PB97-963810
EPA/541/R-97/084
January 1998
EPA Superfund
Record of Decision:
Naval Weapons Station Earle
(Site A) OU 1,
Colts Neck, NJ
9/25/1997
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
OPERABLE UNIT 1 (OU-1)
SITES 4 AND 5
NAVAL WEAPONS STATION EARLE
Colts Neck, New Jersey
Northern Division
Naval Facilities Engineering Command
Contract No. N62472-90-D-1298
Contract Task Order 279
AUGUST 1997
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
NAVAL WEAPONS STATION EARLE
OPERABLE UNIT 1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PART I • DECLARATION
SECTION
I. SITE NAME AND LOCATION
II. STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE
III. ASSESSMENT OF THE SITE
IV. DESCRIPTION OF THE SELECTED REMEDY
V. STATUTORY DETERMINATION
PART II - DECISION SUMMARY
I. SITE NAME, LOCATION, AND DESCRIPTION
II. SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY
III. HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
IV. SCOPE AND ROLE OF OPERABLE UNIT 1
V. SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTIC
VI. SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS
VII. REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVES
viu. DESCRIPTION OF REMEDIAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES
IX. SUMMARY OF COOPERATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
X. THE SELECTED REMEDY
XI. STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
XII. DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES
-------
II.
III.
RECORD OF DECISION
NAVAL WEAPONS STATION EARLE
OPERABLE UNIT 1
TABLE OF CONTENTS{Contlnuad>
PART III . RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
OVERVIEW
BACKGROUND ON COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT
SUMMARY OF MAJOR QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE
1
2
3
4
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
DESCRIPTION
Site 4 Groundwater
Comparison of Site-Related Metals Concentrations to Background
Concentrations - Site 4
Site 5 Groundwater
Comparison of Site-Related Metals Concentrations to Background
Concentrations - Site 5
Summary of Estimated RME Cancer Risks and Noncarcinogenic Hazard
Indices • Site 4
Summary of Central Tendency Cancer Risks and Noncarcinogenic Hazard
Indices - Site
RME Carcinogenic Risk to Future Residential Receptors -Site 5
Central Tendency Carcinogenic Risk to Future Residential Receptors - Site 5
Site 4 - Screening of Remedial Alternatives
Site 5 - Screening of Remedial Alternatives
Site 4 - Comparative Analysis of Remedial Action Alternatives
Site 5 - Comparative Analysis of Remedial Action Alternatives
Potential Federal Chemical-Specific ARARs and TBCs
Potential State Chemical-Specific ARARs and TBCs
Potential Federal Location-Specific ARARs and TBCs
Potential State Location-Specific ARARs and TBCs
Potential Federal Action-Specific ARARs and TBCs
Potential State Action-Specific ARARs and TBCs
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE DESCRIPTION
1 Regional Site Map
2° Mainside Site Locations
3 Site 4 - Landfill West of "0" Group
4 Site 5 - Landfill West of Army Barricades
5 Groundwater Contour map - Site 4 (August 7,1995)
6 Groundwater Contour map - Site 4 (October 17,1995)
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
NAVAL WEAPONS STATION EARLE
OPERABLE UNIT 1
TABLE OF CONTENTSfContinuedl
LIST OF FIGURES
ElfiUJJE DESCRIPTION
7 Groundwater Contour map - Site 4 (August 7,1995)
8 Groundwater Contour map - Site 5 (August 7,1995)
9 Concentrations above Screening levels - Site 4
10 Concentrations Above Screening Levels • Site 5
11 Plan View of Proposed Cover System • Site 4
12 Plan View of Proposed Cover System • Site 5
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A Terms Used in the Record of Decision
Appendix B Attendance List - April 24,1997 Public Meeting
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
NAVAL WEAPONS STATION EARLE
OPERABLE UNIT 1 (SITES 4 AND 5)
PART I - DECLARATION
I. SITE NAME AND LOCATION
Naval Weapons Station Earie
Colts Neck, Monmouth County, New Jersey
II. STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE
This Record of Decision (ROD) presents the remedial action alternative selected for Operable
Unit-1(OU-1), to address soil and groundwater contamination at the Naval Weapons Station
(NWS) Earie Site, located in Colts Neck, New Jersey (Site).. OU-1 includes the landfill west of "D"
group (Site 4) and the landfill west of the Army barricades (Site 5), which were grouped together
based on similarities of waste volumes, types of contaminants, and the potential for contaminants
to migrate to human and/or environmental receptors.
This remedial action decision is in accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) as amended by the Superfund Amendments
and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA) and the National Oil and Hazardous Substances
Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). This decision document explains the factual and legal basis
for selecting the remedial action and is based on the Administrative Record for OU-1. Reports
and other information used in the remedy selection process are part of the Administrative Record
file for OU-1, which Js available at the Monmouth County Library, Eastern Branch, Route 35,
Shrewsbury, New Jersey.
The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) has commented on the
selected remedy, and their comments have been incorporated into this ROD. A review of the
public response to the Proposed Plan is included in the Responsiveness Summary (Part III) of this
decision document.
DOCS/NAVY/7452/067008 |-1
-------
III. ASSESSMENT OF THE SITE
Pursuant to duly delegated authority, I hereby determine, pursuant to Section 106 of CERCLA, 42
U.S.C. § 9606, that actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from OU-1. as
discussed in Section VI (Summary of Site Risks) of this ROD, if not addressed by implementing
the remedial action selected in this ROD, may present an imminent and substantial endangerment
to public health, welfare, or the environment.
IV. DESCRIPTION OF THE SELECTED REMEDY
The Department of the Navy (Navy) and the United States Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), in consultation with the NJDEP, have selected the following remedy for OU-1. Sites 4 and
5. The remedy addresses capping of each landfill, institutional controls, and long-term
groundwater monitoring. The selected remedy for Sites 4 and 5 includes the following major
components.
1. Regrading of each landfill and installation of a cap over each landfill to reduce infiltration,
promote drainage, limit erosion, and preclude potential contact with the landfill contents.
2. Establishing Classification Exception Areas (CEAs) immediately adjacent to the landfills to
bar the use of groundwater during the remediation period.
3. Providing long-term periodic groundwater monitoring.
While the remedial action objective (RAO) for groundwater protection would not be immediately
achieved, risks would be reduced in relation to background by the reduction of infiltration and
continued monitoring to evaluate contaminant trends. Long-term periodic monitoring and analysis
would determine when the RAO would be achieved.
V. STATUTORY DETERMINATION
The selected remedy is protective of human health and the environment and is cost effective. The
Navy and EPA believe that the selected remedy will comply with all Federal and State
requirements that are legally applicable or relevant and appropriate to the remedial action. The
selected remedy utilizes a permanent solution to the maximum extent practicable.
DOCS/NAVY/7452/067008 (-2
-------
Because this remedy will result in hazardous substances remaining on site above
health-based levels, a review by the Navy, EPA, and NJOEP will be conducted within
five years after initiation of the remedial action to ensure that the remedy continues to
provide adequate protection of human health and the environment.
Jeanne M. Fox' ,^r^ t
Regional A
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
NAVAL WEAPONS STATION EARLE
OPERABLE UNIT 1
SITES 4 AND 5
PART II - DECISION SUMMARY
I. SITE NAME, LOCATION, AND DESCRIPTION
A. General
NWS Earte is located in Monmouth County, New Jersey, approximately 47 miles south of New York
City. The station consists of two areas, the 10,248-acre Main Base (Mainside area), located inland,
and the 706-acre Waterfront area (Figure 1). The two areas are connected by a Navy-controlled
right-of-way.
The facility was commissioned in 1943, and its primary mission is to supply ammunition to the naval
fleet An estimated 2,500 people either work or live at the NWS Eahe station.
The Mainside area is located approximately 10 miles inland from the Atlantic Ocean at Sandy Hook
Bay in Colts Neck Township, which has a population of approximately 6,500 people. The
surrounding area includes agricultural land, vacant land, and low-density housing. The Mainside
area consists of a large, undeveloped portion associated with ordnance operations, production, and
storage; this portion is encumbered by explosive safety quantity distance arcs. Other land use in the
Mainside area consists of residences, offices, workshops, warehouses, recreational space, open
space, and undeveloped land. The Waterfront area is located adjacent to Sandy Hook Bay in
Middtetown Township, which has a population of approximately 68,200 people. The Mainside and
Waterfront areas are connected by a narrow strip of land which serves as a government-controlled
right of way containing a road and railroad.
Operable Unit 1 (OU-1) consists of two former landfills located in the Mainside area: the landfill west
of *D" group (Site 4) and the landfill west of the Army barricades (Site 5)(Figure 2). The OU-1 sites
were grouped together based on similarities of waste volumes, types of contaminants, and the
potential for contaminants to migrate to human and/or environmental receptors. A brief description of
each of these sites follows.
DOCS/NAVY/7452/067008 ||--|
-------
I
s
NWS EARLE
WATERFRONT AREA
ATLANTIC OCEAN
STATE OF NEW JERSEY
i COUNTY
DRAWN BY
URU
DMt
1/7/97
DMt
1/7/97
COSI/
SCALE
NOT TO SCAIE
Brown te Root Environmental
REGIONAL SITE MAP
NAVAL WEAPONS STATION EARL£
COLTS NECK. NEW JERSEY
M-2
OJNTWCT NO.
OWNER NO.
wti
C _ I ,t
APPROVED BT
DATE
DRAWING NO.
FIGURE 1
REV.
-------
p
I
(D SITE LOCATION
--•— STREAM WITH FLOW DIRECTION
5.000
SCALE IN FEET
10.000
DRAWN BY Mil
MRM 1/7/97
CHECKED
RET
^ OAtE
1/7/97
COST/SCHED.-AREA
SCAIE
f-5000'
Brown It Root Environmental
MAINSIDE SITE LOCAHONS
NAVAL WEAPONS STATION EARLE
COLTS NECK. NEW JERSEY
11-3
CONIRACI NO.
APPROVED BY
OWNLR NO.
DATE
APPROVED BY
DRAWING NO.
RGURE 2
REV
-------
B. Site 4: Landfill West of "D" Group
Site 4 is a 5-acre landfill that received approximately 10,200 tons of mixed domestic and industrial
wastes from 1943 until 1960 (Figure 3). Disposed materials include metal scrap, construction debris.
pesticide and herbicide containers, paint residues, and rinsewaters. It has been reported that
containers of paint paint thinners, varnishes, shellacs, acids, alcohols, caustics, and asbestos may
have been disposed. The landfilled materials are currently covered by a thin layer of sandy soil.
C. Site 5: Landfill West of Army Barricades
This landfill received approximately 6,600 tons of mixed domestic and industrial wastes between
1968 and 1978 (Figure 4). Wastes included paper, glass, plastics, construction debris, pesticide and
herbicide containers, containers of paint paint thinners. varnishes, shellacs, acids, alcohols,
caustics, and small amounts of asbestos. The landfilled materials are currently covered by a sand
and vegetated soil layer ranging in depth from 1 to 3 feet Approximately 1 acre of the site is used as
a skeet shooting range.
II. SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTMTY
Potential hazardous substance releases at NWS Earte were addressed in an Initial Assessment
Study (IAS) in 1982, a Site Inspection Study (SI) in 1986. and a Phase I Remedial Investigation (Rl)
in 1993. These were preliminary investigations to determine the number of sources, compile
histories of waste-handling and disposal practices at the sites, and acquire data on the types of
contaminants present and potential human health and/or environmental receptors. The Rl
investigation at Sites 4 and 5 included the installation and sampling of monitoring wells, collection of
surface water and sediment samples, and excavation of test pits to observe wastes and sample
subsurface soils.
In 1990. NWS Earte was placed on the National Priorities List (NPL), which is a list of sites where
uncontrolled hazardous substance releases may potentially present serious threats to human health
and the environment The sites at NWS Earte were then addressed by Phase II Rl activities to
determine the nature and extent of contamination at these sites. Activities included installation
and sampling of groundwater monitoring wells, surface water and sediment sampling, and
surface and subsurface soil sampling. The Phase II Rl was initiated in 1995 and completed in July
1996, when the final Rl report was released.
DOCS/NAVYf7452/067008
-------
K*Oa>EARUE\EM«.vroi.MXI 11FEB47 MJJ 5*4
N
APPROXIMATE
LANDFILL
?'JNDARY
EROSION AREA
EXPOSED DEBRIS
MONITORING WELL
HYDROPUNCH
SEDIMENT
SURFACE WATE*
SAMPLE LOCATIONS
SITE 4 - LANDFILL WEST OF "D" GROUP
200 0 200 400 Feet
11-5
FIGURE 3
Brown & Root Environmental
-------
N
APPROXIMATE
LANDFILL
BOUNDARY
SAMPLE LOCATIONS
SCTE S - LANDFILL WEST OF ARMY BARRICADES
150 0 150 300 F«e«
FIGURE 4
Srown & Foot Environmental
H-6
-------
The results of the Rl were used as the basis for performing a feasibility study (FS) of potential
remedial alternatives. The Navy and EPA, in consultation with NJDEP, developed the proposed
remedial action plan (Proposed Plan). The Proposed Plan is the basis for the selected remedial
alternative presented in this ROD, and is based on the alternatives development from the FS. The
Rl, FS, Proposed Plan, and Community input are discussed in this ROD.
III. HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
The documents that the Navy and EPA used to develop, evaluate, and select a remedial alternative
for OU-1 have been maintained at the Monmouth County Library (Eastern Branch), Route 35,
Shrewsbury, New Jersey.
The Feasibility Study Report, Proposed Plan, and other documents related to OU-1 were released to
the public on March 21, 1997. The notice of availability of these documents was published in the
Asbury Park Press on April 18,20, and 21,1997. A public comment period was held from March 21,
1997 to April 30. 1997.
A public meeting was held during the public comment period on April 24, 1997. At this meeting,
representatives from the Navy and EPA were available to answer questions about OU-1 and the
remedial alternatives under consideration. Results of the public comment period are included in the
Responsiveness Summary, which is Part III of this ROD.
IV. SCOPE AND ROLE OF RESPONSE ACTION FOR OPERABLE UNIT 1
The Department of the Navy completed an Rl, FS and Proposed Plan for OU-1, addressing
contamination associated with Sites 4 and 5 at NWS Earie. These studies had shown that
groundwater and soils in the areas of the former landfills had been contaminated with metals and low
levels of organic solvent compounds. The final remedial action to address site contamination at
each landfill is described in this document.
V. SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS
A. General
NWS Earie is located in the coastal lowlands of Monmouth County, New Jersey, within the Atlantic
Coastal Plain Physiographic Province. The Mainside area, which includes OU-1, lies in the outer
DOCS/NAVY/7452/067008 ||-7
-------
Coastal Plain, approximately 10 miles inland from the Atlantic Ocean. The Mainside area is relatively
flat with elevations ranging from approximately 100 to 300 feet above mean sea level (MSL). The
most significant topographic relief within the Mainside area is Hominy Hills, a northeast-southwest-
trending group of tow hills located near the center of the station.
The rivers and streams draining NWS Earte ultimately discharge to the Atlantic Ocean, which is
approximately 9 or 10 mites east of the Mainside area. The headwaters and drainage basins of
three major Coastal Plain rivers (Swimming, Manasquan, and Shark) originate on the Mainside area.
The northern half of the Mainside is in the drainage basin of the Swimming River, and tributaries
include Mine Brook, Hockhockson Brook, and Pine Brook. The southwestern portion of the Mainside
drains to the Manasquan River via either Marsh Bog Brook or Mingamahone Brook. The
southeastern comer of the Mainside drains to the Shark River. Both the Swimming River and the
Shark River supply water to reservoirs used for public water supplies.
NWS Earte is situated in the Coastal Plain Physiographic Province of New Jersey. The New Jersey
Coastal Plain is a seaward-dipping wedge of unconsolidated Cretaceous to Quaternary sediments
that were deposited on a pre-Cretaceous basement-bedrock complex. The Coastal Plain sediments
are primarily composed of clay, silt, sand, and gravel and were deposited in continental, coastal, and
marine environments. The sediments generally strike northeast-southwest and dip to the southeast
at a rate of 10 to 60 feet per mite. The approximate thickness of these sediments beneath NWS
Earte is 900 feet. The pre-Cretaceous complex consists mainly of PreCambrian and lower Paleozoic
crystalline rocks and metamorphic schists and gneisses. The Cretaceous to Miocene Coastal Plain
Formations are either exposed at the surface or subcrop in a banded pattern that roughly parallels
the shoreline. The outcrop pattern is caused by the erosion truncation of the dipping sedimentary
wedge. Where these formations are not exposed, they are covered by essentially flat-lying post-
Miocene surficial deposits.
Groundwater classification areas were established in New Jersey under New Jersey Department of
Environmental Projection (NJOEP) Water Technical Programs Groundwater Quality Standards in
New Jersey Administrative Code (N.J.A.C.) 7:9-6. The Mainside area is located in the Class II-A:
Groundwater Supporting Potable Water Supply area. Class II-A includes those areas where
groundwater is an existing source of potable water with conventional water supply treatment or is a
potential source of potable water. In the Mainside area, in general, the deeper aquifers are used for
public water supplies and the shallower aquifers are used for domestic supplies.
DOCS/NAVY/7452/067008 ||-8
-------
OU-1 is situated in the recharge area of the Kirkwood-Cohansey aquifer system. The Kirkwood-
Cohansey aquifer system is a source of water in Monmouth County and is composed of the
generally unconfined sediments of the Cohansey Sand and Kirkwood Formation. The Kirkwood-
Cohansey aquifer system has been reported in previous investigations as being used for residential
wells in the Mainside area. Along the coast, this aquifer system is underlain by thick diatomaceous
clay beds of the Kirkwood Formation.
All facilities located in the Mainside Administration area are connected to a public water supply (New
Jersey American Water Company). Water for the public supply network comes from surface water
intakes, reservoirs, and deep wells. No public water supply wells or surface water intakes are
located on the NWS Earte facility. A combination of private wells and public water supply from the
New Jersey American Water Company serves businesses and residences in areas surrounding the
Mainside facilities. There are a number of private wells located within a 1-mile radius of NWS Earte
and several within the NWS Earte boundaries. The majority of these wells are used for potable
supplies; previous testing for drinking water parameters indicates these wells have not been
adversely impacted.
There is a rich diversity of ecological systems and habitats at NWS Earie. Knieskem's beaked-rush
(Rynchospora knieskemii). a sedge species on the federal endangered list has been seen on the
station, and some species on the New Jersey endangered list such as the swamp pink /Helonias
bullata). may be present. An osprey has visited Mainside and may nest in another area at NWS
Earie. The Mingamahone Brook supports bog turtles downstream of the Mainside area and provides
an appropriate habitat for them at the Mainside area.
B. Surface Water Hydrology
1. Stte_4
Site 4 is an open area surrounded by woodlands. The ground surface slopes slopes downward to
the southeast from approximately 170 feet above mean sea level (MSL) near MW4-01 to
approximately 150 feet above MSL at MW4-06. A broad, tow-lying wetland extends from the eastern
portion of Site 4 beyond the unpaved boundary road. Surface water flow is to the east and east-
southeast toward the wetland.
DOCS/NAVW7452/067008 ||-9
-------
A small drainage ditch is located approximately 100 feet west of the dirt road that borders the
western edge of the site, and water is present in the ditch only after periods of heavy rainfall. The
closest surface water is a tributary of Hockhockson Brook, located approximately 1.000 feet east of
Site 5. The site is located on the border of the Hockhockson Brook and Pine Brook watersheds.
The topography of the site is flat, inhibiting off-site runoff, therefore, precipitation perches and
infiltrates on the site. No surface seeps exist at the landfill.
C. Geology
1. Srte4
Regional mapping places Site 4 within the outcrop area of the Cohansey Sand. The Cohansey Sand
ranges between 0 and 30 feet in thickness and the soil borings are no more than 35 feet deep. The
lithology of the sediments encountered in the on-site borings generally agrees with the published
description of the Cohansey Sand. The thickness of the sediments penetrated in the on-site borings
indicates the Cohansey Sand may have a regional thickness of greater than 30 feet In general, the
borings encountered alternating beds of light-colored, silty, fine- to coarse-grained sand with varying
amounts of gravel. A 0.5-foot reddish-yellow clay seam was penetrated in one of the borings.
SiteS
Regional mapping places Site 5 within the outcrop area of the Kirkwood Formation. The Kirkwood
Formation ranges between 60 and 100 feet in thickness. The lithology of the soils encountered in
the on-site borings generally agrees with the published descriptions of the Kirkwood and Vmcentown
Formations. The on-site borings were no greater than 55 feet deep. Assuming a portion of the
Kirkwood Formation was removed by erosion, it is possible that at least one of the soil borings
penetrated the underlying Vmcentown Formation. In general, the borings encountered brown and
gray, very fine- to medium-grained sand and dark-colored silt (probably representative of the
Kirkwood Formation) and olive and olive brown, slightly glauconitic, fine- to coarse-grained sand
(probably representative of the Vmcentown Formation). The Mainside area is located above the
updip limit of the Piney Point, Shark River, and Manasquan Formations; therefore, the glauconitic
sand is interpreted to be part of the Vincentown Formation.
DOCS/NAVY/7452/067008 IMO
-------
D. Hydrogeology
1. Site 4
Groundwater in the Cohansey aquifer beneath the site occurs under unconfined conditions. Static-
water-level measurements and water-table elevations were recorded in August and October 1995.
Groundwater contour maps are presented in Figure 5 (August 1995) and Figure 6 (October 1995).
The direction of shallow groundwater flow in the aquifer, as indicated by both the August and
October groundwater elevations, is toward the east and east-southeast There does not appear to
be a significant seasonal variation in groundwater flow direction. The hydraulic conductivity
calculated for MW4-04 is 4.48 x 10~* cm/sec (1.27 ft/day).
2. SlteS
Based upon the boring log descriptions, well MW5-06 penetrated the Kirkwood Formation, wells
MW5-02, MW5-03, MW5-05, MW5-07, and MW5-08 penetrated both the Kirkwood and Vmcentown
Formations, and wells MW5-01 and MW5-4 penetrated the Vincentown Formation.
Groundwater in the Kirkwood and Vincentown aquifer beneath the site occurs under unconfined
conditions and the formations are interpreted to be hydraulically interconnected. Groundwater
contour maps are presented in Figure 7 (August 1995) and Figure 8 (October 1995). The direction
of shallow groundwater flow in the aquifer is toward the northeast. There does not appear to be a
significant seasonal variation in groundwater flow direction. The hydraulic conductivities calculated
for MW5-02 (Kirkwood and Vincentown Formation), MW5-06 (Kirkwood Formation), and MW5-07
(Vincentown Formation) are 3.18 x 10* cm/sec (0.90 ft/day), 6.46 x 10"* cm/sec (1.83 ft/day), and
2.08 x 10"4 cm/sec (0.59 ft/day), respectively.
E. Nature and Extent of Contamination
1. Site 4
a. IAS and SI Results
The IAS determined that hazardous materials were potentially present and could impact
groundwater. The SI detected low levels of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), semivolatile organic
DOCS/NAVYtf452/067008
-------
Oi\OATA\CAQO\5Bg3\5efl«-WH.DCN 86/27/96 TAO
LAKE EARLE
" .Wv
MW4-07
146.91
SMW4-05
\146.76
MW4-04®
152.33
L£"ND
GHCUNC-ATER CONTOUR
CONTOUR INTERVAL = L« FOOT
SROUNDWATER FVC. DIRECTION
E LANCF:_L BOUNDARY
MONITORING WELL LOCATION
GROUNOWATER ELEVAT'X IN FEET
ABOVE MEAN SEA LEvEl.
WETLANDS
WETLANDS OEL.'NEATION SOURCE
NJDEP (SEi SECTION ..5)
OLC jTREAM COVERAGE
SOURCE! USCS 4ESTON. VA
OROINACE
SOURCEi USCS -RENTCN. >J
GROUNDWATER CONTOURS MAP AUGUST 7.
SITE 4 - LANDFILL WEST QF 'D* GROUP
8 • 2BB
-------
Oi\OATA\CAOO\5ae3\5Be«-WL2.DCH B6/22/"* TAO
LAKE EARLE
MW4-07
146.09
MW4-05
146.03
MW4-
149.18
MW4-04
151.11
LEGEND
GROUNOWATCR CONTOUR
CONTOUR INTERVAL < 1.0 FOOT
GROUNOMATER FLOW DIRECTION
. _ _ - APPROXIMATE LANDFILL BOUNDARY
"ONITORING WELL LOCATION
GROUNOWATER ELEVATION IN F££T
ABOVE MEAN SEA LEVEL
METLANDS
OELirCATION SOURCE
*JDEP (SEE SECTION l.Sl
C-.C STREAM COVERAGE
SOURCEt '.SCS RESTON. v»
DRAINAGE OIVtOE DELINEATION
SOURCE: USGS
HROUNDWATFR
CONTDLiR
FIGURE 6
11-13
Brown & Root Environmental
-------
LEGEND
GROUNOWATER CONTOUR
CONTOUR INTERVAL - 0.20 FOOT
GROUNDWATER FLOW DIRECTION
MONITORING WELL LOCATION
.„ GROUWWATER ELEVATION. IN
FEET ABOVE MEAN SEA LEVEL
WETLANDS
P««WIM«TE LAICFILL
SOURCc NJOC° (SEC SECTION 1.5)
DEL
DRAINAGE
SOURCE JSGS
INEATION
R£NTON.NJ
GRQUNDWATEff CQNTCUR MAP AUGUST 7.
g 5 - LANDFILL WEST OF ARMY BARRICADES
• ise 300
»••
SCALE IN FEET
Brown & Root Environmental
-------
Ki\CMO\SJW\SM9-WL2.00N
MW5-04
87.89
W5/07
88.33
LEC-gNP
GRClttOWATER CONTOUR
CONTOUR INTERVAL > 8.20 FOOT
GROUNOWATER FLOW DIRECTION
MONITORING HELL LTCATION
GROUNOWATER ELEVATION, IN
WETLANDS
APPROXIMATE LANDFILL BOU>OARY
WETLONCS DELINEATION
SOURCE NJOEP (SEE SECTION 1.51
DRAINAGE OIVIOE OEL1KCATICN
.1CTQBEP
GRQUNPWATER CONTOUR MAP
5 - LANDFILL
a
SITE
W^ST
SCALE IN FEET
ARMY BARRICADES
389
H-15
Brown & Root Environmental
-------
compounds (SVOCs), polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB), and metals in sediment samples receiving
drainage from the site.
b. Phase I Remedial Investigation
During the Phase I Rl, groundwater samples showed VOCs, and subsurface soils showed elevated
levels of a single pesticide and total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH).
Six test pits were excavated to characterize the waste materials in the landfill. The waste consisted
primarily of metal scrap such as steel banding, pipes, and empty metal trash barrels. Lumber,
concrete, brick, and other construction debris were also encountered. No anomalous organic vapor
readings were detected in any of the test pits.
c. Phase II Remedial Investigation
Results of the Phase II Rl showed the presence of VOCs, including 1,2-dichloroethene (1,2-DCE)
and trichloroethene (TCE), vinyl chloride (VC), and elevated levels of metals, including aluminum,
iron, lead, and manganese in groundwater. Elevated levels of metals, including aluminum, iron, lead,
and manganese, and trace levels of pesticides, including akJrin and dieldrin, were detected in surface
water samples. A single SVOC, nitrobenzene, was also detected at an elevated level (66.0 ug/kg)
in a sediment sample. Figure 9 depicts sample locations and concentrations of compounds that
exceeded applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs) and other guidance to be
considered (TBCs). Table 1 summarizes the results of samples taken from groundwater compared
to applicable standards.
Natural background levels of metals in local soils and groundwater were determined during the Rl
using samples obtained from locations chosen as being isolated from former or present industrial or
military operations. In general, background sample locations were hydraulically upgradient or far
removed from potential sources of contamination. In order to compare site-related groundwater
metals concentrations found in a specific geologic formation to naturally ocurring (background) levels
found in the similar distinct geological formation, some existing facility monitoring well sample results
were selected for use as "background". All monitoring wells used in the calculation of background-
concentrations were deemed to have been installed in "background" locations (upgradient of Rl
sites). The Navy, EPA, and NJDEP collaborated in the selection of all background sample locations.
The process of background concentration determination and statistical evaluation is presented in
DOCS/NAVW7452/067008 ||-16
-------
0I\OATA\CAOO\5BB3NSW4-TeLOGN 93/26/96 MJJ
04SV03
4.6 ug/L
14.9 ug/L
22£ ug/L
&28 ug/L
04CW05
aluminum 26S0J ug/L
iron 7680 ug/L
U2-diohloroathana ItotaU 1«).0 ug/L
triohloroatSana 55.0 ug/L
MW4-05
04SW4B5
Uod
mwoury
4.6 ug/L
0.835 ug/L
04S04B5
mtrobanzana 66.0J ug/Kg
MW4-04 '
\\
04GW02
aluninum 923J ug/L
-an 20900 ug/L
..»igan*»« 3C6 ug/L
.-dichlorc«th«n« (total) 2E.0 ug/L
vinyl ohlorid* 3AJ ug/L
\\
04SW02
nwroury 0.0S3 ug/L
thallium 8.3 ug/L
bi»(2-*thylh«xuUphthalat* 26.0 ug/L
04SW01
LEGEND
APPROXIMATE LANDFILL BOUNDARY
9 MONITORING WELL LOCATION
* SURF flCEWATER AND SEDIMENT
SAMPLE LOCATION
• SURFACEWATER SAMPLE LOCATION
$ HYOROPUNCH SAMPLE LOCATION
— WETLANDS
WETLANDS DELINEATION SOURCE
NJOEP :t.l SECTION 1.9)
DLO S-REAM COVERAGE
SOURCt.USGS RESTON.VA
MW4-03
04GW06
ooppar
laad
maroury
2JB ug/L
13.4 ug/L
1L4 ug/L
0.10 ugA.
ug/L
aluminum
iron
578J ug/L
6*7 ug/L
CQNCENTRAT1QNS ABOVE SCREENING LEVELS
4 - LANDFILL WEST OF '0'GRQUP
zee 40e
"IGURE 9
SCALE IN FEET
li-17
Brown & Root Environmental
-------
TABLE 1
SITE4GROUNDWATER
NWS EARLE. COLTS NECK, NEW JERSEY
INORGANICS (UG/L)
ALUMINUM
IRON
MANGANESE
Maximum
Exceedance*
2690
20900
300
Frequency
of
Eceedanoe
ARARs and TBCe
Maximum
Contamination
Level (MCL)
(uo/l) -
5/6
4/6
in
VOLATILES(UGA)
TRICHLOKOETH! NE
VINYL CHI ORIOr
55
3
1/6
1/8
-
•
•
Dhnking Water
Health
Advisory
(lowest
Tuterion
Shown)
- .
•
•
NJOEP
Groundwater
Quality
Standard
(ug/l.)
200
300
SO
5
2
-
lOe
1
5
Data Exceeding ARARi
04GWD1
1995 Rl
7/2S/9S
04GW02
1995 Rl
7I26I9S
04GW04
1995 Rl
7/25/95
04GWOS
1995 Rl
7/25/95
1590 J
554
923 J
20900
306
1490 J
2690 J
7680
04GW06
1995 Rl
7/25/85
578 J
647
04GW07
199SRI
8/22795
3
55
J » Value is estimated because (he concentration Is below Die laboratory contract quanUUtion limit or because of data validation control quality criteria.
e = The listed health advisory, long-term child. Is equal to the) most strnio^rtoi the EJ»Aheaimao\rtso»1es tor this chemical.
tS/NAVY/7452/067008
11-18
-------
Section 31 of the Rl report. Table 2 summarizes the range of background metals concentrations
found in groundwater versus the range of concentrations found on site.
Metals in groundwater were found at concentrations similar to background levels, although iron was
detected in a downgradient well sample at a concentration greater than background and upgradient
levels. Compounds found in groundwater at concentrations greater than regulatory guidelines
included aluminum, iron, and manganese. However, there is no promulgated federal regulatory
standard for these common groundwater constituents. Also, as discussed in the Rl report some of
the metals concentrations found in groundwater samples may be attributable to sample turbidity
when the low-flow sampling technique did not achieve the sample collection endpoint turbidity goal.
In the case of Site 4, of six monitoring well samples collected, only one met the sample collection
endpoint turbidity goal and another came near the goal. The other four samples collected had
relatively high endpoint turbidity values, indicating that metals concentration results may be biased
high for groundwater samples collected at Site 4.
Organic compounds found in groundwater at levels above regulatory standards included
trichtoroethene and vinyl chloride, each in one monitoring well. Vinyl chloride was found at a
concentration (3 ug/L) slightly above the federal (and state) standard for human consumption of
groundwater (2 ug/L). Vinyl chloride was detected only during the Rl Phase II sampling, not during
any of the three rounds of Rl Phase I sampling. The presence of 1,2-dichtoroethene and vinyl
chloride, both degradation products of TCE, found slightly above (VC) or below (1,2-DCE) the
regulatory standard, indicates that contaminants leaching from the limited source area are degrading
with time.
d. Groundwater Modeling
Computer modeling estimated that Site 4 groundwater metals concentrations would gradually
diminish over a long period of time, assuming a source control measure, such as capping, would
be implemented to control vertical migration. The model estimated that metals concentrations at
the nearest potential discharge point, a stream located approximately 400 feet downgradient of
Site 4, would be well below either the state standard or background levels. The maximum
distance from Site 4 where metals concentrations in groundwater would remain above applicable
regulatory standards or background levels, was estimated to be 55 feet by the model. Surface
water samples taken from the watershed downgradient of Site 4 currently show no concentration of
compounds above background or regulatory standards.
DOCS/NAWY7452/067008 ||-19
-------
TABLE 2
COMPARISON OF SITE-RELATED METALS CONCENTRATION IN GROUNDWATER
TO BACKGROUND CONCENTRATIONS - SITE 4
NWS EARLE, COLTS NECK, NEW JERSEY
(H9/L)
SUBSTANCE
ALUMINUM
BARIUM
BERYLLIUM
CADMIUM
CALCIUM
CHROMIUM
COBALT
COPPER
IRON
LEAD
MAGNESIUM
MANGANESE
MERCURY
NICKEL
POTASSIUM
SODIUM
VANADIUM
ZINC
BACKGROUND
FREQUENCY OF
DETECTION
11/11
11/11
4/11
5/11
11/11
NOT DETECTED
6/11
9/11
11/11
3/11
11/11
11/11
11/11
10/11
11/11
11/11
10/11
6/9
RANGE OF
POSITIVE DETECTION
287- 7870
2.6-518
0.21 - 1.6
0.6-1.9
506-17200
0.7-10.1
0.79-13.5
153-7690
2.1-3
273 - 27400
3.3-65
0.005-0.12
0.81-25.5
350 - 3245
1850-11650
0.69-42.25
3.7 - 348
SITE-RELATED
FREQUENCY OF
DETECTION
6/6
6/6
2/6
4/6
6/6
3/6
2/6
6/6
6/6
3/6
6/6
6/6
6/6
5/6
6/6
6/6
1/6
5/6
RANGE OF
POSITIVE
DETECTION
107-2690
12.6-961
0.75-1.6
0.44 - 0.84
506-55000
1.3-5.4
0.69-1.1
1 - 18.3
75.3 - 20900
2.4-3
273 - 22000
12.8 - 306
0.005 - 0.079
1-4.6
350 - 9080
2290-5210
7.1
4- 558
AVERAGE
CONCENTRATION
1229
256
0.4
0.5
11841
1.8
0.5
5.6
5002
1.7
4436
70
0.03
2.2
2214
3393
1.4
162
tVY/7452/TABLE/067008
-------
In summary, results of investigations at Site 4 indicate that
• Metals found in groundwater at concentrations above New Jersey regulatory
standards were limited to aluminum, iron, and manganese. There is no
promulgated federal regulatory standard for these common groundwater
constituents.
• Metals concentration results may be biased high for groundwater samples collected
at Site 4 because of high sample endpoint turbidity values in four of the six samples
taken.
• Modeling estimated that metals in groundwater will migrate only very little, and
concentrations will diminish slowly with time.
TCE found in one monitoring well at a concentration greater than the EPA and New Jersey standard.
and its degradation products found approximately at (VC) or below (1,2-DCE) the regulatory
standard, indicate that contaminants leaching from the limited source area are degrading with time
and are not widely spread.
2. Site 5
a. (AS and SI Results
The IAS and SI concluded that a potential threat to groundwater existed at the site.
b. Phase I Remedial Investigation
The results of the Phase I Rl showed metals and VOCs in subsurface soil and groundwater
samples.
Four test pits were excavated to characterize the wastes that had been disposed at the landfill. A
layer of trash, ranging in thickness from 6 to 13 feet was encountered in all four test pits. The trash
consisted of foam rubber, glass, paper, plastic, metal scrap materials, lumber, concrete, bricks, and
other construction debris.
DOCS/NAVY/7452/067008 ||-21
-------
c. Phase II Remedial Investigation
The Phase II Rl indicated the presence of metals (e.g., aluminum, arsenic, cadmium, cobalt, iron)
and VOCs [1,2-dichloroethane (1,2-DCA), 1,2-DCE, TCE, benzene, ethylbenzene, xytene, vinyl
chloride] in groundwater samples, generally confirming previous findings. Figure 10 depicts sample
locations and concentrations of compounds that exceeded ARARs and TBCs. Table 3 summarizes
the results of samples taken from groundwater compared to applicable standards.
Natural background levels of metals in local soils and groundwater were determined during the Rl
using samples obtained from locations chosen as being isolated from former or present industrial or
military operations. In general, background sample locations were hydraulically upgradient or far
removed from potential sources of contamination. In order to compare site-related groundwater
metals concentrations found in a specific geologic formation to naturally occurring (background)
levels found in the similar distinct geological formation, some existing facility monitoring well sample
results were selected for use as 'background'. All monitoring wells used in the calculation of
background concentrations were deemed to have been installed in "background" locations
(upgradient of Rl sites). The Navy, EPA, and NJDEP collaborated in the selection of all background
sample locations. The process of background concentration determination and statistical evaluation
is presented in Section 31 of the Rl report Table 4 summarizes the range of background metals
concentrations found in groundwater versus the range of concentrations found on site.
Metals, including aluminum, cadmium, cobalt, chromium, iron, manganese, and nickel, were found in
groundwater at concentrations generally 1 to 1.5 times the corresponding background levels.
Aluminum in one monitoring well was found at a concentration approximately six times the highest
concentration found in a background groundwater sample. Beryllium was detected at a concentration
greater than background but near the instrument detection limit in one monitoring well, and thallium
was found in two upgradient well samples at tow levels, although it was not found in background.
Metals found in groundwater at concentrations greater than regulatory guidelines included aluminum,
cadmium, iron, manganese, nickel, and thallium. In the case of Site 5, of eight monitoring well
samples collected, four met the sample collection endpoint turbidity goal and the other four had
reasonably low endpoint turbidity values, indicating no probable general correlation between turbidity
and groundwater samples metals concentrations above regulatory standards or background.
Organic compounds found in groundwater at levels above regulatory standards included 1,2-DCA,
benzene, chloroform, and TCE. All four compounds were found at concentrations below the federal
standard for human consumption for potable water supplies, but slightly above the New Jersey
DOCS/NAVY/7452/067008 ||-22
-------
Ot\OATA\CflOO\S3B8\5ae5-TeiJCN 93/26/16 MJJ
468J ug/L
W80J ug/L
aluminum
iron
aluminum
iron
•ta
2740 ug/L
2310 ug/L
ITlugVL
5.6J ug/L
2600 ug/L
7.2 ug/L
5S200
aluminum
oodnuura
iron
manganaaa
7870J *
14S0J ug/L
banzarw
triohloroathana
24J ug/L
4AJ ug/L
aluminum
oadimum
iron
manganas*
ruokal
banzan*
42000 ug/L
ug/L
S140 ug/L
302 ug/L
102J ugA.
3JJ ug/L
triohloroathana 2JW ug/L
LEGEND
APPROXIMATE LANDFILL BOUNDARY
MONITORING WELL LOCATION
HYDROPUNCM SAOT.E LOCATION
WETLANDS
aluminum
iron
maneana ••
thallium
4310
453 ug/L
65.0 ug/L
5JJ ug/L
SOURCE NJDEP iSEE SECTION 1.5)
DRAINAGE OIVIOE OELMCATION
SOURCE USCS T%MT>. NJ
CONCENTRATIONS ABOVE SCREENING LEVLES
SITE 5 - LANDFILL WEST OF ARMY BARRICADES
158 308
•—••—=9
n-23
FIGURE 10
SCALE IN FEET
Brown & Root Environmental
-------
TABLE]
SITE S OROUNOWATER
NWS EARLE. COLTS NECK. NEW JERSEY
Mninun
LxnttiinoM
MOROAMCSIUMJ
ALUMINUM
CADMRJM
IRON
MANGANESE
NICKEL
THALLIUM
VOLATLESfUG/U
1.2-OICHLOROETHANE
BENZANE
CHLOROFORM
TRICHLOROETHENE
42000
B
59200
302
102
e
3
3
22
4
Frequency
or
Eoaedanoe
ARARi and TBC*
Maximum
Level (MCL)
nBm>w because rfo^tavaHo^tkxicontro
-------
TABLE4
COMPARISON OF SITE-RELATED METALS CONCENTRATION IN GROUNDWATER
TO BACKGROUND CONCENTRATIONS - SITE 5
NWS EARLE, COLTS NECK, NEW JERSEY
SUBSTANCE
ALUMINUM
ARSENIC
BARIUM
BERYLLIUM
CADMIUM
CALCIUM
CHROMIUM
COBALT
COPPER
IRON
LEAD
MAGNESIUM
MANGANESE
MERCURY
NICKEL
POTASSIUM
SODIUM
THALLIUM
VANADIUM
BACKGROUND
FREQUENCY OF
DETECTION
11/11
1/11
11/11
4/11
5/11
11/11
NOT DETECTED
6/11
9/11
11/11
3/11
11/11
11/11
11/11
10/11
11/11
11/11
3/11
10/11
RANGE OF
POSITIVE DETECTION
287- 7870
5.8 - 5.8
2.6-518
0.21-1.6
0.6-19
506-17200
0.7-10.1
0.79 - 13.5
153-7690
2.1-3
273 - 27400
3.3-65
0.005-0.12
0.81-25.5
350 - 3245
1850-11650
4-5.1
0.69 - 42.25
SITE-RELATED
FREQUENCY OF
DETECTION
8/8
1/8
8/8
4/8
7/8
8/8
8/8
5/8
5/8
8/8
3/8
8/8
8/8
8/8
7/8
8/8
8/8
3/8
7/8
RANGE OF
POSITIVE
DETECTION
468 - 42000
5:3
11-65.5
0.22-1.1
0.51-7.5
855 - 10300
4.7 - 33.4
3.8-29.6
0.98-2
331 - 59200
1.6-2.1
1170-6720
12.7 - 302
0.012-0.13
2.6 - 102
945 - 2850
3920 - 33300
3.9 - 5.6
1.2-10.8
AVERAGE
CONCENTRATION
7829
2.1
30.8
0.33
2.5
3893
11.3
7.8
0.9
10316
1.2
2792
100
0.07
25.7
1753
8970
3.0
4.5
DOCS/NAVW452/TABLE/067008
II-25
-------
standard. ICE and benzene were each found in two monitoring wells downgradient of the landfill.
Chloroform was found in one monitoring well upgradient of the landfill at a concentration above the
New Jersey standard.
d. Groundwater Modeling
Computer modeling estimated that Site 5 groundwater metal concentrations would gradually
diminish over a long period of time, assuming a source control measure, such as capping, would
be implemented to control vertical migration. The model estimated that metals concentrations at
the nearest potential discharge point, a stream located approximately 3,500 feet downgradient of
Site 5, would be well below either the state standard or background levels. Surface water
samples taken from the watershed downgradient of Site 5 currently show no concentrations of
compounds above background or regulatory standards.
In summary, results of investigations at Site 5 indicate that
• Metals concentrations in groundwater were found to be slightly higher than
background or the corresponding New Jersey standard (generally at 1 or 1.5 times
the corresponding background concentration).
• Modeling estimates that metals in groundwater will migrate only very little, and
concentrations will diminish slowly with time
• Thallium found at low concentrations in groundwater upgradient of the landfill does
not appear to be leaching from the landfill.
• Source control (e.g.. covering the landfill) would inhibit infiltration of water through
the landfill, preclude the leaching of additional metals and volatites, and promote
natural attenuation. Long-term monitoring would be required to evaluate the
effectiveness of source control.
• The low levels of 1,2-OCA and TCE found in groundwater downgradient of the
landfill are indicative of contaminants leaching from a limited source area that are
degrading with time and are not widely spread.
DOCS/NAVY/7452/067008 . II-26
-------
• The low level of chloroform found in one upgradient monitoring well does not appear
to be the result of a concentrated source in the area of the landfill.
After significant investigation over more than a decade, no concentrated source of VOCs has been
found at Site 5. It is unlikely that a concentrated source of VOC contamination exists in the landfilled
material.
VI. SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS
As part of the Phase II Rl, human health risk assessments and ecological risk assessments were
performed at OU-1. A four-step process is utilized for assessing site-related human health risks for a
reasonable maximum exposure scenario: Hazard Identification identifies the contaminants of
concern at the site based on several factors such as toxicity, frequency of occurrence, and
concentration. Exposure Assessment estimates the magnitude of actual and/or potential human
exposures, the frequency and duration of these exposures, and the pathways (e.g., ingesting
contaminated well-water) by which humans are potentially exposed. Toxicity Assessment
determines the types of adverse health affects associated with chemical exposures, and the
relationship between the magnitude of exposure (dose) and severity of adverse effects (response).
Risk Characterization summarizes and combines outputs of the exposure and toxicity
assessments to provide a quantitative assessment of site-related risks and includes a discussion of
site-specific uncertainties such as actual receptor pathways, and receptor activity patterns.
A. Human Health Risks
The human health risk assessment estimated the potential risks to human health posed by exposure
to contaminated groundwater, surface water and sediment and surface and subsurface soils at the
sites. To assess these risks, the exposure scenarios listed below were assumed:
• Ingestion of groundwater as a drinking water source
• Inhalation of contaminants in groundwater (i.e., volatile compounds emitted during
showering)
• Dermal exposure to contaminants in groundwater (i.e., showering, hand washing,
bathing)
DOCS/NAVY/7452/067008 ||-27
-------
• Dermal contact from contaminated soils
• Inhalation of contaminants in soil (i.e. .fugitive dusts)
• Incidental ingestion of contaminated soils
• Incidental ingestion of surface water and sediment
• Dermal contact with contaminated surface water or sediment
These scenarios were applied to various site use categories, including current industrial use, future
industrial use, future lifetime resident, and future recreational child.
Potential human health risks were categorized as carcinogenic or noncarcinogenic. A hypothetical
carcinogenic risk increase from exposure should ideally fall below a risk range of 1 x 10* (an
increase of one case of cancer for one million people exposed) to 1 x 10"* (an increase of one case
of cancer per 10,000 people exposed).
Noncarcinogenic risks were estimated using Hazard Indices (HI), where an HI exceeding one is
considered an unacceptable health risk.
In addition, results were compared to applicable federal and/or state standards such as federal
Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for drinking water, New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection (NJDEP) Groundwater Quality Standards (GWQS), or other published lists of reference
values.
A baseline human health risk assessment was conducted for the OU-1 sites. Results of this
assessment are discussed for each site.
1. Site 4
The cancer risk associated with future residential exposure from groundwater at Site 4 was
conservatively estimated at 1 X 10"4 which is the upper end of the acceptable risk range (Tables 5
and 6). This value is primarily attributable to vinyl chloride, which was detected in one sample. His
for the future residential exposure by groundwater exceeded 1.0, primarily due to barium and iron
(Tables 5 and 6).
DOCS/NAVY/7452/067(X>a - ||-28
-------
TABLES
SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED RME CANCER RISKS AND NONCARCINOGENIC HAZARD INDICIES - SITE 4
NWS EARLE. COLTS NECK. NEW JERSEY
Medium
Surface Soil
Subsurface Su>
Sediment
Groundwater
Surface Water
Exposure
Routes
Incidental digestion
Dermal Contact
Inhalation of Fugitive Dust
. idental Ingestion
Dermal Contact
Inhalation of Fugitive Dust
Incidental Ingestion
Dermal Contact
Ingestion
Dermal Contact
Inhalation of Volatiles'
Incidental Ingestion
Dermal Contact
TOTAL
Estimated Incremental Cancer Risk
Current
Industrial
Employed
N/S
N/S
N/S
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
•
Future
Industrial
Employou
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/S
N/S
N/S
N/A
N/A
4.5E05
ME 06
N/A
N/A
N/A
4.6E-05
Future .
Lifetime
Resident
N/S
L_ N/S
N/S
N/S
N/S
N/S
N/A
N/A
9.0E-05*
4.1E-06"
2.1E-05*
N/A
N/A
1.2E-04
Future
Recreational
Child
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1.3E-08
5.6E 10
N/A
N/A
N/A
9. IE-OS
1.5E-07
2.6E-07
Estimated Hazard Index* **
Current
Industrial
Employee
N/S
N/S
N/S
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
•
Future
Industrial
Employee
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/S
N/S
N/S
N/A
N/A
6.0E-01
5.7E-03
N/A
N/A
N/A
6.1E-01
Future
Resident
Child
N/S
N/S
N/S
N/S
N/S
N/S
N/A
N/A
3.1E+00@
1.7E-01"
N/A
N/A
N/A
3.3E + OO
Adult
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A«*
N/A
N/A
-
Future
Recreational
Child
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1.0E-03
8.6E-04
N/A
N/A
N/A
3.3E02
4.0E-02
7.4E-02
N/A = Not applicable because this media Is not associated with this potential receptor
N/S = Not sampled
* <= During Showering. Adult Residents Only
• • = No volatile noncarcinogens were detected in groundwater
• • • = Hazard Indicies (i.e.. summation of hazard quotients) are used only for comparison purposes and do not reflect actual additive noncarcinogenic effects
* - Value from amended risk assessment
@ - Result is the maximum of the His among the affected target organs from the amended risk assessment.
SUMRSK04.XLS 6/13/97 1:48 PM
11-29
-------
TABLE6
SUMMARY OF CENTRAL TENDENCY CANCER RISKS AND NONCARCINOGENIC HAZARD INDICIES - SITE 4
NWS EARLE. COLTS NECK. NEW JERSEY
Medium
Surface Soil
Subsuitace Soil
Sediment
Groundwater
Surface Water
Exposure
Routes
Incidental Ingestion
"» :fmal Contact
Inhalation of Fugitive Dust
Incidental Ingestion
Dermal Contact
inhalation of Fugitive Dust
Incidental Ingestion
Dermal Contact
Ingestion
ucimal Contact
Inhalation of Volatiles*
1 Incidental Ingestion
[Dermal Contact
TOTAL
Estimated Incremental Cancer Risk
Currant
Industrial
Employee
HIS
N/S
N/S
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
•
Future
Industrial
Employee
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/S
N/S
N/S
N/A
N/A
N/R
N/R
N/A
N/A
N/A
-
Future
Lifetime
Resident
N/S
N/S
N/S
N/S
N/S
N/S
N/A
N/A
1.3E-O5*
6.5E-07*
1.2E-06*
N/A
N/A
1.SE-05
Future
Recreational
Child
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/R
N/R
N/A
. N/A
N/A
N/R
N/R
•
Estimated Hazard Index* ••
Current
Industrial
Employee
N/S
N/S
N/S
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
r
Future
Industrial
Employee
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/S
N/S
N/S
N/A
N/A
N/R
N/R
N/A
N/A
N/A
-
Future
Resident
Child
N/S
N/S
N/S
N/S
N/S
N/S
N/A
N/A
1.4E+00@
1.1E-01"
N/A
N/A
N/A
1.5E + 00
Adult
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A*-
N/A
N/A
•
Future
Recreational
Child
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/R
N/R
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/R
N/R
•
N/A » Not applicable because this media is not associated with this potential receptor
N/S = Not sjmpled
N/R = Central Tendency calculation not required
• = During Showering, Adult Residents Only
• • = No volatile noncarcinogens were detected in groundwater
• • • = Hazard Indicies (i.e., summation of hazard quotients) are used only for comparison purposes and do not reflect actual additive noncarcinogenic effects
* - Value from amended risk assessment
@ • hesult is the maximum of the His among the affected target organs from the amended risk assessment.
ISC04.XLS 6/13/97 1:48 PM
II-3A
-------
Sample results also show that several metals (aluminum, iron, manganese) and VOCs (1,2-DCE
and vinyl chloride) exceed applicable groundwater standards.
2. SlteS
The cancer risk associated with future residential exposure from groundwater at Site 5 was
calculated to be approximately 1.3 X 10"* which is the upper end of the acceptable risk range
(Tables 7 and 8). This value is primarily due to arsenic and vinyl chloride, detected in groundwater
samples (although both were only detected in one well at levels at or below EPA and New Jersey
Standards). In addition, the noncarcinogenic HI also exceeded the acceptable risk level of 1.0, due
to iron (Tables 7 and 8).
Contaminants detected in Site 5 groundwater samples that exceeded standards include aluminum,
cadmium, iron, manganese, nickel, thallium, 1,2-DCA, benzene, chloroform, and TCE.
B. Ecological Risks
The ecological risk assessment estimates the risk posed to ecological receptors, such as aquatic
and terrestrial biota, from contamination at the NWS Earie sites.
A summary of the results of the ecological risk assessment for the OU-1 sites is presented below:
1. Site 4
The ecological risk assessment concluded that contaminants do not appear to be significantly
migrating to surface water and sediments in the wetlands via overland runoff and/or groundwater to
surface water discharge.
SlteS
Off-site migration of contaminants to the surrounding wetland areas, upland areas, and
Hockhockson Brook or Pine Brook watersheds via overland runoff and/or groundwater to surface
water discharge is limited. Some metals pose moderate risk at the levels present However, the
presence of cover material at the landfill and the fact that the extensive vegetation on the site does
not appear to be adversely impacted indicate that the potential for adverse ecological effects is low.
DOCS/NAVY/74S2/067008 ||-31
-------
TABLE 7
RME CARCINOGENIC RISK TO FUTURE RESDCMTUU, RECEPTORS - SITE 6
OROUNOWATER. AMENOED-RISK
NWS EARLE. COLTS NECK. NEW JERSEY
SUBSTANCE
1 ,2-DfCHLOROETHANE
1.2-WCHLOROETHENE (TOTAU
BENZENE
CHLOROFORM
ETHYLBENZENE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
TRICHLOROETHENE
VINYL CHLORIDE
XYLENE (TOTAL)
ALUMINUM
ARSENIC
CADMIUM
COBALT
IRON
NICKEL
TOTAL RISK
GROUNOWATER
INQESnON • LIFETIME
4.1E-O6
N/A
1.3E-06
1 .OE-O6
N/A
2.2E07
6.SE-07
S.7E-OS
N/A
N/A
6.SE-OS
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
I.3E-O4
6ROUNDWATER
DERMAL CONTACT - LIFETIME
1.5E-07
N/A
1.7E-07
7.3E-08
N/A
6.4E-09
9.3E-08
2.3E-06
N/A
N/A
I.6E-07
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2.9E-06
INHALATION OF
VOAS m aw • ADULT
3.8E-06
N/A
1.5E-06
1.3E-05
N/A
5.3E-08
3.SE-07
1.2E-05
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
3.0E-05
N/A - NOT APPLICABLE. NO TOXICITY VALUE HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED FOR THIS CHEMICAL
XGWRSLO
6/13/97 1:50 PM
11-32
-------
TABLES
CENTRAL TENDENCY CARCINOGENIC RISK TO FUTURE RESIDENTIAL RECEPTORS • SITE 6
CROUNDWATER. AMENDED RISK
NWS EARLE. COLTS NECK. NEW JERSEY
SUBSTANCE
1 .2-DICHLOROETHANE
1.2-DICHLOROETHENE (TOTAL)
BENZENE
CHLOROFORM
ETHYLBENZENE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
TRICHLOROETHENE
VINYL CHLORIDE
XYLENE (TOTAL)
ALUMINUM
ARSENIC
CADMIUM
COBALT
IRON
NICKEL
TOTAL RISK
GROUNDWATER
MGESTION • LIFETIME
5.8E07
N/A
1 .9E-0?
1.4E-07
N/A
3.2E-08
9.4E-O8
8.1&O6
N/A
N/A
9.4E-06
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1 .9E-O5
GROUNDWATER
DERMAL CONTACT • LIFETIME
2.4E-08
N/A
26E-08
1.2E-08
N/A
1.0E-09
1.SE-08
3.6E-07
N/A
N/A
2. IE-OS
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
4.6E-O7
INHALATION OF
VOAS W 6W • ADULT
2.2E-07
N/A
8.7E-08
7.4E-O7
N/A
3.0E-09
2.0E-08
6.7E-07
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1 .7E-06
N/A - NOT APPLICABLE, NO TOXICITY VALUE HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED FOR THIS CHEMICAL
XGWflSC05.XLS 6/13/97 1:50 PM
11-33
-------
VII. REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVES (RAOs)
The overall objective for the remedy at OU-1 Sites 4 and 5 is to protect human health and the
environment The RAO to protect human health is to prevent human exposure to landfilted material
and to VOC and metal contamination in groundwater in the area immediately downgradient of the
former landfills. Because continued leaching of landfill contaminants may degrade groundwater
underlying Sites 4 and 5, the RAOs for protection of the environment are to minimize contaminant
migration into groundwater and restoration of the aquifer to the applicable standards.
VIII. DESCRIPTION OF REMEDIAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES
The purpose of the alternative development and screening process is to assemble an
appropriate range of possible remedial options to achieve the RAOs identified for the sites. In
this process, technically feasible technologies are combined to form remedial alternatives that
provide varying levels of risk reduction that comply with federal (EPA) and state (NJDEP)
guidelines for site remediation.
In the case of former landfill sites, like Site 4 and Site 5, EPA has undertaken the presumptive
remedies initiative to speed up selection of remedial actions. Based on the expectation that
containment would generally be appropriate for municipal landfill waste (such as that found at
Sites 4 and 5) and because the volume and heterogeneity of the waste generally make treatment
impracticable, EPA established containment as the presumptive remedy. The presumptive
remedy process was applied to Sites 4 and 5.
Engineering technologies capable of eliminating the unacceptable risks associated with exposure
to site-related soils, sediments, or groundwater were identified, and those alternatives determined
to best meet RAOs after screening were evaluated in detail. Tables 9 and 10 present the
considered alternatives and the results of preliminary screening.
A. Detailed Summary of Alternative*
Summaries of the remedial alternatives developed for OU-1 Sites 4 and 5 are presented in the
following sections.
DOCS/NAVY/7452/067008 II-34
-------
TABLE 9
SITE 4 - SCREENING OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES
NWS EARLE, COLTS NECK, NEW JERSEY
ALTERNATIVE
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENTABILITY
COST
COMMENTS
No Action:
(Long-Term Periodic
Monitoring. S-year
reviews)
Provides no additional
protection of human health or
the environment Does not
reduce potential for human
exposure to landfill or
groundwater contaminants.
Does not reduce contaminant
migration In the environment.
No reduction in toxicity.
mobility, or volume of
contaminants.
Readily implementablo No
technical or administrative
difficulties.
Capital:
O&M:
none
low
Retained as baseline
alternative in accordance with
NCP.
Limited Action
(institutional controls,
access restrictions, long-term
periodic monitoring, 5-year
reviews)
Provides little added protection
of human health through
fencing and Institutional
controls. Groundwater use
would be restricted. Does not
reduce contaminant migration
to the environment No
reduction In toxicity. mobility,
or volume of contaminants.
Readily Implementabk). No
technical or administrative
difficulties.
Capital:
O&M:
none
tow
Relative to alternative 1,
provides minimal additional
protectiveness for additional
cost.
Eliminated.
Capping. Institutional
Controls, and Long-
Term Periodic Monitoring
Protects human health and the
environment. Capping
contaminated landfill malonals
prevent direct contact exposuiu
and minimizes contaminant
migration to the environment.
Groundwater use would be
restricted. Groundwater
contaminants will natutully
attenuate over time. No
reduction of toxicity or volume
of contaminants
Readily Implementable. No
technical or administrative
difficulties. Personnel and
materials necessary to
Implement alternative are
widely available.
Capital:
O&M:
moderate
moderate
Retained.
DOCS/NAVY/74S7.X47008
11-35
-------
TABLE 10
SITE'S • SCREENING OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES
NWS EARLE, COLTS NECK, NEW JERSEY
ALTERNATIVE
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENTABILITY
COST
COMMENTS
No Action:
(Long-Term Periodic
Monitoring, 5-year
reviews)
Provides no additional
protection of human health or
the environment Does not
reduce potential for human
exposure to landfill or
groundwater contaminants.
Does not reduce contaminant
migration in the environment.
No reduction in toxtaity.
mobility, or volume of
contaminants.
Readily implementable. No
technical or administrative
difficulties.
Capital:
O&M:
none
low
Retained as baseline
alternative in accordance with
NCP.
Limited Action
(Institutional controls.
access restrictions, long-term
periodic monitoring, 5-year
reviews)
Provides little added protection
of human health through
fencing and Institutional
controls. Groundwater use
would be restricted. Does not
reduce contaminant migration
to the environment No
reduction in toxtetty, mobility,
or volume of contaminants.
Readily implementable. No
technical or administrative
difficulties.
Capital:
O&M:
none
low
Relative to alternative 1,
provides minimal additional
protectiveness (or additional
cost.
Eliminated.
Capping, Institutional
Controls, and Long-
Term Periodic Monitoring
Protects human health and the
environment. Capping
contaminated landfill,materials
prevent direct contact exposure
and minimizes contaminant
migration to the environment.
Groundwater use would be
restricted. Groundwater
contaminants win naturally
attenuate over time. No
reduction of toxteity or volume
of contaminants
Readily implementable. No
technical or administrative
difficulties. Personnel and
materials necessary to
implement alternative are
widely available.
Capital:
O&M:
moderate
moderate
Retained.
DOCS/NAVW74S2/D870M
II-36
-------
1. Site 4 Remedial Alternatives
a. Alternative 1: No Action
The no-action alternative was developed as a baseline to which other alternatives may be
compared, as required by the NCR. No remedial actions would be taken to protect human health
or the environment under this alternative. The purpose of this alternative is to evaluate the
overall human health and environmental protection provided by the site in its present state.
Periodic reviews of site conditions and long-term periodic monitoring of groundwater, surface
water, and sediments would be conducted under this alternative.
b. Alternative 2: Limited Action
This alternative was developed as an option that relies on access restrictions and institutional
controls to limit exposure to contaminants. This alternative does not employ treatment or
containment to address site contamination.
Restrictions would be attached to the property title and/or the Base Master Plan (access
restrictions) to limit future uses of the site that may result in disturbance of the existing soil cover
or direct contact with contaminated media. A fence would be erected around the landfill to limit
access to the site, to restrict human contact with contaminated landfill materials, and to protect the
integrity of the existing cover.
Long-term, periodic monitoring would be conducted to assess contaminant status and potential
threats to human health and the environment. Site conditions and risks would be reviewed every
5 years, since wastes would be left in place.
Because site groundwater does not meet New Jersey groundwater quality standards, a CEA
pursuant to New Jersey Administrative Code (N.J.A.C) 7:9-6 would be established to provide the
state official notice that the constituent standards would not be met for a specified duration and to
ensure that use of groundwater in the affected area (immediately adjacent to the landfill, near well
MW5-06) would be suspended until standards are achieved.
DOCS/NAVY/7452/067008 ' II-37
-------
c. Alternative 3: Capping, Institutional Controls, and Long-Term Monitoring
This alternative is a containment option that uses a landfill cover system (capping) and
institutional controls to prevent potential human exposure to contaminated soils and landfilled
materials and minimize potential contaminant leaching into groundwater. Over time, the
contaminants in groundwater would likely attenuate naturally through chemical and biological
degradation (VOCs only) and physical and chemical processes (metals and VOCs). Metals
concentrations in groundwater may decrease as a result of reduced infiltration of precipitation
through landfill materials.
A low-permeability cover system that complies with federal and state regulatory requirements
would be used to prevent potential human and animal contact with contaminants in landfill
matehals, limit contaminant leaching to groundwater, and minimize contaminant migration via
surface runoff and erosion.
After construction, the cap would be maintained as needed. Institutional controls would be
enacted to limit future uses of the site that may result in disturbance of the soil cover or direct
contact with contaminated media and to prohibit use of untreated contaminated groundwater.
Long-term, periodic monitoring would be conducted to assess contaminant status and potential
threats to human health and the environment. Site conditions and risks would be reviewed every
5 years since wastes would be left in place.
Because site groundwater does not meet New Jersey groundwater quality standards, a CEA
pursuant to N.J.A.C. 7:9-6 would be established to provide the state official notice that the
constituent standards would not be met for a specified duration and to ensure that use of
groundwater in the affected area (immediately adjacent to the landfill, near wells MW4-02 and
MW4-05) is suspended until standards are achieved.
2. Site 5 Remedial Alternatives
a. Alternative 1: No Action
The no-action alternative was developed as a baseline to which other alternatives may be
compared, as required by the NCR. No remedial actions would be taken to protect human health
or the environment. The purpose of this alternative is to evaluate the overall human health and
DOCS/NAVY/7452/06700fl ||-38
-------
environmental protection provided by the site in its present state. Periodic reviews of site
conditions and long-term periodic monitoring of groundwater would be conducted under this
alternative.
b. Alternative 2: Limited Action
This alternative was developed as an option that relies on access restrictions and institutional
controls to limit exposure to contaminants. This alternative does not employ treatment or
containment to address site contamination.
Restrictions would be attached to the property title and/or the Base Master Plan (access
restrictions) to limit future uses of the site that may result in disturbance of the existing soil cover
or direct contact with contaminated media. A fence would be erected around the landfill to limit
access to the site, to restrict human contact with contaminated landfill materials, and to protect the
integrity of the existing cover. Because the current and intended use of the eastern portion of the
landfill is as a skeet and shooting range, access to the site would be limited to authorized persons
but would not be prohibited.
Long-term, periodic monitoring would be conducted to assess contaminant status and potential
threats to human health and the environment Site conditions and risks would be reviewed every
5 years since wastes would be left in place.
Because site groundwater does not meet New Jersey groundwater quality standards, a CEA
pursuant to N.JAC 7:9-6 would be established to provide the state official notice that the
constituent standards would not be met for a specified duration and to ensure that use of
groundwater in the affected area (immediately adjacent to the landfill, near well MW5-06) would
be suspended until standards are achieved.
c. Alternative 3: Capping, Institutional Controls, and Long-Term Monitoring
This alternative is a containment option that utilizes capping and institutional controls to prevent
potential human exposure to contaminated soils and landfilled materials and minimize further
contaminant leaching into groundwater. A tow-permeability cover would be constructed over
former active landfill areas of the landfill. Over time, the contaminants in groundwater would likely
attenuate naturally through chemical and biological degradation (VOCs only) and physical and
DOCS/NAVY/7452/067008 11-39
-------
chemical processes (metals and VOCs). Concentrations of metals in groundwater might
decrease as a result of reduced infiltration of precipitation through landfilled materials.
For the new cap, a simple cover system that complies with federal and state regulatory
requirements would be used to prevent potential human and animal contact with contaminants in
landfill materials, limit contaminant leaching to groundwater, and minimize contaminant migration
via surface runoff and erosion. The new cap would be periodically maintained. Institutional
controls would be enacted to limit future uses of the site that might result in disturbance of the new
cap or direct contact with contaminated media and to prohibit use of untreated contaminated
groundwater.
Long-term, periodic monitoring would be conducted to assess contaminant status and potential
threats to human health and the environment. Site conditions and risks would be reviewed every
5 years since wastes would be left in place.
/
Because site groundwater does not meet New Jersey groundwater quality standards, a CEA
pursuant to N.J.A.C 7:9-6 would be established to provide the state official notice that the
constituent standards would not be met for a specified duration and to ensure that use of
groundwater in the affected area (immediately adjacent to the landfill, near well MW5-06) would
be suspended until standards are achieved.
IX. SUMMARY AND COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
The remedial action alternatives described in Section VIII were evaluated using the following
criteria, established by the NCP:
Threshold Criteria: Statutory requirements that each alternative must satisfy in order to be
eligible for selection.
1. Overall protection of human health and the environment - draws on the assessments
conducted under other evaluation criteria and considers how the alternative addresses
site risks through treatment, engineering, or institutional controls.
2. Compliance with ARARs - evaluates the ability of an alternative to meet Applicable or
Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) established through Federal and State
statutes and/or provides the basis for invoking a waiver. .
DOCS/NAVY/7452/067008 ||-40
-------
Primary Balancing Criteria: Technical criteria upon which the detailed analysis is primarily
based.
3. Long-term effectiveness and permanence - evaluates the ability of an alternative to
provide long-term protection of human health and the environment and the magnitude of
residual risk posed by untreated wastes or treatment residuals.
4. Reduction of mobility, toxicity, or volume through treatment - evaluates an alternative's
ability to reduce risks through treatment technology.
5. Short-term effectiveness - addresses the cleanup time frame and any adverse impacts
posed by the alternative during the construction and implementation phase, until cleanup
goals achieved.
6. Implementability - is an evaluation of technical feasibility, administrative feasibility, and
availability of services, and material required to implement the alternative.
7. Cost - includes an evaluation of capital costs, annual operation and maintenance (O&M)
costs.
Modifying Criteria: Criteria considered throughout the development of the preferred remedial
alternative and formally assessed after the public comment period, which may modify the
preferred alternative.
8. Agency acceptance indicates the EPA's and the State's response to the alternatives in
term as of technical and administrative issues and concerns.
9. Community acceptance evaluates the issues and concerns the public may have regarding .
the alternatives.
The remedial alternatives were compared to one another based on the nine selection criteria, to
identify differences among the alternatives and discuss how site contaminant threats are addressed.
DOCS/NAVY/7452/067008 • ||-41
-------
A. Site 4
Based on the initial screening of remedial alternatives, Alternatives 1 and 3 were retained for further
consideration. A detailed review of Alternatives 1 and 3 is included in this section and summarized in
Table 11.
1. Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
Only Alternative 3 would be protective of human health and the environment Because no actions
are conducted, Alternative 1 would not reduce human health or ecological risk and would not reduce
contaminant migration to the environment. Because no actions would be taken under Alternative 1 to
.contain contaminants or prevent deterioration of the landfill surface, health risks and adverse impacts
to the environment would be expected to remain the same over time.
Alternative 3 is protective of human health and the environment. The proposed cover system would
reduce human health and ecological risks posed by the potential for contact with landfilted materials
/
and would reduce leaching of contaminants to groundwater, thereby reducing contaminant migration
into the environment. Routine maintenance of the landfill cover system would ensure its long-term
protectiveness. Institutional controls would provide assurance that untreated contaminated
groundwater is not used as a potable water source in the future.
2. Compliance with ARARs
Because Alternative 1 does not include any remedial actions, it would not comply with state and
federal ARARs pertaining to post-closure of municipal landfills. Alternative 3 would comply with
these requirements since a cover system would be installed and a long-term maintenance and repair
program would be implemented.
Both alternatives would comply with federal and state long-term periodic monitoring requirements
through the monitoring and evaluation of groundwater, surface water, and sediments.
Initially, periodic monitoring would be performed on a quarterly basis. If parameters are stable or
contaminant concentrations are found to be decreasing, then a reduced frequency of sampling would
be warranted.
DOCS/NAVY/7452/067008 ||-42
-------
TABLE 11
SITE 4 - COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF REMEDIAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES
NWS EARLE, COLTS NECK, NEW JERSEY
CRITERION:
ALTERNATIVE 1:
NO ACTION
ALTERNATIVE 3:
CAPPING, INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS,
NATURAL ATTENUATION, AND LONG-TERM
MONITORING
OVERALL PROTECTION OF HUMAN HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT
Prevent Human Exposure to
Contaminated Soils and Landfilled
Materials
Prevent Human Exposure to VOC and
Metal Contaminants in Groundwater
Minimize Contaminant Migration
NO action taken to prevent human exposure to
contaminated soils and landfilled materials. Existing
risks would remain.
Continued deterioration of the landfill surface would
expose more contaminated soils and landfilled
materials and result in increased direct exposure
risks.
No action taken to prevent human exposure to
contaminated groundwater. Carcinogenic and non-
carcinogenic risks exceeding EPA's target risk range
would remain.
No actions taken to reduce contaminant leaching to
groundwater. No institutional controls implemented to
prohibit use of untreated groundwater for drinking
water.
No actions taken to reduce contaminant leaching to
groundwater. Contaminants would continue to leach
into groundwater and migrate downgradient,
potentially affecting downgradient receptors.
Enhanced cover system would prevent direct contact
with contaminated soils and landfilled materials.
Current direct contact risks were not quantified, but it
is conservatively assumed that landfilled materials
may pose excess health risks. Any excess risks
would be reduced to acceptable levels by installing
and maintaining the cap.
Institutional controls would minimize potential
exposure to site groundwater by prohibiting its use.
The cover system would reduce leaching of
contaminants to groundwater, facilitating natural
attenuation of contaminants. In time, contaminant
concentrations would reach levels that would not
pose excess risk.
The cover system would reduce leaching of
contaminants to groundwater and would reduce
migration of contaminants to the environment by
surface water and wind erosion.
COMPLIANCE WITH ARARs
Chemical-Specific ARARs
Would not comply with state groundwater quality
standards.
Groundwater contaminant concentrations would
initially exceed state GWQC; over time GWQC would
be achieved by natural attenuation.
A classification exception area (CEA) would be
established to provide the state official notification that
standards would not be met for a specified duration.
DOCS\NAVY\7452\RODYTABLE\067008
II-43
-------
TABLE 11
SITE 4 • COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES
NWS EARLE, COLTS NECK, NEW JERSEY
PAGE 2 OF 4
CRITERION:
Location-Specific ARARs
Action-Specific ARARs
ALTERNATIVE 1:
NO ACTION
Not Applicable.
Would not comply with federal or state ARARs for
post-closure maintenance of municipal landfills.
ALTERNATIVE 3:
CAPPING, INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS,
NATURAL ATTENUATION, AND LONG-TERM
MONITORING
Would comply with federal and state ARARs for
wetlands, floodplains, and other sensitive receptors.
Would comply with federal and state ARARs for
closure and post-closure of municipal landfills.
LONG-TERM EFFECTIVENESS AND PERMANENCE
Magnitude of Residual Risk
Adequacy and Reliability of Controls
Need for 5-Year Review
Existing risks would remain: approximately 1.4 x 10"*
excess cancer risk (ECR) and HI = 3.3 non-
carcinogenic risks from exposure to site groundwater.
Increased risk anticipated over time as landfill surface
deteriorates.
No new controls implemented. Existing site features
provide limited controls.
Review would be required since soil and groundwater
contaminants would be left in place.
Implementation and enforcement of institutional
controls would reduce risks from exposure to site
groundwater to less than 1x10"* ECR and HI less
than 1.0. Over time, natural attenuation would result
in permanently reduced risks.
Installation and maintenance of the cap would reduce
direct exposure risks to less than 1x10* ECR and HI
less than 1.0.
If properly maintained, the cap system would be
reliable for preventing exposure and reducing
contaminant migration to the environment.
If implemented and enforced, institutional controls
could prevent damage to the cap, intrusion into
contaminated materials, and use of contaminated
groundwater.
Same as Alternative 1 .
REDUCTION OF TOXICITY, MOBILITY, OR VOLUME THROUGH TREATMENT
Reduction of Toxfctty. Mobility, or
Volume Through Treatment
No reduction, since no treatment would be employed.
Groundwater contamination eventually eliminated by
natural attenuation.
DOCS\UAiW7452\ROCn067008
-------
TABLE 11 . .
SITE 4 - COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES
NWS EARLE, COLTS NECK, NEW JERSEY
PAGE 3 OF 4
CRITERION:
SHORT-TERM EFFECTIVENESS
Community Protection
Worker Protection
Environmental Impacts
Time Until Action is Complete
ALTERNATIVE 1:
NO ACTION
No risk to community anticipated.
No risk to workers anticipated if proper PPE is used
during long-term monitoring.
No adverse impacts to the environment anticipated.
Not applicable.
ALTERNATIVE 3:
CAPPING, INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS,
NATURAL ATTENUATION, AND LONG-TERM
MONITORING
No significant risk to community anticipated.
Engineering controls would be used during
implementation to mitigate risks.
No significant risk to workers anticipated if proper
PPE is used during remediation and long-term
monitoring.
No significant impacts to the environment anticipated.
Engineering controls would be used during
implementation to mitigate risks.
1.5 years enhanced cap is in place. Natural
attenuation will likely take longer.
IMPLEMENTABILITY
Ability to Construct and Operate
Ease of Doing More Action if Needed
Ability to Monitor Effectiveness
Ability to Obtain Approvals and
Coordinate with Other Agencies
•
Availability of Treatment. Storage
Capacities, and Disposal Services
No construction or operation involved.
Additional actions would be easily implemented if
required.
Monitoring would provide assessment of potential
exposures, contaminant presence, migration, or
changes in site conditions.
Coordination for 5-year reviews may be required and
would be obtainable.
None required.
No difficulties anticipated. Capping is a readily
implementable technology.
If additional actions are warranted, the cover system
may need to be opened to access contaminated
materials within.
Same as Alternative 1 .
Coordination for 5-year reviews may be required and
would be obtainable.
Coordination with the state would be required to
establish a CEA and would be obtainable.
Same as Alternative 1 .
DOCS\NAVY\7452\ROD\06700B
11-45
-------
TABLE 11
SITE 4 - COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES
NWS EARLE, COLTS NECK, NEW JERSEY
PAGE 4 OF 4
CRITERION:
Availability of Equipment, Specialists,
and Materials
Availability of Technology
ALTERNATIVE 1:
NO ACTION
Personnel and equipment available for
implementation of long-term monitoring and 5- year
reviews.
Not required.
ALTERNATIVE 3:
CAPPING, INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS,
NATURAL ATTENUATION, AND LONG-TERM
MONITORING
Ample availability of equipment and personnel to
construct cap and perform long-term maintenance,
monitoring, and 5-year reviews.
Common construction techniques and materials
required for cap construction.
COST
Capital Cost
First-Year Annual O&M Cost
Present Worth Cost*
$0
$21.600
$302.000
$1.983.000
$29.600
$2,400.000
Present worth cost is based on discount rate of 7%.
II-46
ooc?
.7452\ROD\067008
-------
Alternative 1 would not comply with state ARARs for attainment of groundwater quality standards
(GWQS). Alternative 3 would comply by seeking a temporary exemption (CEA) from these
requirements until the GWQS are achieved through natural attenuation.
3. Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence
Alternative 3 would offer substantial long-term protection of human health and the environment.
Under Alternative 1, risks would remain the same or potentially increase over time as the landfill
surface continues to erode. Potential future users of site groundwater may be at risk under
Alternative 1 because it lacks institutional controls that would prohibit use of untreated contaminated
groundwater.
Alternative 3 would reduce human and ecological risks due to direct exposure to landfilted materials
by placing a physical barrier to exposure. Long-term risks due to ingestion of site groundwater would
be mitigated by reducing contaminant leaching into groundwater by installing the low-permeability
cover system and by implementing institutional controls to prohibit use of untreated, contaminated
groundwater.
4. Reduction of ToxicRy. Mobility, or Volume Through Treatment
Because neither of the alternatives includes treatment, neither would reduce the toxicity, mobility, or
volume through treatment Alternative 3 would reduce the mobility of landfill contaminants by
reducing precipitation infiltration.
5. Short-Term Effectiveness
The short-term effectiveness of the two alternatives would be similar. Engineering controls and
personal protective equipment (PPE) would be expected to minimize potential adverse impacts to
Base residents and personnel, the local community, and workers during implementation of
Alternative 3.
Long-term monitoring, which would provide little opportunity for short-term impact, is the only on-site
action proposed under Alternative 1. Alternative 3 would present a greater opportunity for short-term
impact due to site preparation, grading, and constructing the cover system.
OOCS/NAVY/7452/067008 . ||-47
-------
Impacts to the environment would be minimized under Alternative 3 by use of erosion and stormwater control
measures during construction of the cover system.
Alternative 1 would not achieve any of the RAOs. Alternative 3 would achieve the RAO for prevention of
direct contact with landfill contents upon completion of the cover system, within approximately 1.5 years.
While the RAO for groundwater protection would not be immediately achieved, establishment of a CEA would
eliminate potential use of groundwater in this area. Long-term periodic monitoring and analysis would
determine when this RAO would be achieved.
6. Implementabmtv
Alternative 1 is the most easily implemented since the only activities proposed are long-term monitoring and
5-year reviews. Alternative 3 would be more difficult to implement since it involves the construction of a cover
system over several acres of land; however, no difficulties are anticipated, since common construction
techniques are required and cover materials are available from several vendors.
If additional actions are warranted, they could be easily implemented under Alternative 1 or 3.
7. Cost
Alternative 1, No Action, would cost less to implement than Alternative 3.
No capital costs are associated with the no-action alternative. The estimated average annual operations and
maintenance (O&M) cost for long-term periodic monitoring is $21,600 and 5-year reviews are $15,500 per
i
event Over a 30-year period, the estimated net present-worth cost is $302,000.
Estimated capital costs for Alternative 3 total $1,983,000. The average annual O&M costs are $29,600, and
5-year reviews cost $15.500 per event Over a 30-year period, the estimated net present- worth cost is
$2.400,000.
DOCS/NAVY/7452/067008
-------
8. Agency Acceptance
The NJOEP has had the opportunity to review and comment on all the documents in the
Administrative Record and has had the opportunity to comment on the draft ROD. Comments
received from the NJDEP have been incorporated into the ROD.
9. Community Acceptance
The community has had the opportunity to review and comment on documents in the Administrative
Record, has participated in regularly scheduled Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) meetings
convened to encourage community involvement and a public meeting was held to provide the
community an opportunity to learn about the Proposed Plan. The community has not indicated
objections to the alternatives selected in this ROD. Part III, Responsiveness Summary, of this ROD
presents an overview of community involvement and input to the selected alternative.
B. StteS
Based on the initial screening of remedial alternatives. Alternatives 1 and 3 were retained for further
consideration. A detailed review of Alternatives 1 and 3 is included in this section and summarized in
Table 12. .
1. Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
Only Alternative 3 would be protective of human health and the environment Because no actions
are conducted, Alternative 1 would not reduce human health or ecological risk and would not reduce
contaminant migration to the environment Health risks and the potential for adverse impacts to the
environment are expected to remain the same over time.
Alternative 3 is protective of human health and the environment The cover system would reduce
human health and ecological risks posed by potential contact with landfilted materials and would
reduce leaching of contaminants to groundwater, thereby reducing potential contaminant migration
into the environment Routine maintenance of the landfill cover system would ensure its long-term
protectiveness. Institutional controls would provide assurance that untreated contaminated
groundwater is not used as a potable water source in the future.
DOCS/NAVY/7452/067008 II-49
-------
TABLE 12
SITE 5 - COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF REMEDIAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES
NWS EARLE, COLTS NECK, NEW JERSEY
CRITERION:
ALTERNATIVE 1:
NO ACTION
ALTERNATIVE 3:
CAPPING, INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS,
NATURAL ATTENUATION, AND LONG-TERM
MONITORING
OVERALL PROTECTION OF HUMAN HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT
Prevent Human Exposure to
Contaminated Landfill Soils and
Materials
No action taken to prevent human exposure to
landfilled materials. Existing risks would remain.
Continued deterioration of the landfill surface.
particularly the eastern portion, would expose more
landfilled materials and result in increased direct
exposure risks.
New cover system over eastern 1 acre of landfill and
would prevent direct contact with contaminated
materials. Existing soil/vegetative cover over
western portion of landfill would limit direct contact
with contaminated materials.
Current direct contact risks were not quantified, but it
is conservatively assumed that landfilled materials
may pose excess health risk. Excess risks would be
reduced by installing the new cap and maintaining
the new and existing caps.
Prevent Human Exposure to VOC and
Metal Contaminants in Groundwater
No action taken to prevent human exposure to
contaminated groundwater. Carcinogenic and non-
carcinogenic risks exceeding EPA's target risk range
would remain.
No actions taken to reduce contaminant leaching to
groundwater. No institutional controls implemented to
prohibit use of untreated groundwater for drinking
water.
Institutional controls would minimize potential
exposure to site groundwater by prohibiting its use.
The enhanced cover system would reduce leaching
of contaminants to groundwater, facilitatihg natural
attenuation of contaminants. In time, contaminant
concentrations would reach levels that would not
pose excess risk.
Minimize Contaminant Migration to
Groundwater
No actions taken to reduce contaminant leaching to
groundwater. Contaminants would continue to leach
into groundwater and migrate downgradient,
potentially affecting downgradient receptors.
The enhanced cover system would reduce leaching
of contaminants to groundwater and would reduce
migration of contaminants to the environment by
surface water and wind erosion.
DOCl^fc/W452\ROD\TABLE\067008
^11-50
-------
TABLE 12
SITE 5 - COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES
NWS EARLE, COLTS NECK, NEW JERSEY
PAGE 2 OF 4
CRITERION:
ALTERNATIVE 1:
NO ACTION
ALTERNATIVE 3:
CAPPING, INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS,
NATURAL ATTENUATION, AND LONG-TERM
MONITORING
COMPLIANCE WITH ARARs
Chemical-Specific ARARs
Would not comply with state groundwater quality
standards.
Groundwater contaminant concentrations would
initially exceed state GWQC; over time GWQC would
be achieved by natural attenuation.
A classification exception area (CEA) would be
established to provide the state official notification
that standards would not be met for a specified
duration.
Location-Specific ARARs
Not Applicable.
Would comply with federal and state ARARs for
wetlands, floodplains. and other sensitive receptors.
Action-Specific ARARs
Would not comply with federal or state ARARs for
post-ctosure maintenance of municipal landfills.
Would comply with federal and state ARARs for
closure and post-closure of municipal landfills.
LONG-TERM EFFECTIVENESS AND PERMANENCE
Magnitude of Residual Risk
Existing risks would remain: approximately 1.3 x 10
ECR and HI = 5.2 non-carcinogenic risks from
exposure to site groundwater.
Increased risk anticipated over time as landfill surface
deteriorates, especially on eastern portion of landfill.
Implementation and enforcement of institutional
controls would reduce risks from exposure to site
groundwater to less than 1 x 10"6 and HI less than
1.0. Over time, natural attenuation would result in
permanently reduced risks.
Installation of the new cap, maintenance of the new
and existing caps, and implementation of access
restrictions to prevent intrusion into contaminated
materials would reduce direct exposure risks.
Adequacy and Reliability of Controls
No new controls implemented. Existing site features
provide limited controls.
If property maintained, the cap system would be
reliable for preventing exposure and reducing
contaminant migration to the environment.
If implemented and enforced, institutional controls
could prevent damage to the cap, intrusion into
contaminated materials, and use of contaminated
groundwater. ^^^
DOCS\NAVY\7452\ROD\TABLE\067008
11-51
-------
TABLE 12
SITE 5 - COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES
NWS EARLE, COLTS NECK, NEW JERSEY
PAGE 3 OF 4
CRITERION:
Need for 5-Year Review
ALTERNATIVE 1:
NO ACTION
Review would be required since soil and groundwater
contaminants would be left in place.
ALTERNATIVES:
CAPPING, INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS.
NATURAL ATTENUATION, AND LONG-TERM
MONITORING
Same as Alternative 1 .
REDUCTION OF TOXICITY, MOBILITY, OR VOLUME THROUGH TREATMENT
Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or
Volume Through Treatment
No reduction, since no treatment would be employed.
Groundwater contamination eventually eliminated by
natural attenuation.
SHORT-TERM EFFECTIVENESS
Community Protection
Worker Protection
Environmental Impacts
Time Until Action is Complete
No risk to community anticipated.
No risk to workers anticipated if proper PPE is used
during long-term monitoring.
No adverse impacts to the environment anticipated.
Not applicable.
No significant risk to community anticipated.
Engineering controls would be used during
implementation to mitigate risks.
No significant risk to workers anticipated if proper
PPE is used during cap construction and long-term
monitoring.
No significant impacts to the environment anticipated
Engineering controls would be used during
implementation to mitigate risks.
14 months until enhanced cap is in place. Natural
attenuation will likely take longer.
IMPLEMENTABILITY
Ability to Construct and Operate
Ease of Doing More Action if Needed
No construction or operation involved.
Additional actions would be easily implemented if
required.
No difficulties anticipated. Capping is a readily
implementable technology.
If additional actions are warranted in the eastern
portion of the landfill, the single barrier cover system
may need to be opened to access contaminated
materials within.
Additional actions would be easily implemented in the
western portion of the landfill.
DOCS'
i7452\ROD\TABLE\067008
-------
TABLE 12
SITE 5 - COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES
NWS EARLE, COLTS NECK, NEW JERSEY
PAGE 4 OF 4
CRITERION:
Ability to Monitor Effectiveness
Ability to Obtain Approvals and
Coordinate with Other Agencies
Availability of Treatment, Storage
Capacities, and Disposal Services
Availability of Equipment, Specialists,
and Materials
Availability of Technology
ALTERNATIVE 1:
NO ACTION
Monitoring would provide assessment of potential
exposures, contaminant presence, migration, or
changes in site conditions.
Coordination for 5-year reviews may be required and
would be obtainable.
None required.
Personnel and equipment available for
implementation of long-term monitoring and 5- year
reviews.
Not required.
ALTERNATIVE 3:
CAPPING, INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS,
NATURAL ATTENUATION, AND LONG-TERM
MONITORING
Same as Alternative 1 .
Coordination for 5-year reviews may be required and
would be obtainable.
Coordination with the state would be required to
establish a CEA and would be obtainable.
Same as Alternative 1 .
Ample availability of equipment and personnel to
construct cap and perform long-term maintenance,
monitoring, and 5-year reviews.
Common construction techniques and materials
required for cap construction.
COST
Capital Cost
First- Year Annual O&M Cost
Present Worth Cost*
$0
$15,800
$230,000
$588.000
$18,600
$852,000
Present worth cost is based on discount rate of 7%.
DOCS\NAVY\7452\ROD\TABLE\067008
H-53
-------
2. Compliance with ARARa
Because Alternative 1 does not include any remedial actions, it would not comply with state and
federal ARARs pertaining to post-closure of municipal landfills.
Alternative 3 would comply with these requirements since a cover system would be installed and a
long-term maintenance and repair program would be implemented.
Both alternatives would comply with federal and state long-term monitoring requirements through
periodic monitoring and evaluation of groundwater.
Initially, periodic monitoring would be performed on a quarterly basis. If parameters are stable or
contaminant concentrations are found to be decreasing, then a reduced frequency of sampling would
be warranted.
Alternative 1 would not comply with state ARARs for attainment of groundwater quality standards.
However, Alternative 3 would comply by seeking a temporary exemption (CEA) from these
requirements until the GWQS are achieved through natural attenuation.
3. Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence
Alternative 3 offers long-term protection of human health and the environment Because no
additional actions would be taken under Alternative 1 to contain wastes and limit deterioration of the
landfill surface, risks could increase over time if the landfill surface erodes or is damaged. Potential
future users of site groundwater may be at risk under Alternative 1 because Alternative 1 lacks
institutional controls that would prohibit use of untreated contaminated groundwater.
Alternative 3 would reduce human and ecological risks due to potential direct exposure to landfilted
materials by placing a barrier to exposure. Long-term risks due to ingestion of site groundwater
would be reduced by reducing contaminant leaching into groundwater and by implementing
institutional controls to prohibit use of untreated, contaminated groundwater.
DOCS/NAVW7452/067008 • ||-54
-------
4. Reduction of Toxtctty. Mobility, or Volume Through Treatment
Because neither of the alternatives includes treatment, neither would reduce the toxicity, mobility, or
volume through treatment. Alternative 3 would reduce the mobility of landfill contaminants by
reducing precipitation infiltration into the eastern portion of the landfill.
5. Short-Term Effectiveness
The short-term effectiveness of the two alternatives would be similar. Engineering controls and PPE
would be expected to minimize potential adverse impacts to Base residents and personnel, the local
community, and workers during implementation. Long-term monitoring, which would provide little
opportunity for short-term impact, is the only on-site activity proposed under Alternative 1.
Alternative 3 would present a greater opportunity for adverse short-term impact due to site
preparation, grading, and construction of the cover system.
Impacts to the environment are not anticipated under Alternative 1 since minimal activities would be
implemented. Impacts to the environment would be minimized by implementing erosion and storm
water control measures during cap construction under Alternative 3.
Alternative 1 would not achieve any of the RAOs. Alternative 3 would achieve the RAO for
prevention of direct contact with landfill contents upon completion of the coyer system, within
approximately 1.5 years. While the RAO for groundwater protection would not be immediately
achieved, establishment of a CEA would eliminate potential use of groundwater in this area. Long-
term periodic monitoring and analysis would determine when this RAO would be achieved.
6. Implementabiltty
Each of the alternatives would be implementabte. Alternative 1 is the most easily implemented since
the only activities proposed are long-term monitoring and 5-year reviews. Alternative 3 would be
more difficult to implement since it involves the construction of a cover system over several acres of
land; however, no difficulties are anticipated because covers are a commonly applied technology
involving conventional construction methods and cover materials are available from several vendors.
If additional actions are warranted, they could be easily implemented under Alternative 1 or 3.
DOCS/NAVY/7452/067008 . ||-55
-------
7. Cost
Alternative 1, No Action, would cost less to implement than Alternative 3.
No capital costs are associated with the no-action alternative. The estimated average annual O&M cost for
long-term periodic monitoring is $15,800 and 5-year reviews are $15,500 per event. Over a 30-year period,
the estimated net present-worth cost is $230,000.
Estimated capital costs for Alternative 3 total $588,000. The average annual O&M costs are $18,600, and 5-
year reviews cost $15,500 per event. Over a 30-year period, the estimated net present-worth cost is
$852.000.
8. Agency Acceptance
The NJDEP has had the opportunity to review and comment on all the documents in the Administrative
Record and has had the opportunity to comment on the draft ROD. Comments received from the NJDEP
have been incorporated into the ROD.
9. Community Acceptance
The community has had the opportunity to review and comment on documents in the Administrative Record,
has participated in regularly scheduled Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) meetings convened to encourage
community involvement and a public meeting was held to provide the community an opportunity to learn
about the Proposed Plan. The community has not indicated objections to the alternatives selected in this
R'OD. Part III, Responsiveness Summary, of this ROD presents an overview of community involvement and
input to the selected alternative.
X. THE SELECTED REMEDY
A. Site 4
The Navy, with the support of EPA, in consultation with NJDEP has selected Alternative 3: Capping.
Institutional Controls, and Long-Term Monitoring as the preferred alternative. This alternative is in
compliance with the EPA presumptive remedy and includes a CEA as required by the state groundwater
quality protection criteria. The CEA will cover the area immediately adjacent and (approximately 800 -
1,000 feet) downgradient of the landfill. Capping the landfill'will inhibit infiltration of groundwater through
DOCS/NAVY/7452/067008
II-56
-------
the landfill, thus in time eliminating the groundwater contamination source (Figure 11). This alternative
would mitigate the potential exposure scenarios, which are direct exposure to landfill contents and
consumption of contaminated groundwater from site, and would be protective of human health and the
. environment.
By regrading the landfill surface to preclude erosion, placing a cap over the landfill surface to avoid
potential direct contact with landfill contents, and establishing a formal CEA to bar the use of site
groundwater during the remediation period, the Navy will reduce the unacceptable risks associated with
Site 4. The preferred alternative is believed to provide the best balance of protection among the
alternatives with respect to response criteria.
While the RAO for groundwater protection would not be immediately achieved, risks would be reduced in
relation to background by the elimination of infiltration and continued monitoring to evaluate contaminant
trends. Long-term periodic monitoring and analysis would determine when this RAO would be achieved.
Long-term monitoring will be quarterly until such time as EPA and the Navy agree on a reduced schedule.
Based on available information, the Navy and EPA believe the preferred alternative would be protective of
human health and the environment, would be cost effective, and would be in compliance with all statutory
requirements of EPA, the state, and the local community.
B. SiteS
The Navy, with the support of EPA, in consultation with NJDEP has selected Alternative 3: Capping.
Institutional Controls, and Long-Term Monitoring as the preferred alternative. This alternative is in
compliance with the EPA presumptive remedy and includes a CEA as required by the state groundwater
quality protection criteria. The CEA will cover the area immediately adjacent and (approximately 800 -
1,000 feet) downgradient of the landfill. Capping the landfill will inhibit infiltration of groundwater through
the landfill, thereby in time eliminating the groundwater contamination source (Figure 12). This alternative
would mitigate the potential exposure scenarios, which are direct exposure to landfill contents and
consumption of contaminated groundwater from the site, and would be protective of human health and the
environment.
By regrading the landfill surface where necessary to preclude erosion, placing a cap over the landfill
surface to avoid potential direct contact with landfill contents, and establishing a formal CEA to bar the use
of site groundwater during the remediation period, the Navy will reduce the
DOCS/NAVY/7452/067008 II-57
-------
Oi\OATA\CADD\7«52\7«92CMei.DCN
MJJ
MW4-
LEGEND
- - _ APPROXIMATE LANDFILL BOUNDARY
• MONITORING WELL LOCATION
CAPPED AREA (PROPOSED)
— SURFACE WATER FLOW DIRECTION
— WETLANDS
• WETLAM3S DELINEATION
-r.T: DESIGNATIONS PER NJOEP CIS DATA
OLG STREAM COVERAGE
SOURCE! USCS RESTON.VA
NOTES
DNOT FOR DESIGN
2) ACTUAL CAP FOOTPRINT AND GRADES TO
BE DETERMINED DURING DESIGN
3) ACTUAL SIZE AND LOCATION OF STORM
WATER RETENTION BASIN TO BE
DURING 3ES10N
PLAN VIEW QF "CPOShD COVER SYSTEM
SITE 4 - ALTERNATIVE 3 FS - NWS EARLE
a zee *ae
FIGURE 11
SCALE IN FEET
11-58
3*
-------
Oi\PATASeAOO\7452\7452CM«ZJCN
MJJ
OPCM AREA
MW5-06
APPROXIMATE
LANDFILL
BOUNDARY
PROPOSED STORy
•ATER RETENTION
BASH
WOODED AREA
• MW5-01
APPROXIMATE LANDFILL KMOARY
MONITORING WELL LOCATION
CAPPED ••REA (PROPOSEOI
NOTES
: NOT FOR DESIGN
2IACTUW. CAP DOTPRINT AND GRADES TO
TO DETERMINED OWING DESIGN
SURFACE WATER FLOW DIRECTION
WETLANDS
WETLANDS DELINEATION ft
DESIGNATIONS MJDEP CIS DATA
X ACTUAL SIZE MO LOCATION OF STORM
WATER DETENTION -ASM TO BE
DETERMINED OWING DESIGN
PLAM VIEW OF PROPOSED CQVEP SYSTEM
SIT£ 5 - ALTERNATIVE 3 FS - NWS EARLE
190 386
SCALE IN FEET
Brown & Root Environmental
11-59
-------
unacceptable risks associated with Site 5. The preferred alternative is believed to provide the
best balance of protection among the alternatives with respect to response criteria.
While the RAO for grbundwater protection would not be immediately achieved, risks would be
reduced in relation to background by the elimination of infiltration and continued monitoring to
evaluate contaminant trends. Long-term periodic monitoring and analysis would determine when this
RAO would be achieved. Long-term monitoring will be quarterly until such time as EPA and the
Navy agree on a reduced schedule.
Based on available information, the Navy and EPA believe the preferred alternative would be
protective of human health and the environment, would be cost effective, and would be in
compliance with all statutory requirements of EPA, the state, and the local community.
XI. STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
The remedy selected for OU-1 satisfies the remedy selection requirements of CERCLA and the
NCP. The remedy is expected to be protective of human health and the environment, complies
with ARARs, and is cost effective. The following sections discuss how the selected remedial
action addresses these statutory requirements.
A. Protection of Human Health and the Environment
1. Site 4
Alternative 3 would provide overall protection of human health and the environment by preventing
direct exposure to contaminated landfill materials, reducing contaminant migration, from the landfill
into the environment and instituting restrictions on use of site groundwater.
Although the potential health risks from direct exposure to landfill contaminants were not quantified in
the Rl, it is conservatively assumed that direct exposure landfilted materials may pose health risks to
humans and animals. These risks would be reduced by installation of an enhanced cover system
over the landfill. Because the enhanced cover would effectively eliminate the direct exposure
pathway, the direct contact risks would be eliminated, provided that the cover was properly
maintained. The cover system would also prevent contaminant migration to the environment by
surface runoff and wind erosion.
DOCS/NAVY/7452/067006 ||-60
-------
Alternative 3 would also reduce the risks posed by future use of site groundwater. The human health
risk assessment concluded that site groundwater poses carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic risks
exceeding EPA's target risk range under a future residential exposure scenario. Capping the landfill
with a low-permeability cover system would significantly reduce infiltration of precipitation into the
landfill, thereby reducing contaminant leaching from the landfill materials to the underlying
groundwater and facilitating natural attenuation of groundwater contamination. Reducing leaching of
contaminants from the landfill into the underlying groundwater will eventually result in a decrease of
groundwater contaminant concentrations to acceptable levels (GWQS), reducing the long-term risk
posed by future use of site groundwater. Modeling predicts that an estimated 55 feet downgradient
of the site was the maximum distance where metals in groundwater would exceed either GWQS
or background levels. Implementing access restrictions and establishing the site as a groundwater
CEA would provide interim protection by prohibiting use of the aquifer until GWQS are achieved.
Fencing and access restrictions would provide additional long-term protection by limiting access to
the capped area and restricting activities that could damage or intrude into the cover system and
contaminated media.
The long-term periodic monitoring program would allow the responsible agency to monitor the quality
of groundwater leaving the site, assess potential impacts to downgradient receptors, and determine
whether additional remedial actions are necessary.
Use of engineering controls to minimize generation of fugitive dusts and vapors, and proper use of
PPE by site workers would effectively minimize short-term risks to the local community and workers
posed by implementation of this alternative.
2. SiteS
Alternative 3 would provide overall protection of human health and the environment by preventing
direct exposure to contaminated landfill materials, reducing contaminant migration from the landfill
into the environment and instituting restrictions on use of site groundwater.
Although the potential health risks from direct exposure to landfill contaminants were not quantified in
the Rl, it is conservatively assumed that direct exposure to landfilted materials may pose health risks
to humans and animals. Direct exposure risks would be reduced by installation of an enhanced
cover system over the eastern side of the landfill and long-term inspection and maintenance of the
entire landfill surface. Because the properly maintained cover system would effectively eliminate the
DOCS/NAVY/7452/06700B 11-61
-------
direct exposure pathway, the direct contact risks would be eliminated by implementation of
Alternative 3. The cover system would also prevent further erosion of the landfill surface and reduce
contaminant migration to the environment by surface runoff and wind erosion.
Alternative 3 would also reduce the risks posed by future use of site groundwater. The human health
risk assessment concluded that site groundwater poses carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic risks
exceeding EPA's target risk range under a future residential exposure scenario. Capping the landfill
with a low-permeability cover system would reduce infiltration of precipitation into the landfill, thereby
reducing contaminant leaching from the landfill materials to the underlying groundwater and
facilitating natural attenuation of groundwater contamination. Reducing leaching of contaminants
from the landfill into the underlying groundwater will eventually result in a decrease of groundwater
contaminant concentrations to acceptable levels (GWQS). reducing the long-term risk posed by
future use of site groundwater. Implementing access restrictions and establishing the site as a
groundwater CEA would provide interim protection by prohibiting use of the aquifer until GWQS are
achieved.
Access restrictions would also provide additional long-term protection by limiting access to the
capped area and restricting activities that could damage or intrude into the cover system and
contaminated media.
The long-term monitoring program would allow the responsible agency to monitor the quality of
groundwater leaving the site, assess potential impacts to downgradient receptors, and determine
whether additional remedial actions are necessary.
Use of engineering controls to minimize generation of fugitive dusts and vapors and proper use of
PPE by site workers would effectively minimize short-term risks to the local community and workers
posed by implementation of this alternative.
B. Compliance With and Attainment of ARARs
The selected remedy for OU-1 will comply with all applicable or relevant and appropriate
chemical-specific, location-specific, and action-specific ARARs. Tables 13 through 18 summarize
ARARs and TBCs applicable to OU-1.
DOCS/NAVY/7452/067008 . 11-62
-------
TABLE 13
POTENTIAL FEDERAL CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC ARARs AND TBCs
NAVAL WEAPON STATION EARLE, COLTS NECK, NEW JERSEY
REQUIREMENT
STATUS
REQUIREMENT SYNOPSIS
COMMENTS
Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) •
Maximum Contaminant Levels
(MCLs)(40CFR 141.11-141.16)
Potentiaty Relevant
and Appropriate
MCLs have been promulgated for a number of common organic and
inorganic contaminants to regulate the concentration of contaminants in
public drinking water supply systems. MCLs may be relevant and
appropriate for grotindwater because the aquifer beneath the site is a
potential drinking water supply.
MCLs may be used to establish dean-up levels
for the portion of the aquifer underlying the OU-1
sites. MCLs can be used to derive potential soil
cleanup levels.
Resource Conservation and
Recovery Ad (RCRA) -
Groundwater Protection Standard
(40 CFR 264.94)
Potentially Relevant
and Appropriate
The RCRA groundwater protection standard is established for groundwater
monitoring of RCRA permitted treatment, storage or disposal facilities. The
standard is set at either an existing or proposed RCRA-MCL, background
concentration, or an alternate concentration limit (ACL) protective of human
health and the environment.
RCRA-MCLs may be used or ACLs may be
developed to identify levels of contamination in
the aquifer above which human health and the
environment are at risk and to provide an
indicator when corrective action is necessary.
RCRA Land Disposal Restrictions
(40 CFR 268)
Potentially Applicable
These regulations identify hazardous wastes that are restricted from land
disposal and establish waste analysis and recordkeeping requirements and
"treatment standards" (concentration levels or methods of treatment) that
wastes must meet in order to be eligible for land disposal.
Contaminated soil must be analyzed and
disposed in accordance with the requirements of
these regulations. If necessary, soils will be
treated to attain applicable treatment standards"
prior to placement in a landfill, or other land
disposal facility. This requirement would be
considered for alternatives involving land
disposal.
Clean Water Act - Ambient Water
Quality Criteria (AWQC)
To be Considered
AWQC are non-promulgated health-based surface water quality criteria that
iiave been developed for carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic compounds for
the protection of human health. AWQC have also been developed for the
protection of aquatic organisms
AWQC may be used to assess need for
remediation of discharges to surface water, or to
use as benchmarks during long-term monitoring.
11-63
DOCS\NAVY\7452\ROD\TABLE\067008
-------
TABLE 13
POTENTIAL FEDERAL CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC ARARs AND TBCs
NAVAL WEAPON STATION EARLE, COLTS NECK, NEW JERSEY
Page 2 of 3
REQUIREMENT
STATUS
REQUIREMENT SYNOPSIS
COMMENTS
SDWA Maximum Contaminant
Level Goals (MCLGs) (40 CFR
141.50 and 141.51)
To Be Considered
MCLGs are health-based limits for contaminant concentrations in drinking
water. MCLGs are established at levels at which no known or anticipated
adverse effects on human health are anticipated and which allow for an
adequate margin of safety. MCLGs are set without regard for cost or
feastMtty.
Non-zero MCLGs may be used as dean-up levels
if conditions at the site justify setting cleanup
levels tower than MCLs.
Revised Interim Soil Lead Guidance
for CERCLA Sites and RCRA
Corrective Action Facilities (OSWER
Directive No. 9355.4-12) (Jul 1994)
To Be Considered
This OSWER Directive recommends a lead soil screening level of 400 ppm
for residential land use based on the IEUBK model. The screening value
may be used to determine whether sites or portions of sites warrant further
evaluation and evaluations of risks.
If any of the OU-1 sites is to be considered for
eventual residential use, then the screening value
may be used to assess whether site-specific lead
levels require further evaluation and possible
remediation.
EPA Groundwater Protection
Strategy
To Be Considered
Provides classification and restoration goals for groundwater based on its
vulnerability, use, and value.
This strategy was considered in conjunction with
the Federal SDWA and State Groundwater
Protection Rules in order to determine
groundwater cleanup levels
Risk Based Concentration (RBC)
To Be Considered
RBCs are developed based on estimating a concentration in a specific
media (i.e.. air, water or soil) that is associated with specific exposure
assumptions and a specific risk level (i.e.. Hazard Quotient of 1 or a Cancer
Risk of 1 X 10E-6). The selection of specific exposure parameters and risk
levels also contribute to the calculated risk-based concentration.
RBCs may be used to develop clean-up goals
based on human health criteria.
II-64
DOCS'
452\ROD\TABLE\067008
-------
TABLE 13
POTENTIAL FEDERAL CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC ARARs AND TBCs
NAVAL WEAPON STATION EARLE, COLTS NECK, NEW JERSEY
Page 3 of 3
REQUIREMENT
STATUS
REQUIREMENT SYNOPSIS
COMMENTS
EPA Health Advisories and
Acceptable Intake Heafth
Assessment Documents
To Be Considered
Intended for use in qualitative human health evaluation of remedial
alternatives.
These advisories and health assessment
documents were used in assessing health risks
from contaminants present at the site.
Clean Air Act - Standards for Air
Emissions from Municipal Solid
Waste Landfills (40 CFR 60.752 and
60.753)
Potentially Relevant
and Appropriate
Active landfills with design capacities equal to or greater than 2.5 million
cubic meters are required to have landfill gas collection and control systems
if greater than 50 megagrams of non-methane organic compounds are
expected to be emitted. The collection system shaH be operated so that the
methane concentration is less than 500 ppm above background at the
surface of the landfill.
Both Sites 4 and 5 landfills are estimated to be
much less than 2 million cubic feet in capacity.
However, soil gas studies and measurement of
methane concentrations at the landfill surfaces
need to be conducted during the pre-design
phase to determine whether landfill gas controls
need to be included as part of the control
systems.
II-65
DOCS\NAVY\7452\ROD\TABLE\067008
-------
TABLE 14
POTENTIAL STATE CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC ARARs AND TBCs
NAVAL WEAPON STATION EARLE, COLTS NECK, NEW JERSEY
REQUIREMENT
STATUS
REQUIREMENT SYNOPSIS
COMMENTS
N.J.SA 58:108
Applicable
Establishes New Jersey's acceptable risk range of 10 E-6 (one
cancer in a million).
New Jersey water quality standards and soil clean-op criteria
are based on this risk level.
New Jersey Ground Water Quality
Standards (GWQS) (N.JAC. 7:94)
Applicable
This regulation establishes the rules to protect ambient ground
water quality through establishing groundwater protection and
clean up standards, and setting numerical criteria limits for
discharges to ground water. The Ground Water Criteria (GWQC)
(N.JAC. 7:94.7) are the maximum allowable pollutant
concentrations in ground water that are protective of human
health. This regulation also prohibits the discharges to
groundwater that subsequently discharges to surface water,
which do not comply the Surface Water Quality Standards
(SWQS).
Because contaminated groundwater is present underneath the
OU-1 sites in excess of GWQS. these regulations will be
considered hi determining groundwater action levels.
Application for Classification Exception Area (CEA) may be
required if GWQS wid not be met during the term of proposed
remediation. The CEA procedure ensures that designated
groundwater uses at remediation sites are suspended for the
term of the CEA.
New Jersey Surface Water Quality
Standards (SWQS) (N.JAC. 7.9B)
Applicable
These standards
bfish rules to protect and enhance surface
water resources, define surface water classifications and uses.
establish water quality based criteria, and effluent discharge
Hmitafons. The Surface Water Criteria (SWQC) (N.JAC. 7:9B-
14) are the maximum aBowaUe pqdutant concentrations in
surface wtter for the designated use.
For alternatives where surface water may be affected, remedial
measures may be needed so that the SWQC are attained in
the long term. Remedial alternatives shall consider action to
mitigate the continued contamination of surface waters.
New Jersey Safe Drinking Water Act
(N.JA.C. 7:10)
PotentteBy
Relevant and
Appropriate
These regulations were promulgated to assure the provision of
safe drinking water to consumers in public community water
systems. Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) (N.JAC. 7:10-
16) have been established to regulate the concentration of
organic and metal contaminants in water supplies.
MCLs may be relevant and appropriate for groundwater because
the aquifer beneath the site is a potential drinking water suppfy.
MCLs may be used to establish clean-up levels for groundwater
underlying the OU-1 sites. MCLs can be used to derive
potential soil cleanup levels.
DOCS\NAMH7452\ROO\TABLE\067008
-------
TABLE 14
POTENTIAL STATE CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC ARARs AND TBCs
NAVAL WEAPON STATION EARLE, COLTS NECK, NEW JERSEY
PAGE 2 OF 2
REQUIREMENT
New Jersey Soil Cleanup Criteria
STATUS
To Be
Considered
REQUIREMENT SYNOPSIS
These are non-promulgated soils cleanup criteria for residential
direct contact, non-residential direct contact, and impact to
ground water (through leaching).
COMMENTS
These criteria will be considered in the development of soil
cleanup goals.
DOCS\NAVY\7452\ROD\TABLE\067008
II-67
-------
TABLE 15
POTENTIAL FEDERAL LOCATION-SPECIFIC ARARs AND TBCs
NAVAL WEAPON STATION EARLE, COLTS NECK, NEW JERSEY
REQUIREMENT
STATUS
REQUIREMENT SYNOPSIS
COMMENTS
Wetlands Executive Order (E.0.11990) &
40 CFR 6. App. A (Policy on Implementing
E.0.11990)
Potentially Applicable
Federal agencies are required to minimize the
destruction, loss, or degradation of wetlands, and
preserve and enhance natural and beneficial values
of wetlands.
Remedial alternatives that involve excavation or deposition
of materials will include all practicable means of minimizing
harm to the wetlands adjacent to the OU-1 sites. Wetlands
protection consideration will be incorporated into the
planning, decision-making, and implementation of remedial
alternatives.
Ftoodplains Executive Order (E.O 11988)
& 40 CFR 6. App. A (Policy on
Implementing E.0.11988)
Potentially Applicable
Federal agencies are required to reduce the risk of
flood loss, minimize impact of floods, and restore and
preserve the natural and beneficial value of
floodplains.
The potential effects on ftoodplains wiH be considered during
the development and evaluation of remedial alternatives. All
practicable measures will be taken to minimize adverse
effects on floodplains.
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) Location Standards, Floodplains
(40 CFR 264.18 (a))
Potentially Applicable
Any RCRA facility that treats, stores, or disposes of
hazardous waste, if situated in a 100-year ftoodplain,
must be designed, constructed, operated, and
maintained to avoid washout.
Where possible, remedial alternatives that include
construction of a treatment, storage, or disposal facility will
be sited outside of a 100-year ftoodplain
Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 USC
1531 et seq.); (50 CFR Part 200)
Potentially Applicable, if
present
Actions shall be taken to conserve endangered or
threatened species, or to protect critical habitats.
Consultation with the Department of the Interior is
required.
The Rl determined that there were no sensitive habitats
(except for wetlands), endangered or threatened species
present at the OU-1 sites.
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Of 1958
(16 U.S.C. 661) Protection of Wildlife
Habitats
Potentially Applicable
This regulation requires that any Federal agency that
proposes to modify a body of water must consult with
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and requires that
actions be taken to avoid adverse effects, minimize
potential harm to fish or wildlife, and to preserve
natural and beneficial uses of the land.
During the evaluation of alternatives, potential remediation
effects on the wetlands and floodplains are evaluated. If it is
determined that an impact may occur, then the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, the NJDEP, and EPA would be
consulted.
DOC
452/ROD/TABLE\067008
II-68
-------
TABLE 15
POTENTIAL FEDERAL LOCATION-SPECIFIC ARARs AND TBCs
NAVAL WEAPON STATION EARLE, COLTS NECK, NEW JERSEY
Page 2 Of 2
REQUIREMENT
STATUS
REQUIREMENT SYNOPSIS
COMMENTS
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966
Section 106 (16 USC 470 et. seq.)
Potentially Applicable, if
present
Action will be taken to recover and to preserve
historic artifacts that may be threatened as the result
of terrain alteration.
Potential ARAR if artifacts are encountered during active
site remediation (e.g. excavation, consolidation, grading).
To date, no such artifacts have been encountered at the
OU-1 sites.
National Archeotogical and Historic
Preservation Act of 1974 (132CFR229)
Potentially Applicable, if
present
Action will be taken to recover and to preserve
scientific, prehistoric, historic, or archaeotogic
artifacts that may be threatened as the result of
terrain alteration.
Potential ARAR if artifacts are encountered during active
site remediation (e.g. excavation, consolidation, grading).
To date, no such artifacts have been encountered at the
OU-1 sites.
II-69
DOCS/NAVY/7452/ROD/TABLE\067008
-------
TABLE 16
POTENTIAL STATE LOCATION-SPECIFIC ARARs AND TBCs
FEASIBILITY STUDY
NAVAL WEAPON STATION EARLE, COLTS NECK, NEW JERSEY
REQUIREMENT
STATUS
REQUIREMENT SYNOPSIS
COMMENTS
New Jersey Freshwater Wetlands
Protection Act Rules
(N.J.A.C. 7:7A)
Potentially Applicable
Regulate activities that result in the disturbance in
and around fresh water wetland areas including:
removing or dredging wetland soils, disturbing the
water level or water table, driving piles, placing of
obstructions, destroying plant life, and discharging
dredged or fill materials into open water.
Remedial alternatives will be developed to avoid
activities that would be detrimental to the wetlands
located adjacent to the OU-1 sites.
New Jersey Freshwater Wetlands
Protection Act Rules. Mitigation (N.J.A.C.
77A-14)
Potentially Applicable
This regulation requires mitigation of the disturbed
wetlands or filled open water. Generally requires
the restoration, creation, or enhancement of area,
or donations to the Mitigation Bank, of equal
ecological value.
If a remedial alternative action results in the loss of
wetlands through dredging, filling, or construction
activities, then mitigation measures will need to be
incorporated into the alternative's design.
New Jersey Flood Hazard Area Control
(N.JAC. 7.14)
Potentially Applicable
These regulations control development in
floodplains and water courses that may adversely
affect the flood-carrying capacity of these features,
subject new facilities to flooding, increase storm
water runoff, degrade water quality, or result in
increased sedimentation, erosion, or
environmental damage.
This requirement is applicable to remedial
alternative actions that may adversely affect
floodplains adjacent to the OU-1 sites.
vNew Jersey Siting Criteria for New Major
Commercial Hazardous Waste Facilities
{N.JAC. 7:26-13).
Potentially Relevant and
Appropriate
These regulations specify siting requirements and
limitations for commercial hazardous waste
facilities including protection of nearby residents,
surface water, groundwater, air, and
environmentally sensitive areas.
If'remedial alternatives employs an on-site or on-
base treatment of contaminated soils, sediments.
or materials, then remediation activities will need
to be consistent with these requirements.
i\NAVY\7452\ROD\OTABLE\067008
II-70
-------
TABLE 17
POTENTIAL FEDERAL ACTION-SPECIFIC ARARs AND TBCs
NAVAL WEAPON STATION EARLE, COLTS NECK, NEW JERSEY
REQUIREMENT
STATUS
REQUIREMENT SYNOPSIS
CONSIDERATION IN THE FS
Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA) - Hazardous Waste
Generator and transporter
Requirements (40 CFR parts 262 and
263)
Potentially
Applicable
These regulations establish the responsibilities of generators
and transporters of hazardous waste in the handling.
transportation, and management of waste. The regulations
specify the packaging, labeling, recordkeeping, and manifest
requirements.
Activities performed in connection with off-site transport of
hazardous wastes will comply with the requirements of these
regulations.
RCRA - General Facility Standards
(40CFR265SubpartB)
Potentially
Applicable
General facility requirements outline general waste analysis.
security measures, inspections, and training requirements.
If a remedial alternative includes the establishment of an on-base
treatment facility for hazardous wastes (characterisilic or listed),
then this regulation win be considered. This regulation specifies
TSO facilities construction, fencing, postings, and operations. AS
workers will be property trained. Process wastes will be evaluated
for the characteristics of hazardous wastes to assess further
handling requirements.
RCRA - Preparedness and Prevention
(40 CFR 265 Subpart C)
Potentially
Applicable
Outlines requirements for safety equipment and spill control.
If a remedial alternative includes treatment, storage, or disposal of
hazardous wastes, then this regulation will be considered. Safety
and communication equipment will be maintained at the site.
Local authorities will be familiarized with the site operations.
RCRA - Contingency Plan and
Emergency Procedures
(40 CFR 265 Subpart D)
Potentially
Applicable
Outlines requirements for emergency procedures to be used
following explosions, fires, etc.
If the alternative includes treatment, storage, or disposal of
hazardous wastes, then contingency plans will be developed.
Copies of the plans will be kept on-sile.
RCRA - Manifesting Recordkeeping.
and Reporting (40 CFR 265 Subpart
E)
Potentially
Applicable
Specifies the recordkeeping and reporting requirements for
RCRA facilities.
If the alternative includes treatment, storage, or disposal of
hazardous wastes, then records of facility activities will be
developed and maintained during remedial actions.
DOCS\NAVY\7452\ROD\TABLE\067008
11-71
-------
TABLE 17
POTENTIAL FEDERAL ACTION-SPECIFIC ARARs AND TBCs
NAVAL WEAPON STATION EARLE, COLTS NECK, NEW JERSEY
Page 2 of 3
REQUIREMENT
STATUS
REQUIREMENT SYNOPSIS
COMMENTS
RCRA - Closure and Post-Closure
(40 CFR 258, Subpart F)
Potentially
Relevant and
Appropriate
Details specific requirements for closure and pos-closure of
municipal solid waste landfills Final cover requirements that
address minimizing infiltration and erosion are identified in this
regulation.
Following closure, post-closure requirements include
preparing a post-closure plan, maintaining integrity and
effectiveness of the final cover, groundwater monitoring, and
maintaining and operating a gas collection system.
If an alternative includes closure of a solid waste landfill, then
these requirements will be considered in formulating the
alternative.
RCRA - Land Treatment
(40 CFR 265 Subpart M)
Potentially
Applicable
These regulations detail the requirements for conducting land
treatment of RCRA hazardous waste.
Alternatives that involve on-site treatment of hazardous wastes
(contaminated soil or sediments) will comply with these
regulations.
RCRA - Thermal Treatment (40 CFR
265 Subpart P)
Potentially
Applicable
This regulation details operating requirements and
performance standards for thermal treatment of hazardous
wastes.
Alternatives that include thermal or catalytic oxidation of offgases.
would be designed and operated in compliance with this
regulation.
RCRA - Miscellaneous Treatment
Units
(40 CFR 264 Subpart X)
Potentially
Applicable
This regulation details design and operating standards for
units in which hazardous waste is treated.
Hazardous waste treatment units used for on-site or on-base
treatment of contaminated media must meet these requirements.
RCRA - Ak Emission Standards for
Process Vents
(40 CFR 265 Subpart AA)
Potentially
Applicable
This regulation contains air pollutant emission standards for
process vents, closed-vent systems, and control devices at
hazardous waste TSO facilities. This subpart applies to
equipment associated with solvent extraction or air/steam
stripping operations that treat wastes that are identified or
listed RCRA hazardous wastes and have a total organics
concentration of 10 ppm or greater.
11-72
These standards win be considered during the development and
design of alternatives that include treatment of VOC-contaminated
soils. Air emissions from treatment units will be monitored to
ensure compliance with this ARAR.
DOCSJMUY\7452\ROD\TABLE\067008
-------
TABLE 17
POTENTIAL FEDERAL ACTION-SPECIFIC ARARs AND TBCs
NAVAL WEAPON STATION EARLE, COLTS NECK, NEW JERSEY
Page 3 of 3
REQUIREMENT
STATUS
REQUIREMENT SYNOPSIS
COMMENTS
OSWER Directive
9355f>62FS
Application of the CERCLA
Municipal LandM Presumptive
Remedy to Military Landfills (Interim
Guidance) (April 1996)
To Be
Considered
This EPA directive provides guidance in evaluating military
landfill sites and determining whether presumptive remedies
can be applied.
The procedures and suggested remedial actions will be
considered in formulating remedial alternatives for Sites 4
and 5.
OSWER Directive
935S.CM9FS
Presumptive Remedy for CERCLA
Municipal Landffl Sites (Sep 1993)
To Be
Considered
This EPA directive provides guidance in evaluating CERCLA
municipal landfill sites and determining if presumptive
remedies can be applied.
The procedures and suggested remedial actions wiH be
considered in formulating remedial alternatives for Sites 4
and 5.
II-73
DOCS\NAVY\7452\ROD\TABLEV067008
-------
TABLE 18
POTENTIAL STATE ACTION-SPECIFIC ARARs AND TBCs
NAVAL WEAPON STATION EARLE, COLTS NECK, NEW JERSEY
REQUIREMENT
STATUS
REQUIREMENT SYNOPSIS
COMMENTS
New Jersey Labeling. Records, and
Transportation Requirements
(N J AC. 7:26-7)
PotentiaBy
Applicable
These regulations establish the responsibilities of generators
and transporters of hazardous waste in the handling,
transportation, and management of waste. The regulations
specify the packaging, labeling, recordkeeping, and manifest
requirements.
Activities performed in connection with off-site transport of
hazardous wastes wHI comply with the requirements of these
regulations.
New Jersey Requirements for
Hazardous Waste Facilities
(N.J.A.C. 7:26-9)
Potentially
Applicable
These regulations identify requirements for facilities in
general, groundwater monitoring, preparedness and
prevention, contingency and emergency procedures, and
general closure and post-closure.
If a remedial alternative includes the establishment of an on-base
treatment facility for contaminated soils and materials, then this
regulation wiN be complied with during implementation
New Jersey Closure and Post-Closure
Care of Sanitary Landfills Regulations
(N.J A.C. 7:26-2A.9)
Potentially
Relevant and
Appropriate
Delate specific requirements for closure and pos-dosure of
municipal solid waste landfills. Final cover requirements that
address minimizing infiltration and erosion are identified in this
regulation.
Following closure, post-closure requirements include
preparing a post-closure plan, maintaining integrity and
effectiveness of final cover, groundwater monitoring, and
maintaining and operating a gas collection system.
If an alternative includes closure of a solid waste landfill, then
these requirements will be considered in formulating the
alternative.
New Jersey Thermal Treatment
Regulations
(N.JAC. 7:26-11.6)
Potentially
Applicable
These regulations detail operating requirements, waste
analyses and monitoring of treatment conditions, performance
standards, and closure of existing facilities that thermally treat
hazardous wastes.
Alternatives that include thermal treatment of contaminated soils.
sediments, and materials would be designed and operated in
consistent with this regulation.
11-74
DOC9^fcW7452\ROD\TABLE\D67008
-------
TABLE 1.8
POTENTIAL STATE ACTION-SPECIFIC ARARs AND TBCs
NAVAL WEAPON STATION EARLE, COLTS NECK, NEW JERSEY
Page 2 OF 2
REQUIREMENT
STATUS
REQUIREMENT SYNOPSIS
COMMENTS
New Jersey Chemical. Physical, and
Biological Treatment Regulations
(N.JAC. 7:26-11.7)
Potentiafly
Applicable
These regulations detail operating requirements, waste
analyses and monitoring of treatment conditions, and closure
of existing fadties that physically, chemically, or btotogicaly
treat hazardous wastes. Abo governs handling and
compatibility of wastes in treatment processes.
Alternatives that include physical, chemical, or biological treatment
of contaminated soils, sediments, and materials would be
designed and operated in consistent with this regulation.
New Jersey Control and
Prohibition of Air Pollution by
Toxic Substances
(N.JAC. 7:27-17)
PotentiaNy
Applicable
if emissions
greater than
45.4 g/hr
(0.1 bmr)
These regulations govern the emission of Group I and Group
II toxic volatile organic compounds (TXS) to the ambient air.
Group I TXS would be addressed through adequate stack
height or prevention of aerodynamic downwash Group II
TXS would be addressed through reasonably available control
technology.
Alternatives that may result in me release of Group I or Group II
TXS to the ambient air. exceeding 0.1 Ib/hr, would incorporate
appropriate vapor control measure to comply with these
requirements.
II-75
DOCS\NAVY\7452\ROD\TABLE1067008
-------
1. Chemical-Specific ARARs
Potential federal and state chemical-specific ARARs are listed in Tables 13 and 14, respectively.
a. Site 4
Implementation of Alternative 3 would comply with the ARARs identified in Tables 13 and 14.
Because Alternative 3 does not include active treatment of groundwater, initially the groundwater
beneath Site 4 would not meet the constituent concentrations specified in the New Jersey GWQS
[N.J.A.C. 7:9-6]. However, capping the landfill as proposed under Alternative 3 would reduce
migration of contaminants into groundwater, facilitating natural attenuation of contaminants and
ultimately resulting in attainment of GWQS. Alternative 3 includes a provision to seek a temporary
exemption (CEA) from these requirements until the GWQS are achieved through natural attenuation.
The CEA would be established to provide the state official notice that the constituent standards
would not be met for a specified duration and to ensure that consumption of the untreated
groundwater is prohibited.
b. SiteS
Because Alternative 3 does not include active treatment of groundwater, initially the groundwater
beneath Site 5 would not meet the constituent concentrations specified in the New Jersey GWQS
[N.JAC. 7:9-6]. However, capping the landfill as proposed under Alternative 3 would reduce
migration of contaminants into groundwater, facilitating natural attenuation of contaminants and
ultimately resulting in attainment of constituent standards. Alternative 3 includes a provision to seek
a temporary exemption (CEA) from these requirements until the GWQS are achieved through natural
attenuation. The CEA would be established to provide the state official notice that the constituent
standards would not be met for a specified duration and to ensure that consumption of the untreated
groundwater is prohibited.
2. Location-Spactflc ARARa
Potential federal and state location-specific ARARs are listed in Tables 15 and 16, respectively.
DOCS/NAVY/7452/067008 ||-76
-------
a. Site 4
The potential effects of the proposed remediation on wetlands, floodplains, water bodies, and other
sensitive receptors would be identified during the design of Alternative 3 and all necessary measures
would be taken to comply with the location-specific federal and state ARARs identified in Tables 15
and 16. It is expected that Alternative 3 would easily comply with these ARARs.
b. SiteS
The potential effects of the proposed remediation on wetlands, floodplains, water bodies, and other
sensitive receptors would be identified during the design of Alternative 3 and all necessary measures
would be taken to comply with the location-specific federal and state ARARs identified in Tables 15
and 16. It is expected that Alternative 3 would easily comply with these ARARs.
3. Action-Specific ARARa
Potential federal and state action-specific ARARs are listed in Tables 17 and 18, respectively.
a. Site 4
The single barrier cover system and long-term monitoring and maintenance plan proposed under
Alternative 3 would comply with federal and state municipal landfill closure and post-closure
regulations [40 CFR 258.60 & 258 6land N.JAC. 7:26-2A 9]
b. Site 5
The single barrier cover system and long-term monitoring and maintenance plan proposed under
Alternative 3 would comply with federal and state municipal landfill closure and post-closure
regulations [40 CFR 258.60 & 258.6land N.JAC. 7:26-2A 9]
4. To Be Considered (TBC) Standards
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) Directive 9355.0-62FS 'Application of
the CERCLA Municipal Landfill Presumptive Remedy to Military Landfills' (April 1996) and
OSWER Directive 9355.0-49FS "Presumptive Remedy for CERCLA Municipal Landfill Sites"
(September 1993) were used to develop remedial alternatives for OU-1.
DOCS/NAVYA7452/067008 . ||-77
-------
C. Cost-Effectiveness
The Navy and EPA have determined that the selected remedy for OU-1 is cost effective in that it mitigates
the risks posed by the site-related contaminants, meets all other requirements of CERCLA, and affords
overall effectiveness proportionate to the cost The estimated costs for the selected remedy for OU-1 are
summarized below.
1. Site 4
The capital costs for Alternative 3 total $1,983,000. The average annual O&M costs are $29,600, and 5-year
reviews cost $15,500 per event Over a 30-year period, the net present-worth cost is $2,400,000 (at a seven
percent discount rate).
2. SiteS
The capital costs for Alternative 3 total $588,000. The average annual O&M costs are $18,600, and 5-year
reviews cost $15,500 per event Over a 30-year period, the net present-worth cost is $852,000 (at a seven
percent discount rate).
D. Utilization of Permanent Solutions and Alternative Treatment Technologies to the
Maximum Extent Practicable
The Navy and EPA have determined that the selected remedy represents the maximum extent to which
permanent solutions and treatment technologies can be utilized in a cost effective manner at OU-1.
E. Preference for Treatment as a Principal Element
The Navy and EPA have determined that the selected remedy represents the maximum extent to which
permanent solutions and treatment technologies can be utilized in a cost effective manner at OU-1.
XIII. DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES
No significant changes from the Proposed Plan appear in this ROD. The actual cost of capping sites 4
and 5 will depend on delineation of the former fill area at both sites during design.
OOCS/NAVY/74S2/067008 II-78
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
NAVAL WEAPONS STATION EARLE
OPERABLE UNIT 1
PART III - RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
The purpose of this Responsiveness Summary is to review public response to the Proposed Plan for OU-1.
It also documents the consideration of comments during the decision-making process and provides answers
to any comments raised during the public comment period.
The Responsiveness Summary for OU-1 is divided into the following sections:
• Overview - This section briefly describes the remedial alternative recommended in the
Proposed Plan and any impacts on the Proposed Plan due to public comment
• Background on Community Involvement - This section describes community relations
activities conducted with respect to the area of concern.
• Summary of M^jor Question* and Comment* - This section summarizes verbal and
written comments received during the public meeting and public comment period.
I. OVERVIEW
This Responsiveness Summary addresses public response to the Proposed Plan. The Proposed Plan and
other supporting information were maintained for pubtic review in the Administrative Record file for OU-1,
which was maintained at the Monmouth County Library (Eastern Branch) in Shrewsbury, New Jersey.
II. BACKGROUND ON COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT
This section provides a brief history of community participation in the investigation and interim remedial
planning activities conducted for OU-1. Throughout the investigation period, EPA and the NJDEP have been
reviewing work plans and reports and have been providing comments and recommendations, which were
incorporated into appropriate documents. A Technical Review Committee (TRC). consisting of
representatives from the Navy, EPA, the NJDEP, the Monmouth County Health Department, and other
agencies and local groups surrounding NWS Earie, was formed. The TRC later was transformed into the
DOCS/NAVY/7452/067008 III-1
-------
Restoration Advisory Board. (RAB) to include community members as weH as the original officials from the
TRC. and has been holding periodic meetings to maintain open lines of communication with the community
and to inform all parties of current activities.
On April 18. 20, and 21, 1997. a newspaper notification inviting public comment on the Proposed Plan
appeared in the Asburv Park Press. The public notice summarized the Proposed Plan and the preferred
alternative. The announcement also identified the time and location of the public meeting and specified a
public comment period as well as the address to which written comments could be sent Public comments
were accepted from March 21, 1997 to April 30, 1997. The newspaper notification also identified the
Monmouth County Library as the location of the Administrative Record.
The public meeting was held on April 24,1997 from 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. at the Colts Neck Courthouse in
the Colts Neck Municipal Building, Cedar Drive. Colts Neck, New Jersey. At this meeting, representatives
from the Navy, EPA, and the NJOEP were available to answer questions concerning OU-1 and the preferred
alternative. The complete attendance list is included in Appendix B.
III. SUMMARY OF MAJOR QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS
A. Written Comments
During the public comment period from March 21 to April 30,1997, no written comments were received from
the public pertaining to OU-1. No new comments were received from the NJDEP or EPA..
B. Public Meeting Comment*
i
One comment concerning OU-1 was received at the April 24, 1997 public meeting. Mr Lester Jargowsky
stated thatthe Monmouth County Health Department concurred with the Proposed Plan for Sites 4 and 5.
DOCS/NAVY/7452/06700e
-------
Appendix A
TERMS USED IN THE RECORD OF DECISION
1,2-Dkhloroethene (1,2-DCE): Common volatile organic solvent formerly used for cleaning,
degreasing, or other uses in commerce and industry.
Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs): The federal and state
requirements that a selected remedy must attain. These requirements may vary among sites and
remedial activities.
Administrative Record: An official compilation of site-related documents, data, reports, and
other information that are considered important to the status of and decisions made relative to a
Superfund site. The public has access to this material.
Carcinogenic: A type of risk resulting from exposure to chemicals that may cause cancer in one
or more organs.
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA): A
federal law passed in 1980 and modified in 1986 by the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act (SARA). The Act created a trust fund, Known as Superfund, to investigate
and clean up abandoned or uncontrolled hazardous substance facilities.
Feasibility Study (FS): Report identifying and evaluating alternatives for addressing the
contamination present at a site or group of sites.
Groundwater Quality Standards (GWQS): New-Jersey-promulgated groundwater quality
requirements, N.JAC. 7:9-6.
Hazard Index (HI): The sum of chemical-specific Hazard Quotients. A Hazard Index of greater
than 1 is associated with an increased level of concern about adverse non-cancer health effects.
Hazard Quotient (HQ): A comparison of the level of exposure to a substance in contact with the
body per unit time to a chemical-specific Reference Dose to evaluate potential non-cancer health
effects. Exceedence of a Hazard Quotient of 1 is associated with an increased level of concern
about adverse non-cancer health effects.
DOCS/NAW/7452/067008 A-1
-------
Initial Assessment Study (IAS): Preliminary investigation usuaty consisting of review of
available data and information of a site, interviews, and a non-sampling site visit to observe areas
of potential waste disposal and migration pathways.
Land Disposal Restriction* (LDRs): A set of EPA-prescribed limit concentrations with
associated treatment standards regulating disposal in landfills.
Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL): EPA-published (promulgated as law) maximum
concentration level for compounds found in water in a public water supply system.
Noncarcmogente: A type of risk resulting from the exposure to chemicals that may cause
systemic human health effects.
National Contingency Plan (NCP): The basis for the nationwide environmental restoration
program known as Superfund; administered by EPA under the direction of the U.S. Congress.
National Priorities List (NPL): EPA's list of the nation's top priority hazardous substance
disposal facilities that may be eligible to receive federal money for response under CERCLA.
Presumptive Remedy: Preferred technologies for common categories of sites based on
historical patterns of remedy selection and EPA's scientific and engineering evaluation of
performance data on technology implementation. Presumptive remedies ensure the consistent
selection of remedial actions.
RCRA Subtitle D facility: Municipal-type waste disposal facility (tondtH) regulated by the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
Record of Decision (ROD): A legal document that describes the remedy selected for a
Superfund facility, why the remedial actions were chosen and others not, how much they are
expected to cost, and how the public responded.
Reference Dose (RD): An estimate (with an uncertainty spanning an order of magnitude or
greater) of a daily exposure level for the human population, including sensitive subpopulations,
that is likely to be without an appreciable risk of deleterious effects during a Mistime.
OOCS/NAVY/7452/087008 A-2
-------
Remedial Action Objective (RAO): An objective selected in the FS, against which all potential
remedial actions are judged.
Remedial Investigation (Rl): Study that determines the nature and extent of contamination at a
site.
Site Inspection (SI): Sampling investigation with the goal of identifying potential sources of
contamination, types of contaminants, and potential migration of contaminants. The SI is
conducted prior to the Rl.
Semhsolatile Organic Compounds (SVOCs): Organic chemicals [e.g., phthalates or polycydic
aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)] that do not readily evaporate under atmospheric conditions.
Target Compound List/Target Analyte List (TCL/TAL): List of routine organic compounds
(TCL) or metals (TAL) included in the EPA Contract Laboratory Program.
Toxtetty Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP): Analytical test prescribed by EPA to
determine potential teachata toxicrty in materials; commonly used to determine the suitability of a
waste for disposal in a landfill.
Trlchloroethene (TCE); Common volatile organic solvent formerly used for cleaning, degreasing,
or other uses in commerce and industry.
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs): Organic liquids [e.g., vinyl chloride or trichtoroethene
(TCE)] that readily evaporate under atmospheric conditions.
DOCS/NAVY/7452/087008 A-3
-------
APPENDIX B
ATTENDANCE LIST
APRIL 24,1997 PUBLIC MEETING
NAME
ORGANIZATION
Gregory J. Goeplert
JohnKoHcius
Gus Hermann!
Kevin M.Bova
Deborah Sctascsa
Russell Turner
Jeffrey Gratz
Robert Maratfna
Barbara Douglas
Thomas Wiseman
Lester Jargowsky
Greta Devooni
Angela Mazzio
NWSEarte
Naval Facilities Engineering Command
NWSEarte
NWSEarie
NWSEarie
Brown & Root Environmental
USEPA Region II
NJDEP
Naval FadUtfes Engineering Command
NWSEarie
Monmouth County HeaNh Department
Naval Faculties Engineering Command
Student
DOCS/NAVY/7492/0670M
B-1
-------
ROD FACT SHEET
SITE
Name
Location/State
EPA Region
HRS Score (date)
Site ID #
Naval Weapons Station Earle
Monmouth County, New Jersey
II
37 (08/30/90)
NJ0170022172
ROD
Date Signed
Remedy/ies
Operable Unit
Capital cost
Construction
Completion
0 & M
Estimated Cost
LEAD
September 25, 1997
Impermeable caps with long-term
monitoring
OU-1
Landfill 4 - $1,983,000
Landfill 5 - $588,000
Landfill 4-1.5 years
Landfill 5-1.5 years
Landfill 4 - $29,600
Landfill 5 - $18,600
Landfill 4 Present Worth Cost (based
on a discount rate of 7%) - $2,400,fOO
Landfill 5 Present Worth Cost (based on a
discount rate of 7%) - $852,000
Remedial/Enforcement
EPA/State/PRP
Primary contact (phone)
Secondary contact (phone)
Main PRP(s)
PRP Contact (phone)
Federal Facility
Navy
Sharon Jaffess 212-637-4396
Robert Wing 212-637-4332
Navy
John Kolicius 610-595-0567 ext.
157
WASTE
Type (metals, PCB, etc.)
Medium (soil, g.w.,etc.)
Origin
Est. quantity
Primarily household trash from base
housing and construction debris. Low
levels of volatile organic compounds
detected immediately downgradient of
the landfills.
Landfill (soil) and ground water
Household trash from base housing and
construction debris.
Landfill 4 is 5 acres and received
approximately 10,200 tons of waste from
1943 to 1960. Landfill 5 is 3 acres in
size and received approximately 6,600
tons of waste from 1968 to 1978.
------- |