Superfund Record of Decision: Camp LeJeune Military Reservation (US Navy) Operable Unit 8, Site 16, Onslow County, NC (8/23/96)


                                 PB96-964023
                                 EPA/ROD/R04-96/280
                                 September 1997
EPA  Superfund
       Record of Decision:
       Camp LeJeune Military Reservation,
       (US Navy), Operable Unit 8, Site 16,
       Onslow County, NC
       8/23/96

-------
              ;.V; :'=D STA ; £; ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

                               REGiON 4

                          3*5 COURTLANiD STREET r\i.n
                           ATLANTA. GEORGIA 3036S
 CERTIFIED MAIL
 RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED

 4WD-FFB

 Commanding General
 Building  1
 Marine Corps  Base
 Camp  Lejeune,  North  Carolina 28542

 Subj:   Record of Decision
        Operable Unit 8,  Site 16
        MCB Camp Lejeune  NPL Site
        Jacksonville,  North  Carolina

 Dear  Sir:

    The U.S.  Environmental  Protection Agency (EPA)  Region 4 has
 reviewed  the  above subject  decision document and concurs with the
 selected  remedy for  the  Remedial Action at Site 16.  This remedy
 is supported  by the  previously completed Remedial Investigation
 and Baseline  Risk Assessment Reports.

    The selected remedial alternative is no further action.  This
 involves  taking no further  remedial actions at the site and
 leaving the environmental media  as they currently exist.  This
 remedial  action is protective of human health and the
 environment,  complies with  Federal and State requirements that
 are legally applicable or relevant and appropriate to the
 remedial action and  is cost  effective.

                                    Sincerely,
                                   John H.  Hankinson,  Jr.
                                   Regional Administrator

cc:  Elsie Munsell, Deputy Assistant Secretary of  the  Navy
     Neal Paul,  Camp Lejeune
     Kate Landman,   LANTDIV
     Patrick Watters,   NCDEHNR

-------
CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED

4WD-PFB *B2J
Commanding General
Building 1
Marine Corps Base
Camp Lejeune, North Carolina 28542

Subj : Record of Decision
Operable Unit 8, Site 16
MCB Camp Lejeune NPL Site
Jacksonville, North Carolina

Dear Sir:

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region IV has
reviewed the above subject decision document and concurs with the
selected remedy for the Remedial Action at Site 16. This remedy
is supported by the previously completed Remedial Investigation
and Baseline Risk Assessment Reports.

The selected remedial alternative is no further action. This
involves taking no further remedial actions at the site and
leaving the environmental media as they currently exist. This
remedial action is protective of human health and the
environment, complies with Federal and State requirements that
are legally applicable or relevant and appropriate to the
remedial action and is cost effective.
Sincerely,
-/- John H. Hankinson, Jr.
Regional Administrator
cc: Elsie Munsell, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy
Neal Paul, Camp Lejeune
Kate Landman, LANTDIV
Patrick Watters, NCDEHNR

bcc: Frank Redmon, Federal Facilities Coordinator
Beau Mills, HQ

GDT:gt:FFB:6459:8-6-96:OU8ROD.CON

'truLHi
-------
UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS
MARINE CORPS BASE
PSC BOX 20004
CAMP LEJEUNE, NORTH CAROLINA 28S42-0004
IN REPLY REFER TO:
6286
BEMD

Ms. Gena Townsend 3 OCT 1996
United States Environmental Protection
Agency, Region IV
Waste Management Division
345 Courtland Street
Atlanta, Georgia 30365

Dear Ms. Townsend:

On September 30, 1996, Major General P.G. Howard, Commanding General, Marine Corps Base,
Camp Lejeune signed the Record of Decision (ROD) for Operable Unit No. 8 (Site 16).

This ROD is enclosed for your records. We appreciate your agency's concurrence and will ensure
that the land use restrictions specified in the ROD are included in the Base Master Plan.

If you have any questions or comments, please contact Mr. Neal Paul, Director, Installation
Restoration Division, Environmental Management Department, at telephone (910) 451-5068.

_Sincerely,
SCOTT A. BREWER, PE
Deputy Assistant Chief of Staff
•Environments! Management
By direction of
ommanding General
Encl.
(1) Record of Decision for Operable Unit No. 8

Copy to:
CMC (LFL, K. Dreyer)
ATSDR (C. Hossum)

Copy to: (w/o encl)
COMLANTNAVFACENGCOM (Code 1823, K. Landman)
-------
FINAL

RECORD OF DECISION
OPERABLE UNIT NO. 8
(SITE 16)

MARINE CORPS BASE
CAMP LEJEUNE, NORTH CAROLINA

CONTRACT TASK ORDER 0274

AUGUST 20,1996
Prepared For:

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
ATLANTIC DIVISION
NAVAL FACILITIES
ENGINEERING COMMAND
Norfolk, Virginia
Under:

LANTDIV CLEAN Program
Contract N62470-89-D-4814
Prepared by:

BAKER ENVIRONMENTAL, INC.
Coraopolis, Pennsylvania
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS iv

DECLARATION vi

1.0 INTRODUCTION.... 1

2.0 SITE NAME, LOCATION. AND DESCRIPTION 1

3.0 SITE fflSTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES 2

4.0 HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION 3

5.0 SCOPE AND ROLE OF RESPONSE ACTION 3

6.0 SITE CHARACTERISTICS 4
6.1 Soils 4
6.2 Groundwater 5
6.3 Surface Water/Sediment 5

7.0 SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS 6
7.1 Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment 6
7.2 Ecological Risk Assessment 7

8.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE "NO ACTION" ALTERNATIVE 8

9.0 RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY 9
9.1 Background on Community Involvement 9
9.2 Comments Received During the Public Comment Period and Agency
Response 10
-------
LIST OF TABLES

1 Summary of Site Contamination
2 Contaminants of Potential Concern Evaluated in the Human Health Risk Assessment
3 Total Site Risks Calculated in the Human Health Risk Assessment
4 Ecological Contaminants of Potential Concern
LIST OF FIGURES

1 Location Map
2 Topography and Site Features
3 Remedial Investigation Sampling Locations
4 Conceptual Site Model
APPENDICES

A Public Meeting Transcript
in
-------
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
AWQC Ambient Water Quality Criteria

bgs below ground surface

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
CLEAN Comprehensive Long-Term Environmental Action Navy
COPCs contaminants of potential concern

DDD dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane
DDE dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene
DD'T dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane
DoN Department of the Navy

FFA Federal Facilities Agreement

HI hazard index
HQ hazard quotient

ICR incremental cancer risk
IRP Installation Restoration Program

LANTDIV Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Atlantic Division

mg/kg milligrams per kilogram
MCB Marine Corps Base
MCL Maximum Contaminant Level

NC DEHNR North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
NCP National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan
NCWQS North Carolina Water Quality Standard
NOAA ER-L National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration Effective Range-Low
NPL National Priorities List

OU Operable Unit

PCBs polychlorinated biphenyls
ppm parts per million
PRAP Proposed Remedial Action Plan

RAs risk assessments
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RI Remedial Investigation
ROD Record of Decision

SARA Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
SSV sediment screening value
SSSVs surface soil screening values
SVOCs semivolatile organic compounds
SWSV surface water screening value
IV
-------
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
(Continued)

TAL target analyte list
TCL target compound list

Hg/kg microgram per kilogram
^g/L microgram per liter
USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. United States

VOC volatile organic compound
-------
DECLARATION

Site Name and Location

Operable Unit No. 8
Site 16
Marine Corps Base
Camp Lejeune, North Carolina

Statement of Basis and Purpose

This decision document presents the selected remedy for Operable Unit (OU) No. 8 (Site 16), at
Marine Corps Base (MCB) Camp Lejeune, North Carolina. The selected remedy for OU No. 8 was
chosen in accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability
Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
(SARA), and to the extent practicable, the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan (NCP). This decision is based on the Administrative Record for OU No. 8.

Description of the Selected Remedy

The selected remedial alternative for OU No. 8 is no further action. Following land use restrictions
being implemented by MCB, Camp Lejeune, this remedial alternative involves taking no further
remedial actions (including long term monitoring), at the site and leaving the environmental media
as they currently exist. However, should potential hazards posed by conditions at the site occur in
the future, monitoring to verify that no unacceptable exposures have occurred may be authorized.
The land use restrictions being implemented, via the Base Master Plan, are to preclude the
development of this site for residential purposes and to prohibit the installation of supply water wells
within 1,000 feet of this site.

The no further remedial action decision is justifiable, as the conditions at OU No. 8 are protective
of human health and the environment, and no additional remedial action is necessary to ensure this
protection.
'8.0 SEP
Signature ^Commanding General, MCB Camp Lejeune) Date
VI
-------
DECISION SUMMARY
1.0 INTRODUCTION

This Record of Decision (ROD) document presents the final remedial action plan selected for
Operable Unit (OU) No, 8 (Site 16) at Marine Corps Base (MCB), Camp Lejeune, North Carolina.
The environmental media at this site were investigated as part of a Remedial Investigation (RI).
Based on the results of the RI preferred remedial action alternatives were identified in a Proposed
Remedial Action Plan (PRAP) document. Then, the public was given the opportunity to comment
on the RI and PRAP. Based on comments received during the public comment period, and any new
information that became available in the interim, a final remedial action plan was selected for OU
No. 8 (Site 16). This ROD document presents the final selected remedy along with a summary of
the remedy selection process.

The ROD is organized into 9 main sections. Section 1.0 presents an introduction, and Section 2.0
presents the site name and location, and a brief description of the site layout. Section 3.0 presents
a history of the site and previous investigations/enforcement activities conducted there. Section 4.0
highlights community participation events that have occurred during the development of this ROD.
Section 5.0 describes the scope and role of the response action developed to address the site
contamination, and Section 6.0 summarizes the nature and extent of this site contamination (i.e., the
site characteristics). Section 7.0 summarizes the site risks as determined by human health and
ecological risk assessments. Section 8.0 provides the final remedy selected. Finally, Section 9.0
provides the responsiveness summary which contains a summary of comments received during the
public comment period.

2.0 SITE NAME, LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION

MCB Camp Lejeune is a training base for the United States (U.S.) Marine Corps located in Onslow
County, North Carolina. MCB Camp Lejeune is located approximately 45 miles south of New Bern
and 47 miles north of Wilmington, North Carolina. The facility covers approximately 236 square
miles and includes 14 miles of coastline. The military reservation is bisected by the New River,
which flows in a southeasterly direction and forms a large estuary before entering the Atlantic
Ocean. The eastern border of MCB Camp Lejeune is the Atlantic shoreline; while U.S. Route 17
and State Route 24 border the western and northwestern boundaries of MCB Camp Lejeune,
respectively. The City of Jacksonville, North Carolina, borders the facility to the north.

OUs are formed as an incremental step toward addressing individual site concerns and to simplify
specific problems associated with a site or a group of sites. Currently, there are 41 Installation
Restoration Program (IRP) sites at MCB Camp Lejeune. These 41IRP sites have been grouped into
17 OUs, with OU No. 8 being one of the 17 OUs within MCB Camp Lejeune. Site 16 is the only
site within OU No. 8. Figure 1 is a location map of OU No. 8 in relation to MCB Camp Lejeune.

Site 16, the Montford Point Bum Dump, is located southwest of Montford Landing Road and Wilson
Drive intersection within the Montford Point development area of Camp Johnson. Site 16 is
approximately 4 acres in size. Northeast Creek is located approximately 400 feet southeast of the
study area and flows in the southwesterly direction towards/into the New River. Figure 2 depicts
the topography and general site features of Site 16.
-------
As shown on Figure 2, most of Site 16 is cleared; however, the area which surrounds Site 16 is
comprised of pine and hardwood forest. An opening in the southeast corner of the study area leads
to Northeast Creek.

3.0 SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES

Limited information is available concerning the past operational history of the burn dump; however,
Site 16 was opened about 1958 and was closed in 1972. Practices at other burn dumps at MCB
Camp Lejeune indicate that the Montford Point Burn Dump may have accepted municipal waste
or trash from the surrounding housing area and activity buildings. Records indicate that waste oils
were also disposed at Site 16. Typically, the debris was burned and then graded to the perimeter of
the disposal area so that more debris could be dumped and burned. Asbestos material that was once
dumped on the surface has been removed.

Recently, Site 16 has been used for vehicle staging and for vehicle training exercises. A mock-up
jet aircraft is located in the center of the study area. This aircraft is used in refueling exercises by
tank truck operators. During these exercises, however, no fuel is used. A four-foot wide ditch,
believed to be a fire break, is present in the southwest portion of the study area. This ditch extends
around the western side of the former burn dump. There are no permanent structures at Site 16.

MCB Camp Lejeune was placed on the CERCLA National Priorities List (NPL) effective October 4,
1989 (54 Federal Register 41015; October 4, 1989). The United States Environmental Protection
Agency (USEPA) Region IV, the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural
Resources (NC DEHNR) and Department of the Navy (DoN) entered into a Federal Facilities
Agreement (FFA) for MCB Camp Lejeune. The primary purpose of the FFA was to ensure that
environmental impacts associated with past and present activities at the Base were thoroughly
investigated and appropriate CERCLA response/Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
corrective action alternatives were developed and implemented, as necessary, to protect the public
health and environment.

No investigations were conducted at Site 16 prior to the Remedial Investigation (RI) Report.
Therefore, the remainder of this section discusses the RI Report exclusively.

The field program for the RI Report for Site 16, conducted in mid 1994 to early 1995, consisted of
a site survey, and sampling of the surface soil, subsurface soil, groundwater, surface water and
sediment. The sampling locations associated with these various media are identified on Figure 3.

The site survey task consisted of an initial survey of site features and a post investigation survey of
the sampling locations and monitoring wells.

Thirty-two surface soil samples (collected from 0 to 1 foot below ground surface [bgs]) and thirty-
five subsurface soil samples (collected from 1 foot bgs to just above the groundwater table) were
collected and analyzed for full Target Compound List (TCL) organics and Target Analyte List
(TAL) inorganics. In order to identify the types of material which may have been disposed of at Site
16, four test pits were excavated as part of the subsurface soil investigation. Samples were not
collected from the test pits due to their close proximity to the soil borings, the lack of encountering
waste material, and that no elevated photoionization detector readings were detected which would
indicate potential contamination.
-------
Six shallow groundwater monitoring wells were installed to determine the presence or absence of
contamination in the surficial aquifer which may have resulted from past burning and disposal
activities. Groundwater was sampled using USEPA Region IV's low flow purging and sampling
techniques during all sampling rounds. The first round of groundwater sampling was conducted in
November/December 1994. Groundwater samples were analyzed for full TCL organics and TAL
total (unfiltered) and dissolved (filtered) metals. In early February of 1995, a second round of
groundwater samples was collected and analyzed for full TCL organics and TAL total metals. At
the request of NC DEHNR representatives a third groundwater sample was collected from
monitoring well 16-MW05 in March 1996 and analyzed for TCL volatile organics only.

Five surface water samples and ten sediment samples (collected from 0 to 6 inches and 6 to 12
inches) were collected along Northeast Creek. Each of the surface water and sediment samples were
analyzed for full TCL organics and TAL inorganics. In addition, the sediment samples collected at
the 0 to 6 inch sampling interval were also analyzed for total organic carbon and grain size.

In response to a comment from the NC DEHNR four additional surface soil samples were collected
within a 10-foot radius of the detected elevated lead sample previously collected from location
SB05. The four additional samples were collected from 0 to 1 foot bgs. and were analyzed for TAL
total metals, the lead results for these four additional surface soil sample were all well within the
Base Background results, and ranged from 9.5 mg/kg to 20.5 mg/kg.

4.0 HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION

The Final RI Report and Final Proposed Remedial Action Plan (PRAP) for OU No. 8 at MCB Camp
Lejeune, North Carolina were released to the public on March 7,1996. These documents were made
available to the public at the information repositories maintained a the Onslow County Public
Library and the MCB Camp Lejeune library. The notice of availability of these documents was
published in the Jacksonville Daily News, on February 25, 1996.

A public comment period regarding OUNo. 8 was held from March 7, 1996 through April 1, 1996,
and a public meeting regarding the same was held on March 7, 1996. During this public meeting,
representatives from the DoN and the Marine Corps discussed the preferred remedial action under
consideration. Community concerns were also addressed during this public meeting.

Community comments regarding the preferred remedial action, and the response to the comments
received during the noted comment period are included in the Responsiveness Summary section of
this Record of Decision (ROD).

5.0 SCOPE AND ROLE OF RESPONSE ACTION

No further action is the selected remedial action for OU No. 8. The no further action decision is the
final recommended action for OU No. 8. This decision is based on the findings of the RI field
investigation, along with the results of the baseline human health and ecological risk assessments
(RAs).

Justification for this decision is presented within the following sections of this ROD.
-------
6.0 SITE CHARACTERISTICS

A brief summary of the nature and extent of contamination at Site 16 is provided below. This
summary focuses on the primary problems at the site.

6.1 Soils

The pesticides 4,4' dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane (ODD), 4,4'-dichlorodiphenyldichIoroethylene
(DDE), 4,4'-dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT), alpha-chlordane, and dieldrin are the most
prevalent contaminants detected in the surface soil. 4,4'-DDE was detected in 26 of the 29 surface
soil samples. The maximum pesticide concentration reported is for 4,4'-DDT at 540 micrograms
per kilogram (ug/kg). Pesticide contamination is at relatively consistent concentration levels in the
surface soil samples collected across Site 16. Pesticide contamination in the subsurface soil is less
frequent than in the surface. The most prevalent pesticide, 4,4'-DDE, was detected in only 3 of 32
samples. The pesticide levels detected in the surface and subsurface soil at Site 16 are similar to
levels detected at other areas within MCB Camp Lejeune. Due to the fact that most of the pesticide
contamination is present in surface soils, and that the contaminant concentrations are comparable
to pesticide levels throughout the Base, it is believed that the pesticides in soil are due to Base-wide
pest control activities that were prevalent in the 1970's and not concentrated dumping or disposal
practices.

Surface soil contamination also consists of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), Aroclor 1254 and
Aroclor 1260. Aroclor 1254 is the most prevalent being detected in 13 of 29 surface soil samples.
Additionally, the maximum contaminant level (2,100 fig/kg) is reported for Aroclor 1254.
Aroclor 1254 is present in 2 of 32 subsurface locations. The detections of Aroclor 1254 and 1260
are from sampling locations across Site 16. PCBs are not found in the groundwater indicating that
vertical migration to the water table has not occurred.

Semivolatile compounds are infrequently encountered at low levels in the surface soil. Other than
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate, which is believed to be due to laboratory contamination, the most
frequent semivolatile compound detected is chrysene (4 out of 29 samples). All of the semivolatile
compounds concentrations are less than 130 ug/kg, which are relatively low. Subsurface soil is
relatively absent of semivolatile contamination. Acenaphthene and pentachlorophenol (3 out of 32
samples) are the most prevalent semivolatiles in the subsurface soil. The concentration levels and
presence of semivolatile compounds in the soil is random across Site 16. The source of the
semivolatile compounds is believed to be due to historical open burning operations.

Other than common lab contaminants (e.g., methylene chloride, acetone, and toluene) volatile
organic contamination is absent in the surface and subsurface soil. • •

The concentrations of several inorganic constituents exceed twice the average Base-specific
background concentration. Comparing the results for surface and subsurface soil, it appears that
there is little correlation between elevated metals concentrations in the surface and subsurface soil.
For surface soils, arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, copper, iron, lead, mercury, selenium,
vanadium, and zinc were the predominant metals that exceed Base background levels more than
once. In contrast, zinc is the only metal that exceeds Base background levels more than one time
in the subsurface soil.
-------
6.2 Groundwater

Two rounds or groundwater samples were collected from six shallow wells at Site 16. Additionally,
a third groundwater sample was collected shallow monitoring well 16-MW05.

Volatile contaminants benzene and ethylbenzene were detected in one groundwater sample collected
during the first round of groundwater sampling. Benzene and ethylbenzene were detected at levels
of 37 micrograms per liter (ug/L) and 1 ug/L, respectively. Volatile contaminants were absent in
all second round groundwater samples collected. Volatile organics were absent in the third
groundwater sample collected from well 16-MW05.

• Metals were the most prevalent and widely distributed contaminants in the groundwater. Elevated
levels of total (unfiltered) metals during these sampling rounds included barium (maximum
concentration 77.9 ug/L), iron (maximum concentration 712 ug/L), lead (maximum concentration
3.2 ug/L), manganese (maximum concentration 31.6 ug/L), and zinc (maximum concentration
80.5 ug/L). Iron is the only metal contaminant which exceeds State drinking water standards. Iron
was detected above the State standard in one well. It is questionable; however, whether the iron is
due to disposal operations, since elevated levels of iron are common in shallow groundwater
throughout the Base and region.

Semivolatile contamination in the groundwater was limited to low levels of naphthalene (maximum
concentration 6 ug/L), bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate (maximum concentration 5 ug/L), and phenol
(maximum concentration 4 ug/L).

Pesticide and PCB contaminants were not detected in either round of sampling.

6.3 Surface Water/Sediment

Northeast Creek is the only surface water body in the vicinity of Site 16. One surface water and two
sediment samples were collected from each of five sampling stations along Northeast Creek.

Volatile contaminants 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane and 4-Methyl-2-pentanone were detected in one
surface water sample at a concentration of 2 ug/L and 7 ug/L, respectively. No other volatile
organics were detected in the surface water. Only 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane exceeded its Ambient
Water Quality Criteria (AWQC); however, this sample location is approximately a quarter mile
downstream of OU No. 8 and therefore may not be directly site-related.

Semivolatile, pesticide, and PCB contaminants were not detected in the surface water. The
occurrence of bis(2-EthyIhexyI)phthalate is a common laboratory contaminant that can be attributed
to laboratory analysis of the samples.

Arsenic was detected in 4 out of 5 surface water samples. All .of the arsenic detections where
slightly above the AWQC, and although detected in surface and subsurface soils as well, did not
trigger a human health risk for any of the media. Manganese was detected in 5 out of 5 surface
water samples. All of the manganese detections were above the AWQC; however, these detections
did not trigger a human health risk.

Volatile organics, carbon disulfide (1 out of 10 samples) and toluene (2 out of 10 samples) were
detected in the sediment at concentrations of 2 ug/kg for each contaminant.
-------
Semivolatile, pesticide, and PCB contamination is absent in the sediment.

Silver was detected in 1 out of 10 samples at a concentration of 1.2 milligrams per kilogram
(mg/kg), slightly above the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration Effects Range-Low
(NOAA ER-L).

Table 1 presents a summary of the site contamination identified in the surface soil, subsurface soil,
groundwater (rounds 1 and 2), surface water and sediment.

7.0 SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS

As part of the RI Report, a baseline human health RA and an ecological RA were conducted to
evaluate the potential risks associated with exposure to the environmental media at Site 16. The
baseline human health RA considered the most likely routes of potential exposure for both current
and future risk scenarios. The key findings of each RA are summarized below.

7.1 Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment

Five environmental media were investigated during the RI including surface soil, subsurface soil,
groundwater, surface water and sediment. Contaminants of potential concern (COPCs), which are
site related contaminants used to quantitatively estimate human exposures and associated health
effects, were selected for each of the environmental medium. Table 2 presents the selected COPCs
based on the human health RA. In addition, Table 2 presents a comparison of contaminant levels
to relevant criteria/standards.

As part of the baseline human health RA, a conceptual site model was developed to encompass
current and future routes for potential exposure at Site 16. The potential receptors evaluated
included current military personnel, future on-site residents (adults and children), and future
construction workers. Figure 4 presents the Site 16 conceptual model, highlighting potential
contaminant sources, migration pathways and potential receptors.

As part of the baseline human health RA, incremental cancer risk (ICR) values and hazard index
(HI) values were calculated for each of the exposure routes and potential receptors. ICR refers to
the cancer risk that is over and above the background cancer risk in unexposed individuals. ICRs
are determined by multiplying the contaminant intake level (i.e., or dose), with the cancer potency
factor. The calculated risks are probabilities which are typically expressed in scientific notation
(i.e., 1E-04). For example, an ICR of 1E-04 means that one additional person out often thousand
may be at risk of developing cancer due to excessive exposure at a site if no actions are conducted.
The USEPA acceptable target risk range is 1E-04 to 1E-06 (i.e., one in ten thousand to one in one
million). Potential concern for noncarcinogenic effects of a single contaminant in a single medium
is expressed as a hazard quotient (HQ). By adding the HQs for all contaminants within a medium
or across all media to which a given population may reasonably be exposed, the HI can be generated.
The HI provides a useful reference point for gauging the potential significance of multiple
contaminant exposures within a single medium or across media. The HI refers to noncarcinogenic
effects and is a ratio for the level of exposure to an acceptable level for all contaminants of potential
concern. An HI greater than or equal to unity (i.e., 1.0) indicates that there may be a concern for
noncarcinogenic health effects.
-------
Table 3 presents individual media ICRs and His, as well as the calculated total site ICRs and His.
As shown on Table 3, all of the media/potential receptors evaluated had ICRs within the USEPA's
acceptable target risk range of 1E-4 to 1E-6. Therefore, the potential receptors are not at adverse
risk from carcinogens which are present in the soil, groundwater, surface water and/or sediment.
All of the individual medium and potential receptors evaluated had His less than 1.0. The total HI
value for future residential children; however, had a total HI equal to 1.19. This total HI value
indicates that adverse noncarcinogenic health effects may occur upon prolonged exposure. Exposure
to soil, via incidental ingestion in particular, drives the total noncarcinogenic risk for future
residential children. Ninety-six percent of this risk was generated by the presence of Aroclor 1254,
arsenic, aluminum, mercury, cadmium, and chromium. The remaining four percent of the risk was
generated by the contaminants dieldrin, beryllium, copper, and zinc. Aroclor 1254, a PCB, in
surface soil contributed 52 percent of the risk associated with soil ingestion by future residential
children. The exposure scenario involving children is conservative; it assumes that the site would
be developed into a residential area, and no land disturbance such as grading would result.

7.2 Ecological Risk Assessment

An ecological RA was conducted to evaluate if past disposal practices potentially impact the
ecological integrity of aquatic and terrestrial communities on or adjacent to the site. The ecological
RA identified surface water, sediment and surface soil as the media of concern. The ecological
COPCs are presented on Table 4.

Overall, four inorganics (aluminum, barium, iron, and lead), along with the volatile organic
compound (VOC), 4-Methyl-2-pentanone, were the only ecological COPCs retained for the surface
water aquatic receptors. The ecological COPCs for the surface water terrestrial receptors included
all of the noted aquatic COPCs, and the contaminants vanadium and 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane.

No sem(volatile organic compounds (SVOCs), pesticides or PCBs were detected in any of the
sediment samples. Carbon disulfide, silver, and vanadium were retained as ecological COPCs for
sediment. Inorganics, pesticides, PCBs, and SVOCs appear to be the most significant COPCs
retained for surface soil.

Manganese was the only COPC in the surface water that exceeded a surface water screening value
(SWSV), while silver was the only COPC in the sediment that exceeded a sediment screening value
(SSV). Overall, a slight potential adverse impact to aquatic receptors is expected from manganese
(in the surface water) and silver (in the sediment). However, these contaminants do not appear to
be site-related since there is no correlation between the sample concentration and the proximity of
the samples to the site. For example, manganese was detected above its SWSV at similar levels
approximately one quarter of a mile upstream, adjacent to the site, as well as one quarter of a mile
downstream of the site. Silver was only detected at one sampling location approximately one quarter
of a mile upstream of the site.

Several COPCs in the surface soil exceeded their respective surface soil screening values (SSSVs).
Most of the surface soil samples were collected in areas that are non-vegetated and/or gravel
covered. There are also some exceedances of the SSSVs in the wooded areas surrounding the open
area; therefore, there is the potential for adverse impacts to terrestrial flora and fauna in these areas
as well. No areas of dead or stressed vegetation were visually observed during either the field
investigations or the habitat characterization. Although COPCs in these areas do exceed SSSVs, the
exceedences are not expected to be ecologically significant to the terrestrial floral or faunal
-------
population due to the current use of the land, most of which is not conducive to habitats of the
modeled ecological receptors.

There is a slight potential risk to the cottontail rabbit from site contaminants. The rabbit*s diet is 100
percent vegetation. Since most of the site is unvegetated (as it is used for vehicle storage and
training), the rabbit will not ingest vegetation within most of Site 16. Considering this aspect, the
risk to the rabbit is overestimated and therefore, does not appear to be a significant risk from site-
related COPCs.

The majority of the risk to the raccoon was due to aluminum in the surface water. Since the
aluminum is not site-related, there does not appear to be a significant risk to the raccoon from site-
related COPCs.

No threatened or endangered species are known to reside at or near Site 16; therefore, no adverse
impacts to these species are expected. Likewise, there are no wetlands which would provide a
habitat to a variety of plant and animal species.

In summary, a potential decrease in the aquatic receptor population from site-related COPCs is not
expected. Similarly, a potential decrease in the terrestrial vertebrate receptor population from
site-related COPCs is not expected.

8.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE "NO ACTION" ALTERNATIVE

As noted previously, the selected remedial alternative for OU No. 8 is no further action. Although
the total scenario HI for residential child exposure to soil is slightly greater than 1.0, no HQ from
a single chemical exceeds 1.0. However, since the human health RA indicated that PCBs are the
main contributor to potential noncarcinogenic risks under the future residential child scenario, an
evaluation was conducted to determine if remediation of PCB-soil is feasible.

The PCB concentrations were evaluated against the USEPA guidance for the cleanup of PCBs under
CERCLA. Aroclor 1254 was detected in 13 of the 29 surface soil samples at concentrations ranging
from 41 ug/kg, or 0.041 parts per million (ppm), to 2,100 ug/kg, or 2.1 ppm. Based on EPA
Publication PB91-921206 entitled Guidance on Remedial Actions for Superfund Sites with PCB
Contamination, concentrations of 0.1 ppm to 10 ppm will generally fall within the protective range
(10" to 10"6), with respect to residential land use. Since the detected concentrations of PCBs at OU
No. 8 did not present an unacceptable current or future carcinogenic human health risk, and since
the maximum detected concentration (i.e., 2.1 ppm) is within the suggested remediation range for
residential land use (i.e., 1 to 10 ppm), remediation of the PCB-soil is not warranted for the
protection of human health.

Although the HI for residential children will remain above 1.0, the Camp Lejeune Master Plan is
being changed to preclude the development of this site for residential purposes and to prohibit the
installation of water supply wells within 1,000 feet of the site.

In conclusion, no human health risks were identified under the current land use exposure scenarios
and no areas of concern were identified at OU No. 8. Therefore, no further action is deemed
appropriate. This alternative involves taking no further remedial actions (including long-term
monitoring), at the site and leaving the environmental media as they currently exist. This remedial
alternative will have no cost associated with it.

8
-------
9.0 RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY

The selected remedy for OU. No. 8 is no further action.

Based on comments received during the public comment period and the lack of attendance at the
March 7, 1996 public meeting, the public appears to support the preferred alternative. In addition,
the USEPA Region IV and NC DEHNR are in support of the selected remedy outlined herein for
OU No. 8.

9.1 Background on Community Involvement

A record review of the MCB, Camp Lejeune files indicate that the community involvement centers
mainly on a social nature, including the community outreach programs and base/community clubs.
The file search did not locate written Installation Restoration Program (IRP) concerns of the
community. A review of historic newspaper articles indicated that the community is interested in
the local drinking and groundwater quality, as well as that of the New River, but that there are no
expressed interests or concerns specific to the environmental sites (including Site 16). Two local
environmental groups, the Stump Sound Environmental Advocates and the Southeastern Watermen's
Association, have posed questions to the Base and local officials in the past regarding other
environmental issues. These groups were sought as interview participants prior to the development
of the Camp Lejeune, IRP, Community Relations Plan. Neither group was available for the
interviews.

Community relations activities to date are summarized below:

• Prepared a Community Relations Plan, September, 1990.

• Conducted additional community relations interviews, August 1993. Nineteen
persons were interviewed, representing local business, civic groups, on- and
off-Base residents, military and civilian interests.

• Prepared a Final Community Relations Plan, February, 1994.

• Established two information repositories.

• Established the Administration Record for all of the sites at the Base.

• Released the PRAP for OU No. 8 for public review in the repositories, March 7,
1996.

• Released public notice announcing public comment and document availability of
the PRAP on February 25, 1996.

• Held a Technical Review Committee meeting on March 7, 1996 to review the
PRAP and solicit comments.

• Held a public meeting on March 7, 1996, to solicit comments and provide
information. There was no public participation at the meeting.
-------
9.2 Comments Received During the Public Comment Period and Agency Response

A public meeting was held on March 7,1996 in the Onslow County Library in Jacksonville, North
Carolina. Representatives from LANTDIV, MCB, Camp Lejeune, USEPA Region IV, NC DEHNR,
and OHM Corporation attended the meeting. There was no participation from the community at this
meeting. The transcript for the public meeting is provided in Appendix A. Comments provided by
NC DEHNR are summarized as follows. No comments were received from the public.

NC DEHNR requested a third groundwater sample be collected from monitoring well 16-MW05.
Due to the inconclusive data from the initial two rounds, this sample was analyzed for TCL volatile
organics. The results of this analysis confirmed the absence of benzene, which was detected in the
initial round but absent in the second round of sampling. The response to this was to collect the
additional sample and present the findings in this document.

NC DEHNR requested that soil screening levels, which are protective of groundwater, be developed
for the contaminants detected in the subsurface soil at Site 16. The response to this is that the levels
will be taken from USEPA Region Ill's Risk-Based concentration Table published October 4,1995.
The values in this table are felt to be the most conservative and are acceptable to state and federal
regulators. These values appear in Table 1 of this document.
10
-------
TABLES
-------
TABLE 1

SUMMARY OF SITE CONTAMINATION
OPERABLE UNIT NO. 8 (SITE 16)
RECORD OF DECISION, CTO-0274
MCB, CAMP LEJEUNE, NORTH CAROLINA
Media
Fraction
Contaminant
Comparison
Criteria
Comparison
Criteria

Surface
Soil
Volatile Organic
Compounds
Semivolatile
Organic
Compounds
Methylene chloride
Acetone
Toluene
Phenol
1,4 Dichlorobenzene
Naphthalene
2-Methylnaphthalene
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Butyl Benzyl phthalate
Benzo(a)anthracene
Chrysene
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate
Benzo (b)fluoranthene
Benzo (k) fluoranthene
Benzo (a) pyretic
Indent) (1,2,3-cd) pyrene
Benzo (g,h,i) perylene
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
Site Contamination
Min.
(ug/kg)
6)
IIJ
U
70J
43J
36J
67J
52J
IOONJ
46J
39J
64J
43J
43J
37J
54J
84J
42J
52J
92J
Max.
(Mg/kg)
15J
1200
4J
70J
43J
36J
67J
99J
IOONJ
46J
IIOJ
64J
43J
70J
49
88J
84J
130J
52J
92J
Detection
Frequency
No. of
Detections
Above
Comparison
Criteria
No. of
Defections
Above
Comparison
Criteria
Locaion/Distribution
Around Site 16

3/29
3/29
3/29
1/29
1/29
1/29
1/29
3/29
1/29
1/29
3/29
1/29
1/29
4/29
6/29
2/29
1/29
2/29
1/29
1/29
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
-
Central
Western
Surface Drainage Area
Southern
Southern
Western/Southwestern
Southern
Surface Drainage Area
Scattered
Southern
Western
Southern
Scattered
Scattered
Surface Drainage Area
Scattered
Southern
Southern
-------
TABLE 1 (Continued)

SUMMARY OF SITE CONTAMINATION
OPERABLE UNIT NO. 8 (SITE 16)
RECORD OF DECISION, CTO-0274
MCB, CAMP LEJEUNE, NORTH CAROLINA
Media
Surface
Soil
(Cont.)
Fraction
Pesticides/
PCBs
Contaminant
Comparison
Criteria

Comparison
Criteria

delta-BHC
Aldrin
Dieldrin
4,4'-DDE
Endrin
Endosulfan II
4,4'-DDD
Endosulfan Sulfate
4,4'-DDT
Methoxychlor
Endrin ketone
Endrin aldehyde
alpha-Chlordane
gamma-Chlordane
Aroclor-1254
Aroclor-1260
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
Site Contamination
Min.
(ug/kg)
4.7
3.41
5.6
5
6.5
1.91
2.61
4.81
3.8
4.61
4.2
4.6
3.11
1.61
41
501
Max.
(ug/kg)
4.7
3.41
771
440
141
261
120
4.81
5401
4.61
9.9
29
120
721
2,100.
2101
Detection
Frequency
No. of
Detections
Above
Comparison
Criteria
No. of
Dectections
Above
Comparison
Criteria
Locaion/Distribution
Around Site 16

1/29
1/29
10/29
26/29
3/29
8/29
20/29
1/29
24/29
1/29
2/29
9/29
11/29
9/29
13/29
2/29
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Surface Drainage Area
Western
Scattered
Scattered
Southwestern
Scattered
Widespread
Northern
Widespread
Western
Western
Scattered
Scattered
Scattered
Scattered
Scattered
-------
TABLE 1 (Continued)

SUMMARY OF SITE CONTAMINATION
OPERABLE UNIT NO. 8 (SITE 16)
RECORD OF DECISION, CTO-0274
MCB, CAMP LEJEUNE, NORTH CAROLINA
Media
Surface
Soil
(Cont.)
Fraction

Inorganics
Contaminant
Comparison
'Criteria

Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA

Comparison
Criteria
Base
Background
(mg/kg)
17.7-9,570
0.065 - 3.9
0.65 - 20.8
0.02 - 0.26
0.04-0.6
4.25 - 10.700
0.33 • 12.5
0.185-2.355
0.5 - 87.2
69.7 - 9,640
0.47 - 142
2.55-610
0.87 - 66
0.01-0.08
0.6-3.55
1-416
0.075-1.3
0.0435-4.3
4.7-126
-
0.305-18.2
0.3 - 28.3
Site Contamination
Min.
(mg/kg)
866J
2.3
3
0.24
1.8
66.4J
2.2
6.3
2.2J
470
3.8J
32.5
2.8J
0.1 U
24.4
205
I.I
1.2
26.8
2.1
2.3J
I4.2J
Max.
(mg/kg)
18.500J
24.7J
334
0.49
9.6
1I2.000J
43.2J
6.3
543J
69,700
5,2 10J
2,520
1.030J
14
24.4
475
6
3.1
63.4
3.6
45.4
4.350J
Detection
Frequency
No. of
Detections
Above
Comparison
Criteria

29/29
17/29
29/29
6/29
2/29
25/29
27/29
1/29
24/29
24/29
28/29
23/29
25/29
9/29
1/29
10/29
8/29
2/29
11/29
2/29
28/29
17/29
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
No. of
Decteclions
Above
Comparison
Criteria
Base
Background
* r#--|WS"/0%,
. .Cb&'-'ki
*&?.&\?<1
A**^$*$% **fi
^'. *>•£&/!&&* £v.
,••'<'$ fs$W,f%!'-
&*&&&&
;l:^lfe£!
^^sM^y?''
""%~'i^^
;^*>'°;5;
0
0
•r
#%?%&'%& *;
t^&^V>,
Locaion/Distribution
Around Site 16

North/northwest
Scattered
Scattered
Western
Scattered
Scattered
Scattered
Northwest
Scattered
Scattered
Central to Northwest
Northwest
Scattered
Scattered
Northwest
Central
Scattered
-
-
-
Scattered
Scattered
-------
TABLE 1 (Continued)

SUMMARY OF SITE CONTAMINATION
OPERABLE UNIT NO. 8 (SITE 16)
RECORD OF DECISION, CTO-0274
MCB, CAMP LEJEUNE, NORTH CAROLINA
Media

Sub-
surface
Soils
Fraction

Volatile Organic
Compounds
Semivolalile
Organic
Compounds
Contaminant

Sromomethane
Acetone
1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
Naphthalene
2-Methylnaphthalene
Acenaphthene
Dibenzofuran
Fluorene
Pentachlorophenol
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
Carbazole
di-n-butyl-phthalate
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Chrysene
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate
di-n-octyl-phthalate
Bebzo(b)fluoranlhene
Comparison
Criteria
SSL
(ug/kg)
100
8,000
1,000
2,000
30,000
30.000
200,000
120,000
160,000
200
NE
430,000
NE
NE
980,000
NE
700
1,000
11,000
NE
4,000

Comparison
Criteria

NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE.
Site Contamination
Min.
(ug/kg)
IJ
42J
50J
4SJ
88J
77)
S1J
310J
680
38NJ
2,200
380
180J
270J
1,200
670J
160J
I60J
58J
46J
57J
Max.
(«E/kg)
IJ
900J
67J
66J
88J
77J
290J
310J
680
94J
2,200
380
180J
270J
1,200
670J
1601
I60J
71J
46J
57J
Detection
Frequency

1/32
12/32
2/32
2/32
1/32
1/32
3/32
1/32
1/32
3/32
1/32
1/32
1/32
1/32
1/32
1/32
1/32
1/32
2/32
1/32
1/32
No. of
Detections
Above
Comparison
Criteria

NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
No. of
Dectections
Above
Comparison
Criteria

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NA
0
NA
NA
0
NA
0
0
0
NA
0
Locaion/Distribution
Around Site 16

Northern
8 exceed lOx
maximum blank
concentrtion
Northeast
Northeast
Central
Central
Central to Northeast
Central
Central
Northwest and
Northeast
Central
Central
Central
Central
Central
Central
Central
Central
Central to Southwest
Central
Central
-------
TABLE 1 (Continued)

SUMMARY OF SITE CONTAMINATION
OPERABLE UNIT NO. 8 (SITE 16)
RECORD OF DECISION, CTO-0274
MCB, CAMP LEJEUNE, NORTH CAROLINA
Media
Sub-
surface
Soils
(Com.)
Fraction
Semivolatile
Organic
Compounds .
(Cont.)
Pesticides/
PCBs
Contaminant

Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
4,4'-DDE
Endosulfan II
4,4-DDD
4,4'-DDT
alpha-chlordanc
gamma-chlordane
Aroclor-1254
Comparison
Criteria
SSL
(ME/kg)
4,000
4,000
500
3,000
700
1,000
2,000
2,000
NE
Comparison
Criteria

NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
Site Contamination
Min.
fog/kg)
58J
38J
7.6
7.1J
52J
37J
3.8
2.4J
40
Max.
(Hg/kg)
58J
38J
36
7.1J
52J
630
3.8
2.51
45
detection
Frequency
No. of
Detections
Above
Comparison
Criteria
No. of
Defections
Above
Comparison
Criteria
Locaion/Distribution
Around Site 16

1/32
1/32
3/32
1/32
1/32
2/32
1/32
2/32
2/32
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NA
Central
Central
Northwest
Surface Drainage Area
Northwest
Northwest and Surface
Drainage Area
Surface Drainage Area
Surface Drainage Area
Northwest and Surface
Drainage Area
-------
TABLE 1 (Continued)

SUMMARY OF SITE CONTAMINATION
OPERABLE UNIT NO. 8 (SITE 16)
RECORD OF DECISION, CTO-0274
MCB, CAMP LEJEUNE, NORTH CAROLINA
Media
Fraction
Contaminant

Ground-
water
lound 1
Ground-
water
Round 2
Volatile Organic
Compounds
Semivolatile
Organic
Compounds
inorganics
Semivolatile
Organic
Compounds
Inorganics
Benzene
Ethylbenzene
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate
Naphthalene
Phenol
Barium
Calcium
Iron
Lead .
Magnesium
Manganese
Sodium
Zinc
Naphthalene
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalatc
Aluminum
Barium
Calcium
Iron
Magnesium
Manganese
Potassium
Sodium
Comparison
Criteria
MCL
("g/L)
5.0
700
6.0
NE
NE
2,000
NE
300"'
IJID
NE
50°'
NE
S.OOO™
NE
6.0
NE
2,000
NE
300™
NE
50U>
NE
NE

Comparison
Criteria
NCWQS
(M8/L)
1.0
29
3.0
21
300
2,000
NE
300
IS
NE
50
NE
2,100
21
3.0
NE
2,000
NE
300
NE
50
NE
NE
Site Contamination
Min.
(ug/L)
37
U
IJ
ND
ND
24.41
370
712
3.2J
1,020
9.8J
2,480
80.5
4J
IJ
274
25J
728
410
1,380
I1.4J
1,270
2,240
Max.
(Mg/L)
37
IJ
5J
6J
4J
77.9
13,400
712
3.2J
5,090
31.6J
16,400
80.5
5J
SJ
300
54. IJ
6,540
410
3,130
24.6J
1,290
14,500
Detection
Frequency

1/6
1/6
4/6
1/6
3/6
6/6
6/6
1/6
1/6
6/6
4/6
6/6
1/6
6/6
3/6
2/6
6/6
5/6
1/6
6/6
2/6
3/6
6/6
No. of
Detections
Above
Comparison
Criteria
MCL
??g$g*\<:
-rf^V.^1" ,
0
0
0
0
0
NA
"-'? lv*~*
^A^'ot;
0
NA
0
NA
0
NA
0
NA
0
NA
?*\^&%??J
V <*x ?&$S0X*f
^ * £ •$• 5
NA
0
NA
NA
No. of
Dectections
Above
Comparison
Criteria
NCWQS

0
^df^-
> *^*i , <•
>jaO» % r •.' ^
0
0
0
NA
^|T",:^
...L?.rh\*l'l
0
NA
0
NA
0
0

NA .
0
NA

NA
0
NA
NA
Locaion/Distribution
Around Site 16

Central
-
East/Southeast of Bum
Dump
—
-
-
-
East/Southeast of Bum
Dump
-
-
-
-
-
Widespread
Scattered
Scattered
Widespread
Widespread
East/Southeast of Burn
Dump
Widespread
Scattered
Scattered
Widespread
-------
TABLE 1 (Continued)

SUMMARY OF SITE CONTAMINATION
OPERABLE UNIT NO. 8 (SITE 16)
RECORD OF DECISION, CTO-0274
MCB, CAMP LEJEUNE, NORTH CAROLINA
Media
Fraction
Contaminant

Surface
Water
Volatile Organic
Compounds
Semivolatile
Organic
Compounds
Inorganics
4-Methy!-2-pentanone
1 , 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Calcium
Chromium
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Potassium
Silver
Sodium
Vanadium
Comparison
Criteria
AWQC
(ug/L)
NE
0.17
1.8
NE
0.018
2,000
NE
NE
300
NE
NE
4
NE
NE
NE
NE
Comparison
Criteria
NCWQS
(ug/L)
NE
10.8
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
Site Contamination
Min.
(H&/L)
7J
2J
IOJ
4,2 1 OJ
2.2J
22.9
1S4.000J
15.6
2.780J
5.5J
542,000
17.2
169,000
6.4
4.240.000J
19.6
Max.
"'"!§%* \*
1 "'-<#: '
f *' '*$''''''',,' "•
NA

0
NA
NA
0
NA
NA

NA
NA
NA
NA
No. of
Dectections
Above
Comparison
Criteria
NCWQS
NA
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Locaion/Distribution
Around Site 16

-
-
-
--
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
--
-------
TABLE 1 (Continued)

SUMMARY OF SITE CONTAMINATION
OPERABLE UNIT NO. 8 (SITE 16)
RECORD OF DECISION, CTO-0274
MCB, CAMP LEJEUNE, NORTH CAROLINA
Media

Sediments
Fraction
Contaminant

Volatile Organic
Compounds
Carbon Disulfide
Toluene

Inorganics
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Silver
Sodium
Vanadium
Zinc
Comparison
• Criteria
NOAA
ER-L
(ug/kg)
NE
NE
(mg/kg)
NE
8.2
NE
NE
NE
81
NE
NE
46.7
NE
NE
1
NE
NE
ISO

Comparison
Criteria
NOAA
ER-M
("g/kg)
NE
NE
(mg/kg)
NE
70
NE
NE
NE
370
NE
NE
218
NE
NE
3.7
NE
NE
410
Site Contamination
Min.
(ug/kg)
2J
U
(mg/kg)
1.380J
0.8J
1.9
0.27
87.4
3.9
2.4
336J
2.3J
504
1.7
1.2
170
3.6
I.9J
Max.
(ug/kg)
2J
21
(mg/kg)
7.460J
4.7J
10.8
0.33
1,220
21.2
3.1
9.960J
6J
618
10.5
1.2
1,320
29.9
46.4J
Detection
Frequency

1/10
2/10

10/10
8/10
10/10
4/10
10/10
10/10
3/10
10/10
10/10
3/10
10/10
1/10
10/10
10/10
10/10
No. of
Detections
Above
Comparison
Criteria
NOAA
ER-L
NA
NA
NOAA
ER-L
NA
0
NA
NA
NA
0
NA
. NA
0
NA
NA
,'*'*i^
NA
NA
0
No. of
Dectections
Above
Comparison
Criteria
NOAA
ER-M
NA
NA
NOAA
ER-M
NA
0
NA
NA
NA
0
NA
NA
0
NA
NA
0
NA
NA
0
Locaion/Distribution
Around Site 16

—
-

--
~
-
-
-
-
~
-
-
-
-
-
~
-
--
-------
TABLE 1 (Continued)

SUMMARY OF SITE CONTAMINATION
OPERABLE UNIT NO. 8 (SITE 16)
RECORD OF DECISION, CTO-0274
MCB, CAMP LEJEUNE, NORTH CAROLINA
(" Detections compared to maximum base background concentration
m SMCL = Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level
«" Action Level
w Shaded Boxes indicated detections above comparison criteria

NE = No Criteria Established
NA = Not Applicable
1 - estimated value
NJ - tentatively identified compound estimated value
SSL - Region HI Risk-Based Concentration Soil Screening Level Transfer Soil to Groundwater (USEPA, 1995)
MCL - maximum contaminant level
NCWQS - North Carolina Water Quality Standard
A WQC - Ambient Water Quality Criteria (Human Health; Water and Organisms)
ug/L - microgram per liter (ppb)
ug/kg - microgram per kilogram (ppb)
mg/kg - milligram per kilogram (ppm)
NOAA ER-L - National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration Effective Range-Low
NOAA ER-M - National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration Effective Range-Median
"—" = undefined
-------
TABLE 2
CONTAMINANTS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN
EVALUATED IN THE HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
OPERABLE UNIT NO. 8 (SITE 16)
RECORD OF DECISION, CTO-0274
MCB CAMP LEJEUNE, NORTH CAROLINA
Contaminant
Volatile;
Carbon disulfide
Benzene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
4-Methyl-2-pentanone
1 , 1 ,2,2-Tetrachlorothane
Semivolatiles
Phenol
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
bis(2-EthylhexyI)phthalate
Benzo(a)pyrene
Pesticide/PCBs
Dieldrin
Aroclor-1254
Aroclor-1260
Inorganics
Aluminun
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Potassium
Silver
Sodium
Vanadium
Zinc
Surface
Soil

X
X
X

Subsurface
Soil

Groundwater

•

•
•

•

•
•
•
•

•

•
Surface Water

X
X

•
•

•

•
•
•

•
•

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Sediment

X
X

•

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

•
•
•
•
Note: No COPCs were retained for subsurface soil.
X = Selected as a COPC for human health risk assessment.
• = Detected in media; compared to relevant criteria and standards; applicable to the groundwater,
-------
TABLE 3
TOTAL SITE RISKS CALCULATED IN THE HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
OPERABLE UNIT NO. 8 (SITE 16)
RECORD OF DECISION, CTO-0274
MCB CAMP LEJEUNE, NORTH CAROLINA
Receptors
Current Military
Personnel
Future Child Resident
Future Adult Resident
Future Construction
Worker
Soil
ICR
I.2E-06
(100)
1.4E-05
(62)
6.5E-06
(28)
NE
HI
0.13
(100)
0.96
(81)
0.13
(75)
NE
Groundwater
ICR
NE
8.3E-06
(32)
1.6E-05
(69)
NE
HI
NE
0.2
(17)
0.04
(25)
NE
Surface
Water/Sediment
ICR
NE
1.5E-06
(6)
9.4E-07
(3)
NE
HI
NE
0.03
(2)
<0.01
(<1)
NE
Total
ICR
1.2E-06
0
0
<1.0E-06
HI
0.13
1.19
0.17
<0.01
Notes: ICR
HI

Total
NE
Incremental Lifetime Cancer Risk
Hazard Index
Approximate percent contribution to the total ICR or HI values
Soil + Groundwater + Surface Water/Sediment
Not Evaluated for potential receptor
-------
TABLE 4
ECOLOGICAL CONTAMINANTS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN
OPERABLE UNIT NO. 8 (SITE 16)
RECORD OF DECISION, CTO-0274
MCB CAMP LEJEUNE, NORTH CAROLINA
Contaminant
Inorganics
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
Volatile*
Acetone
Carbon disulfide
4-Methyl-2-pentanone
1 , 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
Toluene
Semivolatiles
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Chrysene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Surface Water
Aquatic
receptors
X

Terrestrial
receptors
X

X
X

Sediment

Surface
Soil
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-------
TABLE 4 (Continued)
ECOLOGICAL CONTAMINANTS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN
OPERABLE UNIT NO. 8 (SITE 16)
RECORD OF DECISION, CTO-0274
MCB CAMP LEJEUNE, NORTH CAROLINA
Contaminant
Pesticides/PCBs
Alpha-chlordane
Gamma-chlordane
4,4'-DDE
4,4'-DDD
4,4'-DDT
Dieldrin
Endrin
Endrin aldehyde
Endrin ketone
Endosulfan II
Aroclor-1254
Aroclor-1260
Surface Water
Aquatic
receptors

Terrestrial
receptors

Sediment

Surface
Soil
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X = Retained as ecological COPC
-------
FIGURES
-------
FIGURE 4
CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL
OPERABLE UNIT NO. 8 (SITE 16)
RECORD OF DECISION, CTO-0274
MCB CAMP LEJEUNE, NORTH CAROLINA
Future
Residents

Current
Military
Personnel

Future
Construction
Workers

. Inhalation . .
iUjHHHBB
Atmospheric
Deposition
Paniculate
Emissions
Soil
Erosion/Advective
Infiltration/
Percolation
Future
Residents
Ingestion
Dermal Contact
• Ingestion ^
Wbermal Contact"
•

Future
Residents

Current
Military
Personnel

Future
Construction
Workers
\j@lalilizatioii
m
Shower
Air

Future
Residents
Future
Residents
-------
APPENDIX A
PUBLIC MEETING TRANSCRIPT
-------
MARINE CORPS BASE. CAMP LEJBUNE
PROPOSED REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN
OPERABLE UNIT NUMBER EIGHT (SITE 16
Verbatim Transcript of Marine Corps Base, Camp Lejeune,
Proposed Remedial Action Plan, Operable Unit Number Eight (Site
16).
BEFORE: Mr* Matthew Bartman
Baker Environmental
Airport Office Park, Building Three
420 Rouser Road
Coraopolis, Pennsylvania 15108
Stacy Tone', CCR
Court Reporter
Cape Fear Court Reporting
Post Office Box 1256
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402
March 7, 1996
Li
Page 2

7:17 P.M.

THAT WE'LL

THESE

TO THE

iUR

T OUR

WHAT

OF OUR

LL FILL

BUT

DR THE
)R THE

(AT.

ONE OF

10ESS

OESN'T

T THIS

AST

A WATER

URFACE
7, 1996
-------
2
o.
£
5
I

25
Page

I'M JUST GOING TO FLIP THROUGH SOME OF THESE SITES AND

NOT TALK ABOUT ALL THE DETAILS, BUT JUST TO SHOW YOU PICTURES OF

THE SITE.

THIS IS THE ENTRANCE TO THE BURN DUMP, THE FORMER BURN

DUMP. CURRENTLY THIS AREA IS USED AS A TRAINING AREA. IT'S IN

THE CAMP JOHNSON AREA. AND IT'S USED FOR THE TRAINING OF

VEHICLE DRIVERS, STUDENT DRIVERS. CAMP JOHNSON ITSELF IS A HUGE

TRAINING AREA WHERE THEY TRAIN THE CHEFS. I'M NOT SURE WHAT

ELSE THEY — WHAT OTHER TYPE OF TRAINING THEY DO THERE. BUT

THERE ARE BARRACKS. THERE'S NO RESIDENTIAL HOUSING OR ANYTHING

THERE.

SO, WHEN WE DID THE RISK ASSESSMENT, WE LOOKED AT

FUTURE RESIDENTIAL SCENARIOS. BUT IT'S UNLIKELY IN THIS AREA.

AS YOU CAN SEE FROM THE PICTURES ON THE BACK TABLE,

AND ALSO FROM THIS, THERE'S A MOCK-UP JET IN THE MIDDLE OF

WHAT'S NOW A VEHICLE PARK AND TRAINING AREA. BUT WHAT THEY DO

IS THEY BRING VEHICLES, THE BIG TRAINING VEHICLES IN HERE, AND

PRACTICE HOOKING THEM UP TO THE JET AND REFUELING AIRCRAFT, AND

THEY ALSO DO TYPES OF, LIKE, PRACTICE MAINTENANCE ON THESE

VEHICLES HERE AND DIFFERENT THINGS. BUT NO FUEL IS ACTUALLY

USED IN THE OPERATION. THEY JUST PUMP WATER OR JUST HOOK UP THE

HOSES WITHOUT ANY WATER ITSELF.

THIS IS A SURFACE WATER RUNOFF AREA IN THE

SOUTHEASTERN PORTION OF THE SITE WHICH LEADS TO NORTHEAST CREEK.

THIS IS THE SOUTHEASTERN PORTION OF THAT SITE RIGHT

March 7, 1996
-------
S
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 4
AFTER THAT SURFACE WATER RUNOFF AREA THAT YOU CAN SEE NORTHEAST
CREEK IN THE FOREGROUND. IT DOESN'T LOOK MUCH LIKE A CREEK. IT
LOOKS'MORE LIKE THE NEW RIVER WHEN YOU'RE ACTUALLY THERE. IT'S
A PRETTY BIG SURFACE WATER BODY.
WE CONDUCTED A FIELD PROGRAM OUT HERE IN MID-1994.
THAT'S WHEN WE STARTED THE SURFACE WATER SEDIMENT INVESTIGATION.
WE LIKE TO DO THAT IN MID-SUMMER WHEN THE SEASON'S HIGH AND
FISH ARE FLOWING, THE BIOTA, AND BENEFITS AND EVERYTHING.
WE CONTINUED IN OCTOBER OF 1995 WITH THE SOIL AND
GROUNDWATER INVESTIGATION. AND THEN, FINISHED IN I BELIEVE
FEBRUARY OF '95 WITH A SECOND GROUNDWATER INVESTIGATION, SECOND
ROUND OF GROUNDWATER SAMPLING. BUT WE DID A SITE SURVEY, SOIL
INVESTIGATION, GROUNDWATER INVESTIGATION, SURFACE WATER
SEDIMENT. AND FROM THAT INFORMATION CONDUCTED HUMAN HEALTH AND
ECOLOGICAL RISKS.
I DON'T EVEN KNOW IF I NEED TO GO OVER NUMBERS. BUT
AS YOU CAN SEE, THE SURFACE SOIL INVESTIGATION, THE SAMPLING IN
RED SHOWS THE MONITORING WELLS THAT WE INSTALLED. THE BLACK
SHOW THE SOIL BORINGS THAT WE CONDUCTED.
WE COVERED THE AREA OF THE BURN DUMP PRETTY
EXTENSIVELY, IN BOTH SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE, AND ALSO COLLECTED
SEVERAL GROUNDWATER SAMPLES. I BELIEVE WE INSTALLED SIX SHALLOW
MONITORING WELLS.
ADDITIONALLY WE COLLECTED FIVE SURFACE WATER SEDIMENT
SAMPLES. AND ALSO WE CONDUCTED TEST PITS. THESE TEST PIT
March 7, 1996
-------
o
CO
1

25
Page

LOCATIONS WE DUG IN ORDER TO LOCATE POSSIBLE SUBSURFACE

CONTAMINATION THAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN THERE FROM THE BURNING

ACTIVITIES.

AGAIN, THE MONITORING WELL LOCATIONS.

SURFACE WATER SEDIMENT SAMPLING LOCATIONS. AGAIN,

FIVE LOCATIONS, ONE SURFACE WATER SAMPLE TAKEN FROM EACH

LOCATION. TWO SEDIMENT SAMPLES TAKEN FROM EACH LOCATION.

WHAT WE FOUND THERE, WE FOUND PAH'S SCATTERED

THROUGHOUT THE BURN DUMP. THIS COULD HAVE BEEN DUE TO THE

BURNING ACTIVITIES. IT ALSO COULD BE DUE TO THE VEHICLE

TRAINING ACTIVITIES, INCOMPLETE COMBUSTION OF FUELS,

BENZOPYRENE, FAIRLY COMMON PAH FOUND, NOT AT EXTREMELY HIGH

LEVELS; FOUND AT SOIL BORING 16, WHICH WAS IN THE SOUTHERN

PORTION OF THE SITE, RIGHT AT THE PERIMETER OF THE SITE.

AS IS THE CASE WITH CAMP LEJEUNE, WE FOUND SEVERAL

PESTICIDES, NAMELY DDE AND DDT. CONCENTRATIONS LOOKED

RELATIVELY HIGH, BUT RIGHT AROUND WHAT WE WOULD NORMALLY FIND AT

CAMP LEJEUNE. AND AGAIN, THIS MAXIMUM CONCENTRATION WAS FOUND

AT SBO5; IT WOULD BE IN THE NORTHERN PORTION OF THE SITE RIGHT

ABOVE THE JET AIRCRAFT.

WE ALSO FOUND EVIDENCE OF PCB'S, BOTH AT 1254 AND

1260.. I GUESS, YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE EXPLANATIONS HERE IS

BECAUSE OF THE OILS USED TO IGNITE THE BURNS AND EVERYTHING.

AND THAT'S WHERE WE THINK THE PCB'S COME FROM. AGAIN, THEY WERE

DETECTED WIDESPREAD, NOT ANY IN CENTRAL LOCATION AROUND THE BUR^

March 7, 1996
-------
SI
<
1

25
Page 6

DUMP, AND THIS COULD BE A SCATTERIZATION — OR THE SCATTERING OF

THE SAMPLES COULD BE DUE TO THE FACT .THAT THE SOILS AT THE BURN

DUMP WERE MOVED AROUND, AND ALSO THE TRAINING ACTIVITIES THAT

ARE NOW BEING CONDUCTED MAY HAVE RELOCATED THE SOILS.

IN THE SUBSURFACE WE HAVE, AGAIN, THE PAH'S BEING

DETECTED. HOWEVER, THIS TIME WE HAVE PHENANTHRENE AND NOT THE

BENZOPYRENE. AND YOU REALLY DON'T EXPECT PAH'S TO BE FOUND IN

THE SUBSURFACE TOO OFTEN. AND AGAIN, WE HAVE PESTICIDES,

HOWEVER DETECTED NOT AS FREQUENTLY THIS TIME, AND MAINLY IN THE

SURFACE DRAINAGE AREA. THAT'S THE AREA THAT LEADS OFF TO THE

NORTHEAST CREEK. AND A LOT OF THAT COULD BE DUE TO HEAVY RUNOFF

IN THAT AREA AND THE PESTICIDES DRAINING INTO THAT AREA.

AGAIN, WE FOUND THE PCB'S BUT ONLY 1254 THIS TIME, AND

ONLY IN TWO SUBSURFACE SOIL SAMPLES. AND AS I EXPLAINED BEFORE,

WE HAVE DONE SEVERAL BACKGROUND SOILS, BOTH SURFACE AND

SUBSURFACE IN THIS AREA, FOR INORGANICS. WE'VE DONE

COMPARISONS, AND WE'RE WITHIN ONE ORDER OF MAGNITUDE FOR THE

INORGANICS IN THIS AREA.

ONE OF THE CONCERNS WE'VE UNCOVERED THIS AFTERNOON IS

THIS BENZENE WAS DETECTED IN ONE OF OUR MONITORING WELLS IN THE

FIRST ROUND OF SAMPLING. THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA HAS ASKED

US TO GO OUT AND RECONFIRM THIS. WE DIDN'T DETECT IT IN THE

SECOND ROUND, BUT, BECAUSE WE ONLY HAVE TWO ROUNDS OF SAMPLING,

WE DECIDED MAYBE WE SHOULD GO OUT AND TAKE A THIRD, THIRD ROUND

FOR VOLATILE SAMPLES. SO, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE DOING.

March 7, 1996
-------
I
£
<
£

3
2

25
PHENOL WAS ALSO DETECTED. IT'S A HIGHLY WATER-SOLUBLE

COMPOUND. AGAIN, MAXIMUM CONCENTRATION WAS FOUR MICROGRAM PER

LITER, WELL BELOW THE STATE STANDARDS.

AS YOU WOULD THINK, PESTICIDES, PCB'S NOT DETECTED,

ALTHOUGH THEY'RE IN THE SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE. ONE OF THE

CONCERNS, AGAIN, WITH THE STATE THAT THEY POSE THIS AFTERNOON IS

THAT WE DO SOME TYPE OF LEACHATE MODEL TO SEE THAT THESE

CONTAMINANTS WOULD BE PROTECTED WITH GROUNDWATER. THE

CONCENTRATIONS THAT WERE DETECTED IN THE SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE

WOULD ALWAYS BE PROTECTED WITH GROUNDWATER. SO, THOSE ARE ONE

OF THE THINGS THAT WE'LL BE PREPARING AND PRESENTING IN OUR ROD.

ONE OF THE THINGS I THINK I EXPLAINED, ROUND TWO,

VOLATILE PESTICIDES AND PCB'S WERE AGAIN NOT DETECTED. BUT

AGAIN, BECAUSE THE VOLATILES WEREN'T DETECTED IN ROUND TWO —

(THERE WAS A BRIEF INTERRUPTION.)

MR. BARTMAN: WE'RE GOING TO GO BACK AND DO

THAT THIRD ROUND OF SAMPLING PROBABLY WITHIN THE WEEK.

NAPHTHALENE DETECTED IN SIX WELLS BUT BELOW STANDARDS,

21 MICROGRAMS PER LITER.

IRON EXCEEDED BOTH THE FEDERAL AND STATE STANDARDS,

BUT THE FEDERAL STANDARD IS A SECONDARY STANDARD. WHY IT'S A

PRIMARY STANDARD FOR THE STATE I'M NOT QUITE SURE. I GUESS

.'CAUSE YOU DON'T HAVE SECONDARY STANDARDS IN THIS STATE.

INTERESTING THAT WE FOUND 1,1,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE IN

ONE SURFACE WATER SAMPLE AT A CONCENTRATION OF 2 PPB, ABOVE THE

March 7, 1996
-------
o

3
2
1

25
Page 8

FEDERAL CRITERIA. UNRELATED TO THIS SITE, NOT FOUND IN ANY

GROUNDWATER. POSSIBLY AN ANOMALY.

IN THIS CASE, SEMI-VOLATILES, PESTICIDES AND PCB'S

WEREN'T DETECTED IN OUR SURFACE WATER SAMPLES AS YOU WOULD

HOPEFULLY EXPECT.

ARSENIC IS THE ONLY METAL DETECTED ABOVE FEDERAL

CRITERIA, FEDERAL CRITERIA BEING THE AMBIENT WATER QUALITY

CRITERIA. OUR CONCENTRATIONS ARE 2.2 TO 3.1.

AS FAR AS SEDIMENT, WE USED THE NOAH CRITERIA TO

EXAMINE THE LEVELS THAT WERE DETECTED, AND LOW LEVELS OF

VOLATILE CARBON DISULFIDE AND TOLUENE WERE DETECTED. IT'S

USUALLY THE CASE THAT THESE ARE USUALLY COMMON LAB CONTAMINANTS

FOUND. UNFORTUNATELY OUR QUAPC SAMPLES DID NOT ENABLE US TO

WRITE THIS OFF. SO, WE HAD TO RETAIN IT FOR RISK PURPOSES AND

FOR EVALUATION PURPOSES.

THERE WERE NO SEMIVOLATILE ORGANIC CONTAMINANTS,

PESTICIDES/PCB'S DETECTED IN THE SEDIMENT. AND SILVER WAS THE

ONLY ONE DETECTED ABOVE ANY SEDIMENT CRITERIA.

AS FOR HUMAN HEALTH RISKS, WE EVALUATED ALL RECEPTORS,

BOTH FUTURE — I SHOULD SAY BOTH CURRENT AND FUTURE RECEPTORS.

IT'S ONE OF THE GUIDELINES OF THE EPA TO KNOW THE BASE MASTER

PLAN MAY SAY THAT THERE WILL BE NO FUTURE RESIDENTIAL AREAS. WE

STILL HAVE TO EVALUATE THOSE.

SO WE LOOKED AT ALL RECEPTORS, WE LOOKED AT ALL MEDIAS

AND COMBINED THE RISKS FROM GROUNDWATER, SOIL, AND SURFACE WATER

March 7, 1996
-------
ffi
«
1

25
Pagq

SEDIMENT EXPOSURES. AND THE ONLY THING THAT WE CAME UP WITH AN

UNACCEPTABLE RISK WAS TO FUTURE RESIDENTIAL CHILDREN FROM A NON-

CARCINOGENIC RISK DRIVEN BY PCS 1254.

SO, THIS IS, I FEEL, A CONSERVATIVE RISK BECAUSE IT IS

A NON-CARCINOGENIC RISK, AND IT IS TO FUTURE RESIDENTIAL

CHILDREN.

FROM THE ECOLOGICAL STANDPOINT, WE LOOKED AT FLORA AND

FAUNA AND TERRESTRIAL SPECIES INDIGENOUS TO THE AREA. SO WE

LOOKED AT DEER, FOX, RACCOON AND QUAIL, AND THERE APPEAR TO BE

NO ECOLOGICAL RISKS TO THESE SPECIES.

SO, WHAT WE PROPOSED FOR THIS SITE WAS NO FURTHER

ACTION. BUT WE DO, I GUESS, AS OF TODAY WE DO HAVE A LITTLE Blfi

OF ADDITIONAL ACTION, AND THAT WOULD BE TO RESAMPLE THAT ONE

WELL THAT HAS — THAT HIT A BENZENE IN THE FIRST ROUND, AND ALSO

TO COME UP WITH SOME CALCULATIONS IN PROTECTING THE GROUNDWATER.

SO, THAT'S ABOUT ALL WE'RE GOING TO BE DOING. AND

HOPEFULLY THIS SITE WILL BE TAKEN CARE OF.

MR. NICHOLSON: YOU MAY HAVE SAID THIS, BUT I

MISSED IT, HOW LONG HAS THE SITE BEEN THERE?

MR. BARTMAN: I'M SORRY. THE SITE WAS

OPERATED — THERE'S REALLY LIMITED INFORMATION ABOUT THE BURN

DUMP — FROM 1958, AND WE BELIEVE IT WAS CLOSED IN 1972.

MR. NICHOLSON: AND IS THERE — WAS ANYTHING

UNCOVERED IN THE TEST PIT?

MR. BARTMAN: NO.

March 1, 1996
-------
s
i
(E

%
1

25
Page 10

MR. NICHOLSON: IS THERE ANY INDICATION THAT

A LOT OF SOIL HAS BEEN MOVED AROUND ON THIS SITE?

MR. BARTMAN: YES, YOU COULD GO OUT THERE

TODAY AND FIND REMNANTS OF THE BURN DUMP, SO WE HAD SOIL SAMPLES

AROUND THE PERIMETER OF THE BURN DUMP. IN FACT, WE HAD ONE

SAMPLE WHERE WE HAD HIGH LEAD, AND IT WAS RECOMMENDED THAT WE GO

OUT AND RESAMPLE THAT PARTICULAR AREA TO CONFIRM WHETHER IT WAS

AN ANOMALY, ONE SPIKE, OR WHETHER WE HAD AN AREA OF CONCERN.

AND IT WAS CONFIRMED THAT WE DIDN'T HAVE A CONCERNED AREA.

MR. NICHOLSON: IS THERE ANY INDICATION THAT

THERE'S BEEN SOIL MOVED AROUND AT DEPTH? I WAS JUST INTERESTED

IN, YOU KNOW, YOU WERE FINDING STUFF FIVE AND SIX FEET DEEP.

MR. BARTMAN: NO, WE HAVE NO INDICATION.

LIKE I SAID, WE DID FIVE TEST PITS. I BELIEVE THEY WERE 20 FEET

IN LENGTH, 10 FOOT IN DEPTH AND THREE FOOT WIDE. AND THOSE TEST

PITS WERE COMPLETED IN AREAS WHERE OUR SOIL BORINGS — DURING

OUR SOIL BORING EXCAVATION THAT THEY CAME UP EITHER WITH SOME

TYPE OF BRIGHT OR BLACKENED DIRT OR STAINED DIRT. SO, WE

CENTRALIZED OUR TEST PITS IN THOSE AREAS.

USUALLY THE BURNING ACTIVITIES CONDUCTED AT THE BASE .

WERE JUST ON THE SURFACE AND THIS MATERIAL WAS SCRAPED TO THE

SIDE AND NOT BURIED. AND WE HAVE ANOTHER BURN DUMP THAT WE HAVE

JUST PERFORMED AN INVESTIGATION ON WITH SIMILAR PRACTICES.

THERE WAS A REPORTED ASBESTOS REMOVAL COMPLETED IN THE

EARLY '80S, I BELIEVE. I THINK IT WAS 100 CUBIC YARDS OF

March 7, 1996
-------
|
Q.
<
o
8

25
Page
ASBESTOS, OR FEET.

MR. MORRIS:

MR. BARTMAN:
FEET, I THINK.

YEAH. OF ASBESTOS. AND
THERE'S NOT ANY RECORDS OF WHERE IT WAS REMOVED TO, BUT IT WAS

REMOVED FROM THE SITE, FROM THE SURFACE OF THIS SITE.

HAVE WE FOUND — I GUESS IF WE FIND CONTAMINATION IN

THE SHALLOW GROUNDWATER, THEN WE'LL HAVE TO REASSESS WHAT WE

NEED TO DO HERE.
QUESTIONS, COMMENTS?

MR. MORRIS:

WHERE WAS THAT IN THE ~

MR. BARTMAN:

THE UP GRADED SAND.
GONE UP?
MR. MORRIS:
MR. BARTMAN:
YOUR HIT OF 1,1,2,2 PCA,
(INTERPOSING.) THAT WAS IN
OKAY. BUT WHERE THE CREW HAS
YEAH. THERE WAS NOT SITE
GRADING OR DOWNGRADING AT THE SITE. IT WAS UPGRADED.
MS. TOWNSEND:
IT'S A POSSIBLE SITE OF
GRADING UP THERE? DO WE HAVE ALL THE UPGRADING?
MR. BARTMAN:

MS. TOWNSEND:

MR. MORRIS:
SITE SEVEN IS UPGRADED.

SITE SEVEN?

THERE'S A VEHICLE WASH AREA
THAT'S A LITTLE WAYS UP FROM THERE WHICH IS STILL QUITE A WAYS

DOWN FROM SITE SEVEN. SO, SOMETHING MIGHT BE COMING FROM THERE
MR. BARTMAN:
ANYTHING OF THAT
March 7, 1996
-------
2
i
oc
1

25
VERY TIDAL.

VERY TIDAL.

YOU GO IN ABOUT TWO FEET,

I'D SAY ONE TO ONE AND A HALF

YOU KNOW, THERE'S ABOUT TWO

THIS IS ONE OF THE FEW SITES
Page 12

CONCENTRATION WE FIND IN NORTHEAST CREEK, AND THAT'S HIGHLY, I

WOULD SAY, I THINK, TURBULENT, THAT'S A TURBULENT AREA, LOT OF

WATER INFLUENCE.

MR. PAUL:

MR. BARTMAN:

MR. DUNN:

DON'T YOU?

MR. LOUGHMILLER:

FEET IN THAT AREA.

MR. DUNN:

OF THEM CLOSE TO THE GROUND.

MR. BARTMAN:

WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO GO NO ACTION. I CAN ONLY THINK OF ONE OTHER

SITE THAT WE'VE GONE NO ACTION BEFORE. MOST SITES ARE EITHER

DOING INCIDENT CONTROLS THROUGH LONG-TERM MONITORING. NOW WE'VE

GOTTEN INTO RECLASSIFICATION OF THE GROUNDWATER, SHIFTED USE OF

GROUNDWATER OR SOME TYPE OF REMEDIATION ALTERNATIVE. SO WE'RE

DOING OUR HOMEWORK. AND LIKE I SAID, ON ONE OF THOSE LONG TRIPS

WITH PATRICK, HE COULD FILL YOU IN ON EVERY ONE OF THOSE SITES,

AND WHERE WE'VE GONE TO AND WHAT WORK WE'VE DONE. THIS IS NOT

THE NORM. WE'RE USUALLY DOING SOME TYPE OF REMEDIAL

ALTERNATIVE.

MR. PAUL: ANYTHING ELSE?

MR. LOUGHMILLER: I WAS WONDERING HOW YOU GET

THE FISH FLOWING IN THE SUMMER TIME.

March 7, 1996
-------
Q
Z
o
i
O
1
2
3
4
MR. BARTMAN:
MR. LOUGHMILLER:
MR. BARTMAN:
Page i
DID I SAY THE FISH FLOWING?
YEAH.
FISH SWIMMING.
(WHEREUPON, THESE PROCEEDINGS CONCLUDED AT 7:34 P.M.)
March 7, 1996
-------
o
z
o
m
Page 14

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

COUNTY OF NEW HANOVER

CERTIFICATE

I, STACY TONE, CCR, NOTARY PUBLIC, DO HEREBY CERTIFY

THAT THE FOREGOING PUBLIC HEARING WAS TAKEN BY ME AND

TRANSCRIBED UNDER MY DIRECTION; AND THAT THE FOREGOING 13 PAGES

CONSTITUTE A TRUE AND CORRECT TRANSCRIPT OF SAID PROCEEDINGS.

I DO FURTHER CERTIFY THAT I AM NOT COUNSEL FOR, OR IN

THE EMPLOYMENT OF'ANY OF THE PARTIES TO THIS ACTION, NOR AM I

INTERESTED IN THE RESULTS OF THIS ACTION.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I HAVE HEREUNTO SET MY HAND THIS

19TH DAY OF MARCH 1996.
STACY TOMB, CCR

NOTARY PUBLIC FOR THE STATE OF

NORTH CAROLINA
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: SEPTEMBER 13, 2000
March 7, 1996
-------