United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Emergency and
Remedial Response
EPA/ROD/R02-92/193
March 1992
PB93-963826
£EPA Superfund
Record of Decision:
Naval Air Engineering Center
(Operable Unit 7), NJ
-------
50272-101
REPORT DOCUMENTATION 1. REPORT NO. 2.
PAGE EPA/ROD/R02-92/193
4. Thk and Subtitle
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION
Naval Air Engineering Center (Operable Unit 7), NJ
Seventh Remedial Action - Interim
7. Author<.)
9. Performing Organization Nairn and Addreaa
12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Addmaa
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
3. Recipient'* Acoaaalon No.
5. Report Data
03/16/92
&
8. Performing Organization Rept No.
10. Project/Taak/Work UnH No.
11. Contract(C) or Grant(Q) No.
(C)
(G)
11 Type ol Report & Period Covered
800/000
14.
15. Supplementary Notea
PB93-963826
16. Abatract (Umlt: 200 word*)
The 7,400-acre Naval Air Engineering Center (NAEC) site is located in Jackson and
Manchester Townships, Ocean County, New Jersey, approximately 14 miles inland from the
Atlantic Ocean. Surrounding land use is primarily undeveloped woodlands and open
areas, with the closest residential area, the Borough of Lakehurst, located southeast
of the facility. The NAEC, which lies within the Toms River Drainage Basin, contains
over 1,300 acres of flood-prone areas. In the vicinity of NAEC, drinking water is
generally supplied to the populace by municipal supply wells. Some private wells
exist, but these are primarily used for irrigation purposes. The U.S. Navy assumed
control of the property in 1919, and it was formally commissioned Naval Air Station
(NAS) Lakehurst in 1921. The NAEC was moved from the Naval Base, Philadelphia to NAS
Lakehurst in 1974. NAEC's mission is to conduct research, development, engineering,
testing and system integration, limited production and procurement for aircraft and
airborne weapons systems. Historically, various operations at NAEC have required the
use, handling, storage, and occasional onsite disposal of hazardous substances. The
U.S. Air Force's Installation Restoration Program (IRP) has identified 44 potentially
(See Attached Page)
17. Document Analyala a. Descriptor*
Record of Decision - Naval Air Engineering Center (Operable Unit 7), NJ
Seventh Remedial Action - Interim
Contaminated Media: soil, gw
Key Contaminants: VOCs (benzene, PCE, TCE, toluene, xylenes), other organics (PAHs,
PCBs), metals
b. UontHlera/Opan-Ended Term*
c. COSATI Reid/Group
18. Availability Statement
19. Security Claaa (Thi* Report)
None
20. Security Claaa (Thla Page)
None
21. No. ol Page*
58
22. Price
(SeoANSI-Z3».18)
See Intlrucllon* on Reverse
OPTIONAL FORM 272 (4-77)
(Formerly NTIS-35)
Department of Commerce
-------
EPA/ROD/R02-92/193
Naval Air Engineering Center (Operable Unit 7), NJ - .
Seventh Remedial Action - Interim
Abstract (Continued) • ' . . . .
contaminated sites at NAEC, 16 of which have warranted further investigation to assess
potential impacts. Several of these sites are located within Areas A and B of the
northeastern section of NAEC, where ground water has been found to be contaminated with
VOCs. Area A is subdivided into two sections: Area A-East, including Sites 14, 29, and
37; and Area A-West, including Sites 12, 33, and 42. A wetland area is adjacent to the
northern edge of Area A. Area B, located immediately south of Area A, includes Sites 9,
13, 36, and 39 as well as Hangars 1, 2, and 3. Several reported or potential contaminant
sources may have contributed to the ground water contamination beneath Areas A-East and
B, including releases of mixed liquid wastes from fire-fighting pits during training
activities (A-East), surface disposal of jet fuel and gasoline (A-East), spills and leaks
at former drum storage area (A-East), leakage and spills from former underground storage
tanks (Area B), and releases from a dry well receiving unknown liquids at northeast
corner of Hangar 1 (Area B). Reported or potential contaminant sources at the sites in
Area A-West include leakage from two former underground storage tanks (Site 12), releases
from a former dry cleaning facility (Site 12), discharges from a dry well that received
mixed liquid waste (Site 33), and surface disposal of mixed wastes in a landfill
(Site 42). Six previous RODs have addressed other OUs at NAEC. This ROD addresses an
interim remedy for the principal threat at the site, migration of the contaminated
groundwater plume from Areas A and B. A future ROD will address a final remedy for
ground water and any other areas of contamination in Areas A and B. The primary
contaminants of concern affecting the soil and ground water at the site are VOCs,
including benzene, PCE, TCE, toluene, and xylenes; other organics including PAHs and
PCBS; and metals.
The selected remedial action for this site includes extracting and pretreating
contaminated ground water from six recovery wells to remove metals, solids, and free
product; transporting the free product offsite for recycling or disposal; treating ground
water onsite using air stripping and granular activated carbon to remove VOCs, with
discharge of the treated water onsite to the aquifer through an irrigation and
infiltration system; spray irrigating the treated water over areas of subsurface soil
contamination to facilitate soil flushing and removal of soil contaminants; treating air
emissions from the air stripping process using granular activated carbon; prior to
discharge to the atmosphere; testing residual sludge from the pretreatment processes for
hazardous waste characteristics and sending this offsite for appropriate disposal; and
returning spent carbon offsite to the vendor for regeneration. The estimated present
worth cost for this remedial action is $4,015,000, which includes an annual O&M cost of
$400,000 for 3 years.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS:
Chemical specific clean-up levels for ground water and soil have not been identified
because of the interim nature of this remedial action. Clean-up goals will be
established when a final remedial action is chosen. Treatment residuals will be tested
to determine whether RCRA Land Disposal Restrictions apply.
-------
ROD FACT SHEET FOR NAEC LAKEHURST
OPERABLE UNIT 7
SITE
Name
Location/State
EPA Region
HRS Score (date)
NPL Rank (date)
NAEC Lakehurst
Ocean County, New Jersey
II
49.48 (July 22, 1987)
Group 4 (July 22, 1987)
ROD
Date Signed
Remedy/ies
Capital Cost
0 & M/year
Present worth
(OU 7 - Area A and B - Interim Action)
March 16, 1992
Ground water pump and treat system
$2,885,405
$ 400,000/yr for 3 years
$4,015,000
LEAD
Remdial/Enforcement
EPA/State/PRP
Primary contact (phone)
Secondary cont. (phone)
Main PRP(s)
PRP Contact (phone)
Federal Facility
Navy
Jeff Gratz 212-264-6667
Robert Wing 212-264-8670
Navy
Ms. Lucy Bottomley
WASTE
Type (metals, PCB, &c)
Medium (soil, g.w., &c)
Origin
Est. quantity
jet fuel (B,T,E,X) and solvents
Ground water
Dry wells, USTs, and spills
Ground water plume length - 2,000 ft
width - 800 ft
depth - 50 ft
-------
I
RECORD OF DECISION
FOR
THE INTERIM REMEDIAL
ACTION
AT
AREAS A AND B
NAVAL AIR ENGINEERING CENTER
LAKEHURST, NEW JERSEY
DECEMBER 20,1991
I
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
DECLARATION STATEMENT
AREAS A AND B
NAVAL AIR ENGINEERING CENTER
FACJTJTY NAME AND LOCATION
Naval Air Engineering Center
Lakehurst, New Jersey 08733
STATEMENT QF BASIS AND PURPOSE
This decision document presents the selected interim remedial action for
Areas A and B located at the Naval Air Engineering Center (NAEC) in Lakehurst,
New Jersey. The interim remedial action was chosen in accordance with the
Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA),
as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) and, to
the extent practicable, the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan (NCP). This decision is based on the administrative record for Areas
AandB.
Both the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA),
Region II Acting Administrator and the Commissioner of the New Jersey Department
of Environmental Protection and Energy (NJDEPE) concur with the selected interim
remedy.
ASSESSMENT OF THE AREA
The actual or threatened release of hazardous substances in Areas A
and B, if not addressed by implementing the response action selected in this Record
1
-------
of Decision (ROD), may present an imminent and substantial endangerment to public
health, welfare or the environment. .
DESCRIPTION OF THE REMEDY
The selected interim remedial action addresses the principal threat of the
migration of a plume of contaminated groundwater from Areas A and B by pumping
and treating the groundwater and removing residual amounts of floating fuel product
from the groundwater. The selected remedy for Areas A and B, located in the
northeastern corner of NAEC, includes the following components:
• Groundwater extraction from six recovery wells (at a total rate of
approximately 585 gallons/minute), pretreatment to remove metals, solids
and residual amounts of free fuel product from groundwater and
treatment by a combination of air stripping and carbon adsorption to
remove volatile organic compounds (VOCs).
• Effluent water from the air stripper is "polished" using a granulated
activated carbon (GAC) filter to further reduce VOCs and semi-volatile
organic compounds (SVOCs). A GAC air filter is used to treat the
emissions from the air stripper.
• Treated water meeting New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection and Energy Discharge Effluent Limitations is spray irrigated
during temperate weather and infiltrated into the soil during winter
months. During temperate periods, much of the spray irrigation will occur
over areas of known subsurface soil contamination, although during winter
months, infiltration will generally occur upgradient of these areas.
Irrigation and infiltration will flush and aerate the soil, to increase
-------
biological activity and promote contaminant decomposition in area, of soil
contamination.
STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
This interim action is protective of human health and the environment,
and attains action-specific Federal and State applicable or relevant and appropriate
requirements (ARARs) directly associated with this remedy. Because the scope and
•
role of this action is limited, chemical-specific cleanup levels will not be addressed
during the interim action, but will be addressed during the final remedy for Areas A
and B. This action satisfies the statutory preference for remedies that employ
treatment that reduces toxicity, mobility or volume of hazardous substances, pollutants,
and contaminants as a principal element. However, this action does not constitute the
final remedy and subsequent actions are planned to fully address the problems posed
by this area.
Captain David Raffetto (Date) (/
Commanding Officer
Naval Air Engineering Center
Lakehurst, New Jersey
With the concurrence of:
Constantino Sidamon-Eristofr / (Date)
Regional Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region n
-------
SITE DESCRIPTION
NAEC is located in Jackson and Manchester Townships, Ocean County,
New Jersey, approximately 14 miles inland from the Atlantic Ocean (Figure 1). NAEC
is approximately 7,400 acres and is bordered by Route 547 to the east, the Fort Dix
Military Reservation to the west, woodland to the north (portions of which are within
Colliers Mill Wildlife Management Area), Lakehurst Borough and woodland, including
the Manchester Wildlife Management Area, to the south. NAEC and the surrounding
area are located within the Pinelands National Reserve, the most extensive undevel-
oped land tract of the Middle Atlantic Seaboard.
NAEC lies within the Outer Coastal Plain physiographic province, which
is characterized by gently rolling terrain with minimal relief. Surface elevations within
NAEC range from a low of approximately 60 feet above mean sea level in the east-
central part of the base, to a high of approximately 190 feet above mean sea level in
the southwestern part of the base. Maximum relief occurs in the southwestern part of
the base because of its proximity to the more rolling terrain of the Inner Coastal Plain.
Surface slopes are generally less than five percent.
NAEC lies within the Toms River Drainage Basin. The basin is relatively
small (191 square miles) and the residence tune for surface drainage waters is short.
Drainage from NAEC discharges to the Ridgeway Branch to the north and to the Black
and Union Branches to the south. All three streams discharge into the Toms River.
Several headwater tributaries to these branches originate at NAEC. Northern
tributaries to the Ridgeway Branch include the Elisha, Success, Harris and Obhanan
Ridgeway Branches. The southern tributaries to the Black and Union Branches include
the North Ruckles and Middle Ruckles Branches and Manapaqua Brook. The
Ridgeway and Union Branches then feed Pine Lake; located approximately 2.5 miles
east of NAEC before joining Toms river. Storm drainage from NAEC is divided
between the north and south, discharging into the Ridgeway Branch and Union Branch,
-------
respectively. The Paint Branch, located in the east-central part of the base, is a
relatively small stream which feeds the Manapaqua Brook.
Three small water bodies are located in the western portion of NAEC:
Bass Lake, Clubhouse Lake, and Pickerel Pond. NAEC also contains over 1,300 acres
of flood-prone areas, occurring primarily in the south-central part of the base, and
approximately 1,300 acres of prime agricultural land in the western portion of the base.
There are 913 acres on the eastern portion of NAEC that lie within
Manchester Township and the remaining acreage is in Jackson Township. The
combined population of Lakehurst Borough, Manchester and Jackson Townships, is
approximately 65,400, for an area of approximately 185 square miles. The average
population density of Manchester and Jackson Townships is 169 persons per square
mile, whereas the density of Lakehurst Borough is 3,061 persons per square mile.
The areas surrounding NAEC are, in general, not heavily developed. The
closest commercial area is located near the southeastern section of the facility in the
borough of Lakehurst. This is primarily a residential area with some shops but no
industry. To the north and south are State wildlife management areas which are
essentially undeveloped. Adjacent to and south of NAEC are commercial cranberry
bogs, the.drainage from which crosses the southeast section of NAEC property. NAEC
is bordered to the west by Fort Dix Military Reservation.
For the combined area of Manchester and Jackson Townships, approxi-
mately 41 percent of the land is vacant (undeveloped), 57 percent is residential, one
percent is commercial and the remaining one percent is industrial or farmed. For
Lakehurst Borough, 83 percent of the land is residential, 11 percent is vacant, and the
remaining 6 percent commercially developed.
-------
In the vicinity of the NAEC, water is generally supplied to the populace
by municipal supply wells. Some private wells exist, but these are used primarily for
irrigation and not as a source of drinking water. In Lakehurst Borough there is a well
field consisting of seven 50-foot deep wells, located approximately two-thirds of a mile
south of the eastern portion of NAEC. Three of the seven wells (four of the wells are
rarely operated) are pumped at an average rate of 70 to 90 gallons per minute and
supply drinking water for a population of approximately 3,000. Jackson Township
operates one supply well in the Legler area, approximately one-quarter mile north of
the NAEC, which supplies water to a very small population (probably less than 1,000)
in the immediate vicinity of the NAEC.
Areas A and B are located in the northeastern section of NAEC, as shown
on Figure 2. Due to its large size, Area A has been further subdivided into two
adjacent sections, Area A-East and Area A-West. Area A-West includes Sites 12, 33
and 42. Area A-East includes Sites 14, 29 and 37 (Figure 3).
The Ridgeway Branch forms the northern boundary of Area A. Route 547
is coincident with the NAEC property boundary and forms the eastern boundary of
Area A-East Along the northern edge of Area A, to the south of and adjacent to the
Ridgeway Branch, is a wetland area. The remainder of Area A to the south and west
of the wetlands is developed and consists of various facility buildings. The Defense
Property Disposal Office (DPDO) storage yard and the Construction Battalion (CB)
Compound are located in Area A-East. The eastern half of Area A-West is developed
and consists of various facility buildings, including a steam plant and an above-ground
tank containment area. The western half of Area A-West is largely undeveloped
woodland with ponds in the northern section near the Ridgeway Branch.
Area B is located to the immediate south of Area A and includes Sites 9,
13, 36 and 39. Area B is largely developed and consists primarily of various facility
buildings, including Hangars 1, 2 and 3. A large percentage of the Area is paved; no
-------
stream or other surface water bodies are present in Area B. The general direction of
groundwater flow in Areas A-West, A-East and B is to the northeast, toward the.
wetlands and Ridgeway Branch.
SITE HISTORY
The history of the NAEC dates back to 1916, when the Eddystone
Chemical Company leased from the Manchester Land Development Company property
to develop an experimental firing range for the testing of chemical artillery shells.
Testing was accomplished in cooperation and agreement with the Russian Imperial
Government until its fall in 1919. At that time, the U.S. Army assumed control of
chemical warfare testing by the Eddystone Chemical Company and named the area
Camp Kendrick. By the early fall of 1919, construction of Hangar No. 1 for the Navy
had commenced. Camp Kendrick was turned over to the Navy and formally
commissioned Naval Air Station (NAS), Lakehurst, New Jersey on June 28, 1921.
NAEC was moved from the Naval Base, Philadelphia to Lakehurst in December 1974.
At that time, NAEC became the host activity, thus, the new name NAEC Lakehurst.
Currently, NAECs mission is to conduct programs of research, engineer-
ing, development testing and evaluation, systems integration, limited production,
procurement and fleet engineering support hi the following areas: aircraft launching,
recovery and landing aid systems; ground support equipment for aircraft and for
airborne weapons systems to provide, operate and maintain test sites, facilities, and
support services for tests of the above systems and equipment; and conduct research
and development of equipment and instrumentation used in tests. NAEC supports
Department of Defense (DOD) standardization and specification programs, provides
services and material, and operates and maintains aviation and other facilities in
support of assigned programs.
-------
NAEC and its tenant activities now occupy more than 300 building*,, built
between 1919 and 1979, totaling over 2,845,000 square feet. The command also
operates and maintains: two 5,000-foot long runways, a 12,000-foot long catapult and
arrest runway, one one-mile long jet car test track, four one and one-quarter mile long
jet car test tracks, a parachute jump circle, a 79-acre golf course, and a 3,500-acre
conservation area.
The various operations and activities at NAEC required the use, handling,
storage, and occasionally resulted in the on-site disposal, of hazardous substances.
During the operational period of the facility, there have been documented, reported or
suspected releases of these substances into the environment in some areas.
INITIAL INVESTIGATIONS
As part of the DOD Installation Restoration Program, the Navy developed
the Navy Assessment and Control of Installation Pollutants (NACIP) program to
"identify, assess and control environmental contamination from past methods of storage,
handling, and disposal of hazardous substances at naval shore facilities".
As part of the NACIP program, an Initial Assessment Study (IAS) was
completed in 1983 by the Naval Energy and Environmental Support Activity (NEESA)
at NAEC. The purpose of the IAS was to "identify and assess sites posing a potential
threat to human health or the environment due to contamination from past hazardous
materials operations".
Based on information from historical records, aerial photographs, field
inspections, and personnel interviews, the IAS identified a total of 44 potentially
contaminated sites, which were evaluated with regard to contamination characteristics,
migration pathways, and pollutant receptors. The IAS concluded that "while none of
the sites pose an immediate threat to human health or the environment, 16 warrant
8
-------
further investigation under the NACIP program, to assess potential impacts". A
Remedial Investigation (RI) was recommended "to confirm or deny the existence of the
suspected contamination and to quantify the extent of any problems which may exist".
Following further review of available data by Navy personnel, it was
decided that 42 of the 44 Sites should be included in the Remedial Investigation. Two
potentially contaminated Sites - an ordnance site (Site 41) and an Advanced
Underground Storage Facility (Site 43) were deleted from the Remedial Investigation
because they had already been remediated.
NAEC was designated in 1987 as a National Priorities List (NPL) site
under CERCLA.
ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTIGATIQN/FEAftTRITrrY STUDY
Environmental investigations in Areas A and B were initiated in 1981 by
NAEC, with the installation of a series of groundwater monitoring wells, which were
monitored on a regular basis for the presence of free product. NAECs Remedial
Investigation (RI) was conducted in two phases. Implementation of the verification
phase (Phase I of the RI) was initiated in October 1984. Phase n of the RI was
initiated in the summer of 1988 to (a) confirm the results of the Phase I study,
specifically the presence or absence of contamination; (b) determine the contaminant
sources, extent and potential for migration; and (c) support a feasibility study and/or
final actions at the Sites.
The Remedial Investigations conducted in Areas A and B are summarized
below.
• Phase I Remedial Investigation (1985-1986) - Additional monitoring wells
were installed and groundwater samples were collected from approximate-
9
-------
ly 200 new and existing wells for comprehensive chemical analyses.
Analysis of groundwater samples indicated contamination with VOCs.
Other media were not investigated. Additional investigations were
recommended.
• Phase n Remedial Investigation (1988) - Additional monitoring wells were
installed and two rounds of samples were collected from a total of 177
new and existing wells for comprehensive chemical analyses. Approxi-
mately 200 samples of soil, sediment and surface water were also collected
and analyzed.
• Feasibility Study Field Investigation (1990) - A series of short-term
pumping tests were conducted on selected monitoring wells in Areas A
and B to obtain preliminary estimates of aquifer characteristics.
• February 1990 - NAEC implemented a program to monitor the amount
of floating product in wells ES, EU and EZ, and several piezometers.
• Aquifer Characterization Testing (March 1991) - Five additional wells
were installed in the area, four for potential use as groundwater recovery
wells and one for potential use as an injection well. Long-term pumping
tests were conducted on these wells. The objective of this investigation
was to develop data that could be used to design an interim groundwater
remedial system capable of capturing and treating contaminated ground-
water in Areas A and B.
• Test Pit/Soil Boring Investigation (April 19911 - A series of test pits were
excavated and shallow soil borings were hand-augered at Site 33 (Building
345), Site 42, and the adjacent tank containment area. Field screening
10
-------
methods were used to assess the extent of floating fuel product and soil
contamination in this area.
The results of the Phases I and n Remedial Investigations revealed that
the primary contaminants present in groundwater were volatile organic compounds
(VOCs), including vinyl chloride, alkylbenzenes (benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and
xylene) and several chlorinated hydrocarbons (tetrachloroethylene, trichloroethylene,
1,2-dichloroethylene). VOC contamination occurs in three separate plumes: 1) one
large plume encompassing Area B and the eastern portion of Area A-East; 2) a smaller
plume in the northern section of Area A-East, to the west of the large plume; and
3) another smaller plume limited to the northern portion of Area A-West (Figure 3).
The latter plume consists primarily of tetrachloroethylene.
In addition to volatile organic compounds, a few semi-volatile compounds
and metals were detected sporadically in groundwater, but do not appear to be due to
any systematic or widespread release.
The exact extent of floating product in Areas A and B has not been
precisely determined, but appears to be restricted to the region to the immediate north
of the tank containment area at Site 42 and Building 345 at Site 33, in Area A-West
(FigureS).
The Navy determined in the spring of 1990, that it had sufficient data to
perform interim remedial action at several sites even though a risk assessment and
comprehensive feasibility study was not completed.
In August 1991 the Focused Feasibility Study (FFS) for Areas A and B
was distributed to the USEPA, Region H and NJDEPE, Bureau of Federal Case
Management for their review. The Proposed Interim Remedial Action Plan (PIRAP)
was finalized by NAEC and approved (final concurrence subject to public meeting and
11
-------
comments) by the above mentioned agencies on August 26, 1991, initiating a 30-day
public comment period. .
HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
The Proposed Interim Remedial Action Plan (PIRAP) for Areas A and B
was issued to interested parties on August 26, 1991. A list of the interested parties
identified is provided in Appendix A to this Record of Decision. On August 26-28, a
newspaper notification inviting public comment on the FFS and PIRAP appeared in the
Asbury Park Press. The Ocean County Observer, and The Advanced News. The
comment period was held from August 26 to September 26, 1991. The newspaper
notification also identified the Ocean County Library as the location of the Information
Repository.
A public hearing was held on September 4, 1991. At this meeting,
representatives from the Navy, USEPA and NJDEPE were available to answer
questions about Areas A and B and the interim remedial alternatives under consider-
ation. A list of attendees is attached as Appendix B.
A response to the comments received during this period is included in the
Responsiveness Summary, which is part of this Record of Decision. This decision
document presents this selected remedial action for Areas A and B of NAEC in Ocean
County, New Jersey, chosen in accordance with CERCLA, as amended by SARA and,
to the extent practicable, the NCP. The decision for Areas A and B is based on the
administrative record.
SCOPE AND ROLE OF RESPONSE ACTION
The remedial objectives consist of medium-specific or operable unit-
specific goals for protecting human health and the environment. The remedial action
12
-------
objectives of the response action are removing residual amounts of free product,
restricting contaminant plume migration, and collecting data on aquifer and contami-
nant response to the interim remedial response chosen.
The interim remedy is not a final action for groundwater or soil. This
action will be the first operable unit (i.e., the first phase of cleanup) of the remediation
of Areas A and B at NAEC. The ultimate goal of the final remediation for this area
includes decontamination to acceptable levels of all contaminated medium, not just
groundwater. One or more future RODs will address this ultimate objective. The
interim remedy proposed, however, is consistent with those objectives.
SUMMARY OF AREA CHARACTERISTICS
The VOC groundwater contaminant plume in Areas A-East and B
encompasses portions of Sites 9,13,14,29,36,37 and 39 (Figure 3). Several reported
or potential contaminant sources at these Sites which may be contributing to the plume,
are summarized below:
Year of Last Reported or
Area Site Reported or Potential Contaminant Sourcefs) Suspected Release
A-East 14 Releases of mixed liquid wastes from fire
fighting pits during fire fighting training
activities 1980
A-East 29 Disposal of various liquid and solid wastes
in landfill 1960
A-East 37 Surface disposal of aviation gasoline and
jet fuel 1967
Spills and leakages at former drum storage area pre-1981
B 9 Surface disposal of unknown waste materials early 1970s
Surface disposal of unknown liquid wastes from
drums 1981
13
-------
B 13 Leakage or spills associated with former
underground fuel tanks at Fuel Farm 125 1984
2,000-gallon MOGAS spill 1969
B 36 Surface disposal of mixed liquid wastes at
perimeter of Hangar 1 1974
Releases from dry well which received unknown
liquids at northeast corner of Hangar 1 1988
B 39 Releases of mixed liquid wastes during steam
cleaning of aircraft and other equipment 1960s
The volatile groundwatercontaminant plume in Area A-West encompasses
portions of Sites 12, 33 and 42 (Figure 2). Reported or potential contaminant sources
at these sites are summarized below:
Year of Last Reported or
Site Reported or Potential Contaminant §ourcefs) Suspected Release
12 Leakage from two former underground fuel tanks
at Pad 141 1980
Spills related to filling of fuel tanks at
Pad 141 1980
Releases from Building 266 (a former dry cleaning
facility) pre-1981
33 Discharges from dry well which received mixed liquid
'wastes mid-1980s
42 Surface disposal of mixed wastes in landfill mid-1940s
Two underground fuel oil tanks at Power Plant 1
(Building 15) no reported releases
As indicated above, the primary sources of contamination are past releases
of fuel from underground tanks, leaky valves and pipes, unidentified spills, as well as
generally poor "housekeeping" practices. The underground tanks have been removed.
14
-------
Actions have been taken by NAEC to minimize or eliminate leakage from valves and
pipes to improve employee waste management practices.
Areas A and B are located in the northeastern corner of NAEC
I
(Figure 2). The depth to the water table in this area decreases from about 35 feet hi
Area B to 4 feet along the northern boundary of Area A. Groundwater flow in this
area is in a generally northeastern direction toward the wetlands and Ridgeway Branch.
Two base potable water supply wells (PW-5 and PW-9) are located in Area A-West
(Figure 3).
During the Phase II Investigation, two rounds of groundwater samples
were collected from all monitoring and supply wells in Areas A and B. Soil, sediment
and surface water samples were also collected for comprehensive chemical analysis.
The analytical results for this and previous sampling are provided in Tables 1
through 10.
SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS
A baseline risk assessment was not conducted for Areas A and B for the
interim remedial action. However, because Federal Maximum Contaminant Levels
(MCLs), which are generally risk-based numbers, have been exceeded for several
contaminants, remedial action is necessary. A comprehensive feasibility study and risk
assessment will be prepared prior to the initialization of the final remedial action at the
site. The risk assessment will consist of hazard identification, a dose-response
evaluation, exposure assessment and risk characterization. This interim action is being
implemented to stop the migration of the contaminant plume and residual floating
product (environmental risk) from Areas A and B toward the wetlands and Ridgeway
Branch which feeds Pine Lake, a major recreational body of water in the county. This
action will limit exposure risks to natural fauna along the Ridgeway Branch and the
population using Pine Lake for recreational activities.
15
-------
Tables 1 through 10 provide a summary of the contaminants detected, and
their concentration ranges, in Areas A and B. The estimated extent of the VOC
plumes in Areas A and B is shown in Figure 3.
DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES
Two remedial alternatives (and the "no action alternative") were developed
for analysis in the FFS for Areas A and B. Each of these alternatives is described in
detail below:
ALTERNATIVE 1: No Interim Action
Estimated Construction Cost: $100,000 (for monitoring well network)
Estimated Net O&M Cost: $200,000/yr
Estimated Implementation Time Frame: N/A
This alternative involves no interim action at Areas A and B prior to final
actions other than groundwater monitoring of the aquifer. No contaminants would be
treated or contained and the existing health and environmental risks would remain.
Under this alternative, no further action to control groundwater
contamination would be taken until 1993, when a final action for this site is proposed
and developed. Long-term monitoring of the site can be implemented with existing
monitoring wells, supplemented by the additional wells necessary to create an effective
monitoring well network.
16
-------
ALTERNATTVE 2: Groundwater Pumping, Removal of Free Product,
Treatment, Recharge and In-Situ Soil Flushing
Estimated Construction Cost: $3,500,000
Estimated Net O&M Cost: $400,000/yr
Estimated Implementation Time Frame: 12 months
Time frame for operation of system: 3 year (after which a final action
will be initiated for groundwater
remediation)
This alternative would consist of a groundwater remediation and free
product recovery system. The groundwater remediation system would consist of
groundwater pumping, treatment and discharge to the aquifer. A total of six recovery
wells would be pumped at an estimated combined rate of 585 gallons per minute
(gpm). The contaminated groundwater would be pumped into a tank which will serve
as a flow equalizer. The effluent would be treated at the site and discharged back into
the aquifer through a combination of one or more of the following systems: infiltration
trenches, infiltration fields and spray irrigation fields. Additional wells will be installed
to monitor the effectiveness of this interim action.
To treat VOCs and other contaminants present hi the extracted
groundwater, the treatment system to be constructed at Areas A and B would consist
of: 1) a pretreatment unit for metals, residual free product and solids removal; 2) two
air stripping columns (99% VOC removal); 3) a granular activated carbon air filter for
air stripper emissions; and 4) a granular activated carbon polishing filter for residual
VOC and semi-volatile removal (99.9% removal of VOCs) from treated groundwater.
The proposed system is shown schematically in Figure 4. The free product removed
will be disposed of at an approved off-site facility. NAEC is not equipped to recycle
waste fuels or oils.
17
-------
The effluent exiting the air stripper will be treated by a granular activated
carbon air filter and the treated air will be discharged to the atmosphere. The effluent
will attain applicable NJDEPE air standards. The treated groundwater, which will be
discharged to the aquifer, will meet the NJDEPE Groundwater Discharge Effluent
Limitations and Safe Drinking Water Act water quality standards. This alternative will
halt the migration of the contaminant plume, enhance groundwater quality, flush
additional contaminants out of the soil at certain locations, and recover free product.
The discharge effluent limitations for the Interim Remedial action will be
established in accordance with the New Jersey Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NJPDES) Regulations (NJAC 7:14A-1 et. seq.^ and the New Jersey Groundwater
Quality Standards (NJAC 7:9-6 et. seq.). The discharge effluent limitations (Maximum
Contaminant Levels (MCLs) and Safe Drinking Water Act criteria) will be issued to
NAEC in the form of a NJPDES Discharge to Groundwater (DGW) Permit
Equivalence.
ALTERNATIVE 3: Groundwater Pumping, Removal of Free Product,
Treatment and Discharge to Surface Water
Estimated Construction Cost: $3,000,000
Estimated Net O&M Cost: $300,000/yr
Estimated Implementation Time Frame: 9 months
Time frame for system operation 3 years (after which a final action
will be initiated for groundwater
remediation)
This alternative would be similar to Alternative 2, with the exception that
treated groundwater would be discharged via piping to the Ridgeway Branch instead
18
-------
of being recharged back into the aquifer. As with Alternative 2, free product would be
disposed of at an approved off-site facility.
SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
The three alternatives identified above were evaluated using criteria
derived from the NCP and the SARA of 1986. These criteria relate to the SARA
amendment of Section 121 of CERCLA (Section 121(b)(l)) and Section 300.430(e)(9)
of the NCP and are as follows:
• 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.
• Compliance with ARARs evaluates the ability of an alternative to meet
ARARs established through Federal and State statutes and/or provides
the basis for invoking a waiver.
• 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.
• Reduction of Toxicity Mobility or Volume through Treatment evaluates
an alternative's ability to reduce risks through treatment technology.
• Short-Term Effectiveness evaluates the cleanup time frame and any
adverse impacts posed by the alternative during the construction and
implementation phase, until cleanup goals are achieved.
19
-------
• Implementability is an evaluation of the technical feasibility, administra-
tive feasibility and availability of services and material required to
implement the alternatives.
• Cost includes an evaluation of capital costs, annual operation and
maintenance costs, and net present worth costs.
• State Acceptance indicates the State's response to the alternatives in terms
of technical and administrative issues and concerns.
• Community Acceptance evaluates the issues and concerns the public may
have regarding the alternatives.
A comparative discussion of the three alternatives on the basis of the
evaluation criteria presented above follows.
• Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment - Alternative 2
provides the greatest overall protection of human health and the
environment through treatment of groundwater and, to some degree, soils.
Alternative 3 is similar to Alternative 2, except treated groundwater is
discharged to surface water as opposed to the aquifer. By implementing
Alternative 3, in which water is extracted from the aquifer and discharged
to surface water, the current over pumpage of the coastal aquifer is
exacerbated. Alternative 2 is a closed loop system in which the aquifer is
recharged by the treated groundwater. Alternative 1, which offers no soil
or groundwater treatment, is the least protective alternative.
• Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence - Alternatives 2 and 3 are
interim actions and are intended to be short-term responses, therefore,
the long-term effectiveness cannot be addressed. However, if the interim
20
-------
remedial alternative chosen proves to be effective, it will be incorporated
into and/or modified to become the final remedial action. Alternative 1
provides no treatment and is not considered to be effective.
• Reduction of Toxicity. Mobility or Volume - In Alternatives 2 and 3, the
vapor and aqueous phase carbon systems will capture through adsorption
volatile and semi-volatile compounds. Hence, the toxicity and contami-
nant load (volume) of the groundwater will be reduced by the removal of
these compounds. The simultaneous pumping of six recovery wells will
alter groundwater flow patterns such that the (normal) downgradient
migration of groundwater, and hence, groundwater contaminants, will be
impeded, thereby reducing their mobility in the normally downgradient
(off-site) direction. Destruction of contaminants will occur during the
regeneration of carbon at an off-site facility. Alternative 1 offers no
treatment of the contaminated media.
• Short-Term Effectiveness - In the short-term, interim remedial action
Alternatives 2 and 3 will impede the further downgradient migration of
contaminated groundwater and residual amounts of floating product.
They will also prevent the contaminant plume and residual floating
product from potentially entering the wetlands. Alternative 2 has the
added benefit of flushing the soil of some contaminants (in areas where
treated water is being recharged) and increasing the hydraulic gradient,
thus accelerating the remediation process. In Alternative 3, treated
groundwater is discharged to the Ridgeway Branch and hence, no soil
flushing takes place. Alternative 1 provides no treatment of soil or
groundwater and is not considered to be effective in the short-term
because residual risks are not reduced.
21
-------
• Implementability - Alternative 1 offers the greatest implementability,
followed by Alternatives 2 and 3, which involve conventional technologies
with proven reliability.
• Cost • Alternative 1, the no action alternative, has the lowest associated
cost. Alternative 2 has a capital cost of about $3,500,000 and O&M costs
of about $400,000 per year. Alternative 3 has a capital cost of about
$3,000,000 and O&M costs of about $300,000 per year. The costs for
Alternative 2 are higher than those for Alternative 3 because they include
the construction and maintenance of a complex infiltration system.
Compliance with ARARs - Alternative 1 does not have to comply with
action-specific and location-specific ARARs because no interim remedial
action will be implemented to reduce contaminant levels. Alternatives 2
and 3 will both comply with action-specific ARARs such as OSHA, RCRA
and the Endangered Species, Qean Air and Clean Water Acts. State and
Federal action-specific ARARs pertaining to discharge of treated water
to the ground surfaces, groundwater and surface waters is also addressed
and will be complied with during the interim remedial action.
According to available information (wetland and floodplain delineations
by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, respectively), there are wetlands located north of, and
downgradient of Areas A and B. Ongoing investigations are being
conducted to assess the impact of the proposed remedial system on the
wetlands. During the implementation of the proposed interim remedial
action, the Navy will work closely with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
to prevent any adverse impacts on the wetlands resulting from the
proposed action. The proposed action is not expected to impact any
historic cultural resources.
22
-------
Because of the limited focus of this proposed interim action, contaminant-
specific cleanup levels for groundwater have not been identified for
Alternatives 2 and 3. These levels will be identified and met when a final
remedial action is chosen for Areas A and B. Treatment residuals will be
tested to determine whether RCRA Land Disposal Restrictions apply for
Alternatives 2 and 3. Location-specific ARARs, which will include aquifer
and facility groundwater remediation issues, will be addressed in the final
remedy. The New Jersey Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NJPDES) Discharge to Groundwater (DGW) permit equivalence will be
applied for to irrigate and infiltrate the treated groundwater. The treated
water will meet the NJDEPE Groundwater Discharge Effluent Limitations
as set forth in the permit equivalence.
• Federal and State Regulatory Agency Acceptance - The preferred
alternative (Alternative 2) is acceptable to the EPA and NJDEPE.
• Community Acceptance - Community acceptance of the preferred
alternative has been evaluated on the basis of public comments and is
described in the Responsive Summary of this Record of Decision.
SELECTED INTERIM REMEDY
The following section describes in detail the interim remedial action plan
which the Navy Air Engineering Center, in concurrence with the USEPA and NJDEPE,
has selected to implement at Areas A and B. This selection is identical to that
presented in the Proposed Interim Remedial Action Plan. Because this is an interim
action, changes could be implemented during the final design and construction
processes. Such changes reflect modifications resulting from the engineering design
process and will not substantially change the intent of the selected alternative described
herein.
23
-------
The selected interim remedial action is Alternative 2 - Grourdwater
Pumping, Removal of Free Product, Treatment, Recharge and In Situ Soil Flushing.
This alternative will address groundwater treatment and product extraction simulta-
neously. The Alternative is cost-effective and implements proven technologies.
Groundwater and residual amounts of free product will be extracted via
six wells at an estimated total pumping rate of 585 gpm (see Figure 5). The extracted
water will be held in a flow equalization tank and then pretreated to remove metals,
free product and solids. The extracted free product will be sent to a permitted off-site
disposal facility. NAEC will comply with New Jersey Hazardous Waste Regulations.
The pretreated water will be air-stripped and polished to remove VOCs (99.9%) and
SVOCs. Due to the transfer of contaminants from the aqueous phase to the airstream,
emissions control units will be required on the air strippers. The treatment system,
including the emission control unit, will be designed to meet the substantive
requirements of the New Jersey air pollution control regulations (NJ.A.C. 7:27-16).
The effluent from the air stripper will be treated by a granulated activated carbon air
filter, prior to discharge to the atmosphere. Residual sludge from the pretreatment
process will be tested to determine if the waste is hazardous and if RCRA land disposal
restrictions are applicable. The waste will be handled accordingly. Spent granular
activated carbon will be sent to the vendor for regeneration.
Once treated, the groundwater which will meet Federal and State Drinking
Water Standards (NJA.C. 7:14A-1.1 et seq.), including MCLs and Safe Drinking Water
Act Criteria which are the discharge effluent criteria for this limited action. Recharge
to the aquifer will occur through an irrigation and infiltration system as shown on
Figures 3 and 5. The treated water will be spray-irrigated over areas of subsurface soil
contamination. This action will increase biological activity, promoting contaminant
decomposition.
24
-------
The groundwater classification for the immediate NAEC area is Central
Pine Barrens GWI. The groundwater is suitable for potable water supply, agricultural
water supply, continual replenishment of surface waters to maintain the existing
quantity and high quality of the surface waters of the Central Pine Barrens, and other
reasonable uses. Quality criteria for these waters may be found in NJA.C. 7:9-6.5.
During implementation of this interim action, neighboring wetland areas
will be carefully monitored to assess the affect of the groundwater remediation effort,
and prevent significant adverse impacts, on the the wetlands.
The remedial action in the short term will halt the spread of contaminated
groundwater and residual amounts of floating product from entering ecologically
sensitive areas.
This interim remedial action will be implemented for three years (two
years to facilitate data collection, which will provide hydrogeologjcal information
necessary for final remedial action, and one year to prepare a final ROD and contract,
design and implement the final remedy). This action is effective in the short term in
preventing further degradation of the aquifer. If the interim remedy proves to be
effective, it will be incorporated and/or modified to become the final remedial action.
STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
Under Section 121 of CERCLA and Section 300.430(f)(5) of the NCP,
selected remedies must meet certain statutory and regulatory requirements. These
requirements and a description of how the selected remedy satisfies each requirement
are presented below.
25
-------
Protection of Hipnifln Health an j flifi Environment
The selected alternative will protect human health and the environment
through treatment of the contaminated groundwater and in situ soil flushing. The
treated groundwater will meet or exceed Safe Drinking Water Standards. Residual
amounts of floating free product will be extracted and removed to a permitted off-site
disposal facility.
The interim remedial action will impede the migration of the contaminant
plume and residual amounts of floating product into the Ridgeway Branch, which feeds
Pine Lake, a major recreational body of water in the county. This interim action will,
in the short term, prevent further degradation of the aquifer and limit potential
contaminant exposure risks to the population using Pine Lake.
Compliance with ARARs
The selected remedy will comply with action-specific ARARs such as
OSHA, RCRA and the Clean Air and Water Acts. State and Federal action-specific
ARARs pertaining to the discharge of treated water to the ground surface and
groundwater is also addressed and will be complied with during the interim action.
Also, treated water will meet Safe Drinking Water Standards prior to spray-irrigation
and infiltration. A list of ARARs specific to this action is presented in Table 11.
The selected remedy provides groundwater treatment and removal of
residual amounts of floating product through treatment methods that have been proven
effective, cost-efficient and expected to attain ARARs.
26
-------
Preference for Treatment as a Principal Element
The principal threats at Areas A and B include groundwater and soil
contamination and, locally, the presence of residual amounts of floating fuel product
The selected remedy satisfies the statutory preference for treatment as a principal
element in addressing the human health and environmental threats posed by the site.
Groundwater will be treated by air-stripping to remove VOCs and polished by granular
activated carbon to remove SVOCs and further reduce VOC levels. In situ soil
flushing will aerate and enhance biological activity and contaminant decomposition.
Residual amounts of floating product will be collected and disposed at an off-site
permitted hazardous waste facility.
The interim remedy is not a final action for groundwater or soil. The
ultimate goal of the final remediation of this are should include decontamination to
acceptable levels of any contaminated medium, not just groundwater. The selected
interim remedy, however, should be consistent with those objectives.
Document of Significant Changes
The Proposed Interim Remedial Action Plan (PIRAP) for Areas A and
B was released for public comment on August 26, 1991. The PIRAP identified
Alternative 2 as the preferred alternative. NAEC received one written comment on the
Plan, from the New Jersey Pinelands Commission. All verbal comments were
responded to at the public hearing on September 4, 1991. Upon review of the
comments, it was determined that no significant changes to the interim remedy, as it
was originally identified in the PIRAP, were necessary.
27
-------
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
AREAS A AND B
NAVAL AIR ENGINEERING CENTER
The purpose of this responsiveness summary is to review public response
to the Proposed Interim Remedial Action Plan (PIRAP) for Areas A and B. It also
documents NAEC's consideration of such comments during the decision-making process
and provided answers to any major comments raised during the public comment period.
The responsiveness summary for Areas A and B is divided into the
following sections:
• Overview - This section briefly describes the FFS process used to develop
and evaluate interim remedial responses for Areas A and B, the interim
remedial alternative recommended within the PIRAP and any impacts on
the proposed plan due to public comment.
• Background on Community Involvement - This section describes
community relations activities conducted with respect to the area of
concern.
• Summary of Major Questions and Comments - This section summarizes
verbal and written comments received during the public meeting and
public comment period.
• Remedial Design/Remedial Action Concerns - This section describes
public concerns which are directly related to design and implementation
of the selected remedial alternative.
28
-------
OVERVIEW
Areas A and B are located at NAEC in Ocean County, Lakehurst, New
Jersey, and are under investigation for potential environmental contamination. This
responsive summary addresses remediation and public response to the PIRAP for
Areas A and B.
A summary of the site background, the alternatives evaluated and a
comparison of alternatives are presented in the PIRAP for Areas A and B and are
more fully described in the FFS report. Both documents, as well as other supporting
information, are available for public review at the information repository located at the
Ocean County Library, 101 Washington Street, Toms River, New Jersey.
BACKGROUND ON COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT
This section provides a brief history of community participation in the
investigation and interim remedial planning activities conducted at Areas A and B.
Throughout the investigation and FFS period, the USEPA and NJDEPE have been
directly involved through proposal and project review and comments. Periodic meetings
have been held to maintain open lines of communication and to keep all parties abreast
of current activities.
Prior to the public release of site-specific Area A and B documents,
NAECs public relations staff compiled a list of local public officials who demonstrated
or were expected to have an interest in the investigation. Local environmental interest
groups were also identified and included on this list The list is provided as Appen-
dix A to this Record of Decision.
On August 26, 1991, NAEC mailed the PIRAP for Areas A and B to
concerned parties on the list described above. On August 26 through 28, a public
29
-------
notice appeared in The Asbury Park Press. The Ocean County Observer and The
Advance News. The public notice summarized the feasibility study process, the
remedial alternatives considered and the preferred remedial alternative. The
announcement also identified the time and location of a public comment period, and
the address to which the written comments could be sent. Public comments were
accepted from August 26 through September 26, 1991.
A public meeting was held on September 4, 1991, at 7:30 p.m. at the
Lakehurst Elementary School in Lakehurst, New Jersey. Discussed at this meeting
were the Areas A and B investigations, feasibility study process and the proposed
interim remedial alternative, as well as the Proposed Remedial Action Plan (PRAP),
proposing the "no-action" alternative, for NAEC Sites 5, 19 and 21. NAEC representa-
tives present included: Carol Ancellin, Deputy Public Affairs Officer; Robert
Kirkbright, engineering director; Lucy Bottomley, head environmental engineer; Aarti
Dalai Reddy, Michael Figura, and Jill Meredith; environmental engineers. Jeffrey
Gratz, represented the USEPA's Federal Facility Section; Ms. Donna Gaffigan
represented the NJDEPE's Bureau of Federal Case Management; Mr. Kevin Schick
represented NJDEPE's Bureau of Environmental Evaluation and Risk Assessment; and
Ms. Linda Welkom represented NJDEPE's Bureau of Groundwater Pollution
Abatement. The attendance list for the Public Hearing is provided in Appendix B.
SUMMARY OF MAJOR QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS
Written
During, and subsequent to, the public comment period from August 26
through September 26, 1991, the only written comments received on the Proposed Plan
were those of the New Jersey Pinelands Commission, presented in a letter to NAEC
dated October 8, 1991. The comments presented in that letter and the NAEC
responses are provided below:
30
-------
Comment No. 1
The Pinelands Protection Act (NJ.S.A. 18A-1 et seq.) and
the Pinelands Comprehensive Management Plan (NJ.A.C.
7:50-1.1 et seq.) are applicable or relevant and appropriate
requirements (ARARs) as defined by CERCLA. Of particu-
lar concern are the water quality and wetland protection
requirements of the Comprehensive Management Plan.
Comment No. 2
The final remediation must propose to treat the contaminat-
ed groundwater to meet the non-degradation standard
contained in NJ.A.C. 7:50-6.83(b).
For this action, treated groundwater will meet Federal and
State Drinking Water Standards which include Maximum
Contaminant Levels and Safe Drinking Water Act Criteria.
Treated groundwater will be discharged back into the
contaminated aquifer as part of a closed loop system.
Because this is an interim action, final groundwater cleanup
levels are not currently addressed. As part of the final
remedial action, New Jersey Groundwater Quality Criteria
and Maximum Contaminant Levels established pursuant to
the Federal and State Safe Drinking Water Acts will be
applicable or relevant and appropriate Federal and State
groundwater requirements (ARARs). Because the area
31
-------
being remediated exists in the Central Pine Barrens area
(GW-1 waters), the Navy recognizes the NJ.A.C. goal for
groundwater quality in this area as natural background. The
final action will be consistent with the above ARARs and
NJ.A.C. goal.
Comment No. 3
The Comprehensive Management Plan precludes most
development in fresh water wetlands (NJA.C. 7:50-6.6). It
also requires a buffer of 300 feet to wetlands unless it is
demonstrated that a lesser buffer will not result in a signifi-
cant adverse impact on the wetland (NJ.A.C. 7:50-6.7 and
6.14). A delineation of the wetlands within 300 feet of these
sites must be performed prior to the implementation of this
proposed action to determine the need of an equivalent to
a Waiver of Strict Compliance from the wetlands protection
requirements of the Plan.
Response
Discussions leading to a resolution of the issues raised in this
comment (including the need for a permit equivalency and
Waiver of Strict Compliance) are currently in progress
between NAEC and the Pinelands Commission.
Comment No. 4
Prior to the construction and implementation of the interim
remedial measure, an application must be filed with the
32
-------
Commission for a "permit equivalency" from the Pinelands
Commission which is required prior to any other local or
state agency taking action on the proposed development.
Response
Discussions leading to the resolution of this issue are
currently underway between NAEC and the Pinelands
Commission.
Public Meetin
The complete transcript of the questions asked and the answers given
during the September 4, 1991 public hearing is provided in Appendix C to this Record
of Decision. This public hearing addressed both the interim remedial action hi Areas
A and B and the proposed "no-action" alternative for Sites 5, 19 and 21.
33
-------
TABLE 1
HISTORICAL SUMMARY OF
ANALYTICAL DATA- SITE*, AREA B
Pre-1985
No data «vmiUbte
Phast I Rtmedlal Investigation f 198MO
Gtoundwater
Volatile Organic Compounds fitg/ll
1,1,1-TrichlOTOethane: 50.0
Cubon Tetnchloride: 6.66
float U Remedial la'Tlrtlltillfl flfff)
Groundwater
Volatile Organic Comooundt fug/11
1,1,1-TrichloroetlMnc: ND-23
NOTE:
ND « Not Detected
Metah
Ouamium: ND-SBJ*
Lead: ND-318'
•ND in filtered cample
Soil
Nodau collected
Soil
Semi- Volatile Organic Compound*
Fluoimntbene: ND - 70
Pyreae: ND-50
QuyceDc: ND - 90
Miscellaneom fqg/g')
Petroleum Hydrocarbons: ND - 1,437.27
-------
TABLE 2
HISTORICAL SUMMARY OF
ANALYTICAL DATA . SITE 13, AREA B
Groundwater
Volatile Organic Compounds fiig
Benzene: 360
Toluene: 373
Tetncbloroethylene: 17.2
Phase I Remedial Inresttorttea (1985-M)
Groundwater
Volatile Organic Compounds fug/11
Benzene: ND - 217
Etbylbenzene: ND-95.7
U-inns-dichloroethylene: ND-7J6
1,1-Dichloroethytene: 130-4.S8
1,1.1-Trichloroethane: U8-36J
Trichknoethylene: 110 - 253
Gipundwitcf
VolBtilc OHMIHT CotitDOun*^* (u
Benzene: ND-380
Toluene: ND - 2JOOO
Ethytbenzene: ND - 190
Xyfenec ND-580
U-DicUoioethene: ND-9
1,1,1-TrichtoroeUune: ND-23
TrichJoroethene: ND - 69
Semi-Volatile Organic Coonxxindi (u
2-Methylnaphthakoe: ND-24
Niphthtkne: ND-60
Phenol: ND - 3
bit(2-chloro«opropyl)ether ND - 7
4-methyiphenol: ND-4
n-nitrocodi-a-propyUmiDe: ND - 6
MeUU (unA)
Cadmium: ND -18.9
Chromium: ND - 80.6
Lead: ND-200
Soil
No datt collected
Volatile Ontanic Compounds ("»/|g)
2-Heane: ND-25,000
Toluene: ND - 23,000
Etbylbenzene: ND- llflOO
Xytenec ND-87,000
Semi-Volatite Organic Compouodi fttg/kt')
2-MethyliMphthatene: ND-1,100
Naphthalene: ND-M^XW
Fluorene: ND-250
Pbenanthicoe: ND -170
MiscelUneom
Petroleum Hydrocubonc ND - 1,305 M «/g
-------
TABLE 3
HISTORICAL SUMMARY OF
ANALYTICAL DATA - SITE 14, AREA A-EAST
Pre-1985
Phase I Remedial Investigation (1985-8O
Phase II Remedial h
Soil Gas and Groundwiter Screening
Tool chlorinated hydrocarbon* in
•oil gat: ND-48#X>*j/l
Total petroleum hydrocarbons in
soil gas: ND - 10,000 jig/l
Total chlorinated hydrocarbons in
(toundwater ND - 0.93 *g/l .
Total petroleum hydrocarbons in
groundwater ND -
Groundwater
In conjunction with a study of
Site 29 • Original Bate Land-
fill, five monitoring wells were
insulted in the area surround-
ing Site 14. In 1983, down-
gradient monitoring well AD
contained:
Benzene: 45 Mg/1
1,2-dichloroethene: 100 Mg/1
1,2-transdichloro-
ethylene: 165 Mg/1
Groundwater
Volatile Organic Compounds fug/H
1,2-trans-dichloroethylene: 51.6-59.2
Vinyl chloride: 40.2-51.1
Semi-Volatile Organic compounds fug/11
2,4-Dimethylphenol: ND - 77
Miscellaneous
Petroleum hydrocarbons (mg/l): 1.1 - 3.4
Groundwater
Volatile Organic Compounds (us/I)
Benzene: ND -130
U-Dichkmethene: ND-2,400
Vinyl chloride: ND-2,000
Toluene: ND - 91
Ethytbenzene: ND - 9
XyteneK ND-73
CUoromethane: ND - 2
Semi-Volatile Organic compounds fug/11
2-Methylnaphthalene: ND-23
Phenol: ND-2
2,4-Dichloropbenol: ND-29
2,4-Dimethyl phenol: ND-2
Metals fgg/n
Lead: ND-86
Petr
i hydrocarbons (mg/l): ND-32
NOTE:
ND • Not Detected
-------
TABLE 3
Petroteum Hydrocarbons (mg/kg): 84
VoUtile Otnnic Compounds fut/kgi
Chloroform: ND-4
Elhytbeniene: ND-7
Xytenec ND-53
Semi- Volatile Organic Compounds fiig/k£^
Eight semi-volatile compounds detected. Highest con-
centnitiooi at Site 14 were detected in tampte S14-6,
ccofisting of 2-Metnytnaphthalene: IOJOOO
Pcsticide>/PCBi (uan^
Deltt-BHC ND-45
4/4--DDD; ND- 230.6
4y4'-DDT. ND- 140.1
M7tt If fmriltr)
Lead: ND-2S4
MiscelUmeoui
Petrokum Hydrocaitxxis (0g/g): 1,069.46-70^6977
Surface Water (Groundwater Seep)
No (Uu collected
Surface Water (Groundwiter Seep1)
Scini-Vototilc
Benzyl Alcohol: ND - 6
4-Methyipbenol: ND - 2
Bcnzoic AciA ND-2
Trichloroetbeae: ND-12
Pestieidet/PCBi
DelU-BHC 0.16-0^2
M'-DDD: O.OS-0.17
Metalt fgg/n
Lead: ND-82
Miscellaneous Panimeten
Petroteum HydrocmibaaK 6uO mg/l
Mitcellaneous Patmmeten
Petroleum HydrocaiboaK ND - 213 mg/l
Sediment (Groundwater SCCP^
Semi-Volatite Prepnjy impounds fug/kgl
13 semi-voUtile organic compounds detected, primarily
poJycydk aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)
Pesticides/PCBs (Mt/k»1
4/4--DDE: ND-270
Miscellaneous Parameteri (uaJa)
Petroteum Hydrocarbons: ND-6.736J
ND • Not Detected
-------
TABLE 4
HISTORICAL SUMMARY OF
ANALYTICAL DATA - SITE 2J, AREA A-EAST
Phase I Remtdlal InvestteaHon
Groundwater
Volatile Organic Compounds Cue/H
Benzene: ND - 360
Toluene: ND-37.S
Ethylbenzene: ND - 2.4
Carbon Tetnchloride: ND -12.1
1,2-DkUoroethane: ND - 3.0
1,1-Dichloroethane: ND -17.2
1,2-tnnc-Dichloioethyiene: ND-165
Groundwater
Volatile Organic Compound* fug/I1)
1,2-Transdichloroethylene: ND-59J
Vinyl chloride: ND-51.1
Soil Gas and Groundwater Si^i cani
Total chlorinated hydrocutwa* in
•oilpc ND - 48,000 j^/1
Tool petroleum hydnxubaac in
•oilpc ND-10000nj/1
Tool chlofiaued hydracuboaf in
groundwster. ND • 2&61 H/l
Total petroleum bydncubonf in
pouadwater ND - 300 jtg/l
Senii-.Volatile Organic Compounds fug/l^
2,4-Dimethylphenol: ND - 77
Miscellaneous
Petroleum Hydrocarbons (me/I): ND - 5.4
Total Organic Halogens (Mg/l): 2&3
Groundwiter
Volatile OrBffnic compoun*^* fttg/
Vinyl chloride: ND-1^00
aUoromethue: ND-2
Xyfcne*: ND - 73
1^-Dichloroetbeae: ND - 2,400
Dibromochloromethane: ND - 8
Benzene: ND-230
Toluene: ND • 91
Ethyfbenzene: ND-9
Scini*VoUitilc
2,4-Dichloropnenol ND-29
2,4-Dimethylpbenol: ND-2
4-Methylpbenol: ND-2
Phenol: ND-2
Naphthalene: ND-8
2-Methylnaphthalene: ND - 19
Metati rug/11
Cadmium: ND-276
Chromium: ND -144
Lead: ND-843
Cyanide: ND-271
Miscellaneous
Petroleum Hydrocarbons (mg/l): ND - 32
-------
TABLE 4
Chloroform: ND-4
FiftiyH?^IUBItB* WU * /
XykaeK ND-53
Semi-VoUtik Oraynfr ftOTTI'ttff fltf fti\
4-Methytphenot: ND - 130
Di-o-t)u(y) phthatate: ND-«0
Ruoranthene: ND - 230
Pyrene: ND-240
Quyteae: ND • 130
Betio(t)nuormntheBc: ND • 110
Benzo(k)nuonuitbetic: ND - 100
BenzoOOpyieac: ND - 100
2-Methytnapbthatene: ND - 10,000
FbeaaathicaB: ND - 90
lBdeno(l AK^J) pyrene: ND-60
BeB»(fhi)peiytene; ND-60
4,4>-DDT. ND- 140.1
4,4'-DDD: ND-Z30.6
Deltt-BHC ND-45
4,4'-DDE ND-270
Meuli fme/krt
Cxlmiani; ND - 4.7
Lead: ND-254
Miscellineoui (me/kgl
Petroleum Hydrecuboos: 84
Mitctlliixoot (usJt\
Petroleuffl Hydiocubonc ND - 70^69^7
Surface Water
Suffice Water
Volatile Organic Compoundi ("g/l)
1^-Dichloroetbeae: ND-2
TricfakxDetbeae: ND-12
Semi-VoUtile Ornnic conrooundi (ititA)
Benzyl Alcohol: ND-6
4-Methylpoenol; ND-2
BenroicAcid; ND-2
Peiticidet/PCBi (inA)
Deltt-BHC ND-022
4,4'-DDD: ND-ttl?
Metilt (tu/n
Lead ND-82
Miscellineoui
Petroleuffl Hydrocubonf (mi/I): ND-6
Tottl Orpnic H«Jogen» (Mg/l): 25.9-516
MiscelUneoui
Petroleum Hydrocarbons (mg/l): ND - 223
-------
TABLE 4 (coatimMd)
Sediment Sediment
No data collected Semi-Volatile Organic Compound! (Eg/kg'
AceaaphtBytene: ND-70
Acenaphtheoe: ND-60
Fluorene: ND - 90
Pbenantbrene: ND - 290
Anthnoene: ND - 60
Fluonnthene: ND • 670
Pyiene: ND-660
Bcnzo(a)ai>thncene: ND - 220
Chrysene: ND - 300
Benzo(b)fliionnUiene: ND - 490
Bemo(k)fluioanthene: ND - 410
Benzo(a)pyieoe: ND - 310
Pesticktes/PCBt fag/kg')
4«4'-DDE: ND-270
Miscellaneout
Petroleum Hydnxaitxjoc ND - 6J36JB
NOTE:
ND » Not Detected
-------
Pre-1985
No data collected
TABLES
HISTORICAL SUMMARY OF
ANALYTICAL DATA • STTE M, AREA B
Phase I Remedial Inresttearton (1985-80
Groundwater
Volatile Organic Compounds fug/11
TrichJoroetheoe: 8.99
Gioundwiter
Volatile Organic CotnpoumH (t*o/
M-DidUoroetheae: ND - 7
1,2-DichJoroethene: ND-20
LU-TricUoroethuie: ND -11
TridJoroethene; ND-76
Meuh (iu/n
Chromium: ND - 92.1
No ditt collected
Semi«Vol8tile Organic Compounds
Pbeauthrcae: ND-MO
Fluonntbeae: ND - 310
Pyrene: ND-230
Benzo(a)antbnceiie: ND -120
Ouyceae: ND - ISO
Benzo(b)nuonuitheae: ND -140
Benzo(k)fluoni>tbeiie: ND -170
Benzo(i)pyreoe; ND -130
Pesticidet/PCBt fug/kg^
Anxblor 1254: ND-360
MBcelUneout
Petroleum Hydrocaiboot: ND - 2,150 fg/g
Dtv Well Sediment
Semi-VoUtile Onank Comooumfa fag/kgl
Pbeaaathicae: 75
Pluorantheoe; 708
Pyrene: 677
Benzo(i)anthnceae 489
Quyieoe: 521
Benzo(b)fluonntbei>e: 396
Ben2o(i)pyieDe: 427
Indeno (1 A3<4)pytene: 229
Beazo(yhi)peiyleiie: 250
NOTE:
ND • Not Detected
Chromium: ND-275
Nickel: ND-119
-------
TABLE*
HISTORICAL SUMMARY OF
ANALYTICAL DATA • SUE 37, AREA A4CA5T
Phase I Remedial InVestimttoa
Phau IT
Soil Gi Croundwater Screening Survcvi
Total chlorinated
•oil gas: ND- 0.61*1/1
Total petroleum hydrocarbons in
•oil |ac ND-O060I/1)
Total chlorinated hydrocarbons in
grouadwater ND-347«f/l
Total petroleum bydrocartXMM in
grouadwater ND
Groundwiter
Monitoring well AC was installed at
part of a groundwater invectigatioa
to address Site 29. No contaminants
were detected in groundwater sam-
ples collected during 1962,1983 and
1984.
Groundwater
No data collected
Miscellaneous
Petroleum Hydrocarbons (mg/kg): 25
Groundwater
Volatile Ornnic Comooup^f flgf
l^-Dkbk>roethene: ND • 20
Trichtonethene: 7-10
Benzene: ND-230
Semi-VoUtik Organic Connpoyfldi
Naphthalene: ND - 2
Sal
Miscellaneous
Petroleum Hydrocarbons (Mg/g)-' ND - 1,076
NOTE-
ND • Not Detected
-------
Prt-lMi
Groundwater
TABLET
HISTORICAL SUMMARY OF
ANALYTICAL DATA • SITE 39, AREA B
Ph«s« I Remtdlil InrtsHgarion
Groundwater
Semi- Volatile Organic Compounds fug/1')
Fluonnthene: 6.69
Pyrene: &28
Groundwiter
Metilt fug/n
24-60.5
Volatile Omnic Compound* (uaJTt
1,1,1-TrichkwoetlMne: ND-2
TrichJoroethene: 12-25
NOTE:
ND • Not Detected
§ojl
Semi*Volatile Omnic Ct
inds ftt
Fluoranthene: 221
Pyrene: 230
Sal
Semi* ^Volatile
*** CjOBHooumff
Fluoranthene: ND - 430
Pyrene; ND-480
AonaphOuleDe; ND - 60
Pbenantbreoe: ND - 280
Beozo(*)uithnoeiie: ND - 220
Ouytene: ND-300
Beozo(b)fluonntbeDe: ND - 330
Benzo(k)nuoranthene; ND - 250
Benzo(i)pyren«: ND - 320
Benro(glu)perytene: ND - 220
-------
TABLES
HISTORICAL SUMMARY OF
ANALYTICAL DA1A • STEE 12, AREA A.WEST
12B
Groundwiter
VoUtik Organic Compound! Cue/11
TetncUofoethyteae: 90
1224
VoUtik Omnk Comooundt Cue/11
Tetnchloroetbyleae: 56
Phase 1 Remtdlal ImrtsttoiHon C198MO
Groundwater
Volatile Oraanic Q>mpoundi Cuv/11 Volatile Oranie
Tetrachkwwthyfcae; ND-30
ND-5
Peatachkiropheiiot ND-3
Mjscellancoiii CmaVll
Nitrate ND-239
Sojl
No
-------
TABLE 9
HISTORICAL SUMMARY OF
ANALYTICAL DATA - SITE 33, AREA A-WEST
Prt-1985
No diu collected
Phase I RtmtdUl Investigation (1985-M1
iH.TtrttoHo.flMg>
Soil Gut and Groundwatcr Screening Survevi
Toul chlorinated hydrocarbons in
•oil gas: ND - 0.03 Mg/1
Total petroleum hydrocarbon* io
•oil gas OJQ - 1,700 Jlg/1
Groundwiter
Volatile Organic Compou
Petticidet/PCBt fug/11
Alpha-BHC ND-0.07
Soil
Miscellaneoui
Volatile Organic Compound! fug/kgl
Ethylbenzene: 150-850
Xykoec ND-880
Acetone: ND - 58
Semi-Volatile Organic Compoundi
Naphthalene: ND-2^00
2-Methylnaphthalene: ND-83^00
Pbenanthrene: ND - 400
Pluorene: ND - 40
Fluonnthene: ND - 530
Pyreae: ND-520
Benzo(a>uithnceiie: ND-240
Chrysene: ND-370
BenzoOOfluorantheae: ND -160
Benzo(a)pyrene: ND - 230
Miscellaneoui
Petroleum Hydrocarbons (mg/kg): 1,500-3,400 Petroleum Hydrocaiboof (fig/s): ND-205J6
U-DicbkxoethMae: 48
NOTE:
ND • Not Detected
-------
Pre-1985
TABLE U
HISTORICAL SUMMARY OF
ANALYTICAL DATA-SITE 42, AREA A-WEST
Phase I Remedial InvesHfiattoai
Phase n Remedial IB
Soil Gas and Grouadwitcr Screening Surveys
Total ehloriiiated hydrocarbon* in
Mil gas: ND - 1.94 *g/l
Total petroleum hydrocarbons in
foil gas: NE-2JOOMg/l
Total petroleum hydrocarbons in
froundwater ND - 37.06 0g/l
Total petroleum hydrocarbon* in
groundwater. ND - L800 Mg/1
Groundwater
Four monitoring wellc, AF,
AG, CE and CF were installed
byNAEC In 1983 and 1984,
tetracUoroethylene was de-
tected in well CF at concentra-
tioot of 90 ng/l and 56 MgA
respectively
Groundwater
Volatile OrBanic Compounds
TetncaloroethytcDe: ND -1&2
Groundwater
Volatile Organic Compounds fag/11
Benzene: ND-2
l^-Dichtoroetbene: ND -18
Trichloroetbene: ND - 43
Tetrachioroethene: ND - 720
trans-13-DichJoropropene: ND - 5
Miscellaneous
Total phenolics Qig/l): ND-52.9
Semi-Volatile Onanic Comoounds
Pentacnkwophenot ND - 3
Pesticidies
Alpha-BHC ND-0.07
Metal* Cue/11
Lead: ND-65
MiscelU
Petrokum Hydrocarbons: ND-9,248.13
Chloride: ND-7Smg/I
Nitrate: ND - 635 mg/l
Sulfate: ND-56mg/l
ND • Not Detected
-------
TABLE H
Sal
No dfttt coUcctcd
Volatile O
Etfayfceazeae: 150-850
Xyteaec ND-880
TettacUoroetheae: ND - 110
Slfini"Volatile Qp™**ic CompoumH (t
Naphthalene: ND-%500
2-MethylniphUwJeiie; ND-83,000
Pheaanthiene: ND-400
Fluorene: ND-40
Fluonntbene: ND - 530
Pyreae: ND-520
Beno(t)uthnoeae: ND-240
Chiyteae: ND-370
Bcino(b Xluonuthene: ND - 160
BennOcXIuorantbeiie: ND -130
Beazo(«)py«ne: ND - 230
Anathncene: ND - 60 '
Petroleuffl Hydncubaac ND - 9,248.13 H/i
Sediment
No datt collected
Semi-VoUtile Omnic Comoouodt fug
2-MethyliupbthaJeae: ND -120
Pheauthieae: ND - 70
Fluonmbeoe: ND -140
Pyrene: 81-220
Quyiene: ND-120
4,4'-DDE ND-160
M'-DDD: ND-640
M'-DDTi ND-10
Metth (mt/kg^
Beiyttium: ND-3.9
Nicket 20.7-234
V«u«lium: 210-U93
MttcelUneom
Fetmewn Hydr
ND-
NOTE:
-------
TABLE 11
LISTOFARARS
Only action-specific ARARs, which include surface water, groundwater and
air discharge limitations as well as hazardous waste handling requirements, wetland and
floodplain requirements, will be complied with during the interim remedial design.
Contaminant-specific cleanup levels will be addressed in the final remedy.
The interim remediation activities at Areas A and B will primarily address
groundwater. Identification of Federal Action-Specific ARARs applicable to the
interim remedial alternative chosen are:
Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) (29 CFR 1910,1926,1904):
ARARs for workers and workplace throughout the implementation of
hazardous activities.
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) (40 CFR 264.10-.77):
Potential ARARs for alternatives utilizing treatment, storage or disposal
actions (Note: permits not required for on-site actions).
RCRA (40 CFR 264.90-.101): Groundwater protection. Groundwater
monitoring/corrective action requirement; dictate adherence to MCLs and
establishes points of compliance.
RCRA - Part 263 (CFR 263.10-31) and Hazardous Materials Transporta-
tion Act (49 CFR 170, 171): Transporter Requirements. ARARs for
alternatives involving shipment of hazardous materials or wastes.
RCRA - Part 268 (40 CFR 268): Land Disposal Restrictions, Potentially
pertains to spent carbon filters and sludge from pretreatment process.
Wastes will be tested to determine if they are hazardous waste under
RCRA.
Clean Air Act (40 CFR 50): ARARs for alternative which involve
treatments which impact ambient air.
Clean Water Act (40 CFR 401): NPDES Permit Requirements.
Requirements for point source discharge to surface waters. Potential
ARARs which will affect the implementability of remedial action involving
v effluent discharge to the Manapaqua Brook.
Clean Water Act (40 CFR 404): Prohibits actions that impart a wetland
'ink-is cooibtrTjitsmatives-'are available" "••••• •'• • '
-------
TABLE 11 (continued)
Identification of State Action-Specific ARARs are as follows:
N J. Hazardous Waste Regulations (NJAC 7:26): Permitting, Contingency
Plans, Specification for Treatment/Disposal Units. Potential ARARs for
alternatives which involve the treatment, storage or disposal of hazardous
wastes. NJ. Clean Water Act (NJAC 7:14A-l.letseq.): NJPDES Water
quality Toxic Effluent Specification for Treatment/Disposal Units.
Potential ARARs for alternatives which involve the treatment, storage or
disposal of hazardous wastes. NJ. Clean Water Act (NJAC 7:14A-1.1 et
seq.): NJPDES Water quality Toxic Effluent Limitations. ARAR for
alternative involving treatments which discharge effluents to surface water.
NJ. Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NJAC 7:14A-1 et seq.):
Permit Requirements. ARAR for alternatives involving treatments which
discharge effluent to ground surfaces.
NJ. Surface Water Regulations (NJAC 7:9-5.1): ARARs for alternatives
involving treatment which discharge toxic pollutants to area water bodies.
NJ. Air Pollution Control Regulations (NJAC 7:27-16): Permits and
Emission Limitation for VOCs. ARARs for alternatives for treatments
which impact ambient air.
Endangered Species Action (16 USC 1531): Consultation will be
undertaken with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to determine if the
remedial action will adversely affect endangered species in the area.
The Pinelands Protection Act (NJSA18A-1 et seq.): Consultation will be
undertaken with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Department of the
Interior and the affect of the action on wetland areas will be monitored
to assure no significant adverse impacts.
The Pinelands Comprehensive Management Plan (NJAC 7:50-1.1 et seq.):
Consultation will be undertaken with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
and Department of the Interior and the affect of the action on wetland
areas will be monitored to assure no significant adverse impacts.
-------
New
JERSEY
ENGINEERING CENTER
LAKEHURST
08733
NAVAL AIR ENGINEERING
CENTER
LAKEHURST. NEW JERSEY
VICINITY MAP
KLFtllENCE:
HAUSIMOM MAP OF
OCLAN COUNTY. NEW JERSEY
APPROXIMATE SCALE IN MILLS
Dames & Moore
-------
VICINITY MAP
SWIl: T - 75 UUt
SCALE IN MILES
NAVAL AIR ENGINEERING CENTER
LAKEHURST. NEW JERSEY
LOCATION MAP
AREAS A AND H
FIGURE 2
-------
\7980\024-t
O 0 ^
tu ^J
£3 &! 5 Is! 7~A FILTERED
JO t> "TJ tij
// e>cie«r »fiMf«?»
;§ ° £2 !5j PRETREATMENT PHASE CAC AIR t//j TO
AIR
t? 5 1 1 '/
,. t~* t*j ' /
^» to 12 t~"
fflff PRODUCT '/
1 j /p £4 y
• nlt\ •«— *- m
^~ »JL • • ^0 1 • crc^r I in/i» BUILDING
S ^ § i. /~J-\ EFFLUENT ^
^ & to fa
/ C*JH f f J f f ? J *T*f j*l llf \ i — • — - — L
/ c,QUALM&ATiuN \ AID r*Ar* *~7
HJ> ( ,.,n \ 7/2° SUSPENDED HJ) AIR HA CAC //
** • — A N IJ \ i. . ^ ^ __..__ ..__ s «_ — r^«r«nfr^r^»»f^> * ^^^^^ OlO f T ^* 1 T 1 llTf —^—^ M '
^ • / ^ SOLIDS AND m zlKlr'rlNir •" POLISHING * '/ —
^ ^ £ ^ yvifF PRODUCT! METAL REMOVALS\ UNIT(S) FILTER . I//
!2 *5T («M f) \ KtMQVAL / \ ' -*—*
r •* v. ^x | ^
3 ^, «o ^;
§lsl
O
P
o 3
Uro
i w
z jv>
1
sS
%o
O
0)
^1
J>
^
M
fO
"£
H
W
=n=
f\D
z
f **
m >
c as
§5
• 2
m™
^ 2
m o
in o
n m
-< z
m
'////// • auiLuini, -*
X/X/Xxy W
BUWALLC SLUDGE
TREATED
WATER —
7-0
SP/WK IRRIGATION/
INFILTRATION
CONTAMINATED „.,„_
>J / O i
WATER
FROM RECOVERY WELLS
EMS
-------
EXPLANATION;
IQCATIQN PUJN
....IS"
MWAB-1 6 PROPOSED NEW
MONITORING WELL SHOWING CONCENTRATION OF
TOTAL VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (wg/l)
CONTOUR Of CONCENTRATION OF TOTAL VOLATILE
ORGANIC COMPOUNDS IN SHALLOW GROUND WATER (ug/i)
NO VOLATILC 'ORGANIC COMPOUNDS DETECTED OR
PRESENCt ATTRIBUTABLE TO LABORATORY AND/OR
FIELD CONTAMINATION Of THE SAMPCE,
PRESENCE Of CONTAMINANTS IS ATTRIBUTABLE TO;
(d) LABORATORY AND/OR FIELD CONTAMINATION OF THt
•SAMPLE (U. m«th»Unt ehlwWt. colon*. phUvdolt
or (b) i NATURAL. CAUSES (Le. carbon di»wKSde)
-.T^r APPROXIMATE LOCATION Of FORMER RIO CE WAY BRANCH
>-* CHANNEL AND ADJACENT WETLANDS BASED ON A N/.tC
TOPOGRAPHIC LIAP DATED 1919
__. APPROXIMATE LOCATION Of FORMER RIDGE WAY BRANCH
__AEflWL PMOTOCRAPH_ OAT£0_ 196 '
SITE LOCATION MAP
(AREAS A 8. B)
NAVAL AIR ENGINEERING" CENTER
LAKEHURST, NEW JERSEY
-------
OOP 11.600 LJjlfi2 10,600 1
NOTES:
LECEflOj
FF • MONITORING WELL
-'AB-50 PROPOSED MONITORING WELL
IAS-4J® RECOVERT WELL
1*8-5,® PROPOSED RECOVERY WELL
„. PROJECTED CROUNDWATER ELEVATION CONTOUR W FEET
ABOVE MEAN SEA LEVEL
^ CONTOUR Of ESTIMATED CONCENTRATION Of TOTAL
VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS IN
SHALLOW CROUNOWATER (ug/l)
(2nd ROUND OF SAMPLING PHASE II
INVESTIGATION)
PROJECTED CAPTURE ZONE BOUNDARY
t- CROUNDWAIER FLOW DIRECTION
1) SIMULATION REPRESENTS WATER LEVEL CO
AFTER 1-YEAR OF PUMPING:
-RWAB-1 AT 12S gpm
RWAB-2 AT 125 gpm
RWAfl-3 AT 50 flpm
RWAB—4 AT 80 gpm
CS AT 80 BP"*
RWAB-5 AT 125 flpm
AND RECHARGING:
INFILTRATION/
IRRIGATION AREA |1 AT 5€S gpml
DRAINAGE AREA f2 AT 50 gpm
IRRIGATION AREA (3 AT 100 gpm
IRRIGATION AREA |4 AT 100 gpm.
2) STORAGE COEFFICIENT = 0.2
3} THE SIMULATION REPRESENTS OUR
EVALUATION OF PROBABLE CONDITIONS
BASED UPON THE INTERPRETATION OF
VARIATIONS MUST BE EXPECTED.
1
NTOURS j | \
; . 0 300 SOO FEET
NAVAL AIR ENGINEERING CENTER
LAKEHURST, NEW JERSEY
SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF)
GROUNDWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM AMI-
PROJECTED ZONE OF CAPTURE/RECHARG'
AREAS A A B J
DATE: 7/23/9" 1*8 NO- 07980-027 1 FKUR!
Dames & Moore 1 5
-------
-I 9 rowott'6 HEW UOWTWWO wcu*
*•-*• POTABLE «U-
NO VOtATlT'ORCMflC COUFOUMOS OCTCCItO «
MCSCNCC *MWBl>t*«.C TO LABOflATCKT AKO/W
nCLO CONTAUINAT)ON Of IHt SAUPlX
WEStNCI OT CONTM0IANTS O »nK«UTAai.E TO:
(a) LASODATODT ANO/OR fltLO COMIAyiNAnON OT IMC
• SAMPLE (L*. miUiywii OitorM*. uitanr. phlliaKtti):
a (b)i NATURAL CAUStS (Li. to
r> APMOnilATC UOCATW Of FOBUCR RKJCCWA* BRANCH
S^ CMAKNCL AND AQJACPiT WtfLAWOS BASED ON A N.'^C
TOPOGRAPHIC MAP DATED 1911
-------
PROPOSED
ISPRA? IRRIGATION
PROPOSEDU-OCATION
'PROPOSED JDRAINAGE EXTCNSION
AREA.J,r_.N.E.CESSAR.r.
to-- VROPOSED' DRAINAGE AREA «2
(INKILTRAIION '
INFILTRATION/
AREA (TRANCHES)
PROPOSED DRAINAGE EXTENSION AREA IF JNECESSARY |
..I i -J12.000
-\ 11,600
1,200
10,800
10.400
—110.000
9.600
9,200
B.800
-J8.400
8.000
11,600
11,200
10,800
AT
MONITORING WELL
PROPOSED MONITORING WELL
RECOVERY WELL
PROPOSED RECOVERY WELL
PROJECTED GROUNDWATER ELEVATION CONTOUR IN FEET
ABOVE MEAN SEA LEVEL
CONTOUR OF ESTIMATED CONCENTRATION OF TOTAL
VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS IN
SHALLOW GROUNOWATER (ug/l)
(2nd ROUND OF SAMPLING PHASE II
INVESTIGATION)
PROJECTED CAPTURE ZONE BOUNDARY
• CROUNDWATER FLOW DIRECTION
NOTES: •
1) SIMULATION REPRESENTS WATER LEVEL
AFTER 1-YEAR OF PUMPING:
-RWAB-1 AT 125 gpm
RWAB-2 AT 125 gpm
RWAB-3 AT 50 gpm
RWAB-4 AT 80 gpm
ES AT 80 gpm
RWAB-5 AT 125 gpm
AND RECHARGING:
INFILTRATION/
IRRIGATION AREA fl AT 585 gpm\
DRAINAGE AREA J2 AT 50 gpm
IRRIGATION AREA |3 AT 100 gpm
IRRIGATION AREA |4 AT 100 gpm.
2) STORAGE COEFFICIENT = 0.2
3) THE SIMULATION REPRESENTS OUR
EVALUATION OF PROBABLE CONDITIONS
BASED UPON THE INTERPRETATION OF
PRESENTLY AVAILABLE DATA. SOME
VARIATIONS MUST BE EXPECTED.
CONTOURS !
K
600 FEET
NAVAL AIR ENGINEERING CENTER
LAKEHURST, NEW JERSEY
SCHEMATIC DIAC1RAM OFj
GROUNDWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM AND/
-PROJECTED ZONE OF CAPTURE/RECHARGE/
AREAS A & B |
DATE: 7/23/91
i JOB NO: 07980-027
Dames & Moore
OW4TORO. HEW JERSEY
------- |