9/28/1999
-------
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
OPERABLE UNIT 4 (OU-4)
Sites 14, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27, and 29
NAVAL WEAPONS STATION EARLE
Colts Neck, New Jersey
Northern Division
Naval Facilities Engineering Command
Contract No. N62472-90-D-1298
Contract Task Order 300
August 1999
It TETRA TECH NUS, INC.
-------
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
NAVAL WEAPONS STATION EARLE
OPERABLE UNIT 4
R-51-12-8-1
NAVAL WEAPONS STATION EARLE
Colts Neck, New Jersey
COMPREHENSIVE LONG-TERM
ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION NAVY (CLEAN) CONTRACT
Submitted to:
Northern Division
Environmental Branch, Code 14
Naval Facilities Engineering Command
10 Industrial Highway, Mail Stop #82
Lester, Pennsylvania 19113-2090
Prepared and Submitted by:
Tetra Tech NUS, Incorporated
600 Clark Avenue, Suite 3
King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406-1433
Contract No. N62472-90-D-1298
Contract Task Order 300
August 1999
PREPARED BY:
SSELL E. TURNER
PROJECT MANAGER
TETRA TECH NUS, INCORPORATED
KING OF PRUSSIA, PENNSYLVANIA
APPRO'
>W3KI
5ER
JOHN J. TREPArfO
PROGRAM MANAG
/TETRA TECH NUS, INCORPORATED
KING OF PRUSSIA, PENNSYLVANIA
-------
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
NAVAL WEAPONS STATION EARLE
OPERABLE UNIT 4
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PART I - DECLARATION
I- SITE NAME AND LOCATION
». STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE
"I. DESCRIPTION OF THE SELECTED REMEDY
IV. STATUTORY DETERMINATION
V. DECLARATION STATEMENT
PART II - DECISION SUMMAPV
I- SITE NAME, LOCATION, AND DESCRIPTION
" SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY
»l. HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
IV. SCOPE AND ROLE OF OPERABLE UNIT 4
V. SITE CHARACTERISTICS
SITE 14 - MERCURY SPILL AREA
SITE 20 - GRIT BLASTING AREA AT BUILDING 544
SITE 22 - PAINT CHIP DISPOSAL AREA
SITE 23 - PAINT DISPOSAL AREA
SITES 24 AND 25 - CLOSED PISTOL RANGES
SITE 27 - PROJECTILE REFURBISHING AREA
SITE 29 - PCB SPILL SITE
VI. SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS
VII. EXPLANATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES
DOCUMENTS/NAVY/7695/128001 ;
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
NAVAL WEAPONS STATION EARLE
OPERABLE UNIT 4
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
PART III - RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
Jl. OVERVIEW
II. BACKGROUND ON COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT
III. SUMMARY OF MAJOR QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A Terms Used in the Record of Decision
Appendix B Attendance List - May 14,1998 Public Meeting
Appendix C Figures
Appendix D Tables
DOCUMENTS/NAVY/7695/128001
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
NAVAL WEAPONS STATION EARLE
OPERABLE UNIT 4 (OU-4)
SITES 14, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27, AND 29
PART I - DECLARATION
I. SITE NAME AND LOCATION
Naval Weapons Station Earle
Colts Neck, Monmouth County, New Jersey
II. STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE
This Record of Decision (ROD) addresses Sites 14, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27, and 29 [Operable Unit 4 (OU-
4)] at the Naval Weapons Station (NWS) Earle Site, located in Colts Neck, New Jersey (Site). The
location of NWS Earle is shown on Figure 1.
This ROP presents the consensus for the selection of No Further Action for Sites 14, 22, 24, 25, and 29
and Institutional Controls for sites 20, 23 and 27 at NWS Earle. It has been prepared in accordance with
the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as
amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA), and the National Oil
and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). This decision document explains the
factual and legal basis for selecting no further action or institutional controls for the above-referenced
sites and is based on reports and other information contained in the Administrative Record file for Sites
14, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27, and 29. The Administrative Record is available at the Monmouth County
Library, Eastern Branch, Route 35, Shrewsbury, New Jersey.
The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) and the United States Environmental
Protection Agency have commented on the selected remedy, and concur with the decision of no further
action and institutional controls.
III. DESCRIPTION OF THE SELECTED REMEDY
No further remedial action is necessary for OU-4 sites 14, 22, 24, 25, and 29. Institutional controls (in the
form of land use restrictions placed in the NWS Earle Master Plan) are required for sites 20,23 and 27.
DOCUMENTS/NAVY/7695/128001 1-1
-------
III. STATUTORY DETERMINATION
No further remedial action is necessary at sites 14, 22, 24, 25, and 29. Institutional controls, with five year reviews.
meet statutory requirements of CERCLA 121 for sites 20,23, and 27 which have contaminants remaining at
concentrations above NJDEP residential reference criteria, but which do not pose excess risk under the current
(industrial) land use.
V. DECLARATION STATEMENT
It has been determined that no further remedial action is necessary at sites 14, 22, 24, 25, and 29. Previous response
action at the sites has eliminated the need to conduct additional remedial action. Data from the remedial
investigation and subsequent sampling demonstrate that there is no unacceptable risk posed to human health and the
environment from the sites comprising OU-4 under current or planned land use. However, NJDEP residential
cleanup standards were not met for all compounds of concern at sites 20,23 and 27. A notation has been placed in
the NWS Earle facility Master Plan indicating that further measures would be required before sites 20,, 23 and 27
could be considered for unrestricted (residential) use. Sites 20, 23, and 27 will be subject to five year reviews. In
the event of full or partial transfer of property, through existing legislation or through future' base closure
authorization, a review would be conducted to determine the suitability of any parcel for transfer of ownership.
Whether or not additional remediation is required, and whether formal restrictive covenants should be included in
the transfer document, would be reviewed at that time. Property transfers must comply with applicable Federal
statutes, including CERCLA.
Jeanne M. Fpic
Regional Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region II
99
_
R. M. Honey / Date
Captain, U.S. Navy
Commanding Officer,
Naval Weapons Station Earle
DOCUMENTS/NAVY/7695/128001 1-1-
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
NAVAL WEAPONS STATION EARLE
OPERABLE UNIT 4
PART II - DECISION SUMMARY
I. SITE NAME, LOCATION, AND DESCRIPTION
A. General
NWS Earle is located in Monmouth County, New Jersey, approximately 47 miles south of New York City.
The station consists of two areas, the 10,248-acre Main Base (Mainside area), located inland, and the 706-
acre Waterfront area (Figure 1). The two areas are connected by a Navy-controlled right-of-way.
The facility was commissioned in 1943, and its primary mission is to supply ammunition to the naval fleet An
estimated 2,500 people either work or live at the NWS Earie station.
The Mainside area is located approximately 10 miles inland from the Atlantic Ocean at Sandy Hook Bay in
Colts Neck Township, which has a population of approximately 6,500 people. The surrounding area includes
agricultural land, vacant land, and low-density housing. The Mainside area consists of a large, undeveloped
portion associated with ordnance operations, production, and storage; this portion is encumbered by
explosive safety quantity distance arcs. Other land use in the Mainside area consists of residences, offices/
workshops, warehouses, recreational space, open space, and undeveloped land. The Waterfront area is
located adjacent to Sandy Hook Bay in Middletown Township, which has a population of approximately
68,200 people. The Mainside and Waterfront areas are connected by a narrow strip of land which serves as
a government-controlled right of way containing a road and railroad.
NWS Earie is located in the coastal lowlands of Monmouth County, New Jersey, within the Atlantic Coastal
Plain Physiographic Province. The Mainside area, which includes OU-4, lies in the outer Coastal Plain,
approximately 10 miles inland from the Atlantic Ocean. The Mainside area is relatively flat, with elevations
ranging from approximately 100 to 300 feet above mean sea level (MSL). The most significant topographic
relief within the Mainside area is Hominy Hills, a northeast-southwest-trending group of low hills located near
the center of the station.
The rivers and streams draining NWS Earie ultimately discharge to the Atlantic Ocean, which is
approximately 9 or 10 miles east of the Mainside area. The headwaters and drainage basins of three major
DOCUMENTS/NAVY/7695/128001 11-1
-------
Coastal Plain rivers (Swimming, Manasquan, and Shark) originate on the Mainside area. The northern half of
the Mainside is in the drainage basin of the Swimming River, and tributaries include Mine Brook,
Hockhockson Brook, and Pine Brook. The southwestern portion of the Mainside drains to the Manasquan
River via either Marsh Bog Brook or Mingamahone Brook. The southeastern comer of the Mainside drains to
the Shark River. Both the Swimming River and the Shark River supply water to reservoirs used for public
water supplies.
NWS Earle is situated in the Coastal Plain Physiographic Province of New Jersey. The New Jersey Coastal
Plain is a seaward-dipping wedge of unconsolidated Cretaceous to Quaternary sediments that were
deposited on a pre-Cretaceous basement-bedrock complex. The Coastal Plain sediments are primarily
composed of clay, silt, sand, and gravel and were deposited in continental, coastal, and marine
environments. The sediments generally strike northeast-southwest and dip to the southeast at a rate of 10 to
60 feet per mile. The approximate thickness of these sediments beneath NWS Earie is 900 feet. The pre-
Cretaceous complex consists mainly of PreCambrian and lower Paleozoic crystalline rocks and metamorphic
schists and gneisses. The Cretaceous to Miocene Coastal Plain Formations are either exposed at the
surface or subcrop in a banded pattern that roughly parallels the shoreline. The outcrop pattern is caused by
the erosion truncation of the dipping sedimentary wedge. Where these formations are not exposed, they are
covered by essentially fiat-lying post-Miocene surficial deposits.
Groundwater classification areas were established in New Jersey under New Jersey Department of
Environmental Projection (NJDEP) Water Technical Programs Groundwater Quality Standards in New
Jersey Administrative Code (N.J.A.C.) 7:9-6. The Mainside area is located in the Class II-A: Groundwater
Supporting Potable Water Supply area. Class II-A includes those areas where groundwater is an existing
source of potable water with conventional water supply treatment or is a potential source of potable water. In
the Mainside area, in general, the deeper aquifers are used for public water supplies and the shallower
aquifers are used for domestic supplies.
OU-4 sites are situated in the recharge area of the Kirkwood-Cohansey aquifer system. The Kirkwood-
Cohansey aquifer system is a source of water in Monmouth County and is composed of the generally
unconfined sediments of the Cohansey Sand and Kirkwood Formation. The Kirkwood-Cohansey aquifer
system has been reported in previous investigations as being used for residential wells in the Mainside area.
All facilities located in the Mainside Administration area are connected to a public water supply (New Jersey
American Water Company). Water for the public supply network comes from surface water intakes,
reservoirs, and deep wells. No public water supply wells or surface water intakes are located on the NWS
Earie facility. A combination of private wells and public water supply from the New Jersey American Water
DOCUMENTS/NAVY77695/128001 II-2
-------
Company serves businesses and residences in areas surrounding the Mainside facilities. There are a
number of-private wells located within a 1-mile radius of NWS Earie and several within the NWS Earle
boundaries. The majority of these wells are used for potable supplies; previous testing for drinking water
parameters indicates these wells have not been adversely impacted.
There is a rich diversity of ecological systems and habitats at NWS Earle. Knieskem's beaked-rush
^Ryncnospora knieskemii). a sedge species on the federal endangered list, has been seen on the station,
and some species on the New Jersey endangered list, such as the swamp pink (Helonias buliatai. may be
present. An osprey has visited Mainside and may nest in another area at NWS Earle. The Mingamahone
Brook supports bog turtles downstream of the Mainside area and provides an appropriate habitat for them at
the Mainside area.
Sites 14. 20, 22. 23, 24, 25, 27, and 29 are all located in the Mainside area (Figure 2 and Figure 2a). A brief
description of each of these sites follows.
B. Site 14: Mercury Spill
The Defense Property Disposal Office Warehouse, Building C-33, is a 16,000-square-foot storage building
for items awaiting processing (Figure 3). A small amount of mercury (estimated at from one to several
ounces) was reportedly spilled inside the warehouse in 1970. The location of the spill was not documented;
however, on-site interviews confirmed that the spill was inside the building.
C. Site 20: Grit Blasting Area at Building 544
The grit blasting area at Building 544 is a small area behind Building 544 that houses grit blasting operations
for the removal of paint from ordnance (Figure 4). Activities, at the site included the disposal of paint chips
and spent grit from site operations. The spent grit was dumped in an open pile southwest of Building 544. A
leaching field is present behind this building.
D. Site 22: Paint Chip Disposal Area
Site 22 is a former paint chip disposal area where waste sand blasting material and paint wastes were
disposed (Figure 5). The site is located south of Building D-2 and previously consisted of approximately 50
square feet of stressed vegetation and discolored (black) soils. The discolored soils resulted from past grit
blasting and painting operations. However, the discolored soils and stressed vegetation are no longer visible
at the site.
OOCUMENTS/NAVY/7695/128001 ||-3
-------
1
E. Site -23: Paint Disposal Area
The paint disposal area near Building D-5 was used from the early 1970s until approximately 1993 for paint
wastes from repainting and stenciling torpedoes, aerial bombs, and other large ordnance (Figure 6). The site
consists of approximately 200 square feet of ground surface west of the northwestern comer of Building D-5
where paint disposal on the ground surface occurred.
F. Sites 24 and 25: Closed Pistol Ranges
Sites 24 and 25 are closed pistol ranges that were once used for target practice (Figure 7). Due to the sites'
similar nature, history, and close proximity, they have been treated together. During target practice at the
sites, lead- and copper-jacketed bullets were fired into 70-foot-high impact berms (natural sand banks).
Preserved wooden posts at the sites formed the firing platform.
G. Site 27: Projectile Refurbishing Area
Site 27 includes Building E-14 and a small storage locker located off Oran Road (Figure 8). Projectiles are
refurbished at the site by shot-blasting, repainting, and stenciling. Oil-contaminated rags, paint chips, and
spent sandblasting shot were disposed behind the facility. A small portion of the site surface (approximately
80 square feet) near the southeast comer of Building E-14 was covered by red paint sludge.
H. Site 29: PCS Spill Site
This site is located in a former storage yard (north of Site 16/F) where an unknown quantity of polychlorinated
biphenyl's (PCBs) spilled from a transformer in 1981 (Figure 9). No record exists suggesting that PCB
compounds flowed any significant distance overland or in a ditch.
NWS Earte has built a one-story brick building at the site that functions as the new hazardous waste storage
facility.
DOCUMENTS/NAVY/7695/128001 II-4
-------
II: SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY
Potential hazardous substance releases at OU-4 were addressed in an Initial Assessment Study (IAS)
in 1982, a Site Inspection Study (SI) in 1986, and a Phase I Rl in 1993. These were preliminary
investigations to determine the number of sources, compile histories of waste-handling and disposal
practices at the site, and acquire data on the types of contaminants present and potential human
health and/or environmental receptors. Rl investigations at OU-4 included the installation and
sampling of monitoring wells; collection and analysis of surface and subsurface soils; excavation of
test pits; and collection of surface water and sediment samples.
In 1990, NWS Earle was placed on the National Priorities List (NPL). This list includes sites where
uncontrolled hazardous substance releases may potentially present serious threats to human health
and the environment.
OU-4 was subsequently addressed by Phase II Rl activities to determine the nature and extent of
contamination. The Phase II Rl was initiated in 1995 and completed in 1996.
The results of the Rl and the remedial actions at the individual sites were used as the basis for
determining that no further action was required for OU-4 sites 14, 22, 24, 25, and 29. Due to limited
occurrence of compounds remaining at concentrations above NJDEP residential cleanup criteria,
institutional controls with five year reviews are required for OU-4 sites 20, 23, and 27. The Navy and
EPA, in consultation with NJDEP, developed this ROD which provides the basis for no further action
or institutional controls at OU-4 sites.
III. HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
The Navy encourages community participation in environmental issues at NWS Earle to comply with
requirements of CERCLA 113(k)(2)(B)(l-v). The Navy sponsored a Technical Review Committee
(TRC), consisting of representatives from the Navy, EPA, the NJDEP, the Monmouth County Health
Department and other agencies and local groups surrounding NWS Earle, prior to 1995 when the
NWS Earle Restoration Advisory Board was formed. The TRC met on a regular basis to discuss
Installation Restoration activities at NWS Earle. The TRC was transformed into the Restoration
Advisory Board (RAB) in 1995 to include community members as well as the original officials from the
TRC, and has been holding periodic meetings to maintain open lines of communication with the
community and to inform all parties of current activities.
-------
- 'f \jf- '$
The documents that the Navy and EPA used to develop, evaluate, and select the no further remedial action
alternative for*OU-4 have been maintained at the Monmouth County Library (Eastern Branch), Route 35.
Shrewsbury, New Jersey.
The Proposed Plan and other documents were released to the public on May 4, 1998. The notice of
availability of these documents was published in the Asbury Park Press on May 8 and May 10, 1998. A
public comment period was held from May 4, 1998 to June 12, 1998.
A public meeting was held during the public comment period at NWS Earte on May 14, 1998. At this
meeting, representatives from the Navy and EPA were available to answer questions about the Proposed
Plan for OU-4. Results of the public meeting and public comment period are included in the Responsiveness
Summary, which is Part III of this ROD.
IV. SCOPE AND ROLE OF OPERABLE UNIT 4
The Department of the Navy completed remedial investigations and focused remedial actions to address
contamination associated with Sites 14, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27, and 29 at NWS Earte. The focused remedial
actions were either initial spill response (Sites 14 and 29) or removal of impacted soils. The results of these
activities indicate that contamination associated with sites 14, 22, 24, 25, and 29 has been mitigated and no
further remedial actions are necessary. Low concentrations of compounds remaining at sites 20, 23, and 27
at levels above the NJDEP residential cleanup criteria require that institutional controls (land use restrictions)
be placed in the NWS Earte Master Plan for these four sites.
V. SITE CHARACTERISTICS
A. Site 14 - Mercury Spill Area
Site Background and Physical Setting
The Defense Property Disposal Office Warehouse, Building C-33, is a 16,000-square-fbot storage building
for items awaiting processing. On-site interviews indicated that a small amount of mercury (estimated to
have totaled from one to several ounces) was spilled inside the warehouse in 1970 (IAS, 1983). The location
of the spill was not documented. However, interviews confirmed that the spill was inside the building and that
the mercury was removed by vacuuming.
DOCUMENTS/NAVY/7695/128001 H-6
-------
The warehouse has solid concrete floors that would prevent the mercury spill from affecting the soil below the
building. The floors of the warehouse have been coated with a concrete protective material since the spill.
and it is unlikely that any residue from the spill remains. Materials are stored in a protected manner; thus the
likelihood of environmental contamination is low.
Geology and Hvdroaeoloqy
Regional mapping places Site 14 within the outcrop area of the Kirkwood Formation. The Kirkwood
Formation consists of gray and tan, very fine- to medium-grained quartz sand and dark-colored, micaceous,
diatomaceous clay. .
Groundwater conditions beneath the site could not be confirmed because no wells were installed at the site.
However, groundwater in the Kirkwood and Vincentown aquifer beneath Site 23 (located approximately 3,000
feet southeast of Site 14), and presumably Site 14, occurs under unconfined conditions and the formations
are interpreted to be hydraulically interconnected. The direction of shallow groundwater flow in the aquifer
beneath Site 23, as indicated by both the August and October groundwater contour maps for Site 23, is
toward the north-northeast
Summary of Remedial Investigations
IAS
The IAS (1983) consisting of interviews, concluded minimal impact because clean-up action was taken at the
time of the spill.
§1
. - >
No sampling was conducted within the Defense Property Disposal Warehouse during the SI because the
location of the spill was not documented and the impact was judged to be minimal.
1995 Remedial Investigation
In December 1995, B&R Environmental conducted field investigations at Site 14 which included sampling
and analysis of warehouse floor sweepings. Since the exact location of the spill is unknown, sweepings from
different areas of the warehouse were collected to determine if any traces of mercury remained on the floor
surface.
DOCUMENTS/NAVY/7695/128001 II-7
-------
Floor sweepings were collected from five grab sample points and composited into one floor sweepings
sample. Figure 3 depicts the locations of these grab samples in Building C-33. Mercury was detected at 8.6
mg/kg in the composite sample of floor sweepings.
Summary of Remedial Actions
The spill reportedly occurred on a solid concrete floor in an enclosed building with solid walls. The building
has been maintained against the weather continuously since the spill. The spill was reportedly cleaned up
using a vacuum.
Investigation confirms the interview reports. It appears as if the spill was adequately cleaned up at the time
and no evidence of a wider environmental contamination or risk to human health was found.
B. Site 20 - Grit Blasting Area At Building 544
Site Background and Physical Setting
The grit blasting area at Building 544 is a small area behind Building 544 that houses grit blasting operations
for the removal of paint from ordnance. Activities at the site included the disposal of paint chips and spent grit
from site operations.
Spent grit from mine refurbishing grit blasting operations would typically contain lead and zinc from the
coatings removed during blasting. An estimated yearly volume of 53 gallons of paint chips was disposed
(IAS. 1983). The spent grit was dumped in an open pile southwest of Building 544. The pile was
approximately 10 feet in diameter and 1 foot high. A leaching field is present behind this building. Past
disposal activities at this leaching field are unknown.
The site is bordered on the northeast by a marsh and wetlands. A gravel road accesses the site from
Midway Road. A shallow drainage depression, which is approximately 300 feet in length and 1 foot deep.
runs along the eastern and southeastern boundaries of the site and discharges to the northeast toward the
marsh. Surface water flows toward this marshy area. Figure 4 is a map of the site.
DOCUMENTS/NAVY/7695/128001 II-8
-------
Geology and Hydroqeoloov
Regional mapping places Site 20 within the outcrop area of the Kirkwood Formation. The Kirkwood
Formation ranges between 60 to 100 feet in thickness and consists of gray and tan, very fine- to medium-
grained quartz sand and dark-colored, micaceous diatomaceous clay.
No monitoring wells were installed at Site 20 because the contaminants identified, metals in paint chips, were
not expected to leach into the environment. However, soil boring samples from three borings at a depth of
three to five feet in the area of the leach field were obtained and analyzed in the 1995 Rl. Low levels of
metals and organics, well below the corresponding NJDEP cleanup criteria, confirmed the assumption that
groundwater is not likely to be impacted at this site. Graundwater in the Kirkwood and Vincentown aquifer
beneath Site 10 (located approximately 1,000 feet north-northeast of Site 20), and presumably Site 20,
occurs under unconfined conditions. The direction of shallow groundwater flow in the aquifer beneath Site
10, as indicated by both the August and October groundwater contour maps for Site 10. is toward the
northwest, north, and north-northeast.
Summary of Remedial Investigations/Remedial Actions
IAS
The 1983 IAS. consisting of interviews and site observations, concluded minimal probable impact based on
the presumption that metals in paint chips would not leach to the environment. The site was not
recommended for a confirmation study.
SI
A site investigation (Confirmation Study) in 1986 consisted of four soil samples obtained from areas of grit
deposition. Soil samples were analyzed for metals (EPTOX) and petroleum hydrocarbons. Analytical results
from the 1986 SI indicated that no metals above EPTOX limits, and a maximum total petroleum
hydrocarbons (TPH) of 65.7 mg/kg was found in site soil samples taken.
1993 RI/FS
During the 1993 Rl/feasibility study (FS), five sediment (surface soil) samples were collected, one in the grit
pile and four spaced along the drainage ditch which discharges to the northeast The soil samples were
analyzed for target analyte list (TAL) inorganics and cyanide. Two samples were also analyzed for
DOCUMENTS/NA\AY7695/128001 ||-9
-------
pesticides/PCBs and semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs), and one sample was analyzed for volatile
organic compounds (VOCs). Elevated levels of semivolatile compounds and metals were detected from
samples along the drainage. Only very low levels of volatiles (possible laboratory artifacts) were detected in
surface soil samples.
Remedial Action
A remedial action was performed at the site that consisted of removal and disposal of contaminated grit and
related site media. The remedial action was executed in two stages. Stage one removal, in December 1994,
consisted of excavation of approximately 300 cubic yards of grit tainted soils, which were stockpiled for
sampling and off-site disposal. Figure 4 shows the approximate limits of excavation.
Post-excavation Stage One confirmation sampling consisted of 12 surface soil samples and duplicates
analyzed for TAL metals and target compound list (TCL) semivolatile compounds. Sample analysis indicated
metals residues remained at concentrations above NJDEP residential surface soil cleanup standards at three
locations near the southern end of Site 20 (sample locations 2.6, and 8).
On February 28, 1995, the Navy submitted a report entitled "Interim Remedial Action Report for Site 20" to
the NJDEP for review and comment The NJDEP responded to this report on April 5, 1995 and indicated their
concurrence with the Navy report and recommendations for additional excavation near sample locations 2, 6,
and 8.
Stage two excavation, consisting of additional removal at locations with metals above NJDEP cleanup
criteria, was carried out in March 1995. Stage two excavation was followed closely by the 1995 Rl sampling
to verify site cleanup results.
1995 Remedial Investigation
Based on previous investigations and removal actions, follow-up remedial investigation activities were
developed to meet the following objectives:
Determine the effectiveness of the removal action.
Perform risk analysis to determine if further action is required.
DOCUMENTS/NAVY/7695/128001 H-10
-------
Determine if downgradient wetlands have been impacted.
* Evaluate potential impact from the leach field.
Between June and August 1995, B&R Environmental conducted field investigations at Site 20 that included
sampling and analysis of surface soil, subsurface soil, sediment and the contents of the septic tank. Figure 4
depicts the sample locations.
1995 RI Nature and Extent of Contamination
Tables 1 and 2 present the occurrence and distribution of inorganic and organic chemicals (respectively)
detected in surface soil samples at Site 20 and compare them to background. Tables 3 and 4 present a
comparison of detected compounds to applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs) and
requirements to be considered (TBCs). Beryllium (up to 2.7 mg/kg) was the only compound detected above
ARARs and TBCs. Figure 10 shows sample locations and concentrations of compounds that exceed ARARs
and TBCs.
Tables 5 and 6 present the occurrence and distribution of inorganic and organic chemicals (respectively)
detected in Site 20 background and site-related subsurface soil samples and compares them to background.
Table 7 presents a comparison of detected compounds to ARARs and TBCs. No samples exceeded ARARs
and TBCs. Figure 10 shows sample locations.
Tables 8 and 9 present the occurrence and distribution of inorganic and organic chemicals (respectively)
detected in Site 20 background and site-related sediment samples. Tables 10 and 11 present a comparison
of detected compounds to ARARs and TBCs. No compounds were detected at levels above ARARs and
TBCs. Figure 10 shows sample locations.
One aqueous waste sample from the septic tank was collected at Site 20 to investigate if the compounds
found in other site samplings are related to the septic tank as a possible source (Figure 4). Low levels of two
semivolatite compounds were detected. Table 12 presents the analytical sample results.
DOCUMENTS/NAVY/7695/128001 ||-11
-------
C. Site 22 - Paint Chip Disposal Area
Site Background and Physical Setting
Site 22 is a former paint chip disposal area where waste sand blasting material and paint wastes were
disposed. The site is located south of-Building D-2. The ground surface at the site is predominantly sand
and gravel. A macadam road services the site from Midway Road.
The site is bordered to the north by a railroad siding and to the east by a marshy area. A shallow drainage
depression, measuring approximately 275 feet in length and 0.5 to 1 foot in depth, runs the length of the site
behind Building D-2, and discharges toward the southeast to a marsh. Figure 5 shows the site layout.
Geology and Hvdroqeoloqy
Regional mapping placed Site 22 in the outcrop area of the Kirkwood Formation; upper colluvium may be
present at the site. The upper colluvium consists of massive sand and gravel and may contain quartz and
ironstone pebbles. The Kirkwood Formation consists of gray and tan, very fine- to medium-grained quartz
sand and dark-colored, micaceous, diatomaceous clay. The presence of upper colluvium or the Kirkwood
Formation beneath the site cannot be confirmed because no soil borings were drilled at the site. However,
the lithology of the sediments encountered in borings at Site 23, located approximately 700 feet north-
northwest of Site 20 generally agrees with the published description of the upper colluvium and the Kirkwood
and Vincentown Formations.
Based on the findings of the IAS and SI, groundwater investigations were not considered needed at Site 22.
Minimal potential for impact to site groundwater was concluded from the limited area (approximately 50
square feet) of the former disposal area, and the relatively immobile nature of metals associated in paint
chips. Also, low levels of heavy molecular weight PAH's observed in surface soils/sediments were viewed as
unlikely to impact site groundwater. Groundwater in the Kirkwood and Vincentown aquifer beneath Site 23,
and presumably Site 22, occurs under unconfined conditions and the formations are interpreted to be
hydraulically interconnected. The direction of shallow groundwater flow in the aquifer beneath Site 23, as
indicated by the August and October groundwater contour maps for Site 23, is toward the north-northeast.
DOCUMENTS/NAVY/7695/128001 11-12
-------
Summary of Remedial Investigations
IAS
The 1983 IAS consisted of interviews and concluded minimal impact based on a small area (50 square feet)
of stressed, vegetation and discolored soil behind building D-2. The site was not recommended for a
confirmation study.
SI
A s,te investigation (Confirmation Study)"in 1986 consisted of four soi. samples obtained from areas of
stoned sob at a depth of 0-3 feet. These soi. samp.es were obtained in the general vicinity of the
subsurface soil samp.es 22-007, 22-008 and 22-009 obtained during the Ri in 1992 (see Figure 5) Soil
samples were analyzed for TPH and EPTOX metals. Analytical results from the 1986 SI indicated that no
metals above EPTOX limits, and a maximum TPH of 45.8 mg/kg were found in site soil samples taken.
1992 RI/FS
During the RI/FS (1993), six soil samples were collected at three locations designated as stained areas
Traces of paint stains were barely evident at the surface and were limited to black and red staining on the
surface. The sample locations are identified as sample numbers 22-007, 22-008, and 22-009. Figure 5
shows the existing sample locations from the Paint Chip Disposal Area.
Three shallow samples (0 to 1ft bgs) were analyzed for TAL inorganics with cyanide BNAs and
pesticides/PCBs. Three deep samples (approximately 2ft bgs) were analyzed for VOCs. Although several
metals were detected at elevated concentrations, the concentrations of these metals were within the normal
range for naturally occurring soils. Very low concentrations of volatile and semivolatile compounds were
detected in some samples. The pesticide compound 4,4-DDT was found in one sample.
Six sediment samples (22-001 through 22-006) were collected in the drainage ditch south of Building D-2
Samples were analyzed for TAL inorganics, BNAs, TPH, and pesticides/PCBs. Severs, semivolatile
denvatave compounds of anthracene, pyrene, and chrysene were detected at elevated levels Other
semivolatile compounds were detected at estimated (J) levels. The pesticide compound 4,4-DDT was found
in sample 22-003. Some metals were detected at slightly elevated levels, but were within the normal range
for naturally occurring soils.
DOCUMENTS/NAVY/7695/128001 ||--J3
-------
1995 Remedial Investigation
Based on limited investigations, follow-up remedial investigation activities were developed to meet the
following objectives:
Compare metals levels to background conditions.
Perform risk analysis to determine if further action is required.
Sampling and analysis during previous investigations were biased toward areas of visible soil staining or
discoloration. In addition, samples were obtained from drainageways from these areas to gauge the potential
for off-site transport of compounds. No groundwater samples were obtained because the amount of waste
disposed, based on observed residues on the soil, was considered to be minimal. Low levels of heavy
molecular weight PAHs and phthalates found in site soils were assumed to have little potential for migration
to groundwater.
Based on the lack of significant contamination noted in samples collected during previous investigations, no
additional samples were collected at the site during this phase of investigation.
Nature and Extent of Contamination
Eight subsurface soil samples were collected including two duplicates at Site 22 (Figure 5) during the 1992
RI/FS. Tables 13 and 14 present the occurrence and distribution of inorganic and organic chemicals.
respectively, in site-related subsurface soil samples and compare them to background values. Table 15
presents a comparison of detected compounds to ARARs and TBCs. No subsurface soil samples exceeded
ARARs and TBCs. Figure 11 shows sample locations.
Seven sediment samples, including one duplicate were collected at Site 22 (Figure 5) during the 1992 RI/FS.
Tables 16 and 17 present the occurrence and distribution of inorganic and organic chemicals, respectively, in
site-related samples and compare them to background values. Table 18 presents a comparison of detected
compounds to ARARs and TBCs. Cadmium (two locations), lead (one location), and PAHs (two locations)
were detected at levels exceeding (ecological toxicity) ARARs and TBCs. Figure 11 shows sample locations
and concentrations of compounds that exceed ARARs or TBCs.
OOCUMENTS/NAVY/7695/128001 11-14
-------
Summary of Remedial Actions
Based on the results of the 1995 Rl, a focused remedial action was performed at Site 22 to address specific
areas of soil contamination. The results of this remedial action were summarized in a report entitled "Close-
out Report - Removal Actions at Sites 22, 23, and 27" dated February 14, 1997.
The remedial action included excavation of contaminated soils in areas of known contamination. Figure 12
depicts the areas that were excavated. An area of approximately 38 feet by 50 feet by 1 foot deep was
excavated on the western side of Building D-2. An additional area, measuring approximately 16 feet by 4
feet was excavated to a depth of approximately 3 feet Excavated soil was transported to R-3 Technologies
(Morrisville, Pennsylvania) for disposal.
Approximately 250 tons of contaminated soil were excavated as part of this effort. At the completion of
excavation activities and collection of confirmatory samples, the excavated areas were backfilled with clean
fill to be level with the surrounding grade, and were re-vegetated.
Confirmatory samples were collected after soil excavation activities were complete. A total of 8 confirmatory
samples were collected, including 6 soil samples from the sidewall of the excavation and 2 samples from the
bottom of the excavation (Figure 12). Analytical results of the confirmatory soil samples are summarized in
Table 19. NJDEP Soil Cleanup Criteria are also included on Table 19. Analytical results from the 8
confirmatory soil samples indicated that contaminant levels in all soil samples were below regulatory
cleanup levels when compared with NJDEP Residential Direct Contact, Non-Residential Direct Contact,
and Impact to Groundwater soil cleanup criteria. Based on these results, no further action was taken at Site
22.
D. Site 23 - Paint Disposal Area
Site Background and Physical Setting
The paint disposal area near Building D-5 was used from the early 1970s until approximately 1993 for paint
wastes-from repainting and stenciling torpedoes, aerial bombs, and other large ordnance. The site consists
of approximately 200 square feet of ground surface west of the northwest comer of building D-5 where paint
disposal to the ground surface reportedly occurred in the past (IAS).
Figure 6 is a map of the site. During 1993 SI work at the site, a small amount of paint'residue was present
inside the fence line, southwest of Building D-5; no such residue was visible during an October 1993
DOCUMENTS/NAVY/7695/128001 11-15
-------
preliminary Rl site visit, nor was an area of bare ground evident. Considering the contradictory reports of
where the "site" was, and the metals concentrations found in shallow soil samples taken, it seems likely that
paint wastes may have been dumped anywhere on the ground near Building D-5 to the west or southwest.
Documentation of past removal actions was not available.
The building D-5 complex is constructed into a naturally sloping hillside. Natural grade is higher to the north
and east making a natural soil "berm" wall about 20 feet high on those sides. To the west and southwest, an
earthen berm has been placed about 20 feet high to complete the soil berm enclosure of the D-5 complex on
three sides. A drainage ditch is present west of the building, within the bermed area. A small wetland is
located northwest and uphill of the building, which appears to be the source of a small stream which runs
intermittently in the drainage ditch west of Building D-5.
The site is partially paved, and overland runoff flows radially across the site into shallow drainage
depressions that surround the site on three sides. The drainage flows toward the southeast. A tributary of
Hockhockson Brook is located approximately 500 feet southwest of the site. SI work indicated that a shallow
perched-water layer may be present above the water-table aquifer at the site. Shallow groundwater generally
flows toward the north-northeast.
Geology and Hvdroqeoloqy
Regional mapping places Site 23 in the outcrop area of the Kirkwood Formation; upper colluvium may be
present at the site. The upper colluvium has a maximum thickness of 10 feet, the Kirkwood Formation
ranges between 60 to 100 feet in thickness, and the soil borings are no more than 27 feet deep. Based upon
the boring log descriptions, the wells penetrated the upper colluvium and the Kirkwood and Vincentown
Formations.
Groundwater in the upper colluvium, Kirkwood, and Vincentown aquifer beneath the site occurs under
unconfined conditions and the formations are interpreted to be hydraulically interconnected. Groundwater
elevations for August 1995 and October 1995 are contoured on Figures 13 and 14, respectively. The
direction of shallow groundwater flow in the aquifer, as indicated by both the August and October
groundwater contour maps, is toward the north-northeast. There does not appear to be a significant
seasonal variation in groundwater flow direction.
Based on boring log descriptions, the three monitoring wells installed in the 1995 Rl (Figure 13) are screened
across the contact between the Kirkwood and Vincentown Formations. The hydraulic conductivity's
DOCUMENTS/NAVY/7695/128001 11-16
-------
calculated for MW23-01 and MW23-02 are 2.79 x 1Q-3 cm/sec (7.91 ft/day) and 2.04 x 10* cm/sec (5.78
ft/day), respectively.
Summary of Remedial Investigations
IAS
The 1983 IAS, consisting of interviews and observations, concluded that a bare area of approximately 200
square feet had been used for paint disposal to surface soil. The site was not recommended for confirmation
study because it was believed that the amount of paint dumped on the area was not enough to pose a
significant environmental or public health hazard.
SI
During the 1993 SI. six soil samples (from 0 to 3 feet bgs). eight sediment samples, and one hydropunch
groundwater sample were collected for analysis. Sample analysis indicated that low levels of VOCs and
metals were present in soil samples, the highest levels of chromium and lead were detected in a soil sample
taken west of Building D-5 in the vicinity of RI soil boring 23 SB 04. Low levels of organics and one pesticide
were detected in sediment, and elevated metals were detected in sediments. Groundwater contained low
levels of organics and some elevated levels of metals.
The IAS concluded that surface soils had slight signs of staining from paint residues. Elevated levels of
metals (mainly chromium and lead) at concentrations sometimes above regulatory guideline limits were found
in soil and sediments. Elevated levels of lead and chromium were also found in groundwater samples. Low
levels of organics were found in direct-push groundwater samples.
1995 Remedial Investigation
Based on previous investigations, follow-up remedial investigation activities were developed to meet the
following objectives:
Determine vertical extent of soil contamination in soil west of Building D-5.
Determine whether surface water or wetland has been impacted by past practices.
Investigate groundwater quality in the area of former paint dumping.
DOCUMENTS/NAVY/7695/128001 ||-17
-------
Compare metals data to background levels and risk-based criteria.
Determine impact of turbidity on metals results by using the low-flow sampling technique.
Between July and October 1995, B&R Environmental conducted the following field investigation activities at
Site 23:
Sampling and analysis of subsurface soil samples from three soil borings and one hand-auger
boring
Drilling and installation of three shallow permanent monitoring wells
Sampling and analysis of groundwater from the wells
Measurement of static water-levels in the wells
Execution of slug tests in two of the wells
Sampling and analysis of surface water and sediment
Nature and Extent of Contamination
Seven site-related subsurface soil samples (23 SB 01-04, 23 SB 01-16, 23 SB 02-02, 23 SB 02-16, 23 SB
03-06. 23 SB 03-14, and 23 SB 04-02) were collected at Site 23 (Figure 6). Tables 20 and 21 present the
occurrence and distribution of inorganic chemicals detected in site-related subsurface soil samples and
compare them to background. Tables 22 and 23 present a comparison of detected compounds to ARARs
and TBCs. Cadmium (up to 1.5 mg/kg) slightly exceeded the NJDEP Residential and Non-Residential Soil
Direct Contact standard of 1.0 mg/kg at one sampling location. Figure 13 shows sample locations and
concentrations of compounds that exceed ARARs and TBCs.
Five sediment samples were collected at Site 23: 23 SD 01 through 23 SD 05 (Figure 6). Tables 24 and 25
present the occurrence and distribution of inorganic and organic chemicals in site-related sediment samples
and compare them to background. Table 26 presents a comparison of detected compounds to ARARs and
TBCs. Lead (72.5 mg/kg) and chromium (120 mg/kg) exceeded the sediment ecological toxicity threshold
values of 47 mg/kg and 81 mg/kg, respectively at one location. PAHs were also detected above ARARs and
DOCUMENTS/NAVY/7695/128001 ' 11-18
-------
TBCs at one location. Figure 13 shows sample locations and concentrations of compounds that exceed
ARARs and TBCs.
Three site-related groundwater samples (23 GW 01 through 23 GW 03) were collected at Site 23 (Figure 6).
Tables 27 and 28 present the occurrence and distribution of inorganic and organic chemicals detected in site-
related groundwater samples and compare them to background. Table 29 presents a comparison of
detected compounds to ARARs and TBCs. Several inorganic compounds were detected at levels above
ARARs and TBCs. Figure 13 shows sample locations and concentrations of compounds that exceed ARARs
and TBCs.
Three surface water samples were collected at Site 23: 23 SW 03 through 23 SW 05 (Figure 6). Tables 30
and 31 present the occurrence and distribution of inorganic and organic chemicals in site-related surface
water samples. Table 32 presents a comparison of detected compounds to ARARs and TBCs. Figure 13
shows sample locations and concentrations of compounds that exceed ARARs and TBCs.
Summary of Remedial Actions
Based on the results of the 1995 Rl, a focused remedial action was performed at Site 23 to address specific
areas of soil contamination. The results of this remedial action was summarized in a report entitled " Close-
out Report - Removal Actions at Sites 22, 23, and 27' dated February 14,1997.
The remedial action included excavation of contaminated soils in areas of known contamination. Figure 14
depicts the areas which were excavated.
An area of approximately 18 feet by 3 feet by 2.8 foot deep was excavated on the southwestern side of
Building D-5. Excavated soil was transported to R-3 Technologies (Morrisville, Pennsylvania) for disposal.
Approximately 86 tons of contaminated soil were excavated as part of this effort. At the completion of
excavation activities and collection of confirmatory samples, the excavated areas were backfilled with clean
fill to a level to match the surrounding grade and were re-vegetated.
Confirmatory samples were collected after soil excavation activities were complete. A total of 8 confirmatory
samples were collected, including 6 soil samples from the sidewall of the excavation and 2 samples from the
bottom of the excavation (Figure 14).
DOCUMENTS/NAVY/7695/128001 ||-19
-------
Analytical results of the confirmatory soil samples are summarized in Table 33. NJDEP Soil Cleanup Criteria
are also included on Table 33.
Analytical results from the 8 confirmatory soil samples indicated that contaminant levels were generally
below regulatory cleanup levels when compared with NJDEP Residential Direct Contact, Non-Residential
Direct Contact, and Impact to Groundwater soil cleanup criteria. Thallium was the only contaminant which
exceeded any of the soil cleanup criteria (Residential Direct Contact and Non-Residential Direct Contact).
Since the contaminated surface soil was removed and replaced by clean fill as part of the Site 23
remediation, the Impact to Groundwater soil cleanup criteria were deemed applicable. None of the 8
confirmatory soil samples exceeded the Impact to Groundwater soil cleanup criteria. Based on these
results, no further action was taken at Site 23.
No remedial activities were performed for groundwater or sediments. A discussion of risk and
recommended disposition of groundwater and sediments is presented in section VI - D - Summary of Site
Risks for Site 23 (Pages 11-33 - 11-35).
E. Sites 24 and 25 - Closed Pistol Ranges
Site Background and Physical Setting
Sites 24 and 25 are closed pistol ranges that were once used for target practice. Due to the sites' similar
nature, history, and close proximity, they have been treated together.
During target practice at the sites, lead- and copper-jacketed bullets were fired into 70-foot-high impact
berms (natural sand banks). Preserved wooden posts at the sites formed the firing platform. No drainage
swales or wetlands are on or near the sites (Figure 7).
Geology and Hvdroqeology
Regional mapping places Sites 24 and 25 in the outcrop area of the Cohansey Sand; upland colluvium and
gravel, undivided, may be present at the sites. The upland colluvium and gravel, undivided, has a maximum
thickness of 10 feet, the Cohansey Sand ranges between 0 and 30 feet in thickness, and the hand-auger
borings at Sites 24 and 25 were no more than 9 feet deep. The sediments encountered in the hand-auger
borings generally agree with the published descriptions of the upland colluvium and gravel, undivided, and
DOCUMENTS/NAVY/7695/128001 II-20
-------
the Cohansey Sand. In general, the borings encountered gray and brown medium- and coarse-grained sand
and brown, medium- to coarse-grained sand.
Previous investigations concluded that lead from spent bullet projectiles (slugs) was the primary concern at
Sites 24 and 25. Contaminant concentrations in samples taken from soil below the deepest slug penetration
were below levels regulatory concern, confirming the assumption of no significant migration (of lead) to
greater depths or groundwater. Groundwater in the Cohansey aquifer beneath Site 4, and presumably Sites
24 and 25. occurs under unconfined conditions. Site 4 is located about 1,300 feet south-southeast of Sites
24 and 25. The direction of shallow groundwater flow in the aquifer beneath Site 4, as indicated by both the
August and October groundwater contour maps for Site 4, is toward the east and east-southeast
Summary of Remedial Investigations
IAS
The 1983 IAS, consisting of interviews and visual inspection, concluded minimal impact. The site was not
recommended for a confirmation study.
SJ
Four soil samples were collected from shallow soil borings from the berms behind the target areas during the
1993 SI field activities. The samples were collected from approximately 3 feet bgs. Lead slugs were removed
from the material before the samples were sent for analysis. Soil samples were analyzed for lead. zinc.
copper, chromium, and cadmium. Analysis indicated that lead was the primary metal of concern at the site.
1995 Remedial Investigation
Based on previous investigations, follow-up remedial investigation activities were developed to meet the
following objectives:
_ Determine the extent of penetration and the density of projectiles in the impact areas.
Perform ecological risk assessment.
DOCUMENTS/NAVY/7695/128001 ||-21
-------
In August 1995. B&R Environmental conducted the following field investigation activities at Sites 24 and 25:
The total number of lead slugs (bullets) was counted, in 6-inch-depth intervals, at two locations at
each site.
Subsurface soil samples from two borings at each site were sampled and analyzed.
Nature and Extent of Contamination - Site 24
Four site-related subsurface soil samples (24 SB 01-05. 24 SB 01-08, 24 SB 02-03, and 24 SB 02-06) were
collected at Site 24 (Figure 7). Table 34 presents the occurrence and distribution of inorganic chemicals
detected in site-related subsurface soil samples and compares them to background. Tables 35 and 36
present a comparison of detected compounds to ARARs and TBCs. No compounds were detected above
ARARs or TBCs.
Nature and Extent of Contamination - Site 25
Four site-related subsurface soil samples (25 SB 01-05, 25 SB 01-08, 25 SB 02-03, and 25 SB 02-06) were
collected at Site 25 (Figure 7). Table 37 presents the occurrence and distribution of inorganic chemicals
detected in Site 25 background and site-related subsurface soil samples. Tables 38 and 39 present a
comparison of detected compounds to ARARs and TBCs. No compounds were detected above ARARs or
TBCs.
Summary of Remedial Actions
The results of previous remedial investigations recommended removal of bullets and shell casings from Sites
24 and 25. A focused remedial action was later performed at Sites 24 and 25 to remove bullets and shell
casings from each site. The remedial action involved mechanical separation of the metal bullets from the
sandy impact bemns and subsequent washing of the soils.
As part-of the remedial action, approximately 1,500 tons of soil were processed from the sites. A total of 10
tons of bullets was recovered as part of this effort.
The bullets were sold to a local metal recycler. Lead-containing sludge from the soil washing system was
sent to an asphalt batch plant for recycling. The washed soils were backfilled at each site and the wash
water was discharged to the Station's wastewater treatment plant for final processing.
DOCUMENTS/NAVW695/128001 II-22
-------
Table 40 summarizes the results of confirmatory soil samples collected after excavation of the berms and
firing lines were complete. Table 41 summarizes the results of samples collected of the washed soils.
Results show lead levels below regulatory criteria.
F. Site 27 - Projectile Refurbishing Area
Site Background and Physical Setting
Site 27 includes Building E-14 and a small storage locker located off Oran Road (Figure 8). Projectiles are
refurbished at the site by shot-blasting, repainting, and stenciling. Oil-contaminated rags, paint chips, and
spent sandblasting shot were disposed behind the facility (IAS, 1983). A small portion of the site surface
(approximately 80 square feet) near the southeast comer of Building E-14 was covered by red paint sludge.
A railroad siding and small drainage depression exist on the east side of the site behind the building.
Overland runoff drains towards the southeast to the shallow depression approximately 15 feet downslope
from the paint sludge area. Surface water infiltration occurs within the drainage depression. The east branch
of the Mingamahone Brook is located approximately 1200 to 1500 ft east-southeast of the site.
Geology and Hvdroqeoloqy
Regional mapping places Site 27 within the outcrop area of the Kirkwood Formation. The Kirkwood
Formation ranges between 60 and 100 feet in thickness and the soil borings are no more than 12 feet deep.
The lithology of the sediments encountered in the on-site soil bonngs generally agrees with the published
description of the Kirkwood Formation. The borings encountered light brown, pebbly, fine-grained sand with
varying amounts of clay and silt.
Based on the findings of the IAS and SI, groundwater investigations were not considered needed at Site 27.
Minimal potential for impact to site groundwater was concluded from the limited size (approximately 80
square feet) of the former disposal area, and the relatively immobile nature of metals associated in paint
chips. Also, low levels of heavy molecular weight SVOC's and PCB's observed in shallow soil samples were
viewed as unlikely to affect groundwater. Groundwater in the Kirkwood Formation beneath Sites 3 and 26,
and presumably Site 27, occurs under unconfined conditions. Site 3 is located about 3.200 feet south-
southeast and Site 26 is located about 3,000 feet north of the site. The direction of shallow groundwater flow
in the aquifer beneath Site 3, as indicated by the August groundwater contour map for Site 3. is toward the
DOCUMENTS/NAVY/7695/128001 II-23
-------
southeast. The direction of groundwater flow in the aquifer beneath Site 26. as indicated by both the August
and October groundwater contour maps for Site 26, is toward the southwest.
Summary of Remedial Investigations
IAS
The 1983 IAS. consisting of interviews, concluded that the approximately eighty cubic feet of paint chips and
blast shot posed no significant threat to the environment or public health because the material was
considered relatively inert. The site was not recommended fora confirmation study.
§!
The 1993 SI field activities included collection often soil samples and eight sediment samples Two soil
samples (at 0 to 0.5 ft bgs and 0.5 to 1.5 ft bgs) were collected at five different locations concentrated in the
area of observed soil staining behind Building E-14. Shallow soils encountered within the zone were
d-sturbed in places and composed of red brown gravelly sand with some slag, sand Wasting material and
paint ch,ps. Analysis of soil samples detected elevated concentrations of metals, PCBs, and semivolatiles
The eight sediment samples were collected within the drainage ditch between the railroad tracks located
behmd Building E-14 and one sediment sample was collected to the east of the main railroad track in a dry
dra,nage depression. Low concentrations of metals and pesticides and trace levels of SVOCs were detected
in several sediment samples.
1995 Remedial Investigation
Based on previous investigations, follow-up remedial investigation activities were developed to meet the
following objectives:
Determine vertical extent of soil contamination.
Compare data to background levels and risk based criteria.
Using all data collected to date, determine whether wetlands, or surface water has been impacted.
DOCUMENTS/NAVY/7695/128001 ||-24
-------
In December 1995, B&R Environmental conducted the following field investigation activities at Site 27:
Sampling and analysis of subsurface soil samples from two soil borings
Sampling and analysis of subsurface soil samples from one hand-augured boring
Nature and Extent of Contamination
Nine subsurface soil samples were collected at Site 27 (Figure 8). Tables 42 and 43 present the occurrence
and distribution of inorganic and organic chemicals in site-related samples and compare them to background
values. Tables 44 and 45 present a comparison of detected compounds to ARARs and TBCs. Cadmium
was the only compound detected at levels above ARARs and TBCs. Figure 15 shows sample locations and
concentrations of compounds that exceed ARARs and TBCs.
Summary of Remedial Actions
Based on the results of the 1995 Rl, a focused remedial action was performed at Site 27 to address specific
areas of soil contamination. The results of this remedial action were summarized in a report entitled " Close-
out Report - Removal Actions at Sites 22, 23, and 27" dated February 14, 1997.
The remedial action included excavation of contaminated soils in areas of known contamination. Figure 16
depicts the areas which were excavated.
An irregular-shaped area approximately 200 feet by 100 feet by 1 foot deep was excavated. Excavated soil
was transported to R-3 Technologies (Morrisville, Pennsylvania) for disposal.
Approximately 54 tons of contaminated soil were excavated as part of this effort. At the completion of
excavation activities and collection of confirmatory samples, the excavated areas were backfilled with clean
fill to a level to match the surrounding grade, and re-vegetated.
Confirmatory samples (27-CS01 through 27-CS08) were collected after soil excavation activities were
complete. Eight confirmatory soil samples were collected, including 6 soil samples from the sidewall of the
excavation and 2 samples from the bottom of the excavation (Figure 16). Analytical results from the 8 initial
confirmatory soil samples indicated contaminant levels that exceeded NJDEP Residential Direct Contact
and Non-Residential Direct Contact soil cleanup criteria.
DOCUMENTS/NAVY/7695/128001 II-25
-------
A second soil excavation, to remove additional soils based on the lead concentration results of the first
round of (eight) confirmatory soil samples, was performed (Figure 16 shows the areas of excavation).
Table 46 shows the results of the second round (27-CS09 and 27-CS10) confirmatory soil samples. It
appears that lead contaminated soils were effectively removed by the remedial action. However, c'her
metals (including arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, copper, antimony, selenium and thallium) reman at
concentrations above NJDEP residential cleanup levels.
Since the contaminated surface soil was removed and replaced by clean fill and top soil planted in native
grasses as part of the Site 27 remediation, the potential for direct contact has been blocked. Based on
these results, no further remedial action was taken at Site 27.
G. Site 29 - PCB Spill Site
Site Background and Physical Setting
This site is located in a storage yard (north of Site 16/F) where an unknown quantity of PCBs spilled from a
transformer in 1981. No record exists suggesting that PCB compounds flowed any significant distance
overland or in a ditch. Within 5 days after the spill', all discolored soil (over 120 cubic feet) was disposed off-
site. NWS Earie has constructed a one-story, brick building at the site that functions as the new hazardous
waste storage facility. A railroad spur and wetlands are located east of the site, and Saipan Road is located
along the western side. Figure 9 is a site map.
Geology and Hvdroqeoloov
Regional mapping places Site 29 within the outcrop area of the Kirkwood Formation; upper colluvium may be
present at the site. The upper colluvium has a maximum thickness of 10 feet, the Kirkwood Formation
ranges between 60 to 100 feet in thickness, and the soil borings installed for the two monitoring wells are no
more than 42 feet deep. The lithology of the sediments encountered in the on-site borings generally agrees
with the published description of the upper colluvium and the Kirkwood Formation. In general, the borings
encountered fill material, olive gray and brown, silty, fine- to coarse-grained sand with gravel (possibly
representative of the upland gravel) and yellowish-brown and olive, pebbly, silty, fine- to coarse-grained sand
and sandy clay (probably representative of the Kirkwood Formation).
Based upon the boring log descriptions, well MW29-01 penetrated fill material and the Kirkwood Formation,
and well MW29-02 penetrated the upland gravel and the Kirkwood Formation.
DOCUMENTS/NAVY/7695/128001 H-26
-------
Groundwater in the Kirkwood aquifer beneath the site occurs under unconfined conditions. There are
insufficient data points to contour the water table beneath Site 29; however, the elevationai data from both
August and October 1995 indicate a westward component to shallow groundwater at the site. There does
not appear to be a significant seasonal variation in groundwater flow direction.
Summary of Remedial Investigations
IAS
The 1983 IAS, consisting of interviews and site observations, noted that there was a PCB spill. Reportedly,
all visible evidence of the spill was removed in an immediate removal action. The site was not recommended
for a confirmation study.
SI
During the 1992 SI field investigation, five soil samples (from 0.5 to 1.5 feet bgs) were collected from the area
of the PCB spill at Site 29. Samples were obtained within the relatively small area labeled "approximate
location of PCB spill" on Figure 9. Minor amounts of pesticides and PCBs were detected at concentrations
below New Jersey clean-up standards. One sample contained high concentrations of TPH (28,000 mg/kg).
As part of the environmental site evaluation for the proposed hazardous waste storage facility, additional field
work was performed at the site. To further evaluate the possible impacts from past activities and to assess
subsurface soil conditions for foundation design, seven soil borings were completed at. the site in mid-1993
(Haley & Aldrich, Incorporated, 1993). All 1993 soil borings and monitoring wells were installed within the
area labeled "new hazardous waste storage facility under construction" shown on Figure 9. Soil bonngs were
completed to depths ranging from 17 to 42 feet bgs and were sampled at 5 and 10 feet bgs. Six of the seven
soil borings were converted to monitoring wells. Trace levels of VOCs. semivolatiles, pesticides, and PCBs
were detected in the soils, all below New Jersey subsurface soil criteria. Groundwater samples indicated that
trace to low levels of VOCs and semivolatiles were present, and no detectable concentrations of pesticides or
PCBs were present. Elevated levels of benzene (30 ppb) and DCE (25 ppb) were reported in former well
MW29-04. Total lead and total chromium were present in groundwater at levels above state criteria.
Four of the six wells were formally closed on 26 July 1995 in conjunction with construction of the new facility.
Two of the wells were capped for future use.
DOCUMENTS/NAVY/7695/128001 II-27
-------
Storage Building Construction
Soil was removed for construction of the new hazardous waste storage facility to a depth of approximately 8
feet below grade in the entire area labeled "new hazardous waste storage facility under construction" (' ;ure
9) before 1995 Rl field activities were carried out. Due to dry conditions, no groundwater was encount. 3d in
the excavation. The excavated soil was stockpiled and composite samples were collected and ana;p,zed to
determine disposal options. The soil was found to be non-hazardous. The results of these ss:-pies are
summarized in Table 47. These soils, along with an additional 6000 yd3 of previously stockpiled non-
hazardous soils were subsequently placed under the landfill cap at Installation Restoration Site #5 to aid in
the proper grading of the capped site.
The original removal action apparently was effective in removing spilled PCBs.
1995 Remedial Investigation
Based on previous investigations and removal actons, follow-up remedial investigation activities were
developed to meet the following objectives: ^_^
Investigate subsurface soil quality downgradient of the former site.
Confirm groundwater quality downgradient of the former site.
Perform n'sk analysis to determine if further action is required.
Between July and October 1995, B&R Environmental conducted the following field investigation activities at
Site 29:
Sampling and analysis of subsurface soil samples from two soil borings
Drilling and installation of two shallow permanent monitoring wells
Sampling and analysis of groundwater from the wells
Measurement of static water levels in the monitoring wells
DOCUMENTS/NAVY/7695/128001 II-28
-------
Nature and Extent of Contamination
Two site-related subsurface soil samples (29 SB 01-02 and 29 SB 02-02) were collected at Site 29 (Figure
9). Table 48 presents the occurrence and distribution- of organic chemicals detected in site-related
subsurface soil samples and compares them to background. Tables 49 and 50 present a comparison of
detected compounds to ARARs and TBCs. No exceedences of ARARs and TBCs were recorded. Figure 17
shows sample locations.
Two site-related groundwater samples (29 GW 01 and 29 GW 02) were collected (Figure 9). Tables 51 and
52 present the occurrence and distribution of inorganic chemicals detected in site-related groundwater
samples and compare them to background. Table 53 presents a comparison of detected compounds to
ARARs and TBCs. Aluminum, iron, and manganese were detected at levels above ARARs or TBCs. Figure
17 shows sample locations and concentrations of compounds which exceed ARARs and TBCs.
At the time of the original PCS spill from a transformer in 1981, all discolored soil (over 120 cubic feet) was
removed and disposed off site. Subsequent sampling in the vicinity of the reported spill, and later in
downgradient soils and groundwater confirm that the original removal action for PCBs in 1981 was effective.
VI. SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS
A. Site 14 - Mercury Spill Area
i>
The concentration of mercury in the composite sample of floor sweepings (8.6 mg/kg) was below New Jersey
State standards for Residential Direct Contact Soil Cleanup Criteria for mercury (14 mg/kg). Although this site
is inside an industrial facility, it should be noted that the EPA value for residential levels of mercury in soil at a
hazard index (HI) of 1 is 7.8 mg/kg (EPA Region III Risk-Based Concentration Table, October 1998).
The mercury found in floor sweepings at Building C-33 represents no apparent health threat. The mercury
concentration found in floor sweepings is lower than the concentration in soil (which could be tracked in on
the shoes of workers or on the tires of handling equipment) and would be considered protective of non-
residential or even lifetime residential exposure under NJDEP clean-up criteria. The corresponding EPA
residential screening level at an HI of 1 (7.8 mg/kg) is approximately equal to the concentration found (8.6
mg/kg) and would be considered protective of human health. The industrial worker exposure scenario
(current most probable exposure scenario) would have a correspondingly lower exposure, based on time at
work (250 days/year, 8 hours/day) compared to full time resident children and adults (350 days/year).
Therefore, it is concluded the mercury found in floor sweepings at Building C-33 represents no apparent
DOCUMENTS/NAVY/7695/128001 II-29
-------
health threat for current or future potential exposure scenarios. Details about assumptions made in
calculating human health risk are presented in Section 2.4.3 (page 2-37) of the Remedial Investigation
Report for Naval Weapons Station Earfe, Volume IA - Text (Brown & Root Environmental 1996) and are
based on U.S.EPA risk assessment guidance (EPA, 1989a: EPA, 1991 a).
There is no known evidence that the mercury spill may have affected the area around building C-33.
B. Site 20 - Grit Blasting Area at Building 544
Human Health Risk Assessment (Post Remediation)
As part of the Phase II Rl, a human health risk assessment and ecological risk assessment were performed.
Tables 54 through 56 provide the selected chemicals of potential concern (COPCs) and representative
concentrations of inorganics and organics in site-related surface soil, subsurface soil, and sediment,
respectively. Exposure pathways, potential receptors, uncertainties, and conclusions are included.
The conservative baseline n'sk assessment resulted in an HI greater than a value of 1.0 for non-cancer risk;
therefore, additional risk analysis was performed according to EPA guidance.
The identified potential receptors were evaluated on the basis of current land use (industrial employee) and
hypothetical future land use (residential, recreational, and industrial receptors).
Estimated carcinogenic risks and non-carcinogenic hazard quotients (HQs) are summarized in Tables 57
through 66.
Conclusions of Human Health Risk Assessment
Surface soil, subsurface soil, and sediment were sampled at Site 20. The potential receptors for this site
were current industrial, future industrial and residential, and recreational receptors. The cancer risks
associated with the future residential and current industrial (surface soil) exposure scenarios were within the
mid-range of the target risk range. Arsenic (via ingesfion of and dermal contact with surface soil) was the
major COPC that contributed to these cancer risks. The non-carcinogenic His associated with the current
industrial (surface soil) and future residential (surface soil) exposure scenarios were less than 1.0; the cutoff
point below which adverse non-carcinogenic effects are not expected to occur. Lead soil concentrations
were below EPA guidelines. These lead concentrations are not expected to be associated with significant
OOCUMENTS/NAVY/7695/128001 M-30
-------
increases in blood-lead levels based on the results of the Integrated Exposure Uptake Biokinetic Model
(IEUBK) Lead Model (v. 0.99).
Risk characterization results (total cancer risks and total non-carcinogenic His) are presented for all potential
receptors at Site 20 in Table 67 for surface soil, subsurface soil, and sediment.
The major uncertainties in the estimation of human health risks at Site 20 stem from estimated n'sks
calculated for arsenic via dermal contact and oral ingestion, and in both cases result in overestimation of
these risks. The uncertainty associated with dermal exposure is high because the dermal toxicity values
used for arsenic (and other compounds) are based on default oral absorption factors (no dermal toxicity
slope factors are available). Carcinogenicity of arsenic via ingestion is not confirmed by available empirical
data. However, EPA has proposed an oral unit risk factor that was used in estimating this risk. Since arsenic
is the major contributor to risk remaining at Site 20 after cleanup, risks may be overestimated. A more
complete discussion of these effects is presented in Section 2.4.3 (page 2-37) of the Remedial Investigation
Report for Naval Weapons Station Earie, Volume 1A - Text.
Ecological Risk Assessment (Post Remediation)
The ecological n'sk assessment estimated the risk posed to ecological receptors, such as aquatic and
terrestrial biota, from contamination at Site 20.
Site 20 is mostly developed and contains minimal terrestrial habitat. A drainage depression drains the entire
site, but is small with ephemeral flow, and hence, provides no aquatic habitat. The surrounding areas contain
some wetland habitats. Nearby wooded areas also provide excellent upland habitats. Groundwater-to-
surface water contaminant migration is unlikely, but runoff from Site 20 to the wetlands east of the site is
possible via the drainage depression.
Although the drainage depression contains no aquatic habitat, four sediment samples were collected in the
depression and one in the grit area in the southeastern section of the site during 1993 RI/FS activities to
ascertain whether contaminants are migrating off-site. Elevated levels of several metals, including chromium,
copper, nickel, lead, and zinc, were detected in drainageway sediments. Several SVOCs, including some
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), were detected in the grit area sample. However, the grit area and
contaminated areas in the drainage depression were remove'd in 1994.
A sediment sample was taken where the drainage depression exits the site during 1995 Rl activities. No
excavation has occurred in this area. Due to topography, all runoff exits the site via this pathway, the
DOCUMENTS/NAVY/7695/128001 11-31
-------
sediment sample was taken in this area to determine possible off-site migration to the wetlands. Surface soil
samples were collected at the site, but were taken in areas that contain limited-terrestrial habitat (former grit
storage areas). However, potential contaminant runoff from these soils should collect in the drainage ditch
and, therefore, be present in drainage depression sediments. Concentrations of inorganics in this sediment
sample were low. with all concentrations similar to background. Some PAHs were present in this sample, but
were also present in low concentrations. The low levels of inorganics and organics where the drainage
depression exits the site suggest limited off-site contaminant migration. Since both the site and the drainage
depression are relatively small, and since the potential contaminant source has already been removed, future
off-site migration would most likely be limited. For these reasons, quantitative ecological risk assessment at
this site was considered not applicable (since any risk numbers would be mitigated by the factors discussed
above). Potential risks to ecological receptors at Site 20 are considered to be tow, and the site was excluded
from quantitative ecological risk assessment.
Summary of Risks
The human health risk assessment indicates that there is no present or future scenario of carcinogenic risk
above the target acceptable range. The comparison of COPCs with corresponding His exceeding 1, to
background concentrations, indicates that this site is within the range of background risk or lower.
The removal action appears to have been effective since metals concentrations in soils were determined to
be within the range of background. Low levels of inorganics and organics where the drainage depression
exits the site suggests limited off-site contaminant migration at a level of potential ecological concern.
However, since both the site and the drainage depression are relatively small, and since the potential
contaminant source has already been removed, future off-site migration would most likely be limited.
C. Site 22 - Paint Chip Disposal Area
As part of the 1995 Rl, a human health risk assessment and ecological risk assessment were performed.
Tables 68 and 69 provide the selected COPCs and representative concentrations of inorganics and organics
in site-related subsurface soil and sediment, respectively. Exposure pathways, potential receptors,
uncertainties, and conclusions are included.
Human Health Risk Assessment (Pre-Remedlatlon)
The identified potential receptors were evaluated on the basis of current land use (industrial employee) and
hypothetical future land use (residential, recreational, and industrial receptors). Estimated carcinogenic risks
and non-carcinogenic HQs are summarized in Tables 70 through 78.
DOCUMENTS/NAVY/7695/128001 li-32
-------
The human_health risk assessment concluded that the total RME cancer risk associated with the future
residential (subsurface soil) exposure scenario was approximately 1E-04; within the target risk range.
The RME cancer risk associated with the future industrial (subsurface soil) exposure scenario was
approximately 5E-05; within the target acceptable risk range. The cancer risk associated with the future
recreational (sediment) exposure scenario via ingestion and dermal contact was below 1E-06. Arsenic (via
ingestion of and dermal contact with subsurface soil) was the major COPC that contributed to the cancer nsk
for the future residential receptor and the future industrial receptor exposure scenarios.
Non-carcinogenic HQs associated with the future residential and future industrial (subsurface soil) exposure
scenarios and the future recreational (sediment) exposure scenario were below 1.0; the cutoff point below
which adverse effects are not expected to occur.
Lead concentrations detected at the site were below the EPA guidelines are not expected to be associated
with significant increases in blood-lead levels based on the results of the IEUBK Lead Model (v. 0.99).
The risk assessment procedure resulted in the elimination of all COPCs with calculated risk above target
guideline limits. Arsenic could not be eliminated from consideration because it is a class A carcinogen.
Risk characterization results (total RME cancer risks' and non-carcinogenic His) are presented for all potential
receptors at Site 22 in Table 77. Table 78 presents the relevant central tendency risk estimates associated
with potential receptors at Site 22.
The major uncertainties in the estimation of human health risks at Site 22 stem from estimated risks
calculated for arsenic via dermal contact and oral ingestion, and in both cases result in overestimation of
these risks. The uncertainty associated with dermal exposure is high because the dermal toxicity values
used for arsenic (and other compounds) are based on default oral absorption factors (no dermal toxicity
slope factors are available). Carcinogenicity of arsenic via ingestion is not confirmed by available empirical
data. However, EPA has proposed an oral unit risk factor that was used in estimating this risk. Since arsenic
is the major contributor to risk remaining at Site 22 after cleanup, risks may be overestimated. A more
complete discussion of these effects is presented in Section 2.4.3 (page 2-37) of the Remedial Investigation
Report for Naval Weapons Station Earie. Volume IA - Text
DOCUMENTS/NAVY/7695/128001 II-33
-------
Ecological Risk Assessment (Pre-Remediation)
Ecotox threshold (ET) values were used for screening potential ecological risks from contaminated sediments
and surface soil. Sediment and surface soil ET values are presented in Table 18.
Site 22 provides only limited habitat of relatively poor ecological value, while the swamp to the south provides
excellent wetland habitat Most of the swamp is wooded, and hence, provides habitat primarily for terrestrial
and semi-aquatic receptors. A drainage swale runs along the inside border of the berm and receives all
overland flow in the area. The swale exits the site and runs southeast along the railroad tracks. A small
tributary of Hockhockson Brook runs through the swamp and connects with the drainage swale several
hundred feet southeast of the site. Runoff of contaminants to the swamp is precluded by the berm that
surrounds most of the site, but runoff may exit the site via the swale. Groundwater-to-surface water
contaminant migration in the wetlands is unlikely due to the presumed direction of groundwater flow.
Summary of Risks
The remedial investigation concluded that limited removal of contaminated soils and sediments near the
building would preclude migration of potentially ecotoxic compounds to downstream ecological receptors.
The focused removal was completed and analytical results from the 8 confirmatory soil samples indicate
that contaminant levels in all soil samples are below regulatory cleanup levels when compared with
NJDEP Residential Direct Contact, Non-Residential Direct Contact, and Impact to Groundwater soil
cleanup criteria. Based on these results, no further action was taken at Site 22 and no further remedial
actions are necessary.
D. Site 23 - Paint Disposal Area
A human health risk assessment and ecological risk assessment were performed. Tables 79 through 82
provide the selected COPCs and representative concentrations of inorganics and organics in site-related
subsurface soil, sediment groundwater, and surface water, respectively. Exposure pathways, potential
receptors, uncertainties, and conclusions are included.
Human Health Risk Assessment (Pre-Remediationl
The result of the conservative first level screening (baseline) risk assessment was greater than a value of 1.0
for non-cancer risk and greater than 1E-04 for cancer risk; therefore, additional risk analysis was performed
according to EPA guidance.
DOCUMENTS/NAVY/7695/128001 H-34
-------
The identified potential receptors were evaluated on the basis of current land use (industrial employee) and
hypothetical future land use (residential, recreational, and industrial receptors).
Estimated carcinogenic risks and non-carcinogenic HQs are summarized in Tables 83 to 103.
The human health risk assessment concluded that RME cancer risks associated with future industrial
(subsurface soil and groundwater} and future residential (subsurface soil and groundwater) exposure
scenarios exceeded 1E-04, the upper end of the target risk range. Only unfiitered groundwater sample
results were used to calculate estimated risks. Arsenic (via ingestion of and dermal contact with groundwater
and subsurface soil) was the major COPC that contributed to the cancer risks for these exposure scenarios.
The corresponding central tendency (CTE) calculation of estimated risks shows that cancer risks are more
likely to be in the mid-range of the target acceptable range for the future industrial and at the upper end of the
target acceptable risk range for the future residential exposure scenario.
RME estimates for non-carcinogenic His associated with future industrial (groundwater) and future residential
(subsurface soil and groundwater) exposure scenarios exceeded 1.0; the cutoff point below which adverse
non-carcinogenic effects are not expected to occur. Chromium, cadmium, iron, and arsenic (chiefly via
ingestion of groundwater) were the COPCs that exceeded 1.0 or contributed to the HI exceeding 1.0 for
these exposure scenarios.
Lead was detected in groundwater at concentrations (up to 50.1ug/L) greater than the EPA drinking water
guideline (MCL - 15ug/L) and the NJDEP GWQS (4.00ug/L). Based on the results of the IEUBK Lead Model
(v. 0.99), the maximum detected soil (9.8 ppm) and groundwater (50.1 ug/l) concentrations might be
expected to be associated with significant increases in blood-lead levels (i.e., above 10 ug/dL) in 6.8 percent
of children from a population exposed under similar conditions. This slightly exceeds the EPA guideline of no
more than 5 percent of the population exhibiting elevated blood-lead levels.
Risk characterization results (total cancer risks and total non-carcinogenic His) are presented for all potential
receptors at Site 23 in Table 104 for subsurface soil, sediment, groundwater, and surface water. Table 105
presents the relevant central tendency risk estimates associated with potential receptors for subsurface soil
and groundwater.
DOCUMENTS/NAVY/769S/128001 11-35
-------
Ecological Risk Assessment (Pre-Remediatlonl
Ecotox threshold (ET) values were used for screening potential ecological risks from contaminants in surface
water and sediments. Surface water and sediment ET values are presented in Tables 106 and 107,
respectively.
The ecological risk assessment determined that potential risks to ecological receptors from contaminants
detected in surface water and sediment samples taken as part of the 1995 Rl were relatively low.
Since potential risks to ecological receptors at Site 23 appear to be low and off-site contaminant migration is
minimal, further study or remediation based on ecological risk concerns at the site appear to be unnecessary.
Summary of Risks
j
After soil remediation, no human health risk assessment was performed. Further action decisions were
made based on NJDEP cleanup guidelines. Analytical results from the 8 confirmatory soil samples
indicated that contaminant levels were generally below regulatory cleanup levels when compared with
NJDEP Residential Direct Contact, Non-Residential Direct Contact, and Impact to Groundwater soil
cleanup criteria. Thallium was the only contaminant that exceeded any of the soil cleanup criteria
(Residential Direct Contact and Non-Residential Direct Contact). Since the remedial action included
removal of soil followed by backfill with clean fill and revegetation, the remaining marginal exceedence for
direct contact (residential exposure scenario) does" not apply. There is no direct contact and there is no
residential use anticipated. None of the 8 confirmatory soil samples exceeded the Impact to Groundwater
soil cleanup criteria. Based on these results, no additional action was taken at Site 23 for soils and no
further remedial actions are necessary. Institutional controls in the form of a notation on the facility master
plan for Site 23 have been implemented to limit future use of the site for residences.
Human health risk assessment indicates estimated potential risk in excess of EPA guidelines remain from
groundwater at Site 23. Shallow groundwater samples obtained at the water table (14 to 27 feet below
grade) contained low levels of organics (mainly residual pesticides) and relatively high concentrations of
inorganics (metals). Concentrations of organics were not a concern for human health risk assessment Only
metals concentrations resulted in exceedences of EPA guideline acceptable risk guidelines for estimated
cancer risks and non-cancer risks.
There are extenuating factors to be considered when trying to assess potential impacts from Site 23
groundwater. Groundwater samples were collected using dedicated low-flow gas-actuated bladder pumps
DOCUMENTS/NAVY/7695/128001 II-36
-------
following EPA guidelines for low flow sampling. However, despite hours spent at each well trying to obtain
low turbidity, samples, final sampling endpoint turbidity values of samples obtained at Site 23 were all high
(787 NTU, 457 NTU. and 871 NTU). These high turbidity results indicate suspended solids (containing
metals) are in the sample, and therefore, the sample is not representative of dissolved-phase metals in the
groundwater. Filtered samples from the same sampling event showed only limited metals (cadmium and
arsenic) at lower concentrations.
Considering the high turbidity sample analytical results used for human health risk assessment estimation
calculations, the shallow depth of groundwater sampled (no production well for human consumption would be
installed at such a shallow depth), the current industrial-use-only restrictions for the site on the weapons
station Master Plan, and the fact that source area metals have been remediated; the project team (Navy and
the regulatory community) has concluded that no further action for Site 23 groundwater is indicated at this
time.
E. Sites 24 and 25 - Closed Pistol Ranges
A human health risk assessment and ecological risk assessment were performed. Tables 108 and 114
provide the selected COPCs and representative concentrations of inorganics in site-related subsurface soil
for Sites 24 and 25, respectively. Exposure pathways, potential receptors, uncertainties, and conclusions are
included.
Human Health Risk Assessment fPre-Remediatlon)
Risk Assessment Summary - Site 24
The potential receptors for this site were future industrial and residential receptors. Tables 109 through 112
summarize carcinogenic risks and non carcinogenic HQs for Site 24.
The cancer risk associated with the future residential (subsurface soil) exposure scenario was approximately
6E-05, in the middle of the target risk range. Arsenic (via ingestion of and dermal contact with subsurface
soil) and beryllium (via dermal contact with subsurface soil) were the major COPCs that contributed to the
cancer risk for this exposure scenario. The non-carcinogenic HQs associated with the future industrial and
future residential (subsurface soil) exposure scenarios were below 1.0; the cutoff point below which adverse
effects are not expected to occur.
Lead concentrations at the site were detected at concentrations that are not expected to be associated with
significant increases in blood-lead levels based on the results of the IEUBK Lead Model (v. 0.99). Risk
DOCUMENTS/NAVY/7695/128001 II-37
-------
characterization results (total cancer risks and total non-carcinogenic His) are presented for all potential
receptors at Site 24 in Table 113 for subsurface soil.
Risk Assessment Summary - Site 25
-" The potential receptors for this site were future industrial and residential receptors. Tables 115 through 118
summarize carcinogenic risks and non carcinogenic HQs for Site 25.
The cancer risk associated with the future residential (subsurface soil) exposure scenario was approximately
f\S;:l:?;.'K- 4E-05, near the middle of the target risk range. Arsenic (via ingestion of and dermal contact with subsurface
' ' ' soil) and beryllium (via dermal contact with subsurface soil) were the major COPCs that contributed to the
cancer risk for this exposure scenario. The non-carcinogenic His associated with the future industrial and
residential (subsurface soil) exposure scenario were below 1.0. the cutoff point below which adverse non-
carcinogenic effects are not expected to occur.
Lead concentrations at the site were detected at concentrations that are not expected to be associated with
significant increases in blood-lead levels based on the results of the IEUBK Lead Model (v. 0.99).
Risk characterization results (total cancer risks and total non-carcinogenic His) are presented for all potential
receptors at Site 25 in Table 119 for subsurface soil.
Ecological Risk Assessment fPre-Remediationl
The areas inside the firing ranges are primarily exposed soil with little vegetation, precluding the existence of
significant ecological habitat. Excellent upland habitats are present surrounding the sites, and a wide variety
of terrestrial wildlife is expected to use these areas. However, runoff of contaminants to off-site habitats is
*J%>*;;'V£ partially limited by berms surrounding the sites, and no drainageways from the site are present. In addition,
'' " groundwater contaminant discharge to surface water is not likely since no surface waters are present near
Sites 24 and 25.
SI soil-samples from the impact berms contained low levels of some metals, including cadmium, chromium,
lead, copper, and zinc. The results of Rl subsurface soil sampling indicate the presence of some inorganic
contaminants, but concentrations were similar to background concentrations. Contaminant levels in samples
taken below the deepest slug penetration were below levels of regulatory concem.'suggesting no migration to
groundwater. There are no significant contaminant migration pathways to the upland areas that surround the
sites, and no migration pathways into the Hockhockson Brook Watershed. Quantitative ecological risk
DOCUMENTS/NAVY/7695/128001 II-38
-------
assessment was not applicable at Sites 24 and 25 since any risk numbers would be mitigated by the factors
discussed above. Hence, potential risks to ecological receptors appear insignificant and the site was
excluded from quantitative ecological risk.
Summary of Risks
Confirmatory soil samples, collected after excavation, sifting and washing soils from the berms and firing
lines, indicate site risks have been mitigated by the soil remediation. Results shown in Table 40 and Table
41 demonstrate lead levels below regulatory criteria; therefore, no further remedial action is necessary for
Sites 24 and 25.
F. Site 27 Projectile Refurbishing Area
A human health risk assessment and ecological risk assessment were performed.
Table 120 provides the selected COPCs and representative concentrations of inorganic and organics in site-
related subsurface soil.
Human Health Risk Assessment (Pre-Remediationt
The identified potential receptors have been evaluated on the basis of hypothetical future land use
(residential receptors and industrial receptors). Tables 121 through 125 summarize the RME Carcinogenic
risks and the RME non-carcinogenic risks associated with Site 27.
The results of the human health risk assessment determined that the RME cancer risk associated with the
future residential (subsurface soil) exposure scenario is greater than 1E-04; the upper end of the target risk
range. Arsenic (via ingestion of and derma! contact with soil) is the major COPC that contributed to this
cancer risk. Central tendency risk estimation calculations show that cancer risks are more likely to be within
the mid-range of the target acceptable risk range.
The RME cancer risk associated with the future industrial (subsurface soil) exposure scenario was
approximately 4E-05, within the target acceptable risk range. RME non-carcinogenic His associated with the
future residential and future industrial (subsurface soil) exposure scenarios were below 1.0, the cutoff point
below which adverse effects are not expected to occur.
Lead soil concentrations at the site were below EPA guidelines and are not expected to be associated with
significant increases in blood-lead levels based on the results of the IEUBK Lead Model (v. 0.99).
DOCUMENTS/NAVY/7695/128001 H-39
-------
Pre-remediation risk characterization results (total RME cancer risks and total RME non-carcinogenic His)
are presented for all potential receptors at Site 27 in Table 126 for subsurface soil. Table 127 presents the
relevant pre-remediation central tendency risk estimates associated with future residential receptors for
subsurface soil.
It must be noted that the objective of this study was not to perform a site-wide characterization. Samples
taken in the Rl (1995) were biased, based on previous sampling, toward the area of known contamination to
delineate vertical migration for contaminants for remedial design considerations. The use of only the 1995 Rl
data for calculations of pre-remediation estimated risk could have biased the human health risk assessment.
Ecological Risk Assessment (Pre-Remediation)
Ecotox threshold (ET) values were used for screening potential ecological risks from contaminated
sediments'. Sediment ET values are presented in Table 128.
The site consists of a gravel-covered parking area in the vicinity of buildings, railroad tracks, and a paved
road. Therefore, limited ecological habitat exists on the site. The wooded area to the east provides excellent
upland habitat and is most likely used by a wide variety of upland receptors. Runoff from the site flows to the
. adjacent drainage ditch, though water in the ditch infiltrates and does not flow off-site. No significant surface
water is present near the site, mitigating potential groundwater to surface water contaminant migration.
The results of 1993 SI and 1995 Rl indicate that concentrations of metals are present in site soils and in the
drainage ditch that pose significant potential risk to ecological receptors. However, these potential risks are
mitigated by several factors. First of all, Site 27 is small, limiting significant receptor use. Second, the
drainage ditch contains no standing water and no aquatic habitat. Only terrestrial receptors would come into
V,"Ax contact with the ditch, but are not expected to significantly use the area since no habitat is present.
-':'"'v Furthermore, water in the ditch, present only after heavy rainfall, tends to infiltrate rather than flow off-site,
and no surface water is present near the site. Therefore, contaminant migration downstream or contaminant
contributions to the watershed appear to be negligible. For these reasons, further ecological study at Site 27
appeared to be unwarranted, but removal of paint chips and associated soils, and limited removal of ditch
sediments appeared to be appropriate.
DOCUMENTS/NAVY/7695/128001 II-40
-------
Summary of Risks
Risks identified in the pre-remediation human health risk assessment and ecological risk screening have
been addressed by the soil removal performed at Site 27. The contaminated surface soil was removed
and replaced by clean fill as part of the Site 27 remediation. Post-excavation confirmatory sample results
indicate that lead contaminated soils were effectively removed by the remedial action. However, other
metals (including arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, copper, antimony, selenium and thallium) remain at
concentrations above NJDEP residential cleanup levels. Since the contaminated surface soil was
removed and replaced by clean fill and top soil planted in native grasses as part of the Site 27
remediation, the potential for direct contact has been blocked. Institutional controls to ensure current
industrial activities at Site 27 are not replaced by residential use have been placed in the Weapons Station
Master Plan. Based on these results, no further action was taken at Site 27 and no further remedial action
is necessary.
G. Site 29 - PCB Spill Site
As part of the 1995 Rl, a human health risk assessment and ecological risk assessment were performed.
Tables 129 and 130 provide the selected COPCs and representative concentrations of organics in site-
related subsurface soil and inorganics and organics in site-related groundwater, respectively.
Human Health Risk Assessment
Human health risk assessment was performed according to EPA guidance. The identified potential receptors
have been evaluated on the basis of hypothetical future land use (residential and industrial receptors).
Estimated carcinogenic risks and non-carcinogenic HQs are summarized in Tables 131 through 140.
The RME cancer risks associated with,the future residential and future industrial (subsurface soil and
groundwater) exposure scenarios were within the 1E-04 to 1E-06 target acceptable risk range. Iron (via
ingestion of groundwater) was the principal COPC that contributed to these carcinogenic risks. PCBs. the
compounds spilled at this site and the subject of this investigation, were not found in soils or groundwater at a
level of concern. Minor amounts of pesticide and PCB were found during the 1992 SI field investigation at
levels below NJDEP clean-up standards. Trace levels of various compounds, including PCBs, all at levels
below New Jersey subsurface soil clean-up criteria, were found in the 1993 pre-construction investigations.
Previous remediation of PCB-contaminated soil, performed at the time of the PCB spill appears to have been
adequate to remove residual PCBs to within guideline limits.
DOCUMENTS/NAVY/7695/128001 11-41
-------
The non-carcinogenic HQs associated with future industrial (groundwater) and future residential
(groundwatep) exposure scenarios exceeded 1.0; the cutoff point below which adverse ertecrs are not
expected to occur. Iron (via ingestion of groundwater) was the COPC that exceeded 1.0 for these exposure
scenarios. In addition, central tendency risk estimates for residential exposure to groundwater yielded His
greater than 1.0 for the liver and digestive system as the target organs.
Lead concentrations at the site were below EPA guideline limits and are not expected to be associated with
significant increases in blood-lead levels based on the results of the IEUBK Lead Model (v. 0.99).
Risk characterization results (total RME cancer risks and total RME non-carcinogenic His) are presented for
all potential receptors at Site 29 in Table 141 for subsurface soil and groundwater. Table 142 presents the
relevant central tendency risk estimates associated with future residential receptors for groundwater.
Ecological Risk Assessment
Site 29 PCB spill area was remediated as part an immediate removal action at the time of the original spill. It
contains little ecological habitat of value due to construction on the site, although forested wetland habitats
are present near the site. Runoff of contaminants to the forested wetland areas is possible, but is inhibited by
the developed areas around the site, and infrequent flow in the drainage swale. The spill area was small and
was excavated within five days after the spill, minimizing the probability of migration. In the SI, five soil
samples were taken in the area where soils were removed. Trace levels of some organochlorine pesticides,
PCBs. and TPH were detected, and one elevated concentration (28,000 mg/kg) of TPH was detected. For
the most part, subsurface soil samples taken during 1995 Rl activities contained low levels (below levels of
concern) of the same compounds detected in the SI. A sediment sample. 16 SD 01 (and a duplicate), taken
in the storm drain east of Site 29 and south of Site 16, represents the only potential overland runoff pathway
to the wetlands east of Site 29. No PCBs were detected in 16 SD 01 or its duplicate. With the exception of a
few slightly elevated detections for some metals, 1995 Rl groundwater samples indicated that impacts to
groundwater at the site were minimal, and no PCBs or organochlorines were detected. Any residual PCBs,
or organochlorine pesticides and petroleum hydrocarbons, detected at the site are not expected to
significantly migrate via overland runoff or infiltration due to their strong affinity for organic fractions in soils
and sediments, nor is there evidence that they may have migrated before they were removed, because of the
quick and apparently adequate removal response.
Since risk numbers would be mitigated by the factors mentioned above, quantitative ecological risk
assessment at Site 29 was not applicable. For these reasons, potential ecological risks from site
DOCUMENTS/NAVY/7695/128001 II-42
-------
contaminants appear negligible, as is the potential for contaminant contributions to the Hockhockson Brook
Watershed. Therefore, Site 29 was excluded from further consideration.
Summary of Risks
Based on the results of previous investigations and removal actions, no excess risk remains to human health
or the environment from Site 29. Iron found in groundwater at levels above the NJDEP GWQS and the EPA
MCL is not considered a realistic risk to human health. The monitoring wells are constructed with a total
depth not exceeding 17 feet below ground surface (and a screened interval 10 feet above the bottom) in a
generally wet area. The presence of iron in this shallow groundwater, considering the proximity to the
adjacent rail yard, is not a human health concern. No further action or remediation is necessary.
VII. EXPLANATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES
No significant changes from the Proposed Plan appear in this ROD for any of the sites in OU-4. At the
request of NJDEP and EPA, institutional controls to limit future land use at Sites 20, 23 and 27 have been
included in this ROD.
DOCUMENTS/NAVY/7695/128001 II-43
-------
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
NAVAL WEAPONS STATION EARLE
OPERABLE UNIT 4
PART III - RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
The purpose of this Responsiveness Summary is to review public response to the Proposed Plan for OU-4.
It also documents the consideration of comments during the decision-making process and provides answers
to any comments raised during the public comment period.
The Responsiveness Summary for OU-4 is divided into the following sections:
Overview - This section briefly describes the remedial alternative recommended in the
Proposed Plan and any impacts on the Proposed Plan due to public comment.
Background on Community Involvement - This section describes community relations
activities conducted with respect to the area of concern.
Summary of Major Questions and Comments - This section summarizes verbal and
written comments received during the public meeting and public comment period.
I. OVERVIEW
This Responsiveness Summary addresses public response to the Proposed Plan. The Proposed Plan and
other supporting information were maintained for public review in the Administrative Record file for OU-4,
which was maintained at the Monmoutn County Library (Eastern Branch) in Shrewsbury, New Jersey.
II. BACKGROUND ON COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT
This section provides a brief history of community participation in the investigation and interim remedial
planning activities conducted for OU-4. Throughout the investigation period, EPA and the NJDEP have been
reviewing work plans and reports and have been providing comments and recommendations, which were
incorporated into appropriate documents. A Technical Review Committee (TRC), consisting of
representatives from the Navy, EPA, the NJDEP, the Monmouth County Health Department, and other
agencies and local groups surrounding NWS Earie, was formed. The TRC later was transformed into the
Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) to include community members as well as the original officials from the
DOCUMENTS/NAVY/7695/128001 111-1
-------
TRC, and has been holding periodic meetings to maintain open lines of communication with the community
and to inform all parties of current activities.
On May 8 and 10.1998, a newspaper notification inviting public comment on the Proposed Plan appeared in
the Asbury Park Press. The public notice summarized the Proposed Plan and the no further remedial action
alternative. The announcement also identified the time and location of the public meeting and specified a
public comment period as well as the address to which written comments could be sent Public comments
were accepted from May 4, 1998 to June 12, 1998. The newspaper notification also identified the Monmouth
County Library as the location of the Administrative Record.
The public meeting was held on May 14. 1998 from 7:00 p.m. to 9:15 p.m. in Building C-54 at NWS Earie.
Colts Neck, New Jersey. At this meeting, representatives from the Navy, EPA, and the NJDEP were
available to answer questions concerning OU-4 and the no further remedial action alternative. The complete
attendance list is included in Appendix B.
III. SUMMARY OF MAJOR QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS
A. Written Comments
General Notes:
Several comments and a marked-up draft were received from two branches of EPA Region 2
following public release of the final Proposed Plan for OU-4. Since the public comment period and
public meeting date had already been established, the Navy and EPA agreed that the Proposed
Plan would not be revised, but that these comments would be addressed herein.
Response to Comments received during the public meeting held at NWS Earle on May 14, 1998
to discuss the OU-4 Proposed Plan follow the response to EPA comments.
Marian Olsen, EPA Region II. Program Support Branch Comments
1. The document makes many references to Risk Assessment without explaining the basic principles. The
standard language on risk assessment provided in other Region II Proposed Plans should be included to
provide the reader with an understanding before the terms are discussed in the document.
Response: As part of the Phase II Rl. human health risk assessments and ecological risk assessments
were performed where appropriate at OU- 4 sites. A four-step process is utilized for assessing site-related
DOCUMENTS/NAVW695/128001 |||-2
-------
human health risks for a reasonable maximum exposure scenario: Hazard identification identifies the
contaminants of concern at the site based on several factors such as toxicrty, frequency of occurrence and
concentration. Exposure Assessment estimates the magnitude of actual and/or potential human exposures
the frequency and duration of these exposures, and the pathways (e.g., ingesting contaminated well-waterj
by wh,ch humans are potentially exposed. Toxicity Assessment determines the types of adverse health
affects associated with chemical exposures, and the relationship between the magnitude of exposure (dose)
and severity of adverse effects (response). Risk Characterization summarizes and combines outputs of the
exposure and toxicity assessments to provide a quantitative assessment of site-related risks and includes a
discussion of site-specific uncertainties such as actual receptor pathways, and receptor activity patterns.
2. For Mercury Spill Area the discussion of the Hazard Index is not clear. It would be appropriate to
indicate that the Agency uses a Reference Dose methodology to determine a level that is protective of the
human population including sensitive subpopulations. The Hazard Quotients and Hazard Indices are
compared to this value and exceedence above this value are of greater concern depending on the level of
the exceedence. The language presented also does not indicate whether the Hazard Quotient for mercury
has been exceeded and the exposure assumptions used in the determination. A better characterization of
the assumptions and the level of exposure is required.
Response: Based on the finding that mercury concentrations in the floor sweepings was lower than the
NJDEP Residential Direct Contact Soil Cleanup Level (the prevailing ARAR), a recommendation of no
further action can be supported. In addition, the concentration of mercury encountered (8.6 mg/kg)
compares well to an EPA screening value (7.8 mg/kg). The EPA screening value is predicated upon a
calculation using a standard (conservative) exposure scenario for a future resident and a published
exposure level (reference dose) known to not cause adverse effects in humans.
3. For Site 20, the Grit Blasting Area the exceedence of the New Jersey Clean-up criteria for beryllium is
unclear. It appears from the statements that this criteria has been exceeded but it is unclear what the
significance of this exceedence is. Under a residential scenario this would equate to a risk of
approximately 1.7 E-5 and for industrial purposes the risks would be less. At a minimum the text should
indicate what will be done to address the exceedence
Response: The site-specific human health risk assessment concluded there is no present or future
scenario with carcinogenic risk above the target acceptable range (1.0 E-04 to 1.0 E -06). Non-
carcinogenic risks were below 1 for all exposure scenarios. The marginal exceedence of the NJDEP
Residential .Direct Contact Soil Cleanup Criterion (1 mg/kg) in two of five samples taken (1.4 mg/kg and
2.7 mg/kg) is not considered to be an excess human health or ecological risk.
DOCUMENTS/NAVW695/128001 |||.3
-------
4, On page 5 the discussion for the anticipated risk to humans is unclear. Is the purpose of the statement
to indicate that the risk is within the acceptable risk range or that there is no current or future exposure?
This should be clarified.
Response: The contents of the septic tank are considered municipal-type waste and are not generally
available for contact with potential receptors. There is no anticipated current or future exposure, because
the contents of the tank are enclosed underground and a heavy lid covers the septic tank opening.
5. Also, on page 5 the discussion of the risk range and exceedence of the Hazard Index should indicate
what these ranges are and the basis.
Response: Generally, the EPA acceptable carcinogenic risk range was considered to be 1.0 E-04 to 1.0
E-06 under an RME Scenario. Non carcinogenic health effects resulting in a hazard index less than 1 (as
compared to threshold levels of the compound found to not cause adverse health effects) were considered
acceptable.
6. On Site 22, the discussion of the "upper end of the EPA target acceptable risk range" should indicate
how this is being defined.
Response: In this case, "the upper end of the target acceptable risk range" refers to the RME scenario
and could just as well have said that under the RME Scenario there is no exceedence of the EPA
guideline carcinogenic risk range.
7. For Site 23, the Paint Disposal Area at Building D-5, the discussion of the presence of thallium in four of
eight samples is unclear. What are the risks associated with these values and do they exceed the NJ
Criteria. For a residential scenario the non-cancer hazards associated with various thallium compounds
range from 3.3 to 7.0 mg/kg. Is the meaning of this statement that the values range up to 20 mg/kg which
is clearly above the Hazard Quotient of 1? This should be clarified in the text.
Response: Confirmation sampling indicated the presence of thallium at approximately the NJDEP
residential contact cleanup level (2 mg/kg). The concentrations of thallium found remaining in soil after the
cleanup are on the order of approximately 9 mg/kg and lower (mostly in the range not greater than 4
mg/kg). Since the remedial action included removal of soil followed by backfill and cover/revegetation of
the area using clean fill, the remaining marginal exceedence for direct contact (residential) does not apply.
There is no direct contact and there is no residential use anticipated.
DOCUMENTS/NAVY/7695/128001 HI-4
-------
Response: The meeting was held as planned.
EPA
tonge, applles_
in
r :
. *
Rwponse: Agree. This dartflcafion of tta dMhttion
is noted
Ncp
stressors.
DOCUMENTS/NAVY/7695/128001
-------
Human Health Risk Assessment is the process that evaluates the likelihood that adverse human health
effects may occur or are occurring as a result of exposure to one or more stressors. This process
consists of five steps; data evaluation, toxicity assessment, exposure assessment, risk characterization,
and uncertainty analysis.
13. Under SVOCs, atmosphperic is not spelled correctly.
Response: The correct spelling is atmospheric.
Michael Poetzsch. EPA Region II, RCRA/Superfund Coordinator Comments
1. The description of Site 27 does not specify if the second removal action at the site achieved the NJDEP
Residential Direct Contact Soil Cleanup Criteria. Also, the plan states that after removal activities, the area
was covered with clean soil. It is not clear if the clean soil was used to cap contaminated soil or used as
backfill to restore the excavation to grade level.
Response: An area of approximately 173 feet long by several feet wide by one foot deep was excavated.
Although some soils in the bottom of the excavation still exceeded the NJDEP Residential Direct Contact
Soil Cleanup Criteria, the placement of a foot of clean soil fill and revegetation of the disturbed area will
prevent direct contact with the underlying soil. The area is currently used as an industrial site.
Restrictions will be added to the facility Master Plan mentioning that use of this area must be limited in
consideration of the compounds found below grade.
2. The proposed plan does not indicate where the contaminated soils from the removal actions were
disposed off site (e.g., RCRA permitted facility).
Response: Soil sent off site for treatment or disposal was delivered to R-3 Technologies (Morrisville, PA)
which can provide thermal treatment and recycling of non-hazardous wastes.
3. The Summary indicates that the NWSE master plan will note areas where Confirmation sampling
showed" metals in subsurface soil at concentrations exceeding the NJDEP direct contact soil cleanup
criteria. The purpose of the notation is to trigger an evaluation of risks to future land users if the property
were to be transferred. Is this notation equivalent to a notice in deed or declaration of environmental
restriction? Also, since this is an active facility, standard operating procedures should be established to
minimize exposure to future workers that may come in contact with these soils.
DOCUMENTS/NAVY/7695/128001 HI-6
-------
«*-*.
ciea'
-
1- Page 2, Paragraph 7. Replace "releases" with "sites".
Response: Agree.
2- Page 4, Paragraph 5. "clean-up" should be one word
Response: Agree.
3. Page 5, P8ragrap)1 4. ... shouw
4. Page 5, Paragraph 6. a askec, «ha, ,evels
may have Wggered . remow| acfcn
DOCUMENTS/NAVY/7695/128001
-------
5. Page 6. Paragraph 3. Comment asked what levels may have triggered a removal action
Response: Metals, potentially mobile in surface water runoff, may have triggered a removal action under
CERCLA for protection of downstream organisms.
6. Page 7. Paragraph 3. Comment asked what levels may have triggered a removal action
Response: Metals, potentially mobile in surface water runoff, may have triggered a removal action under
CERCLA for protection of downstream organisms.
7. page 8, Paragraph 3. Suggested slightly different wording to discuss monitoring well installations.
Response: Agree to wording changes. Existing data from nearby monitoring wells (if available) were
used to develop limited conclusions regarding sites where no monitoring wells were installed specifically
for that site.
8. Page 8. Paragraph 5. Has any data indicated subsurface soils where metals still exceed
NJDEP direct contact soil standards? Does the Navy intend to do further sampling?
Response: At site 27 metals remain in subsurface soils at concentrations above the NJDEP Residential
Direct Contact Soil Cleanup Criteria. If land use were to change dramatically from the current restricted
industrial use (further encumbered by explosive safety quantity distance (ESQD) arc Navy regulations),
consideration of subsurface conditions would be required. Such a land use change will be prohibited by a
notation in the Master Plan. In the event of full or partial transfer of property, through existing legislation
or through future base closure authorization, a review would be conducted to determine the suitability of
any parcel for transfer of ownership. Whether or not additional remediation is required, and whether
formal restrictive covenants should be included in the transfer document, would be reviewed at that time.
Property transfers must comply with applicable Federal statutes, including CERCLA.
B. Public Meeting Comments
1. After showing a video and presenting a concise summary of the status of each of the eight OU-4 sites,
Greg Goepfert asked if there were any specific comments for the record.
2. Robert Marcolina, of New Jersey DEP, mentioned that NJDEP had submitted comments in writing on
DOCUMENTS/NAVY/7695/128001 III-8
-------
1
the Draft Proposed Plan some weeks or months earlier, and was satisfied with the changes (mainly
simplifications) in the level of detail presented in the final version of the Proposed Plan.
3. Mr. Marcolina and Mr. Goepfert discussed the Navy procedure/policy for restricting future land use.
Mr. Goepfert explained that there is no "deed" for the Navy facilities in question, therefore no deed
restrictions can be placed. The Navy uses the formal Master Plan for this purpose. Mr. Marcolina, having
discussed the issue with the Navy at length previously, was satisfied with the Navy's approach. The Navy
will use the facility Master Plan to record existing site conditions that should be considered at some future
time if planned land use were to change dramatically from industrial to residential or other use.
4. Merwin Kincade, of the Tinton Falls Environmental Commission, agreed that the use of a restriction
noted on the facility Master Plan seems to be equivalent to a formal "deed" restriction filed requiring
notification of the DEP and the local health department if land use were to change.
5. John Kolicius, the Navy remedial project manager, confirmed discussions regarding the use of
restrictions noted on the facility Master Plan, and noted that restrictions in question apply only to potential
residential direct contact. None of these areas are residential. Major changes, involving overcoming
multiple restrictions, would be required to convert any of the areas to residential use.
6. Mr. Kolicius noted that EPA, like NJDEP, had also commented in writing on the earlier Draft'Proposed
Plan. EPA comments were similar to the NJDEP comments suggesting less volume of detail be included.
Sharon Jaffess, the former EPA project manager, worked very closely with the Navy to summarize the
work performed and to prepare the final Proposed Plan for OU-4.
7. Mr. Goepfert noted that the open comment period would continue through June 12, 1998. The
Proposed Plan is in the Library (document repository) and written comments should be sent to Mr.
Goepfert or Mr. Kolicius.
DOCUMENTS/NAVY/7695/128001 III-9
-------
-------
ROD FACT SHEET
SITE
Name :Naval Weapons Station Earle
Location/State :201 Highway 34 South, Colts Neck, New Jersey
EPA Region :Region II
HRS Score (date) :37.21 (8/30/90)
Site ID # :NJ0170022172
ROD
Date Signed: September 28, 1999
Remedy/ies: (containment, bioremediation, etc.)No further action
Operating Unit Number: OU-4
Capital cost: $0
Construction Completion: N/A
O & M: N/A
Present worth:N/A
LEAD
EPA Enforcement*
Primary contact: Jessica Mollin (212-637-3921)
Secondary contact: Bob Wing (212-637-4332)
.Main PRP(s): Naval Weapons Station Earle (NWSE>
PRP Contact: John Kolicius (-610-595-0567 ext. 157)
*Note: NWSE is the remediation lead since they are a federal
facility
WASTE
Type: Metals, PCBs, SVOCs, pesticides
Medium: soil
Origin: spills, dumping, pistol ranges
Est. quantity: unknown
-------
-------
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.ntis.gov.
o..
NTIS
Your indispensable resource for government-sponsored
informationU.S. and worldwide
-------
------- |