PB99-963922
EPA541-R99-087
1999
EPASuperfimd
Record of Decision:
Naval Air Development Center (8 Areas)
OU5 SiteS
Warminster Township, PA
9/29/1999
-------
-------
Department of the Navy
Record of Decision for OU-5
Naval Air Warfare Center
Warminster, Pennsylvania SEPTEMBER 1999
DECLARATION
SITE NAME AND LOCATION
Naval Air Development Center
Warminster Township
Bucks County, Pennsylvania
STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE
This Record of Decision (ROD) presents the determination that no further action is
necessary to protect human health and the environment for Operable Unit Five (OU-5)
at the former Naval Air Development Center in Warminster Township, Bucks County,
Pennsylvania (the "Site"), chosen in accordance with the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as
amended, 42 U.S.C. § 9601 et sea, and, to the extent practicable, the National Oil and
Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), 40 C.F.R. Part 300. This
decision is based on the Administrative Record for this Site.
In January 1993, the facility was renamed Naval Air Warfare Center (NAWC) Aircraft
Division Warminster. NAWC was disestablished on September 30, 1996 and is
targeted for transfer to the private sector.
The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, as represented by the Pennsylvania Department
of Environmental Protection (PADEP), concurs with the selected remedy for OU-5 at
the Site.
DESCRIPTION OF THE SELECTED REMEDY
A no further action alternative is the selected remedy for OU-5 at the Site. OU-5
consists of soil, sediment, and surface water associated with Site 8. A 1999 removal
action eliminated the unacceptable risk associated with lead-contaminated soils. Post-
removal verification sampling and subsequent Remedial Investigation activities support
the no further action remedial alternative.
-------
STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
The no further action remedy selection is based upon post-removal verification
sampling and the risk assessment results from the Remedial Investigation for OU-5,
which indicate that no further action is necessary at OU-5 to be protective of human
health and the environment. A five-year review will not be necessary for OU-5.
Thomas C. Ames Date
BRAG Environmental Coordinator
Naval Air Warfare Center
Naval Air Warfare Center, Warminster
i '23 fa
Abraham Ferdas, Director Date
Hazardous Site Cleanup Division
U.S. EPA Region III
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
NAVAL AIR WARFARE CENTER
WARMINSTER, PA
SITE8,OU-5
September 1999
-------
-------
DECISION SUMMARY
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. SITE BACKGROUND 6
II. SCOPE AND ROLE OF OPERABLE UNIT FIVE (OU-5) 8
III. SITE CHARACTERISTICS g
IV. REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION RESULTS 10
V. SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS ^
VI. SELECTED REMEDY..... 13
VII. HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION.... 13
VIII. RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY...... 14
APPENDIX A
Table Title
1 Occurrence and Distribution of Organics and Inorganics in Site 8
Surface Soil (Post Removal)
2 Occurrence and Distribution of Organics and Inorganics in Site 8
Subsurface Soil (Post Removal)
3 Occurrence and Distribution of Inorganics in Sediment
4 Occurrence and Distribution of Organics in Sediment
5 Occurrence and Distribution of Total Inorganics in Surface Water
6 Occurrence and Distribution of Inorganics in Sediment in
Background
7 Occurrence and Distribution of Organics in Sediment in
Background
8 Occurrence and Distribution of Total Inorganics in Surface Water in
Background
-------
Summary of Non-Carcinogenic and Carcinogenic Risks, Site 8
(Post Removal) - All Exposure Pathways Reasonable Maximum
Exposure
APPENDIX B
Figure Title
1 The Former NAWC, Warminster, PA
2 IR Site Location Map
3 Site 8
4 Concentrations Exceeding Screening Criteria (Pre-removal)
Site 8 - Surface Soil Samples
5 Concentrations Exceeding Screening Criteria (Post-removal)
Site 8 - Surface Soil Samples
6 Concentrations Exceeding Screening Criteria
Site 8 - Subsurface Soil Samples
7 Site 8 Surface Water / Sediment Sampling Locations
-------
DECISION SUMMARY
I. SITE BACKGROUND
NAWC is a 824-acre facility located in Warminster Township, Northampton Township
and Ivyland Borough, Bucks County, Pennsylvania (see Figure 1 ) Per the Base
Realignment and Closure Act (BRAG), NAWC ceased operations on 30 September
1996. The majority of NAWC, including Site 8 (see Figure 2 for location), is being
transferred to the private sector. The facility lies in a populated suburban area
surrounded by private homes, various commercial and industrial activities, and a golf
course. On-site areas include various buildings and other complexes connected by
paved roads, the runway and ramp area, mowed fields, and a small wooded area.
Commissioned in 1944, the facility's main function was research, development testing
and evaluation for naval aircraft systems. NAWC also conducted studies in
anti-submarine warfare systems and software development. Historically, wastes were
generated dunng aircraft maintenance and repair, pest control, fire-fighting training
machine and plating shop operations, spray painting and various materials research
and testing activities in laboratories. These wastes included paints, solvents, sludges
from mdustnal wastewater treatment, and waste oils that were disposed in pits
trenches, and/or landfills on the facility property.
NAWC was listed on the Superfund National Priorities List in 1989. This list includes
sites where uncontrolled hazardous substance releases present the most significant
potential threats to human health and the environment. The areas of concern identified
to date by the Navy at NAWC include eight reported waste disposal locations (see
Figure 2) covering more than seven acres, including:
• Three waste disposal pits (sites 1, 3, and 6)
• Two sludge disposal pit areas (sites 2 and 7)
• Two landfills (sites 4 and 5)
Also included among the reported waste disposal locations is Site 8, which is located at
the end of a runway located within an area the Rl refers to as Area C (See Figure 3).
The Navy initially reported Site 8 as a disposal site in a Navy Shore Activity Disposal
Fact Form in 1980. The site was reported to consist of a 75-by-75-foot portion of the
runway surrounded on three sides by a double berm. An evaluation of the historical
aerial photographs has since found that two areas on the runway were used for fire
training exercises from 1961 to 1986. Flammable materials were poured on the
runway, ignited and extinguished to simulate fire-training procedures in these two
-------
areas. Reportedly, up to 3000 gallons of contaminated aviation fuels were burned per
year from 1961 to 1980, when the Fact Form was compiled. Initially, fire-training
exercises were conducted in an area about 240 feet from the end of the runway Aerial
photos found this area characterized by dark staining on the runway and ponding of
dark liquids next to the western perimeter of the runway. In later years the fire-training
activities were conducted in an area at the end of the runway. In the case of each area
berms were used to contain the fuel. Surface water was often observed to collect
within these bermed areas during rainfall events. In the case of each area aerial
photos indicate surface runoff bypassing the berms and draining to soil along the
western perimeter of the runway. In addition, aerial photos indicated several potential
pits in the runway in the vicinity of the older fire-training area.
Site 8 now is also considered to include an area of the runway immediately south of the
older fire training area, which was used to test the resistance of aviation suits to fire
This area included a corrugated metal building (Structure S1) where the durability of
flight suits in fire was tested. This testing was initiated between 1965 and 1967 The
floor of Structure S1 reportedly was covered with water. Flammable liquids would be
poured on the water and ignited. Flight suits were then passed through the flames to
I™-; ablll!y Of the suit to witnstand fire- Structure S1 was dismantled and removed in
1997. A review of historical aerial photos of the area of Structure S1 did not reveal
features, which would suggest impacts on the adjacent areas.
To date, Site 8 and the other reported disposal locations have been addressed under
CERCLA by a Remedial Investigation (Rl), which has been conducted in three phases
• ,6* ««!»een investl9ated under each of these phases. The Phase I Rl was initiated
m late 1988 and was completed in 1990, with the release of the Phase I (or Stage 1) Rl
A6JK?\-3Se 'Included surveying and mapping of the volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) in soil gas, detecting buried materials through electromagnetic surveys
performance of exploratory soil borings and the installation and sampling of
groundwater monitoring wells. In addition, test pits were excavated, nearby wells were
inventoried, and a bedrock fracture-trace analysis was conducted.
The Phase III Rl began at the end of 1991 and was completed in 1992 and included the
installation of additional monitoring wells, sampling of groundwater and the
performance of hydraulic tests to assess aquifer characteristics. Both the Phase I and
Phase II Rl investigated the nature and extent of groundwater contamination within the
vicinity of S.tes 1, 2, and 3 (Area A), Sites 5, 6, and 7 (Area B) and Sites 4 and 8 (Area
The Phase III Rl was initiated in 1993 and completed in 1996 and included further
investigation of the nature and extent of contaminated groundwater attributable to
Areas A, B and C, as well as potentially contaminated soils, buried wastes and surface
water associated with these areas. Since that time, R! work addressing groundwater
and soil has been performed in more recently designated Area D
-------
Based on the findings of the Phase II Rl work, the Navy and EPA issued a Record of
Decision in1 995, which selected a remedy of pumping and treatment of Area C
groundwater. This remedy has since been constructed and is now in operation
n^tTtn !nn Vn f "SIT* '^^ *' P|acsment of * Qroundwater transfer line
Sdes Srte 8 "* WeStem P6rimeter °f the mnway area' which
r^n°nihe findi?9f 5 the Phase "' Rl' the Navy determined that lead levels in
certain surface soil at Site 8 presented an unacceptable risk to human health The soils
I ruc^rth T** Lmmediately n6Xt t0 the Western sjde of ** runway adjactnuo
~mn± I ' *. ^"^ **** *"'* ** aW8L ln response, the Navy completed a
removal action at Site 8, eliminating the unacceptable risk associated with the lead-
contaminated soils. Due to the time-critical nature of this response, fhere .was no
proposed plan issued. This action included the excavation and removal of soils
fa ?r±VfateC! I6ad 'eV,f Sond subse thS excavation area
topsoil SamP 9 reSUltS> thS excavation area ™* backfillec with clear ,
H- 3 -LRlWOrk addressln9 soil- sedime* and surface water associated with
?SS bT6d °r Summan2ed in the Final Rl report for OU-5 issued by the Naw
ctand c 9t ^ ?F* chara^rizes Site 8 both prior to and after the removal
action and contains a full assessment of any risk posed by OU-5 after the removal
II. SCOPE AND ROLE OF OPERABLE UNIT FIVE (OU-5)
Section 300.430 (a)(1)(ii)(A) of the NCP, 40 C.F.R. Section 300.430(a)(1)(ii)(A)
wheV±^at fRCLA NPL SiteS "Sh°Uld genera"y be remediated In opeSb teunits
%E£7*£%E T ne^SSaiy °r aPPr°Priate to «*I8V. significant risk reduction
or comotex^ SS^^T °F ZST is necessafy or appropriate given the size
of NAWC f thl M± H ' t0 eXf?dlte the comP|etion of a total cleanup." In the case
t0 ^ int° fiVe °perabte «*- These
OU-1: Area A and B groundwater
OU-2: Off-base private wells
OU-3: Area C groundwater
OU-4: Area D groundwater
OU-5: Soil, sediment, and surface wafer at Site 8
oo " interim remedy for OU'1 in a ROD signed on
September 29, 1993, while a removal action for OU-2 was selected by the EPA in a
8
-------
Removal Action Memorandum signed on July 14, 1993. The Navy and EPA selected a
final remedy for OU-3 in a ROD signed March 10, 1995 while an interim remedy for OU-
4 was selected in a ROD signed by the Navy and EPA on September 30, 1997. The
selected remedies for OU-1, OU-3, and OU-4 are all operational at this time, while the
removal addressing OU-2 has been completed. This ROD documents the selected
remedy for OU-5.
III. SITE CHARACTERISTICS
A. Hydrology
NAWC is located in an upland area lying between two local drainage basins, the Little
Neshaminy Creek Basin to the north and the Southampton Creek Basin to the south.
The northern 65 percent of the Site, including Site 8, drains toward several unnamed
tributaries of Little Neshaminy Creek.
Site 8 is drained primarily by a concrete swale located about 100 feet northwest of the
runway extension. The swale discharges directly to an intermittent stream through a
culvert beneath Kirk Road north of the site. The intermittent stream is channelized and
flows to the north approximately 750 feet until it joins with an unnamed tributary of Little
Neshaminy Creek. The intermittent stream was dry during base flow conditions
observed during Phase I sampling. During Phase II and II, there was no surface water
flow within the intermittent stream; however, pools of standing water were evident within
the channel. This indicates that most surface water flow in this stream takes place
during and shortly after precipitation.
B. Meteorology
The climate of the area is humid continental and is modified by the Atlantic Ocean
Temperatures average 76° F (24.4° C) in July and 32 ° F (0 ° C) in January. The
average daily temperature for the NAWC location is 53.3 ° F (11.8 °C). Precipitation
averages 42.5 inches per year (106.25 cm per year), and snowfall averages 22 inches
per year (55 cm per year). The distribution of precipitation is fairly even throughout the
year. The relative humidity for the Site averages 70 percent. The mean wind speed for
this area is 9.6 mprr, with a prevailing direction of west-southwest.
C. Ecology
The immediate area of Site 8 consists primarily of mowed fields, while areas
immediately north of Site 8 and Kirk Road include lawns, wooded areas and wetlands
associated with the unnamed tributary of Little Neshaminy Creek. There are no known
permanent threatened or endangered species on or near the Site; however some
transient species may traverse the area.
9
-------
D. Soils
The Site is underlain by soils of the Lansdale-Lawrenceville Association. This unit
consists of nearly level to sloping, moderately well drained soils and well-drained soils
on uplands. The soils are deep and have a medium-textured surface layer and a
medium-textured or moderately coarse-textured subsoil. They formed in material
weathered from shale and sandstone and in silty, windblown deposits. According to
soil borings conducted as part of the Rl, the soil thickness at Site 8 ranged from 7 to 10
feet. The soils encountered in these borings were generally described as brown to
reddish-brown silty clay to clayey silt.
IV. REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION RESULTS
A. Surface Soil
Surface soil samples were collected from a total of forty-one (41) locations during the
course of Rl work. The depth of the samples was 2 to 36 inches below ground surface.
No soils with odors, elevated organic vapor readings or staining were encountered.
Figure 4 identifies the locations sampled during the Phase III Rl and contaminant
concentrations which exceeded screening criteria indicative of a potential unacceptable
risk. These sample results indicated the presence of lead levels ranging from 759
mg/kg to 3159 mg/kg in soils within an area along the western side of the runway. In
response, approximately 575 tons of surface soils were removed from the subject area
in February 1999. The soil excavation measured 131 feet in length, 20 feet in width,
and 2 to 2.5 feet in depth (see Figure 5 for area of soil removal).
After completion of the soil removal, seventeen (17) verification samples were collected
from the bottom and sides of the removal excavation and analyzed for lead. The
verification sample results indicated that three samples collected within the area
addressed by the removal contained lead levels exceeding screening criteria indicative
of a potential unacceptable risk. The subject levels ranged from 475 mg/kg to 733
mg/kg. Several additional samples were collected after Phase ill to complete the
characterization of the surface soils. Figure 5 provides the locations of samples which
characterize the quality of surface soils present at this time (i.e. post-removal) and
detected concentrations which exceed screening criteria potentially indicative of an
unacceptable risk, while Table 1 provides the occurrence and distribution of organics
and inorganics detected in the subject samples. Verification sample results (rather than
pre-removal results) are incorporated for the area addressed by the removal action.
10
-------
B. Subsurface Soil
A total of twenty-seven (27) subsurface soil samples were collected as part of the
Phase III Rl and limited post-Phase Ml Rl sampling. Twenty-four (24) samples were
collected from soil borings while three (3) were collected from test pits. The samples
ranged from 5.5 to 9 feet below the ground surface. Five (5) of the subject borings
were advanced through the paving of the runway. No soils with odors, elevated organic
vapor levels or staining were encountered. Figure 6 shows the subsurface soil sample
locations, along with contaminant concentrations that exceeded screening levels
potentially indicative of an unacceptable risk. Table 2 presents the occurrence and
distribution of organics and inorganics detected in the samples collected.
C. Surface Water and Sediment
The locations of surface water and sediment samples collected as part of the Phase II
and Phase III Rl are shown on Figure 7. A total of three (3) surface water samples and
six (6) sediment samples were collected downstream of Site 8.
Sample locations C6, C11 and C12 were within the intermittent stream, which receives
surface drainage from Site 8. The occurrence and distribution of inorganics and
organics in sediment samples collected at these locations are presented in Tables 3
and 4, respectively. Table 5 presents the occurrence and distribution of total inorganics
in a surface water sample collected in this intermittent stream. No inorganics were
detected in the subject surface water sample.
The Rl considered sample locations C8, C10 and C13 to be background samples.
However these samples are downstream and within a reasonable distance of Site 8
and the sample results for these locations may be considered in evaluating the impacts
of Site 8. The subject samples were collected in a perennial stream. The occurrence
and distribution of total inorganics and organics in sediment samples at these locations
are presented in Tables 6 and 7 respectively, while the occurrence and distribution of
total inorganics in surface water samples at these locations is presented in Table 8. No
organics were detected at the subject surface water locations.
V. SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS
As part of the final Rl, a risk assessment was conducted with the Rl data summarized
above to estimate the potential risks to human health posed soils, sediments and
surface water associated with Site 8.
In the case of soils, the risk assessment addressed conditions after the performance of
11
-------
the removal action. To assess these risks, the potential exposure scenarios identified
below were assumed.
• Ingestion, inhalation and dermal contact with soils.
• Ingestion and dermal contact with surface water and sediment.
Potential human health risks are categorized as carcinogenic or noncarcinogenic. A
hypothetical carcinogenic risk increase from exposure should not exceed a risk range
from 1 X lO^an increase of one case of cancer for one million people exposed) to 1 X
10* (one additional case per 10,000 people exposed). Noncarcinogenic risks are
estimated utilizing Hazard Indices (HI), where an HI exceeding one is considered an
unacceptable health risk. In addition, health risks posed by lead are assessed by
estimating the percentage of child residents who may have a blood lead level of 10
micrograms per deciliter (ug/dl) or greater. This percentage is estimated by applying an
Integrated Exposure and Uptake Biokinetic (IEUBK) Model. An estimate of 5% or less
is considered acceptable.
The risk assessment in the final Rl found the maximum carcinogenic risk posed by soils
at Site 8 would occur if one assumed a lifetime of exposure to surface soils as a
resident. In this case, the total incremental carcinogenic risk was determined to be 2.94
x 1 Q's. The primary contributor to the calculated risk was the concentration of arsenic.
However, the majority of the detected arsenic also is present in background samples
and appears to naturally occurring. The calculated risk falls within the acceptable range
of 1 x 10-8 to 1 x 10-4, and may be considered acceptable. In assessing non-
carcinogenic risks posed by soil, the highest HI identified was 0.6. In this case,
exposure of a residential child to surface soil was assumed. This value falls below the
acceptable level of 1.0. The assessment of risk posed by lead in soils found that the
estimated percentage of children with a blood level above 10 ug/dl was 0.35% which is
below the protective level of 5%.
The risk assessment for sediment in surface water associated with Site 8 found the
recreational adolescents would incur an incremental carcinogenic risk of 1.25 x 10'7. An
HI of 0.02 was estimated in the case of recreational adolescent contact with sediments.
Each value fails within the respective acceptable range. The risk assessment did not
identify any carcinogenic risk associated with surface water, while the assessment of
non-carcinogenic risk estimated an HI of 0.001 for recreational adolescents. These
findings indicate that sediment and surface water associated with Site 8 do not present
a threat to human health.
A summary of all Site 8 carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic risks for each exposure
.scenario is presented in Table 9.
Surface and subsurface soil sampling data was evaluated to determine whether Site 8
may be a past or present source of tetrachloroethylene (PCE) in Area C groundwater.
12
-------
A remedy is currently being implemented to address the PCE levels of concern. PCE
was detected in only one soil sample collected as part of the Rl for Site 8. The
detected level was well below the screening level established to identify a potential
threat to groundwater. Based on this data, Site 8 does not appear to be a past or
present source of PCE in Area C groundwater. In addition, Rl data otherwise suggests
that Site 8 soils present no threat to groundwater quality.
An Ecological Risk Assessment (ERA) was also conducted with Phase II and Phase III
Rl data to assess potential risks posed by sediments and surface water to the
environment. The focus of the ERA was potential contaminant inputs from Site 8 to the
tributary of Little Neshaminy Creek north of Kirk Road, which receives runoff from Site
8. The ERA concluded that the potential risks posed to ecological receptors by the
subject surface and sediment were insignificant and identified no unacceptable risk to
the environment.
VI. SELECTED REMEDY
The results of the risk assessment conducted as part of the Rl indicate that, based on
available information, soils, sediment, and surface water associated with Site 8 do not
present an unacceptable risk to human health and the environment. In this case the
Navy, with the support of EPA, selects a remedy of No Action. There are no costs
associated with this remedy. Based on available information, the Navy and EPA
believe that this remedy would be protective of human health and the environment and
would be cost-effective.
VII. HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
Since 1988, the plans and results of CERCLA investigations and actions have been
presented to a Technical Review Committee or a Restoration Advisory Board (RAB)
which has been established by the Navy for the Site. Members of the RAB at this time
include representatives of Bucks County Health Department, Warminster Township
Warmmster Township Municipal Authority, Northampton Township, Northampton
Municipal Authority and Ivyland Borough.
In accordance with Sections 113 and 117 of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. Sections 9613 and
9617, the Navy, in conjunction with EPA, issued a Proposed Plan on August 20 1999
presenting the preferred remedy for OU-5. The Proposed Plan and Rl report for OU-5
oSo,^f able for revlew at the time and are amonS documents, which comprise the
CERCLA Administrative Record for NAWC. The Administrative Record is available for
review by the public at the following information repositories:
• Caretaker Site Office
13
-------
Jacksonville Road (Building located on West Side)
P.O. Box2609
Warminster, Pennsylvania 18974-0061
• Bucks County Library
150 South Pine Street
Doylestown, Pennsylvania 18901
An announcement of the public meeting, the comment period, and the availability of the
Administrative Record for the proposed remedy for OU-5 was published in the
Philadelphia Inquirer, Intelligencer, Public Spirit and Courier Times. Additionally, the
Proposed Plan and the Notice of Availability were mailed to local municipal and
government agencies in the vicinity of the Site and over 400 residents in the vicinity of
the Site.
The public comment period for the Proposed Plan was from August 23,1999 to
September 22, 1999. A public availability session was held at the Ivyland Marine Corps
Barracks, Jacksonville Road, Warminster, Pennsylvania on September 8,1999 to
present the Rl, and Proposed Plan, answer questions, and to solicit and accept both
oral and written comments on the Proposed Plan and the Rl. Two individuals attended
and no oral or written comments were received during this public availability session.
A Responsiveness Summary, included as part of this ROD, has been prepared to
respond to significant comments, criticisms, and new relevant information received
during the public comment period. Upon signing the ROD, the Navy will publish a
notice of availability of this ROD in the Philadelphia Inquirer, Intelligencer, Public Spirit
and Courier Times and place the ROD in the Administrative Record located at the
repositories mentioned above.
This Record of Decision presents the selected remedial action for OU-5 at the Site
chosen in accordance with CERCLA and, to the extent practicable, the National
Contingency Plan (NCP).
VIII. RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
One comment was received by the Navy and EPA during the public comment period
from August 23,1999 to September 22,1999. The comment and response of the Navy
and EPA are identified below.
COMMENT: Were the sediments of the stream, which drains Site 8, tested?
RESPONSE: As discussed in Section IV.C. of this ROD, the sediments of subject
stream were tested during Phase II and Phase III of the Rl. A total of four (4) samples
were collected. The sample results were evaluated under both the Human Health and
14
-------
Ecological Risk Assessments conducted as part of the Rl (see Section V of this ROD).
Based on the subject test results, the risk assessments indicate that the sediments do
not present an unacceptable risk to human health or the environment.
O
15
-------
APPENDIX A.
-------
-------
TABLE 1
OCCURRENCE AND DISTRIBUTION OF ORGANICS AND INORGANICS IN SITE 8 SURFACE SOIL (POST-REMOVAL)
NAWC WARMINSTER. PENNSYLVANIA
r^j: ^
pky'T
Cots*
CfTftfm
OnvButyWflMUit
•-<«
MK*a
-3-
1/11
1/11
Ort1
~J&?*"?**?Zt
• "^--Timnn .- •-
4780 • 1*100
0.2* - 12,1 J
34.1 - 225
38 K . 30.S
89*0 - 410MO
1S J . 98$ J
~ SIS • 4950
309 - 2010
0.37
4.1 J - 21.7 J
*7l . 3050
5M • 96.7
15.4 ^~4S
1 • M
18 JP
1440 J*
51
4SJ
MJ
4«J
s7j
82 J ~~
S1J
100 J
SJ '
j*^.- •»••-• r-.--.1-
*»*•« MUM 4*4
8O-12
ao-ii
8O-J»
8G-23-O
86-24
BC-12
BG-29
BO-30
BG-13
BG-24
8O-29
8G-J3
BG-23-0
8O-SS
80-12
BO-13
9O-I2
80-12
BO-1J
9Q.11
BO-13
eo-i3 ^
~ BO-13
M-13
BO-13
BO-1J
"**^
•' «r
2/r
i3/ta
ia
14/1*
M/M
isne
12/12
*n»
wie
14/14
iene
i«ni
41M1
1SJ15
ians
2/14
11/11
isns
2/1«
M
2QgQ
iafi«
1/14
3/14
1/14
VI4
1«4
1/14
I/It
1/H
1O1I
ions
10/1*
ini
an*
1/10
112
1/11
10/it I
31S
3fl»
10/11
1rt«
7/1«
OTI
1/14
torn
«yii
M
1/13
8.1T31 J . Q.17M J
0004> J . 0007 J
0.087 J . 22 J
0.0379 J
»640 . igaoo
2 . 13.9
42.3 . 124
0« - 1.1
0.53 I . «.] ~
T7» . 1B5CO
11,» L . «».1
44 . 12.3
4.3 - 92.« J
13COO . 25800
*4 .732 K
1*40 . 12100
247 . 722 7"
9.0* 1 - 0.1
D.1 - 15.7
43» . 1»4O
0.7 K • 0.72 K
81.1 . 1110 i
1B3 . 4t.t t
2«,9 . 458
4.7 f
S J - 2S T
MJ •
13 j . «3
8.7 P
43
130J
590
10 - 980
7» .930
120 • 1500
81 - 410
3t J - 270 J
1700 . 1100 J
400 . 900
310 J
77 J . MO
tO 1 . 54 J
46 J . 120 J
150 J . 2000
540
M i . 410
4» j . 5» J
43 j
77 J . 8108
130 J - 1600
1 J - 7 , J
JJ
HMlrf
0.2M
00231
2.77
0.491
12300
6.0»
73
0.788
185
4770
19.7
884
22.6
17700
119
4380
433
0.042S
11
«4«
0417
418
299
B2.3
2.03
10*
24.*
2.11
251
207
285
r 215
22*
311
167
156
350
350
27B
250
137
24i
33*
282
m
19»
44J
275
314
825
5.77
*«»«•! taMM
SS-Ot-02
SS-08-08
SS-M-28-0
S-04.17
S-Ot-07
SS-08-28-O
SS-M-2t-O
SO3*
SS-04.14
S-08-U
SS-C«-0»
SS-08-28-0
SSJ8-17
SSX».14^O
ss-a«^3
5S-0*-1B
SS-CHU14O
S»0».14-O
SS-0*-10
SS-Q.10
S»O*-1»
SSJ6.10
SS-08-17
SS-08-17
S3J6.17
SS-CK-17
5S-09-17
5S0.14
SSOS.14-0
SS-0»-14
SSO-17
SS-09-17
SS-OMO
&S-06-17
SS-0»-17
SS-08-17
SS-0*-17
SSO-10
SS-0»10
SS-06-17
S»0».1*0
s»o»o»
f»»l ••!»»«
• - Minimum *nd maximum
-------
TABLE 2
OCCURRENCE AND D.STR.BUTON OF ORGAN.CS AND .NORGAN.CS .N S.TE » SUBSURFACE SO.L (POST-REMOVAU
NAWC WARMINSTER, PENNSYLVANIA REMOVAL)
Not**.-
Uiw« «/t mo/kg for inofBinet. uoAB «or oryinka.
-------
TABLE 1
OCCURRENCE AND MSTRIBUTIOM Of MORGAMCS IN SEDIMENT AT SITE t
WARMINSTER. PENNmVANM
(•»*«»
BACKGROUND
REPRESENTATIVE
CONCENTRATION*
FREQUENCY OF
OETEC110N
XH
31 J
POSITIVE DETECTION-
NONPARAMETRIC HS1
NONP/WAMETRIC OIST
«.« • 74 8
065 - 0*5
NONPARAMETRffiOIST
NONPARAMeTRtCOIST
MOMPARAMETRIC CNST
NONPARAMETRIC OIST
NONPARAMETRIC WST
NONPARAMETRICOIST
NONPARAUETRIC WST
NpRMAlOVERLOGNORtW.
NONPARAMETRIC DIS1
NONPARAMETRICOIST
NONPARAMETRIC DIST
NONPARAMETRIC OIST
NONPARAMETRIC DIST
' ' REPRESENTATIVE CONCENTRATION FOR BACKGROUND IS PRESENTED M TABLE V
• QUA1IFIER8 FOR DATA ARE PRESENTED W DATA PRESENTATION TABUS
-------
TAWJE4
OCCURRENCE AND OSTR«unONOFO«OAMC3 IN SEDMENT AT SHE *
WAMWOTEB. PENNSnVAW*
IENZO(B)flUORANTHENE
>ENZO(GJI,llPERYiEME
lENZOOQFlUORAKTHENE
-------
TABLE*
OCCURRENCE AND DISTRIBUTION Of TOTAt MORGAMCS IN SURFACE WATER AT SITE I
WARHWSTER. PENNSYLVANIA
("•*->
SUBSTANCE
3ARUM
BACKGROUND
CONCENTRATION*
M
18300
7240
_
1700
DETECTION
1/1
1 /
1 /
1 /
j-
T7 "
POSITIVE DETECTION"
M
<2BOO
tM
ISO
2150
DISTRIBUTION
NONPARAMETRIC QtST
NONPAHAMETRICOIST
NONPARAMETRICOIST
NONPARAMETRICOIST
NONPARAMETRICtHST
REPRESENTATIVE
CONCENTRATIOK
• QiMUFIEHS FOH DATA ARE PRESENTED M DATA PRESENTATION TABLES
SK« ajrabtos_5to9.xls 9123199 10:11 AM
-------
TABLE f
OCCURW^EATO DOTATION OFWWWAMCSm^^
WAWMKSTER. PENNSYtVAMA
FREQUENCY OF
DETECTION
MANGE OF
posnryE DETECTION-
2»jg.'«00
23- 2B
REPRESENTATIVE
CONCENTRATION
cac
4000
NOHPAHAUETR1C PIST
NONPARAMETBICDIST
NONPARAMETRICOIST
NONPARAUETRtCOIST
NONPARAMETfUCtMST
NONPARAUETRIC DtST
NONPARAMETTOCDIST
NONPARAMETRICOIST
NONPARAMETRICDIST
NONPARAUETRIC WST
• OUAUFKRS FOR DATA ARE PRESEMTEO M DATA PRESENTATION TABIES
-------
TABLET
OCCURRENCE AMD DISTRIBUTION OF ORGAMCS IN SEDIMENT IN BACKGROUND - SITE «
WARMNS1ER, KNNSTLVANU
SUBSTANCE
ANTHRACENE
)WENZ(A.H)ANTHRACENE
NOeNOdAWMlPYRENE
MEAN
12W
2M
205
1277
«5
134500
«a
DISTRIBUTION
NONPARAMETRIC DIST
NOWPARAMETRIC CKST "
NONPARAMETRIC OIST
NONPARAMETRIC IXST
NONPARAMETRK tXST
NONPARAMETRK OS
NONPARAMETRIC MS
NONPARAMETRIC US
NONPARAMETRIC OS
NONPARAMETRIC CDS
NONPARAMETRIC DIST
NONPARAMETRICOIST
BACKGROUND '
DETECTION
12
POSITIVE DETECTION1
JW
180
MT.S
190. 340
a
380- 550
1«0_
REPRESENTATIVE
CONCENTRATION
• in ' i i
ma
-------
TABLE*
•""^•HDWTIWWHOrTOT*
POSITIVE DETECTION-
NONPARAMETRICOIST
NORMAL OVER IOCNOHUAL
NONPARAHETiaCMST
NOMPARAMETRICDIST
NONPARAMETRIC DIST
NONPARAMETRICDtST
NONPARAUETRIC WST
•OUAUFeHSFOROATAAREPReSEHTEDWUATAPRESENTATtONTABlES
-------
s
t
S!
ill
|sf
BjJ
*•>?••
i!!
-------
APPENDIX B.
Figure 1. The Former NAWC. Warminater, PA
-------
Figure 2. Site 8 Location Map
-------
Figure 3. Site 8
-------
FWE-FICHllNflr TRAINING
AREA: t97Jf- 1968
1.2.14.9 7,t-HPCOO J.»J
IN J
OCOO J
ORCANtCS m u«A«
mORCAIUCS IN maAa
Figure 4. Concentrations Exceeding Screening Criteria (Pre-removah - Site 8 Surface Soil Samples
-------
SS-OC-29
SS-W-41
SS-OS-JJ
SSHM-M
SURFACE SOU
SAMPLE IOCAIMNS
L01 EPIC FEATURE
AREA OF SON.
REMOVAL
Figure 5. Concentrations Exceeding Screening Criteria rPost-removan - Site 8 - Surfa
e Soil Sample
-------
Figure 6. Concentrations Exceeding Screening Criteria - Site 8 Subsurface Soil Samples
-------
-------
0 OJ.^+J
»- ^
0 0)
., .
£ 0 OC
EEs-0
£ O 3+-
0)00^
>
02
Zo.!S.E
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-NT1S (6847) or (703) 605-6000 and request the free
NTIS Products Catalog, PR-827LPG, or visit the NTIS Web site
http://www.ntis.gov.
NTIS
Your indispensable resource for government-sponsored
information—U.S. and worldwide
-------
ft*,, --~ --,:
------- |