PB97-963811
EPA/541/R-97/085
January 1998
EPA Superfund
Record of Decision:
Naval Weapons Station Earle
(Site A) OU 2,
Colts Neck, NJ
9/25/1997
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
OPERABLE UNIT 2 (OU-2)
SITE 19
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 2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PART I - DECLARATION
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 2
V. SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS
VI. SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS
VII. REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVES
VIII. DESCRIPTION OF REMEDIAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES
XI. SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
X. THE SELECTED REMEDY
XI. STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
XII. DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES
PART III - RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
I. OVERVIEW
II. BACKGROUND ON COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT
III. SUMMARY OF MAJOR QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS
N;\.DOCS\NAVY\7452\ROD\607009.DOC j
-------
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE
DESCRIPTION
1
2
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Site 19 Groundwater
Comparison of Site-Related Metals Concentrations to Background
Concentrations • Site 19
Summary of Estimated RME Cancer Risks and Noncarcinogenic
Hazard Indices-Site 19
Summary of Central Tendency Cancer Risks and Noncarcinogenic
Hazard Indices-Site 19
Site 19 - Screening of Remedial Alternatives
Site 19 - 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
2
3
4
5
6
7
Regional Site Map
Mainside Site Locations
Site 19 - Paint Chip and Sludge Disposal Area
Groundwater Contour Map - Site 19 (August 7,199S)
Groundwater Contour Map - Site 19 (October 17,1995)
Concentrations above Screening Levels - Site 19
Proposed Areal Extent of Excavation- Site 19
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A
Appendix B
Terms Used in the Record of Decision
Attendance List - April 24,1997 Public Meeting
NiVDOCS\NAVY\7452\ROO\607009.DOC
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
NAVAL WEAPONS STATION EARLE
OPERABLE UNIT 2 (SITE 19)
PART 1 - DECLARATION
I. SITE NAME AND LOCATION
Naval Weapons Station Earte
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 2
(OU-2), to address soil and groundwater contamination at the Naval Weapons Station (NWS) Earie Site,
located in Colts Neck, New Jersey (Site). OU-2 includes the paint chip and sludge disposal area (Site 19).
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-2. Reports and other information used
in the remedy selection process are part of the Administrative Record file for OU-2, which is 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 the 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 the decision document.
i
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-2, 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.
N;VDOCS\NAVY\7452\ROD\607009.0OC
-------
IV. DESCRIPTION OF THE SELECTED REMEDY
The Department of the Navy (NAVY) and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), in
consultation with NJDEP, have selected the following remedy for OU-2, Site 19. The remedy includes
excavation and off-site disposal of contaminated soil and sediments, institutional controls, and long-term
groundwater monitoring. The selected remedy for Site 19 includes the following major components:
1. Excavation and off-site disposal of contaminated soils and sediments.
2. Establishment of classification exception area (CEA) immediately adjacent to the former paint chip and
sludge disposal area to bar the use of groundwater during the remediation period.
3. Provision of 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 elimination of the contaminant source and continued
monitoring to evaluate contaminant trends. Long-temn 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.
.Because this remedy will result in hazardous substances remaining on site above health-based levels, a review
by the Navy, EPA, and NJDEP will be conducted within 5 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 I'/I Sir I Date
Regional
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region II
R. M. Honey / Date
Captain, U. S. IWVy /
Commanding Officer
Naval Weapons Station Earie
NA.DOCS\NAVY\7452\RODV607009.DOC |.2
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
NAVAL WEAPONS STATION EARLE
OPERABLE UNIT 2
SITE 19
PART II - DECISION SUMMARY
I. SITE NAME, LOCATION, AND DESCRIPTION
NWS Earie is located in Monmouth County, New Jersey, approximately 47 miles south of New York City.
The station consists of two areas, the 10,248-acre Main Base (Mainside area), located inland, and the 706-
acre Waterfront area (Figure 1). The two areas are connected by a Navy-controlled right-of-way.
The facility was commissioned in 1943, and its primary mission is to supply ammunition to the naval fleet An
estimated 2,500 people either work or live at the NWS Earie station.
The Mainside area is located approximately 10 miles inland from the Atlantic Ocean at Sandy Hook Bay in
Colts Neck Township, which has a population of approximately 6,500 people. The surrounding area includes
agricultural land, vacant land, and low-density housing. The Mainside area consists of a large, undeveloped
portion associated with ordnance operations, production, and storage; this portion is encumbered by
explosive safety quantity distance arcs. Other land use in the Mainside area consists of residences, offices,
workshops, warehouses, recreational space, open space, and undeveloped land. The Waterfront area is
located adjacent to Sandy Hook Bay in Middletown Township, which has a population of approximately
68,200 people. The Mainside and Waterfront areas are connected by a narrow strip of land containing a road
and railroad which serves as a government-controlled.
Operable Unit 2 (OU-2) consists of the former paint chip and sludge disposal area (Site 19), located in the
Mainside area (Figure 2). Paint chips and sludges from a maintenance area were disposed from the early
1940s until the early 1960s in a topographic depression near Building S-34 (Figure 3). Paint slurries and
solvent residues were also discharged into an open drainage swale. The site is a 300-foot circular area; half
is paved with asphalt and half is covered by gravel. The depression is 50 feet in diameter, with a depth
ranging from 5 to 10 feet. The drainage swale runs from the depression to a small stream in the wetlands
adjacent to the site. The paved portion of the site is currently used to train Navy fbrklift operators.
N:VDOCS\NAVY\7452\607009.DOC
-------
NWS CARLE
WATERFRONT AREA
STATE OF NEW JERSEY
DRAWN BY
UfiU
Wit
RtT
1///97
COS VSCHED.-AREA
SCALf
NOT TO SCALE
ATLANTIC OCEAN
MQNMOUTH COUNTY
Brown tt Root Environmental
REGIONAL SITE MAP
NAVAL WEAPONS STATION EARLE
COLTS NECK. NEW JERSEY
n-2
CONIRACT NO.
Aff (WtfO BY
OWNER TO.
APPROVED 81
ORAWINC NO.
FIGURE 1
REV.
-------
p
>-
D
SITE LOCATION
--•— STREAM WITH FLOW DIRECTION
5.000
SZE!
SCALE IN FEET
10.000
DRAWN BY WTl
URH 1/7/97
CHECKED
Rtl
1/7/97
COSr/SCHtO.-ARtA
SCAlt
r-sooo-
Brown Jc Root Environmental
MAINSIDE SITE LOCATIONS"
NAVAL WEAPONS STATION EARLE
COLTS NECK. NEW JERSEY •
____«__ 11.3
CONTRACT NO
APPROMO BY
/-
OWNER NO.
APPRIMD BY
OAU
/, /f ^ 7
OAU
DRAWING NO.
FIGURE 2
RtV
-------
N
FORMER
BLDG. S-34
LOCATION
SAMPLE LOCATIONS
SiTE 19 - PAINT CHIP AND SLUDGE DISPOSAL AREA
100 o 100 200 Fee<
•JL SCVACE WATER
MONTTOR1NG WELL
W*dindt
DECIDUOUS WOODED WETLANDS
FIGURE 3
Brown & Root Environmental
-------
II. SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY
Potential hazardous substance releases at NWS Eahe 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 Phase I Rl at Site 19 included the installation and sampling of
monitoring wells and collection of surface water and sediment samples.
In 1990, NWS Earie 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 Earie were subsequently 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. 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 the 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-2
have been maintained at the Monmouth County Library (Eastern Branch), Route 35, Shrewsbury, New
Jerge.
The feasibility study report, Proposed Plan, and other documents related to OU-2 were released to the public
on March 21,1997. The notice of availability of these documents was published in the Asbury Park Press on
ApriMS, 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-2 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.
N.VDOCS\NAVY\7452\ROD\607009.DOC ||-5
-------
IV. SCOPE AND ROLE OF RESPONSE ACTION FOR OPERABLE UNIT 2
The Department of the Navy completed an Rl, FS and Proposed Plan for OU-2, addressing contamination
associated with Site 19 at NWS Earte. These studies had shown that groundwaterand soils in the areas of
the former paint chip and sludge disposal pit and the drainage ditch leading from it had been contaminated
with metals. The final remedial action to address site contamination at Site 19 is described in this document
V. SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS
A. General
NWS Earle is located in the coastal lowlands of Monmouth County, New Jersey, within the Atlantic Coastal
Plain Physiographic Province. The Mainside area, which includes OU-2, lies in the outer Coastal Plain,
approximately 10 miles inland from the Atlantic Ocean. The Mainside area is relatively flat, with elevations
ranging from approximately 100 to 300 feet above mean sea level (MSL). The most significant topographic
relief within the Mainside area is Hominy Hills, a northeast-southwest-trending group of low hills located near
the center of the station.
The rivers and streams draining NWS Earle ultimately discharge to the Atlantic Ocean, which is
approximately 9 or 10 miles east of the Mainside area. The headwaters and drainage basins of three major
Coastal Plain rivers (Swimming, Manasquan, and Shark) originate on the Mainside area. The northern half of
the Mainside is in the drainage basin of the Swimming River, and tributaries include Mine Brook,
Hockhockson Brook, and Pine Brook. The southwestern portion of the Mainside drains to the Manasquan
River via either Marsh Bog Brook or Mingamahone Brook. The southeastern comer of the Mainside drains to
the Shark River. Both the Swimming River and the Shark River supply water to reservoirs used for public
water supplies.
NWS Earle is situated in the Coastal Plain Physiographic Province of New Jersey. The New Jersey Coastal
Plain is a seaward-dipping wedge of unconsolidated Cretaceous to Quaternary sediments that were
deposited on a pre-Cretaceous basement-bedrock complex. The Coastal Plain sediments are primarily
composed of clay, silt, sand, and gravel and were deposited in continental, coastal, and marine
environments. The sediments generally strike northeast-southwestand dip to the southeast at a rate of 10 to
60 feet per mile. 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
NiVOOCS\NAVY\7452\RODV607009.DOC II-6
-------
surface or subcrop in a banded pattern that roughly parallels the shoreline. The outcrop pattern is caused by
the erosional 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 (NJDEP) Water Technical Programs Groundwater Quality Standards in New
Jersey Administrative Code (N.J.A.C.) 7:9-6. The Mainside area is located in the Class II-A: Groundwater
Supporting Potable Water Supply area. Class II-A includes those areas where groundwater is an existing
source of potable water with conventional water supply treatment or is a potential source of potable water. In
the Mainside area, in general, the deeper aquifers are used for public water supplies and the shallower
aquifers are used for domestic supplies.
OU-2 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
Earle 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 Earle and several within the NWS Earle
boundaries. The majority of these wells are used for potable supplies; previous testing for drinking water
parameters indicates these wells have not been adversely impacted.
There is a rich diversity of ecological systems and habitats at NWS Earle. Knieskem's beaked-rush
(Rvnchospora kriieskemii). 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 Earle. The Mingamahone
Brook supports bog turtles downstream of the Mainside area and provides an appropriate habitat for them at
the Mainside area.
N\DOCS\NAVY\7452\RODV607009.DOC ||-7
-------
B. Surface Water Hydrology
Site 19 includes a small drainage ditch that runs from the depression to a stream approximately 500 feet to
the southwest. The site is at a higher elevation than the stream. The stream is a tributary of the
Mingamahone Brook, and as a result, Site 19 is located within the Mingamahone Brook watershed. Water is
present in the drainage depression only after periods of heavy rainfall. The stream southwest of the site is
surrounded by wetlands. The wetlands, including the stream, drain to the south. The stream is dammed
near the power lines west of the site; this has created a small pond north of the dam.
C. Geology
Regional mapping places Site 19 within the outcrop area of the Kirkwood Formation. The Kirkwood
Formation ranges between 60 and 100 feet in thickness. The 1995 soil borings are no more than 25 feet
deep. The lithology of the sediments encountered in the on-site soil borings generally agrees with the
published descriptions of the Kirkwood and Vincentown Formations. Assuming a portion of the Kirkwood
Formation was removed by erosion, it is possible that the soil borings penetrated the underlying Vincentown
Formation. In general, the borings encountered brown and yellowish-brown, fine- to medium-grained sand,
silty sand, sandy silt, and silt (probably representative of the Kirkwood Formation) and glauconitic, fine- to
medium-grained sand (probably representative of the Vincentown Formation). Mainside is located above the
up-dip limit of the Piney Point, Shark River, and Manasquan Formations; therefore, the glauconitic sand is
interpreted to be part of the Vincentown Formation Based upon the boring log descriptions, the wells
penetrated the Kirkwood and Vincentown Formations.
D. Hydrogeology
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 4 (August 1995) and Figure 5 (October 1995). The direction of shallow groundwater flow
in the aquifer, as indicated by both the August and October 1995 groundwater measurements, is toward the
west. There does not appear to be significant seasonal variation in groundwater flow direction.
N;VOOCS\NAVY\7452\ROO\607009.DOC
-------
«MW19-04
DRY
MW19-0
97.3
MW19-01
101.13
MW19-02®
96.44
LEGEND
OTOUWJWATER CQN'OUA
OTOUR INTERVAL > 0.58 FOOT
GROUKJVATER FLOW DIRECTION
MONITORIKC WELL LOCATION
CROUNOWATER ELEVATIOH. IN FEET
ABOVE MEAN SEA LEVEL
JtTLANOS
-.S DEL:-«ATION
SOURCE NJOEP SEE SECTION 1.5)
OLC STREAM COVERAGE
SOURCE: USCS RESTON. VA
GROUNDWATER CONTOUR MAP AUGUST 7.
SITE IS - PAINT CHIP AND SLUDGE DISPOSAL AREA
0 108 299
FIGURE 4
•SCALE IN FEET
Brown & Root Environmental
11-9
-------
Ki\CAOO\5388\SflI9-VL2.0GN B/6/16 Tap
SMW19-04
DRY
OPEN AREA
MW19-06®
96.91
MW19-01 .
100.67
MW19-
96.15
LEGEND
GROUNDVATER CONTOUR
CONTOUR INTERVAL ' !.B FOOT
CROUNOWATCR FLOW DIRECTION
MONITORING WELL LOCATION
GRC'.SOVATER ELEVATION. IN
ABOVE MEAN SEA LEVEL
WETLANDS
WETLANDS DELINEATION
SOURCE NJOEP (SEE SECTION 1.9)
OLC STREAM COVERAGE
SOURCE: USCS RESTON. V*
GRQUNDWATER r'NTQUF MAP OCTCBER
SITE 1^ - PAINT CHIP AND SLUDGE DISPOSAL AREA
iea
FIGURE 5
• SCALE IN FEET
^=* Jrown & Root Environmental
11-10
-------
E. Nature and Extent of Contamination
1. IAS and SI Results
The IAS did not recommend further investigation at Site 19 because it was believed that impacted soils were
removed in the early 1970s; however, the site was still included for further study.
The 1986 SI found elevated metals concentrations in surface soils within the topographic depression and
near the beginning of the drainage swale. The maximum concentrations detected were cadmium (31,900
mg/kg), lead (1,560 mg/kg), and chromium (639 mg/kg).
2. Phase I Remedial Investigation
During the Phase I Rl, groundwater samples showed metals, and shallow soils (0 to 2 feet) showed low
levels of two volatile organic compounds (VOCs), methylene chloride and acetone, and metals. VOC
detections were believed to be laboratory contaminants and not actually site related. Lead was found at a
concentration of up to 12,600 mg/kg in the upper 2 feet of soil in the surface depression and up to 379 mg/kg
in the drainage swale. Cadmium was found at a concentration of up to 33.7 mg/kg in the upper 2 feet of soil
in the topographic depression.
3. Phase II Remedial Investigation
The results of the Phase II Rl, which was conducted to determine whether contamination in surface
soil/sediments had leached to subsurface soils, showed that metal concentrations in deeper subsurface soil
samples were not at a level above applicable screening criteria. The absence of site-related VOCs in
subsurface soils was also confirmed.
The presence of metals (antimony, arsenic, cadmium, thallium, zinc) in groundwater was confirmed. In
general, exceedances of metals compounds of concern were found in MW19-07, which is directly
downgradient of the topographic depression. Figure 6 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. Three compounds slightly exceed the federal standard, and
others also exceed state guidelines. Contaminants exceeding groundwater standards included aluminum,
antimony, arsenic, cadmium, iron, lead, manganese, and thallium. Contaminants in subsurface soil samples
that exceeded standards included antimony, cadmium, hexavalentand total chromium, lead, and zinc. It
N;VDOCS\NAVY\7452\ROD\607009.DOC ||-11
-------
K:\CflOO\S3fl8\S0H-fei.OGN 07/9/36 TAO
OPEN AREA
J k-
1210 ugA.
4680 ug/L
MW19-03
OPEN AREA
QpEN
•luminum
iron
manganaM
aluminum
iron
S610J ug/L
794 ug/L
185 ug/L
aluminum
iron
menganase
9SW01
19SD01
16.4 ug/L
0^20 ug/L
copper
maroury
SMW19-04
\
19GV01
aluminum 3890 ugA.
iron 1980 ug/L
/ I
MW19-01
19SB03-00
antimony 21.5 mg/kg
oadmium 5.0 mg/kg
ohromium, haxavalant 320J mg/kg
laad 1220J mg/kg
zino 6730J mg/kg
1SSB03-00-DUP
1SS001
V
26.0J mg/kg
crromibm. total 430J mg/kg
l«ad 60.3J mg/kg
b«nzo(e)onthrao«na 4S0J ug/kg
b«nzo(a)pur«n« 560J ug/kg
b«nzo(b)fluoranthane 580J ug/kg
b«nze(gj%.i)parylan« 400J ug/kg
benzo(k)fluoranthen» 580J ug/kg
ohrysene 860J ug/kg
ind»no(l,2.3-od)pur«ne 360J ug/kg
pyrena 1600J ug/kg
4.4'-000 330J ug/kg
4.4'-OOE 32.0R ug/kg
4,4'-OOT 38.0J ug/kg
antimony
oadmium
ohromium, haxavalant
ohromium, total
laad
zino
42.fi mg/kg
6.6 mg/kg
530J mg/kg
5S6 mg/kg
H70J mg/kg
8790J mg/kg
aluminum
antimony
araanie
cadmium
iron
laad
thallium
7670J ug/L
6.7 ug/L
27.4 ug/L
7.5 ug/L
3040 ugA.
17.2 ug/L
28/U ug/L
MONITOB1NC WELL LOCATION
SORFOCEWATER AND SEDIMENT SAMPLE LOCATION
SOIL BORING LOCATION
SUBSURFACE SOIL SAMPLE LOCATION (HAND AUGER)
WETLANDS
WETLANDS DELINEATION SOURCE NJOEP (SEE SECTION 1.5)
DRAINAGE DITCH
OLG STREAM COVERAGE SrjRCE: USGS BESTQN. VA
CONCENTRATIONS ABOVE SCREENING
FIGURE 6
19 - PAINT CHIP AN3 SLUDGE DISPOSAL AREA
zee
SCALE . ?EET
11-12
Brown & Root Environmental
-------
TABLE 1
SITE 19 GROUNDWATER
Maximum
Exceedanca
INORGANICS (UG/U
ALUMINUM
ANTIMONY
ARSENIC
CADMIUM
IRON
LEAD
MANGANESE
THALLIUM
9610
7
27
8
4880
17
185
29
Frequency
of
Exceedance
6/6
1 /6
1 /6
1 16
6/6
1 /6
2/6
1 /6
ARAR* tnd TBC*
Maximum
Contaminant
Level (MCLI
lug/LI
6
50
5
-
. 1.5
2
Drinking Water
Hearth Advisory
(Lowest Criterion
Shown) <1>
NJOEP
Groundwater
Quality
Standard (ug/LI
3a
-
5e
•
-
0.4 a
200
20
8
4
3OO
10
50
10
Data Exceeding ARARs
19GW01
1995 Rl
7/24/95
19GW02
1995 Rl
7/25/95
19GW04
1995 Rl
7/24/95
19GW05
1995 Rl
7/25/95
3890
1980
1690 J
3200
1210
4880
9610 J
794
185
19GW06
1995 Rl
7/25/95
19GW07
1996 Rl
8/11/95
360 J
950
56
7670 J
7
27
8
3040
17
29 J
1. A Health Advisory is a concentration of a chemical in drinking water that is not expected to cause any adverse
noncarcinogenic effects for up to specified period of time (days or years) of exposure with a margin of safety.
J • Value is estimated because the concentration is below the laboratory contract quantitation limit or because of data
validation control quality criteria.
a " The listed heath advisory criterion, lifetime aduR (70 years), is equal to the most stringent of the EPA health advisories for
this chemical.
e *> The listed heath advisory criterion, long-term child (7 years), is equal to the most stringent of the EPA health advisories
for this chemical.
11-13
19GWARAH.XLS 6/16/97 3:58 PM
-------
should be noted that most exceedances were found at one well (MW19-07) directly adjacent to the area of
concern.
Natural background levels of metals in local soils and groundwater were determined duhng 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 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 2 summarizes the range of background metals concentrations found in groundwater versus the range
of concentrations found on site.
4. Groundwater Modeling
Computer modeling estimated that Site 19 groundwater metals concentrations would gradually diminish
over a long period of time, assuming source removal and control measures would be implemented. The
model indicated that metals concentration at the nearest potential discharge point, a stream located
approximately 500 feet downgradient (west) of the site, would be well below either the state standard or
background levels. The maximum distance from Site 19 where metals concentration in groundwater
would remain above applicable regulatory standards or background levels was estimated by the model to
be 191 feet. Surface water samples taken from the watershed downgradient of Site 19 currently show no
concentration of compounds above background or regulatory standards.
5. Summary of Rl Results
In summary, results of investigationsat Site 19 indicate that
• Metals contamination at levels above regulatory standards in Site 19 soils appears to be limited to the
topographic depression and the drainage swale shallow surface soil and sediment
• No organic compounds were found in groundwater at levels above regulatory standards.
• Metals are found in groundwater at concentrations slightly above regulatory standards near the
downgradient end of the topographic depression.
NiVDOCS\NAVY\7452\RODV607009.DOC ||-14
-------
TABLE 2
COMPARISON OF SITE-RELATED METALS CONCENTRATION IN GROUNDWATER
TO BACKGROUND CONCENTRATIONS - SITE 19
NWS EARLE, COLTS NECK, NEW JERSEY
SUBSTANCE
ALUMINUM
ANTIMONY
ARSENIC
BARIUM
BERYLLIUM
CADMIUM
CALCIUM
CHROMIUM
COBALT
COPPER
IRON
LEAD
MAGNESIUM
MANGANESE
MERCURY
NICKEL
POTASSIUM
SELENIUM
SILVER
SODIUM
THALLIUM
VANADIUM
ZINC
BACKGROUND
FREQUENCY OF
DETECTION
11/11
NOT DETECTED
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
1/11
NOT DETECTED
11/11
3/11
10/11
6/9
RANGE OF
POSITIVE DETECTION
287- 7870
-
5.8
2.6-518
0.21-16
0.6-1.9
506 - 17200
-
0.7-10.1
0.79-135
153-7690
2.-1 - 3
273 - 27400
33 - 65
0.005-0.12
0.81 - 25.5
350 - 3245
5.3
-
1850-11650
4-51
0.69 - 42.25
3.7 - 348
SITE-RELATED
FREQUENCY OF
DETECTION
6/6
1/6
2/6
6/6
2/6
6/6
6/6
6/6
6/6
3/6
6/6
5/6
6/6
6/6
6/6
6/6
6/6
1/6
1/6
6/6
1/6
5/6
4/6
RANGE OF
POSITIVE
DETECTION
360 - 9610
6.7
3.5 - 27.4
16.7 - 753
0.75 - 1
0.73 - 7.5
1330 - 17200
3.9-43.1
0.95-15.6
4.8 - 17.5
794 - 4880
1.6-17.2
921 - 27400
8.1 - 185
0.007-0.12
4.8-25.4
831 - 1540
27.2
1
3640-48100
.28.9
2.3-15.6
7.6 - 694
AVERAGE
CONCENTRATION
4072
2.2
6.3
160
0.33
2.5
7795
223
3.9
4.8
2474
4.8
6352
544
0.06
9.4
1105
6.4
0.6
11977
63
6.4
205
N;VDOCS\NAVY\7452\RODV607009.DOC
1-15
-------
VI. SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS
As part of the Phase II Rl, human health risk assessments and ecological risk assessments were performed
at OU-2. 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.
The risk associated with elevated concentrations of lead, chromium, and cadmium found in surface soils
during the Rl Phase I was not included in these calculations because it was assumed these "hot spot" soils
would be removed as part of any remedial action.
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 site. 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).
• Dermal contact from contaminated soils.
• Inhalation of contaminants in soil (i.e., fugitive dusts).
• Incidental ingestion of contaminated soils.
N;VDOCS\NAVY\7452\ROD\607009.DOC
-------
• 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, NJOEP Groundwater Quality Standards (GWQS), or other
published lists of reference values.
A baseline human health risk assessment was conducted for Site 19. Cancer risks associated with future
residential exposure to groundwater in excess of the acceptable target risk range were determined for Site
19. The primary contaminant contributing to this risk was arsenic (via ingestion of groundwater - Table 3).
Noncarcinogenic His exceeded 1.0 for the future industrial and future residential exposure scenarios.
Thallium and arsenic were the primary contaminants contributing to this risk (also via ingestion of
groundwater - Table 4).
B. Ecological Risks
The ecological risk assessment estimated the risk posed to ecological receptors, such as aquatic and
terrestrial biota, from contamination at Site 19.
Sampling results indicate that high concentrations of contaminants, primarily metals, have migrated from the
site to the drainage ditch that leads to a tributary of Mingamahone Brook and adjacent wetlands. Sediment
concentrations of lead, chromium, cadmium, and zinc in the surface depression and drainage ditch are
well above ecological screening toxicrty values. In addition, although extensive migration of contaminants in
groundwater has not occurred, groundwater discharges into the wetlands, thereby providing a potential
exposure pathway.
NiVDOCS\NAVY\7452\ROD\607009.DOC 11-17
-------
TABLE 3
SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED RME CANCER RISKS AND NONCARCINOGENIC HAZARD INDICIES - SITE 19
NWS EARLE. COLTS NECK. NEW JLRSEY
Medium
Surface Soil
Subsurface Soil
Sediment
Groundwater
Surface Watci
Exposure
Routes
ncidental Ingestion
Dermal Contact
Inhalation of Fugitive Dust
Incidental 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
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
1.3E-05
1.3E05
3.SE08
N/A
N/A
7.8E-05*
3.3E-08*
N/A
N/A
N/A
1.0E-04
Future
Lifetime
Resident
N/S
N/S
N/S
5.7E-05"
4.2E-05*
2.2E-08A
N/A
N/A
3.3E-04"
7.8E-07*
N/A**
N/A
N/A
4.3E-04
Future
Recreational
Child
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
5.5E-07
3.2E07
N/A
N/A
N/A
7.2E-09
3.3E-08
9.1E-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
6.2E-02
4.2E-01
7.7E03
N/A
N/A
4.1E+00<§>
3.2E-02*
N/A
N/A
N/A
4.6E + 00
Future
Resident
Child
N/S
N/S
N/S
8.0E01*
7.4E02*
8.1E-03*
N/A
N/A
2.7E+01@
1.0E+00@
N/A
N/A
N/A
2.9E + 01
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
4.8E02
5.6E-02
N/A
N/A
N/A
5.4E-04
4.7E-04
1.1E-01
N/A = Not applicable because this media is not associated with this potential receptor
N/S = Not sampled . .
* = During Showering, Adult Residents Only
* * = No volatiles 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.
H-18
CKI9.XLS 6/16/97 4:02 PM
-------
TABLE 4
SUMMARY OF CENTRAL TENDENCY CANCER RISKS AND NONCARCINOGENIC HAZARD INDICIES
NWS EARLE. COLTS NECK. NEW JERSEY
SITE 19
Medium
Surface Soil
Subsurface Soil
Sediment
Groundwater
Surface Water
Exposure
Routes
ncidental Ingestion
Dermal Contact
Inhalation of Fugitive Dust
Incidental Ingestion
Dermal' Contact
Inhalation of Fugitive Dust
Incidental Ingestion
Dermal Contact
Estimated Incremental Cancer Risk
Current
Industrial
Employee
N/S
N/S .
N/S
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Ingestion I N/A
Dermal Contact
Inhalation of v'olatiles*
Incidental Ingestion
Duimal Contact
TOTAL
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
-
Future
Industrial
Employee
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/R
N/R
N/R
N/A
N/A
N/R
N/R
N/A
N/A
N/A
•
Future
Lifetime
Resident
N/S
N/S
N/S
N/R
N/R
N/R
N/A
N/A
4.7E-05"
1.0E-07"
N/A"
N/A
N/A
4.7E-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
.
Future
Industrial
Employee
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/R
N/R
N/R
N/A
N/A
7.8E-01@
7.7E-03*
N/A
N/A
N/A
7.9E-01
Future
Resident
Child
N/S
N/S •
N/S
N/R
N/R
N/R
N/A
N/A
3.9E + 00@
1.8E-01@
N/A
N/A
N/A
4.1E+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/H - Central Tendency calculation not required
N/S = Not sampled,
• = During Showering, Adult Residents Only
• • = No volatiles 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.
11-19
SUMRSC19.XLS 6/16/97 4:02 PM
-------
VII. REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVES (RAOs)
The overall objective for the remedy at Site 19 is to protect human health and the environment. The RAO to
protect human health is to prevent human exposure to contaminated soils/sediments and to metal
contaminants in groundwater in the area immediately downgradient of the former paint chip and sludge
dispose area. The RAOs for protection of the environment are to minimize contaminant migration into
groundwater and adjacent wetlands 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.
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. Table 5 presents the considered alternatives and the
results of preliminary screening.
A. Detailed Summary of Alternatives
Summaries of the remedial alternatives developed for OU-2 are presented in the following sections.
1. Alternative 1: No Action
The no-action alternative was developed as a baseline to which other alternatives may be compared, as
required by the NCP. 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 environmental protection
provided by the site in its present state. Periodic reviews of site conditions and long-term monitoring of
groundwater, surface water, and sediments would be activities conducted under this alternative.
2. Alternative 2: Limited Action
Alternative 2 was developed as an option that relies on access restrictions and institutional controls to limit
exposures to hazardous substances. This alternative does not employ treatment or containment to
address site contamination.
N;VDOCS\NAVY\7452\ROD\607009.DOC ||-20
-------
TABLE 5
SITE 19 - 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
toxicrty. mobility, or volume of
contaminants.
Readily implementable. No
technical or administrative
difficulties.
Capital:
O&M:
none
low
Retained
alternative
with NCP.
as baseline
in accordance
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 implementable. No
technical or administrative
difficulties.
Capital:
O&M:
none
low
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 materials
prevent direct contact exposure
and minimizes contaminant
migration to the environment
Groundwater use would be
restricted. Groundwater
contaminants will naturally
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.
N,\ DOCS\NAVY\7452\ROD\607009.DOC
11-21
-------
TABLE 5
SITE 19 - SCREENING OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES
NWS EARLE, COLTS NECK, NEW JERSEY
PAGE 2 OF 2
ALTERNATIVE
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMENTABILITY
COST
COMMENTS
Excavation. On-Site
Solidification, On-
Site Disposal, and
Long-Term
Monitoring
Protects human health and the
environment by immobilizing soil
contaminants, preventing direct contact,
and minimizing contaminant migration
to the environment. Groundwater use
would be restricted. Groundwater
contaminants will naturally attenuate
over time.
Readily implementable. Specialized
treatment equipment is required but is
available from several vendors. No
technical or administrative difficulties.
Personnel and materials necessary to
implement alternative are widely
available.
Capital:
moderate
O&M:
moderate
Retained as representative
treatment alternative.
Excavation and Off-
Base Disposal
Protects human health and the
environment by excavating
contaminated soils and sediments and
transporting them off-base for disposal
in a RCRA landfill. Groundwater use
would be restricted. Groundwater
contaminants will naturally attenuate
over time. No reduction of toxicity or
volume of contaminants.
Readily implementable. Adequate
landfill capacity exists for disposal of the
small volume of contaminated materials
from Site 19.
Capital: low
O&M: low
Alternative would result in
clean closure of Site 19 and
would expedite its reuse.
Retained.
Excavation and On-
Base Disposal
Protects human health and the
environment by excavating
contaminated soils and sediments and
transporting them for consolidation in
an existing on-base landfill that is being
capped under a separate remedial
action. Groundwater use would be
restricted. Groundwater contaminants
will naturally attenuate over time. No
reduction of toxicity or volume of
contaminants.
Readily implementable if capping is the
selected alternative at the Site 4 landfill.
The small volume of contaminated
materials from Site 19 would be used to
assist in achieving the proper grades for
the final cap. The small volume of soils
from Site 19 would not be expected to
significantly alter the cost or design of
the proposed landfill cap.
Capital: low
O&M: low
Alternative would result in
clean closure of Site 19 and
would expedite its reuse.
Retained.
5\NAVY\7452VROD\607009 DOC
-------
Access restrictions would be attached to the property title and/or the Base Master Plan to limit future uses
of the site that may result in increased migration of contaminants or direct contact with contaminated
media. A fence would be erected around the contaminant source area soils to prevent access and
intrusive activities that could result in further contaminant migration to groundwater and the adjacent
wetlands. Long-term, periodic monitoring would be conducted to assess contaminant status and potential
threats to human health and the environment. Since wastes would be left in place, site conditions and
risks would be reviewed every 5 years.
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 will
not be met for a specified duration and to ensure that use of groundwater in the affected area is
suspended until standards are achieved.
3. Alternative 3: Soils Consolidation. Capping. Institutional Controls, and Long-Term
Monitoring
Alternative 3 relies on containment and institutional controls to limit exposure to hazardous substances
and minimize migration of contaminants to groundwater and the adjacent wetlands. Active treatment is
not employed to address site contamination. Contaminants in site groundwater would naturally attenuate
over time through dispersion as leaching of contaminants from source soils is reduced.
Contaminated sediments from the drainage ditch would be excavated and consolidated into the
topographic depression and the depression would be capped to prevent erosion and minimize migration of
contaminants. Access restrictions would be attached to the property title to limit future uses of the site that
may result in damage to the cover and increased migration of contaminants. Access restrictions would
also prohibit the use of untreated groundwater for drinking water.
Long-term, periodic (beginning as semi-annual) monitoring would be conducted to assess contaminant
status and potential threats to human health and the environment. Since wastes would be left in place,
site conditions and risks would be reviewed every 5 years.
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 is
suspended until standards are achieved.
N;VDOCS\NAVY\7452\ROD\607009.DOC ||-23
-------
4. Alternative 4: Solidification. Institutional Control. On-Stte Disposal, and Long-Term
Monitoring
Alternative 4 employs soil treatment to limit exposure to hazardous substances and minimize migration of
contaminants to groundwater and the adjacent wetlands. Contaminants in site groundwater would
naturally attenuate over time through precipitation, adsorption, dilution, and dispersion after leaching of
contaminants from site soils and sediments is abated. Under this alternative, the contaminated sediments
and soils from the drainage ditch and the topographic depression (approximately 260 cubic yards, based
on the limits of contamination determined by shallow soil borings during the Phase II Rl) would be
excavated (Figure 7) and treated by solidification to immobilize metals in a stable matrix. Treated soils
would be placed in the topographic depression upgradient of the swale. The depression would be
backfilled with clean fill, graded level with the surrounding paved surface, and closed with an asphalt cover
to form a treated-soil containment cell. Access restrictions would be enacted to limit future uses of the site
that may result in intrusion into the treated-soil cell. Access restrictions would also prohibit the use of
untreated groundwater for drinking water.
Long-term, periodic monitoring of groundwater, surface water, and sediments 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 GWQS, a CEA pursuant to New Jersey
Administrative Code (N.J.A.C) 7:9-6 would be established in the area immediately adjacent and
downgradient to well MW19-07 to provide the state official notice that the constituent standards would not
be met for a specified duration and to ensure that use of untreated groundwater in the affected area would
be suspended until standards are achieved.
5. Alternative 5; Excavation and Disposal. Institutional Control*, and Long-Term
Monitoring
Under Alternative 5, all contaminated soils and sediments (approximately 260 cubic yards) would be
excavated (Figure 7) and either sent off base for disposal (Alternative 5A) or consolidated onto Site 4. an
on-base, nonhazardous landfill, prior to capping (Alternative SB). Although only nonhazardous soils would
be considered for consolidation onto Site 4 under Alternative SB; since the estimated volume of
soil/sediment known to be contaminated with metals is small and the associated costs for off-site disposal
would be correspondingly relatively low, Alternative SA will be preferred over Alternative SB. After
execution and removal off-site, Site 19 soils would no longer pose threats to groundwater or the adjacent
wetlands.
NADOCS\NAVY\7452\ROD\607009.DOC ||-24
-------
Ki\CAOO\7«52\7<5?C*eiOCM
XJJ
TREELJNC ITYP)
OPEN AREA
PFC1C \
MWIQ-Oy _~\ J* \
OPEN AREA
/ / OPEN AREA ri
. MW19-02
TOPOGRAPHIC
DEPRESSION
UNDERGROUND
CULVERT
LgCENO
A) MONITORING WELL LOCATION
PROPOSED MCA OF SOIL AND
SEOIHEMT EXCAVATICM
WETLAfCS OELINEATION t
rr:i^ DESI04ATIOHS PER MJCEP CIS DATA
OLC STREAM COVERAGE
SOURCE. USCS RESTON.VA
NOTES
UNOT FDR 06SICN
21 ACTUAL EXTEMT OF EXCAVATION TO BE
KTERMWEO OtfUNC PME-CESICN
INVESTICAT10M
PRQPQSEC 6g rAL EXTENT OF EXCAVATION
SITE n - ALTERNATIVES 4 A 5 FS - NWS EARLE
9 189 MB
.SCM.E IN FEET
11-25
FIGURE 1
Brown Jt Root Environmental
-------
Once the source of contamination is removed, contaminants in site groundwater would naturally attenuate
over time through precipitation, adsorption, dilution, and dispersion. Institutional controls would be
enacted to prohibit the use of untreated contaminated groundwater for drinking water until GWQS are met.
Long-term, periodic monitoring of groundwater, surface water, and sediments 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 until standards are met.
Because site groundwater does not meet New Jersey GWQS, a CEA pursuant to N.J.A.C 7:9-6 would be
established in the area immediately adjacent to well MW19-07 to provide the state official notice that the
constituent standards would not be met for a specified duration and to ensure that use of untreated
groundwater in the affected area 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.
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.
N;VDOCS\NAVY\7452\ROD\607009DOC ||-26
-------
4. Reduction of toxicity, mobility 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 are
achieved.
6. Implementability - is an evaluation of the 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 terms 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.
Based on the initial screening of remedial alternatives, Alternatives 1, 4, and 5 were retained for further
consideration. A detailed review of Alternatives is included in this section and summarized in Table 6.
A. Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
Alternatives 4 and 5 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
Alternatives 4 and 5 reduce the potential for direct contact with contaminated materials. By reducing or
preventing leaching of contaminants from site soils and sediments, both alternatives minimize contaminant
migration into the environment
By excavating and transporting contaminated materials off site, Alternative 5 results in permanent protection
of hearth and the environment at Site 19. However, because the soils and sediments are not treated, the
NiVDOCS\NAVY\7452\ROD\607009.DOC ||-27
-------
potential Long-term risks and Long-term monitoring considerations are transferred to another location, to an
off base landfill under Alternative 5A and to an on base or off base landfill (for hazardous waste) under
Alternative 5B.
In contrast, Alternative 4 incorporates treatment that immobilizes contaminants. The solidification technology
has been widely demonstrated and would be expected to provide Long-term protection, but monitoring would
be required to ensure the continued effectiveness and permanence of this alternative.
Both Alternatives 4 and 5 include institutional controls that would provide assurance that untreated
contaminated groundwater is not used as a potable water source in the future; Alternative 1 would not include
any institutional controls to protect future users of site groundwater.
B. Compliance with ARARs
Alternative 1 would not comply with state ARARs for attainment of groundwater quality criteria and would not
include a provision to seek a temporary exemption.
Implementation of Alternatives 4 and 5 would comply with all ARARs identified in the FS. Alternatives 4 and 5
would eventually meet GWQC through source removal and natural attenuation and both include a provision
to seek a temporary exemption (CEA) from these requirements until the GWQS are achieved.
Compliance with location-specific ARARs would be the same under Alternatives 4 and 5. The potential
effects on wetlands, floodplains, water bodies, and other sensitive receptors would be identified during the
design of each alternative and all necessary measures would be taken to comply with the federal and state
location-specificARARs identified in the FS.
Alternative 4 would be constructed and operated in accordance with federal and state hazardous waste
facility regulations if excavated soils and sediments are determined to be hazardous wastes.
Alternative 5 would be conducted in accordance with RCRA hazardous waste generator and transported
requirements and New Jersey labeling, records, and transportation requirements if excavated soils and
sediments are determined to be hazardous wastes.
Both Alternative 4 and Alternative 5 would be implemented in compliance with RCRA Land Disposal
Restrictions(LDRs).
N.VDOCS\NAVY\7452\ROD\607009.DOC ||-28
-------
TABLE 6
SITE 19 - COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF REMEDIAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES
NWS EARLE, COLTS NECK, NEW JERSEY
CRITERION:
ALTERNATIVE 1:
NO ACTION
ALTERNATIVE 4:
EXCAVATION, ON-SITE
SOLIDIFICATION, ON-SITE
DISPOSAL, NATURAL
ATTENUATION, AND LONG-TERM
MONITORING
ALTERNATIVE 5*:
EXCAVATION, OFF-SITE DISPOSAL,
NATURAL ATTENUATION, AND
LONG-TERM MONITORING
OVERALL PROTECTION OF HUMAN HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT
Prevent Human
Exposure to
Contaminated Soils.
No action taken to prevent human
exposure to contaminated soils and
sediments.
Excavation, treatment, and on-site
disposal would prevent direct contact
with contaminated materials.
Excavation and off-site disposal would
prevent direct contact with contaminated
materials.
Prevent Human
Exposure to
Contaminated
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.
Excavation and solidification of soils
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.
Institutional controls would minimize
potential exposure to site groundwater
by prohibiting its use.
Excavation and off-site disposal of soils
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.
Minimize Contaminant
Migration to
Groundwater and
Adjacent Wetlands
No actions taken to reduce
contaminant migration to
groundwater or wetlands.
Contaminants would continue to
leach into groundwater and migrate
into wetlands via surface runoff.
Excavation and solidification of
contaminated soils would reduce
leaching of contaminants to
groundwater and would reduce
migration of contaminants to the
environment by surface water and
wind erosion.
Excavation and removal of contaminated
soils would reduce leaching of
contaminants to groundwater and would
reduce migration of contaminants to the
environment by surface water and wind
erosion.
N;VDOCS\NAVY\7452\ROOVB07009.DOC
II-29
-------
TABLES
SITE 19 - COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF REMEDIAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES
NWS EARLE, COLTS NECK, NEW JERSEY
PAGE 2 OF 7
CRITERION:
ALTERNATIVE 1:
NO ACTION
ALTERNATIVE 4:
EXCAVATION, ON-SITE
SOLIDIFICATION, ON-SITE
DISPOSAL, NATURAL
ATTENUATION, AND LONG-TERM
MONITORING
ALTERNATIVE 5*:
EXCAVATION, OFF-SITE DISPOSAL,
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.
Alternative 4 would be implemented
in compliance with RCRA Land
Disposal Restrictions.
Same as Alternative 4.
Location-Specific
ARARs
Not Applicable.
Would comply with federal and state
ARARs for wetlands, floodplains, and
other sensitive receptors.
Same as Alternative 4.
Action-Specific ARARs
Not Applicable.
If soils and sediments are determined
to be hazardous, Alternative 4 would
comply with federal and state ARARs
for siting and operation of hazardous
waste treatment facilities
If soils and sediments are determined to
be hazardous, Alternative 5 would
comply with federal and state ARARs for
transport/disposal of hazardous waste.
N;V
VY\7452\ROD\607009.DOC
II-
-------
TABLE 6
SITE 19 - COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF REMEDIAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES
NWS EARLE, COLTS NECK, NEW JERSEY
PAGE 3 OF 7
CRITERION:
ALTERNATIVE 1:
NO ACTION
ALTERNATIVE 4:
EXCAVATION, ON-SITE
SOLIDIFICATION, ON-SITE
DISPOSAL, NATURAL
ATTENUATION, AND LONG-TERM
MONITORING
ALTERNATIVE 5V
EXCAVATION, OFF-SITE DISPOSAL,
NATURAL ATTENUATION, AND
LONG-TERM MONITORING
LONG-TERM EFFECTIVENESS AND PERMANENCE
Magnitude of Residual
Risk
Existing risks would remain:
Approximately 3.3 x 10"* ECR and HI
= 3.0 non-carcinogenic risks from
exposure to site groundwater;
Risks exceeding EPA's protective
guideline for exposure to lead in soil,
dust, and groundwater (estimated
15.5 percent children exposed may
have blood lead levels >10ng/l vs
guideline of maximum 5 percent).
Implementation and enforcement of
institutional controls would reduce
risks from exposure to site
groundwater to less than 1x10"* and
HI less than 1.0. Over time, natural
attenuation would result in
permanently reduced risks.
Excavation, treatment, and on-site
containment of contaminated soils
and sediments would reduce direct
exposure risks to acceptable levels
for lead exposure.
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.
Excavation and off-site disposal of
contaminated soils and sediments would
reduce direct exposure risks to
acceptable levels for lead exposure.
Adequacy and
Reliability of Controls
No new controls implemented.
Solidification is a widely
demonstrated, reliable technology for
immobilization of metals in soils and
sediments. Combined with on-site
containment, solidification is expected
to provide permanent protection from
direct contact exposures and long-
term reduction in contaminant
leaching to groundwater.
Because contaminated soils and
sediments would be removed, no
controls would be necessary for
preventing exposure and reducing
contaminant migration to the
environment.
If implemented and enforced,
institutional controls could prevent use of
contaminated groundwater.
Need for 5-Year Review
Review would be required since soil
and groundwater contaminants
would be left in place.
Same as Alternative 1.
Review would be required since
groundwater contaminants would
remain, in excess of GWQC.
N:\DOCS\NAVY\7452\RODV607009 DOC
11-31
-------
TABLE 6
SITE 19 - COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF REMEDIAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES
NWS EARLE, COLTS NECK, NEW JERSEY
PAGE 4 OF 7
CRITERION:
ALTERNATIVE 1:
NO ACTION
ALTERNATIVE 4:
EXCAVATION, ON-SITE
SOLIDIFICATION, ON-SITE
DISPOSAL, NATURAL
ATTENUATION, AND LONG-TERM
MONITORING
ALTERNATIVE 5«:
EXCAVATION, OFF-SITE DISPOSAL,
NATURAL ATTENUATION, AND
LONG-TERM MONITORING
REDUCTION OF TOXICITY, MOBILITY, OR VOLUME THROUGH TREATMENT
Treatment Process
Used
Amount Treated or
Destroyed
Reduction of Toxicity,
Mobility, or Volume
Through Treatment
Irreversible Treatment
Statutory Preference for
Treatment
None.
None.
No reduction, since no treatment
would be employed.
Not Applicable
No
Solidification/Natural Attenuation
260 cubic yards of soil/sediment. All
of contaminated groundwater.
Mobility of metals in soils and
sediments reduced through treatment
by solidification. Contaminated
groundwater treated through natural
attenuation.
Solidification treatment is expected to
provide effective long-term
immobilization of contaminants.
Since contaminants are immobilized,
rather than destroyed, treatment may
not be irreversible. Contaminated
groundwater irreversibly addressed
by natural attenuation.
Yes
Natural Attenuation
All of contaminated groundwater.
Contaminated groundwater treated
through natural attenuation.
Contaminated groundwater irreversibly
addressed by natural attenuation.
Yes
SHORT-TERM EFFECTIVENESS
Community Protection
Worker Protection
No risk to community anticipated.
No risk to workers anticipated if
proper PPE is used during 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.
Same as Alternative 4.
Same as Alternative 4.
N;V
iVY\7452\RODV607009.DOC
M
-------
TABLE 6
SITE 19 - COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF REMEDIAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES
NWS EARLE, COLTS NECK, NEW JERSEY
PAGE 5 OF 7
CRITERION:
ALTERNATIVE 1:
NO ACTION
ALTERNATIVE 4:
EXCAVATION, ON-SITE
SOLIDIFICATION, ON-SITE
DISPOSAL, NATURAL
ATTENUATION, AND LONG-TERM
MONITORING
ALTERNATIVE 5*:
EXCAVATION. OFF-SITE DISPOSAL,
NATURAL ATTENUATION, AND
LONG-TERM MONITORING
Environmental Impacts
No adverse impacts to the
environment anticipated.
No significant impacts to the
environment anticipated. Engineering
controls would be used during
implementation to mitigate risks.
Same as Alternative 4.
Time Until Action is
Complete
Not applicable.
8 months until RAOs for exposure to
contaminated soils and sediments
achieved.
1 year until RAOs for exposure to site
groundwater are achieved.
Alternative 5A: 2.5 months until RAOs
for exposure to contaminated soils and
sediments achieved.
Alternative 5A: 11 months until RAOs
for exposure to contaminated soils and
sediments achieved (including time to
prepare Site 4 landfill for acceptance of
excavated soils).
Both 5A and SB: 1 year until RAOs for
exposure to site groundwater are
achieved.
IMPLEMENTABILITY
Ability to Construct and
Operate
No construction or operation
involved.
No construction or operational
difficulties anticipated.
Common construction techniques
used for excavation and on-site
disposal. Precautions would be
taken to minimize damage to
wetlands during excavation.
Solidification is a well demonstrated
technology employing common
equipment and materials.
No construction or operational difficulties
anticipated.
Common construction techniques and
equipment used for excavation and off-
site disposal. Precautions would be
taken to minimize damage to wetlands
during excavation.
NADOCS\NAVW452\ROD\607009.DOC
II-33
-------
TABLE 6
SITE 19 - COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF REMEDIAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES
NWS EARLE, COLTS NECK, NEW JERSEY
PAGE 6 OF 7
CRITERION:
ALTERNATIVE 1:
NO ACTION
ALTERNATIVE 4:
EXCAVATION, ON-SITE
SOLIDIFICATION, ON-SITE
DISPOSAL, NATURAL
ATTENUATION, AND LONG-TERM
MONITORING
ALTERNATIVE 5*:
EXCAVATION, OFF-SITE DISPOSAL,
NATURAL ATTENUATION, AND
LONG-TERM MONITORING
Ease of Doing More
Action if Needed
Additional actions would be easily
implemented if required.
If additional actions are warranted,
the solidified materials could be
excavated and removed.
Same as Alternative 1.
Ability to Monitor
Effectiveness
Monitoring would provide
assessment of potential exposures,
contaminant presence, migration, or
changes in site conditions.
Same as Alternative 1.
Same as Alternative 1.
Ability to Obtain
Approvals and
Coordinate with Other
Agencies
Coordination for 5-year reviews may
be required and would be obtainable.
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.
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.
Alt. 5A: manifests would be required for
off-site transportation and disposal of
contaminated materials.
Availability of
Treatment, Storage
Capacities, and
Disposal Services
None required.
No off-site TSD capacity or services
required. Ample availability of
companies to provide equipment and
services for solidification treatment.
Alt. 5A: Sufficient commercial landfill
capacity available for materials requiring
disposal.
Alt. SB: Sufficient area available for
disposal of materials at the Site 4 landfill.
Availability of
Equipment, Specialists,
and Materials
Personnel and equipment available
for implementation of long-term
monitoring and 5- year reviews.
Ample availability of companies with
trained personnel, equipment, and
materials to perform excavation.
treatment, disposal, long-term
monitoring, and 5-year reviews.
Ample availability of companies with
trained personnel, equipment, and
materials to perform excavation, off-site
disposal, long-term monitoring, and 5-
year reviews.
N;V
VY\7452\ROD\607009.DOC
-------
TABLE 6
SITE 19 - COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF REMEDIAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES
NWS EARLE, COLTS NECK, NEW JERSEY
PAGE 7 OF 7
CRITERION:
Availability of
Technology
ALTERNATIVE 1:
NO ACTION
Not required.
ALTERNATIVE 4:
EXCAVATION, ON-SITE
SOLIDIFICATION, ON-SITE
DISPOSAL, NATURAL
ATTENUATION, AND LONG-TERM
MONITORING
Solidification is a well demonstrated
technology employing relative
common and available equipment
and materials. Several vendors are
available that could provide the
necessary equipment and materials.
ALTERNATIVE 5*:
EXCAVATION, OFF-SITE DISPOSAL,
NATURAL ATTENUATION, AND
LONG-TERM MONITORING
Common construction techniques and
materials required for excavation and
off-site disposal
COST
Capital Cost
First-Year Annual O&M
Cost
Present Worth Cost"
$0
$16.200
$234.000
$491,000
$21,600
$793,000
Alt. 5A: $375,000
Alt. SB: $153,000
Alt. 5A: $21,600
Alt. 5B: $21.600
Alt. 5A: $677.000
Alt. 5B: $455,000
Notes:
* Evaluation presented pertains to Alternative 5A (off-base disposal) and Alternative 5B (on-base disposal) unless otherwise noted.
** Present worth cost is based on discount rate of 7%.
N;VDOCS\NAVY\7452WODV607009DOC
II-35
-------
C. Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence
Since no remedial actions would occur under Alternative 1 to treat, contain, or remove contaminated soils
and sediments, the current and future threats to human health and the environment from direct exposure to
these media would remain, and contaminant migration to groundwater would continue. Because no
institutional controls would be implemented to prohibit use of untreated contaminated groundwater, the
risk to potential future users of the groundwater would remain unchanged.
Only Alternatives 4 and 5 offer Long-term protection of human health and the environment Alternatives 4
and 5 would reduce human and ecological risks due to direct exposure to site contaminants by eliminating
the potential for exposure. Alternative 4 would achieve Long-term protection by immobilizing contaminants
and disposing treated soils in an on-site containment cell. Monitoring would ensure the long-term
effectiveness and permanence of treatment Alternative 5 would achieve Long-term protection by excavating
and disposing of soils either off site or at an on-base landfill. The action would permanently reduce risks at
Site 19, but contaminant mobility in the environment would not be reduced. The requirement for long-term
monitoring would be transferred to the disposal location.
Long-term risks due to ingestion of site groundwater would be reduced under Alternatives 4 and 5 by
reducing contaminant leaching into groundwater and by implementing institutional controls to prohibit use of
untreated, contaminated groundwater until ARARs are met Alternative 1 would not include any measures to
reduce these risks.
D. Reduction of Toxteitv. Mobility, or Volume Through Treatment
Only Alternative 4 would reduce the mobility of soil/sediment contaminants through treatment Because
neither Alternative 1 nor Alternative 5 includes soil/sediment treatment neither would reduce the toxicrty,
mobility, or volume through treatment
With source removal, natural attenuation would reduce the toxicrty. mobility, and volume of contaminated
g roundwater over time under Alternatives 4 and 5.
E. Short-Term Effecttvenex
The short-term effectiveness of the three alternatives would be similar since the use of appropriate
engineering controls and personal protective equipment (PPE) would be expected to minimize adverse
impacts to Base residents and personnel, the local community, and workers during implementation.
N:\-DOCS\NWY\7452NROOW7009.DOC 11-36
-------
Long-term monitoring, the only on-site activity proposed under Alternative 1, would provide little opportunity
for short-term impact to the local community or the environment
• Alternatives 4 and 5 would present a greater opportunity for short-term impacts to human health and the
environment due to excavation and handling of contaminated soils and sediments. Alternative 5A would
present the greatest opportunity for short-term impact because it includes off-base transport of contaminated
soils/sediments. In all cases, short-term risks posed to base personnel, site workers, and the environment
under either alternative would be mitigated through use of engineering controls and appropriate PPE. No
permanent adverse impacts to human health or the environment are anticipated to result from
implementatJonof Alternatives 4 or 5.
F. ImplementabiHtv
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 5A would be the next easiest to implement because it involves only excavation and off site
transport and disposal. A number of companies with the trained personnel, equipment and materials to
perform excavation, disposal, and Long-term monitoring are available. Sufficient commercial landfill capacity
is available to handle the small volume of contaminated materials (approximately 260 cubic yards) that would
require off-base disposal under Alternative 5A.
1 Alternative 4 would be somewhat more difficult to implement because it would require mobilization and
operation of an on-site treatment system. However, solidification is a well-demonstrated technology
employing relatively common equipment and materials, and several vendors are available that could provide
the necessary equipment materials, and services.
If additional actions are warranted, they could be easily implemented under Alternatives 1 and 5. Under
Alternative 4. additional actions could be implemented; however, excavation and removal of the solidified
materials may be required.
G. Cp«t
Alternative 1, no action, would cost the least to implement and Alternative 4 would cost the most to
* •
implement Alternative 5A costs more to implement than Alternative SB (Alternative 5A is preferred over
NADOCS\NAVY\7452\ROOVS07009.DOC ||-37
-------
Alternative SB because of the relatively small volume of soil/sediments and their known contamination with
metals).
No capital costs are associated with the no-action alternative. The average annual O&M cost for Long-term
monitoring is $21,600 and 5-year reviews are $15,500 per event Over a 30-year period, the net present-
worth cost is $302,000.
The capital costs for Alternative 4 total $491,000. The average annual O&M costs are $21,600, and 5-year
reviews cost $15,500 per event Over a 30-year period, the net present-worth cost is $793,000.
The capital costs for Alternative 5A total $375,000. The average annual O&M costs are $21,600, and 5-year
reviews cost $15,500 per event Over a 30-year period, the net present-worth cost is $677,000.
The capital costs for Alternative SB total $153,000. The average annual O&M costs are $21,600, and 5-year
reviews cost $15,500 per event Over a 30-year period, the net present-worth cost is $455,000. These costs
do not include those for off-site disposal of any material determined to be hazardous. Alternative 5A is
preferred over Alternative SB. Costs for SB are presented here for completeness purposes.
H. Agency Acceptance
The NJDEP has had the opportunity to review and comment on aH 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.
I. Community Acceptance
The community has had the opportunity to review and comment on documents in the Administrative Record
and has participated in regularly scheduled Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) meetings covened to
encourage community involvement A public meeting was held to provide the community an opportunity to
hear 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.
N\DOCSVNA\m7452\ROD\607009.DOC ||-38
-------
X. THE SELECTED REMEDY
The Navy, with the support of EPA, in consultation with NJDEP has selected Alternative 5A: Excavation and
Off-Base Disposal as the preferred alternative for remediation of contaminated sediments and soils and
prevention of further leaching of metals to groundwater. This alternative would reduce unacceptable
human health risks and threats to ecological receptors in the vicinity by removing the metals-laden
sediments and contaminated soil for consolidation/disposal off site at a permitted hazardous waste
disposal facility if excavated material is found to be hazardous.
Implementation of Alternative 5A would comply with all ARARs identified in the FS. The preferred alternative
•>
is believed to provide the best balance of protection among the alternatives with respect to response
criteria. GWQS would eventually be met through natural attenuation and a provision is included to seek a
CEA in the area immediately adjacent and (approximately 800 - 1.000 feet) downgradient of the site to
protect potential receptors until the GWQS are achieved. Additional groundwater monitor ng wells would te-
installed downgradient of MW19-07 to evaluate the protectiveness of the remedy.
Based on available information, the Navy and EPA believe the preferred alternative would be protective of
human hearth and the environment, would be cost effective, and would be in compliance with ad statutory
requirements of EPA, the state, and the local community.
XI. STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
The remedy selected for OU-2 (Alternative 5A) satisfies the - • nedy selection requirements of CERCLA
'and the NCP. The remedy is expected to be protective of human hearth arc v.e environment, complies
with ARARs, and is cost effective. The following sections discuss how the selected remedial action
addresses these statutory requirements.
A. - reioctlon of ^uman Health and the Environment.
Alternative 5A would provide overall protection of human health and the environment by preventing direct
exposure to contanninated materials, reducing contaminant migration from the site into the environment .and'
instituting restrictions on use of site groundwater.
Alternative 5A would also reduce the isks posed by iJture use of site grouncwuter. The human health risk
assessment conceded that site groundwater poses carcinogenic and ncn-carcir :-genic risks exceeding
EPA's target risk .arge under a future residential exposure scenario. Removal of contaminated soil and
sediment would significantly reduce contaminant leaching from the site to the underlying groundwater and
N:.DOCS\NAVY\7452\ROC'607009.DOC ||-39
-------
would facilitate natural attenuation of the groundwater contamination. Reducing leaching of contaminants
from the soil and sediment 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 191 feet downgradient of the site* was the
maximum distance where metals in groundwater would exceed either GWQS or background levels.
Establishing the site as a groundwater CEA would provide interim protection by prohibiting use of the aquifer
until GWQS are achieved.
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. Long-term monitoring will be quarterly until such time as EPA and
the Navy agree on a reduced schedule.
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-2 complies with all applicable or relevant and appropriate chemical-specific,
location-specific, and action-specific ARARs. Tables 7 through 12 summarize ARARs and TBCs
applicable to OU-2.
-1. ChemJcal-Speclflc ARARs
Potential federal and state chemical-specific ARARs are listed in Tables 7 and 8, respectively.
Implementation of Alternative SA would comply with the ARARs identified in Tables 6 and 7. Because
Alternative 5A does not include active treatment of groundwater, initially the groundwater beneath Site 19
would not meet the constituent concentrations specified in the New Jersey GWQS [N.JAC. 7:9-6].
However, removal of contaminated soils and sediments would reduce migration of contaminants into
groundwater, facilitating natural attenuation of contaminants and ultimately resulting in attainment of GWQS.
Alternative SA 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.
NiVDOCS\NAVY\7452\ROD\607009.DOC
-------
TABLET
POTENTIAL FEDERAL CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC ARARs AND TBCs
NAVAL WEAPON STATION EARLE, COLTS NECK, NEW JERSEY
REI
NT
STATUS
REQUIREMENTSYNOPSIS
COMMENTS
Safe Drinking Water Ad (SOWA) •
Maximum Contaminant Levels
(MCLs) (40 CFR 141.11-141.16)
Potentiaty Relevant
•nd Appropriate
MCU 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 tor groundwater because the aquifer beneath the site to 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 Act (RCRA)-
Groundwater Protection Standard
(40 CFR 264.94)
Potentiaiy Relevant
The RCRA groundwater protection standard is estabished tar 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
heath 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)
Potentiaty AppHcabb
These regulations Identify hazardous wastes that are restricted from land
disposal and establish waste analysis and lecoidkeeping requirements and
treatment standards* (concentration levels or methods of treatment) that
waste* 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 w* be
treated to attain applicable "treatment standards*
prior to placement in a landfiB. or other land
disposal facility. This requirement would be
considered for alternatives involving land
Clean Water Act - Ambient Water
Quality Criteria (AWQC)
To be Considered
AWQC am non-promulgated heath-based surface water quality criteria that
have been developed for carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic compounds for
the protection of human heath 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.
N,VDOCS\NAvW452WOOVB07008DOC
11-41
-------
TABLE 7
POTFNTIAL FEDERAL CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC ARARs AND TBCs
NAV/,L WEAPON STATION EARLE, COLTS NECK, NEW JERSEY
PAGt 2 OF 3
REQUIKtMENT
STATUS
REQUIREMENT SYNOPSIS
COMMENTS
-LivVA Maximum Contaminant
Level Goal* (MCLGs) (40 CFR
141.50andl4t 51)
To B« Considered
MCLG* ara health-based lima* (or contaminant concentrations in drinking
water. MCLGs are established at tovel* at which no Known or anticipated
adverse effects on human health are anticipated and which aOow (or an
adequate margin ol safety MCLGs are set without regard (or cost or
feasibility.
Non-zero MCLGs may be used as clean-up levels
if conditions at the site justify setting cleanup
levels lower than MCLs.
devised Intemn Soil Lead Guidance
for CEHCLA Site* and RCRA
Corrective Action FacMlea (OSWER
Directive No. 9355 4-12) (Jul 1994)
To Be Considered
This OSWER Directive recommends a toad soil screening level of 400 pom
(or residential land use based on the IEUBK model. The screening value
may be used to determine whether sites 01 portion* of sites warrant further
evaluation and evaluation* of risks
If any of the OU-1 sites is to be considered (or
eventual residential use, then the screening value
may be used to assess whether site-specific lead
level* require further evaluation and possible
remediation.
EPA Groundwalei Protection
Strategy
Provides classification and restoration goal* for groundwater based on it*
vulnerability, use. and value.
This strategy was considered in conjunction with
the Federal SDWA and Stale Groundwater
Protection Rules in order to determine
groundwater cleanup levels.
R > Based Concentration (RBC)
To Be Considered
RBC* are developed based on estimating a concentration In a specific
media (!.•.. air. water or soil) that Is associated with specific exposure
assumptions ami - .pecinc risk level (i.e.. Hazard Quotient of 1 or a Cancer
Risk of 1 X IDE-6). The (election of specific exposure parameter* 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.
,VY\7452\ROD\067009
11-42
-------
TABLE7
POTENTIAL FEDERAL CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC A RAR» AND TBCs
NAVAL WEAPON STATION EARLE, COLTS NECK, NEW JERSEY
PAGE 3 of 3
REQUIREMENT
STATUS
REQUIREMENT SYNOPSIS
COMMENTS
EPA Heath Advisories and
Acceptable Intake Heath
Assessment Documents
To Be Considered
Intended for use in qualitative human health evaluation of remedial
aNematives.
These advisories and health assessment
documents were used in assessing health risks
from contaminants present at the site.
Clean Air Act - Standard* for Air
Emissions from Municipal Solid
Waste LandWs (40 CFR 60752 and
60.753)
Potentoly Relevant
and Appropriate
Active landMs with design capacities equal to or greater than 2.5 miHion
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 shall be operated so that the
methane concentration is less than 500 ppm above background at the
surface of the tandM.
Both Sites 4 and 5 landfMs are estimated to be
much toss 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.
N;VDOCS\NAVY\7452\RODV607009 DOC
11-43
-------
TABLES
POTENTIAL STATE CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC ARARs AND TBCs
NAVAL WEAPON STATION EARLE, COLTS NECK, NEW JERSEY
REQUIREMENT
STATUS
REQUIREMENTSYNOPSIS
COMMENTS
New Jeraey Ground Water Quality
Standards (GWQS) (N J AC. 7:94)
Appkcabto
This regulation establishes the rules to protect ambient ground
water quality through establishing groundwater protection and
dean up standards, and setting numerical criteria brats for
discharges to ground water The Ground Water Criteria (GWQC)
(N. J AC. 7:94.7) are the maximum atowabto pottutant
concentrations in ground water that are protective of human
heath. 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 win be
considered in determining groundwater action levels.
Application for Classification Exception Area (CEA) may be
required if GWQS wM 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 QuaNy
Standards (SWQS) (N.JAC. 7:9B)
Applicable
TN
standards establish rules to protect and enhance surface
water resources, define surface water classifications and uses.
establish water quality based criteria, and effluent discharge
limitations. The Surface Water Criteria (SWQC) (N.J.A.C. 7:98-
14) are tfie maximum atowabto poautant concentrations in
surface water for the designated use.
For atematives where surface water may be affected, remedial
measures may be needed so that the SWQC are attained in
the long term Remedial alternatives shaB consider action to
mitigate the continued contamination of surface waters
New Jersey Safe Drinking Water Act
(N.JAC. 7:10)
Krigated to assure the provision of
Relevant and
Appropriate
These regulations were
safe drinking water to consumers in pubic community water
systems. Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) (NJAC. 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 supply.
MCLs may be used to establish dean-up levels for groundwater
underlying the OU-1 sites. MCLs can be used to derive
potential soil cleanup levels.
N.VDOC
i7452\RODVB07009.DOC
11-44
-------
TABLES
POTENTIAL STATE CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC ARAR« AND TBCs
NAVAL WEAPON STATION EARLE, COLTS NECK, NEW JERSEY
PAGE 2 of 2
REQUIREMENT
New Jersey Sot Cleanup Criteria
STATUS
To Be
Considered
REQUIREMENTSYNOPStS
These are non-promulgated soils cleanup criteria for residential
ground water (through leaching).
COMMENTS
These criteria wtt be considered in the development of soil
cleanup goals.
NiVDOCSWVY\7452WOO\e07009.DOC
11-45
-------
TABLES
POTENTIAL FEDERAL LOCATION-SPECIFIC ARARs AND TBCs
NAVAL WEAPON STATION EARLE, COLTS NECK, NEW JERSEY
REQUIREMENT
STATUS
REOUIREMENTSYNOPSIS
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 alternative* that involve excavation or deposition
of materials will include all practicable means of minimizing
harm to the wetlands adjacent to the OlM sites Wetlands
protection consideration win be incorporated into the
planning, decision-making, and implementation of remedial
alternatives.
Ftoodptains Executive Order (E.0.11988)
& 40 CFR 6. App. A (Policy on
Implementing EO 11968)
Potentialy Apple
Federal agencies are required to reduce the risk of
flood toss, minimize impact of floods, and restore and
preserve the natural and beneficial value of
The potential effects on floodplains win be considered during
the development and evaluation of remedial alternatives Al
practicable measures win be taken to minimize adverse
effects on floodplains.
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) Location Standards. Floodplains
(40 CFR 264.18 (a))
Potentialy AppBrahle
Any RCRA facility that treats, stores, or disposes of
hazardous waste, i situated in a 100-year ftoodptain,
must be designed, constructed, operated, and
maintained to avoid washout.
Where possMe. remedial alternatives that include
construction of a treatment, storage, or disposal facility wi
be sited outside of a 100-year floodplain
Endangered Spedes Act of 1973 (16 USC
1531 et seq); (SO CFR Part 200)
Potontialy AppMcabto. if
present
Actions shal be taken to conserve endangered or
threatened species, or to protect critical habitats.
ConsuNation 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 VMkWa Coordination Act Of 1958
(16 USC. 661) Protection of WHdMe
Potentoly Apptcabts
This regulation requires thai any Federal agency that
proposes to modify a body of water must consut with
the U.S. F»h and WJktffe 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. Hit is
determined that an impact may occur, then the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, the NJOEP. and EPA would be
consuled.
N;VDOd^prVY\7452\RODtt07009.DOC
-------
TABLES
POTENTIAL FEDERAL LOCATION-SPECIFIC ARARs AND TBCs
NAVAL WEAPON STATION EARLE, COLTS NECK, NEW JERSEY
PAGE 2 of 2
REQUIREMENT
STATUS
REQUIREMENTSYNOPSIS
COMMENTS
National Historic Preservation Ad of 1966
Section 106 (16 USC 470 el. seq.)
Potentially Applicable, if
present
Action wil 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 (eg excavation, consolidation, grading).
To date, no such artifacts have been encountered at the
OU-1 sites
National Arcneotogical and Historic
Preservation Ad of 1974 (132CFR229)
PotentiaRy Applicable, if
present
Action wil 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 (eg. excavation, consolidation, grading).
To date, no such artifacts have been encountered at the
OU-1 sites.
N;VDOCS\NAVY\7452\ROD«07009.DOC
11-47
-------
TABLE 10
POTENTIAL STATE LOCATION-SPECIFIC ARARs AND TBCs
FEASIBILITY STUDY
NAVAL WEAPON STATION EARLE, COLTS NECK, NEW JERSEY
REQUIREMENT
STATUS
REQUIREMENTSYNOPS1S
COMMENTS
New Jersey Freshwater Wetlands
Protection Ad Rules
(N.JAC. 7:7A)
Potentiaty 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 Ml 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 Rute», MNttgatton (N.JAC.
7:7A-14)
Potentially Applicable
This regulation requires mitigation of the disturbed
wetlands or fffled 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 toss of
wetlands through dredging, lining, 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)
PotentiaNy 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
New Jersey Siting Criteria for New Major
Commercial Hazardous Waste FadMies
(N.JAC. 7:26-13)
Poterrtiaty 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 wit) need
to be consistent with these requirements.
11-48
-------
TABLE 11
POTENTIAL FEDERAL ACTION-SPECIFIC ARARs AND TBCs
NAVAL WEAPON STATION EARLE, COLTS NECK, NEW JERSEY
REQUIREMENT
STATUS
REQUIREMENT SYNOPSIS
COMMENTS
Resource Conservation and Recovery
Ad (RCRA) - Hazardous Waste
Generator and Transporter
Requirements (40 CFR parts 262 and
263)
Potential/
Applicable
These regulations establish the responsibilities of generators
and transporters of hazardous waste in the handling.
transportation, and management of waste. The regulations
specify (he packaging, labeling, recordkeeping. and manifest
Activities performed in connection with off-site transport of
hazardous wastes wM comply with the requirements of these
regulations.
RCRA - General FadMy Standards
(40CFR26SSubpartB)
Potentiaiy
Applicable
General fadry 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 (characteristic or listed).
then this regulation will be considered. This regulation specifies
TSD facilities construction, fencing, postings, and operations. Ad
workers wW be properly trained. Process wastes wiH be evaluated
for the characteristics of hazardous wastes to assess further
handling Requirements.
RCRA - Preparedness and Prevention
(40CFR265SubpartC)
Potentiaiy
Applicable
Outlines requirements for safety equipment and sod) control.
If a remedial alternative includes treatment, storage, or disposal of
hazardous wastes, then this regulation win be considered. Safety
and communication equipment Witt be maintained at the site.
Local authorities wW be familiarized with the site operations
RCRA-Contingency Plan and
Emergency Procedures
(40CFR265SubpartD)
Potentiaiy
Applicable
Outlines requirements for emergency procedures to be used
fosowing explosions, fires, etc.
If the aMemative includes treatment, storage, or disposal of
hazardous wastes, then contingency plans wM be developed.
Copies of the plans wM be kept on-ste.
RCRA - Manifesting Recordkeeping.
and Reporting (40 CFR 265 Subpart
E)
Potentiaiy
Specifies the recordkeeping and reporting requirements for
RCRA facilities.
If (he alternative includes treatment, storage, or disposal of
hazardous wastes, then records of facility activities writ be
developed and maintained during remedial actions.
NiVDOCS\NA\W7452\RODV607009.DOC
II-49
-------
TABLE 11
POTENTIAL FEDERAL ACTION-SPECIFIC ARARs AND TBCs
NAVAL WEAPON STATION EARLE, COLTS NECK, NEW JERSEY
PAGE 2 of 3
REQUIREMENT
STATUS
REQUIREMENTSYNOPSIS
COMMENTS
RCRA - Closure and Post-Closure
(40 CFR 258. Subpart F)
Potentiaty
Relevant and
Appropriate
Details specinc requirements for closure and DOS-closure of
municipal solid waste landfills. Final cover requirements that
If an alternative includes closure of a solid waste landfill, then
these requirements wifl be considered in formulating the
alternative
regulation.
FoBowring 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 coOection system.
RCRA - Land Treatment
(40 CFR 265 Submit M)
Potentialy
Applicable
These regulations detari the requirements lor conducting land
treatment of RCRA hazardous waste.
Alternatives that involve on-ste treatment of hazardous wastes
(contaminated soil or sediments) wil comply with these
regulations.
RCRA - Thermal Treatment (40 CFR
265SubpartP)
Potentialy
Applicable
Thisregula
details
ating 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 - MJsceaaneoui Treatment
Untts (40CFR264SubpartX)
Potentialy
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 • Air Emission Standards tor
Proems Vent*
(40 CFR 265 Subpart AA)
Potentialy
Applicable
TWs regulation contains air poOutant 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.
These standards wW be considered during the development and
design of alternatives that include treatment of VOC-contaminated
soft. Air emissions from treatment units wiO be monitored to .
ensure compliance with this ARAR
N;\
VY\7452\ROOV607009.DOC
II-!
-------
TABLE 11
POTENTIAL FEDERAL ACTION-SPECIFIC ARARs AND TBCs
NAVAL WEAPON STATION EARLE, COLTS NECK, NEW JERSEY
PAGE 3 of 3
REQUIREMENT
STATUS
REQUIREMENTSYNOPSIS
COMMENTS
OSWER Directive
93550-62FS
Application of the CERCtA
Municipal L«mlH Presumptive
Remedy to Metory LandMs (Interim
Guidance) (April 1996)
To Be
Considered
This EPA directive provides guidance in evaluating military
londM 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
93550-49FS
Presumptive Remedy for CERCLA
MunicjMl Land* Sites (Sept 1993)
To Be
Considered
This EPA directive provides guidance in evaluating CERCIA
municipal landM 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.
N;\.DOCS\NAVY\7452\ROOV607009.DOC
11-51
-------
TABLE 12
POTENTIAL STATE ACTION-SPECIFIC ARARs AND TBCs
NAVAL WEAPON STATION EARLE, COLTS NECK, NtW JERStiY
REQUIREMENT
STATUS
REQUIREMENT SYNOPSIS
COMMENTS
N J.S A. 58:108
Applicable
Establishes New Jena/* acceptable risk range of 10 E-06
(one cancer in a mitton).
New Jersey water quaUy standards and toil dean-up criteria are
based on this risk level.
NOW Jersey Labeling. Recoils, and
Transportation Requirement*
(N JA.C. 7:26-7)
Polenlully
Applicable
These regulation* establish the lespoosibtWies of generators
and transporters ol hazardous waste In the handling.
transportation, and management ol waste. The regulations
specify the packaging, labeling, recordkeeping. and manifest
requirements.
Activities performed In connection with off-site transport of
hazardous wastes wil comply with the requirements of these
regulations.
New Jersey Requirements for
Hazardous Waste FaciUies
(N.J A C. 7:26-9)
Potential
Applicable
These regulations identify requirements (or faouties In
general, ground* uter monitoring, preparedness and
prevention, contm^dncy and emergency procedure*, and
general dosuie and post-closure.
If a remedial alternative includes the eslabbshment of an on-base
treatment facility for contaminated soils and materials, then this
regulation will be complied wtlh during implementation.
New Jersey Closure and Post-Closure
Care of Sanitary Landfills Regulations
(N JA C. /.26-2A.B)
Potentially
Relevant and
Details specific requirements for closure and pot-closure of
municipal solid waste landfills. Final cover requirements Out
address rranimizng infiltration and erosion are identified in Una
regulation.
FoBowing 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 coflocUon system.
If an alternative Includes closure of a solid waste landfill, then
these requirements will be considered In formulating the
aRemative..
New Jersey Thermal Treatment
Regulations
(NJAC. 7:26-11.6)
Potentially
Applicable
These regulations detail operating requirements, waste'
analyses and monitoring of treatment conditions, performance
standards, and closure, of enisling facdiues that thermally treat
hazardous wastas.
Alternatives that include trtermal treatment of contaminated soils.
sediments, and materials would be designed and operated in
consistent with this regulation.
BPiC>CS\NAVY\7452\ROO\607009 DOC
11-52
-------
TABLE 12
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 Uwmical, Physical, and
Biology! Treatment Regulations
(NJAC 7:26-117)
Potenlialy
Applicable
These regulations detail operating requirements, waste
analysts and monitoring of treatment conditions, and closure
of existing facilities that physically, chemically, or biologically
treat hazaidous wastes. Also 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 An PottuOon by
Toxic Substances
(N.JAC. 7:27-17)
Potentially
Applicant
V emissions
greater than
45.4 gmr
(O.lKVhr)
I Iwse regulations govern the emission of Group I and Group
II toxic volatile organic compounds (TXS) to the ambient air.
Group ITXS 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 the release of Group I or Group II
TXS to the ambient air. exceeding 0.1 fc/rtr, would incorporate
appropriate vapor control measure to comply with these
requirements.
N \ DOCS\NAVY\7452\RODVb07009.DOC
11-53
-------
2. Location-Specific
Potential federal and state location-specific ARARs are listed in Tables 9 and 10, respectively. The potential
effects of the proposed remediation on wetlands, floodplains, water bodies, and other sensitive receptors would be
identified during the design of Alternative 5A and all necessary measures would be taken to comply with the
location-specific federal and state ARARs identified in Tables 9 and 10. It is expected that Alternative 5A would
easily comply with these ARARs.
3. Actlon-Specfflc ARARs
Potential federal and state action-specific ARARs are listed in Tables 11 and 12, respectively. The selected
remedy for OU-2 would comply with all action-specific ARARs such as NJDEP waste documentation and
labeling requirements or Federal Preparedness and Prevention planning.
C. Cost-Effectiveness
The Navy and EPA have determined that the selected remedy for OU-2 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 capital costs for Alternative 5A total $375,000. The
average annual O&M costs are $21,600, and 5-year reviews cost $15,500 per event Over a 30-year period, the
net present-worth cost is $677,000 (at a 7 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-2.
E. Preference for Treatment -as a Principal Element
Due to the relatively small volume of contaminated soil and sediment excavation and off-site disposal
represent a proven, cost-effective method for removal of contaminated materials.
N;VDOCS\NAVY\7452\ROD>607009.0OC II-54
-------
XII. 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.
N:VOOCS\NAVY\74S2\RODVB07009.0OC 11-55
-------
I
RECORD OF DECISION
NAVAL WEAPONS STATION EARLE
OPERABLE UNIT 2
PART III - RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
The purpose of this Responsiveness Summary is to review public response to the Proposed Plan for OU-2.
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-2 is divided into the following sections:
• Overview - This section briefly describes the remedial alternative recommended in the Proposed Plan
and any impacts on the Proposed Plan due to public comment
• Background on Community Involvement - This section describes community relations activities
conducted with respect to the area of concern.
• Summary of Major Question* and Comments - This section summarizes verbal and written
comments received during the public meeting and public comment period.
I. OVERVIEW
This Responsiveness Summary addresses public response to the Proposed Plan. The Proposed Plan and
other supporting information were maintained for public review in the Administrative Record file for OU-2,
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-2. Throughout the investigation period, EPA and 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
representativesfrom the Navy, EPA, NJDEP, the Monmouth County Health Department, and other agencies
and local groups surrounding NWS Earte, was formed. The TRC later was transformal into the Restoration
Advisory Board (RAB) to include community members as well as the original officials from the TRC. and has
N;\.DOCS\NAVY\7452\ROD\6070090OC
-------
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 Asbutv 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 NJDEP were available to answer questions concerning OU-2 and the preferred
alternative. The complete attendance list is included in Appendix B.
III. SUMMARY OF MAJOR QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS
A. Written Comment*
During the public comment period from March 21 to April 30,1997, no written comments were received from
the public pertaining to OU-2. No new comments were received from the NJDEP or EPA.
B. Public Meeting Comments
One comment concerning OU-2 was received at the April 24, 1997 public meeting. Mr Lester Jargowsky
stated that the Monmouth County Health Department concurred with the Proposed Plan for Site 19.
NiVDOCS\NAVY\7452\ROO\607009.DOC |||-2
-------
APPENDIX A
TERMS USED IN THE RECORD OF DECISION
1,2-Dichloroethene (1,2-DCE): Common volatile organic solvent formerly used for cleaning, degreasing,
or other uses in commerce and industry.
Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirement* (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:
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.
N;VDOCS\NAVY\?452VRODVB07009.0OC
-------
Initial Assessment Study (IAS): Preliminary investigation usually 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* (LORs): A set of EPA-prescribed limit concentrations with associated
treatment standards regulating disposal in landfills.
Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL): EPA-publisned (promulgated as law) maximum concentration
level for compounds found in water in a public water supply system.
Noncarcinogenlc: 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 Subtitie D facility: Municipal-type waste disposal facility (tendfW) 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 Dos* (RD): An estimate (with an uncertainty spanning an order of magnitude or greater) of a
daily exposure level for the human population, including sensitive subpopulattons, that is likely to be
without an appreciable risk of deleterious effects during a lifetime.
Remedial Action Objective (RAO): An objective selected in the FS, against which all potential remedial
actions are judged.
N;VOOCS\NAVY\74S2\ROOV80700g.DOC A-2
-------
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.
Semrvolatlle Organic Compounds (SVOCs): Organic chemicals [e.g., phthalates or polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs)] that do not readily evaporate under atmospheric conditions.
Target Compound ListTTarget Analyte List (TCL/TAL): List of routine organic compounds (TCL) or
metals (TAL) included in the EPA Contract Laboratory Program.
Toxictty Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP): Analytical test prescribed by EPA to determine
potential leachate toxicity in materials; commonly used to determine the suitability of a waste for disposal
in a landfill.
Trichtoroetnene (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.
N;VDOCS\NAVY\7452\ROD«07p09.DOC
-------
APPENDIX B
ATTENDANCE LIST
APRIL 24,1997 PUBLIC MEETING
NAME
ORGANIZATION
Gregory J.Goepfert
John Kolitius
Gus Hermann!
Kevin M. Bova
Deborah Sciascia
Russefl Turner
Jeffrey Gratz
Robert Marcolina
Barbara Douglas
Thomas Wiseman
Lester Jargowsky
Greta Deirocini
Angela Mazzio
NWSEarte
Naval Facilities Engineering Command
NWSEarie
NWSEarie
NWSEarie
Brown & Root Environmental
USEPA Region II
NJDEP
Naval Facilities Engineering Command
NWSEarie
Monmouth County Health Department
Naval Facilities Engineering Command
Student
N;VDOCSVNAVY\74SaROOVB07000.DOC
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
O & M
Estimated Cost
September 25, 1997
Excavation and off-site disposal of
260 cubic yards of contaminated soil
and sediment from a leach pit and
drainage ditch and long-term
monitoring.
OU-2
$375,000
2.5 months
$21,600
Present worth cost (based on a discount
rate of 7%) - $677,000
LEAD
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.)
Est. quantity
High levels of lead, chromium and
cadmium in sediment and surface soil;
low levels of metals in ground water
Surface soil, sediment, and ground
water
260 cubic yards
------- |