United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Emergency and
Remedial Response
EPA/ROD/R02-93/208
June 1993
PB94-963816
ŁEPA Superfund
Record of Decision
Naval Air Engineering Center
(Operable Unit 8), NJ
-------
50272-101
REPORT DOCUMENTATION
PAGE
1. REPORT NO.
EPA/ROD/R02-93/208
3. Recipient's Accession No.
4. Title and Subtitle
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION
Naval Air Engineering Center (Operable Unit 8), NJ
Eighth Remedial Action
5. Report Date
06/21/93
6.
7. Author(s)
8. Performing Organization Rept. No.
9. Performing Organization Name and Address
10 Project Task/Work Unit No.
11. Contract(C) or Grant(G) No.
(C)
12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Address
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
13. Type of Report & Period Covered
800/800
14.
15. Supplementary Notes
PB94-963816
16. Abstract (Limit: 200 words)
The Naval Air Engineering Center (Operable Unit 8) site is part of the 7,400-acre Naval
Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division located in Lakehurst, Ocean County, New Jersey,
approximately 14 miles inland from the Atlantic Ocean. Land use in the area is mixed
undeveloped woodlands, open areas, and limited commercial and industrial areas, with
the closest residential area, the Borough of Lakehurst, located southeast of the
facility. The Naval Air Engineering Center (NAEC), which lies within the Toms River
Drainage Basin, contains over 1,300 acres of flood-prone areas. The estimated 65,400
people who reside in the vicinity of NAEC, use municipal wells to obtain their drinking
water supply. Some private wells exist, but these are used primarily for irrigation
purposes. In 1916, Eddystone Chemical .Company leased the property to develop an
experimental firing range for testing chemical artillery shells. In 1919, the U.S.
Navy assumed control of the property, and it formally was commissioned Naval Air
Station (NAS) Lakehurst in 1921. In 1974, the NAEC was moved from the Naval Base in
Philadelphia to NAS Lakehurst. The NAEC's mission is to conduct research, development,
engineering, testing and systems 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
(See Attached Page)
17. Document Analysis a. Descriptors
Record of Decision - Naval Air Engineering Center (Operable Unit 8), NJ
Eighth Remedial Action
Contaminated Medium: None
Key Contaminants: None
b. Identifiers/Open-Ended Terms
c. COSATI Field/Group
18. Availability Statement
19. Security Class (This Report)
None
20. Security Class (This Page)
None •
21. No. of Pages
22
22. Price
(SeeANSI-Z39.1B)
See Instructions on Reverse
OPTIONAL FORM 272 (4-77)
(Formerly NTIS-35)
Department of Commerce
-------
EPA/ROD/R02-93/208
Naval Air Engineering Center (Operable Unit 8), NJ
Eighth Remedial Action
Abstract (Continued)
substances. During the operational period of the facility, there were reported and
suspected releases of these substances into the environment. The Department of Defense's
Installation Restoration Program (IRP) has identified 44 potentially-contaminated sites at
NAEC, 16 of which have warranted further investigation to assess potential impacts. IRP
investigations revealed soil and ground water contamination at the Blimp Crash Site (Site
1), the Hangar 5 Storage Area (Site 11), and the Helicopter Defueling Area (Site 35).
Site 1 is the location of a 1931 blimp crash which resulted in the release of
approximately 1,000 gallons of fuel and hydraulic fluid to the ground. During cleanup
operations in 1981, two areas of contamination were identified at Site 1, to the west and
east of the roadway. To the west of the roadway, where the blimp crashed, the site
contained debris and an abandoned car, and to the east of the roadway, the site was
covered with black sludge resembling No. 6 fuel oil. In 1981, 5 empty 55-gallon drums and
100 yd^ of visually-stained soil were removed from the eastern portion of Site 1, along
with the debris from the western portion. Subsequent investigations revealed organic
contamination of soil and ground water at the site. In 1991, approximately' 1 yd^ of
contaminated soil were removed from the western portion and shipped offsite for disposal.
In 1992, subsequent sampling resulted in the removal of 230 yd^ of contaminated soil from
the site. Site 11 consists of a 20,000 ft2 former drum storage area located about 50
yards north of Hangar 5. From 1981 to 1984, approximately 350 yd^ of organic-
contaminated soil was removed from an area adjacent to Site 11. Ground water
investigations conducted in the early 1980s revealed the presence of free floating
products in the wells downgradient of the site. This contamination was attributed to
spills at other waste units, however, any potential ground water contamination will be
addressed by a pump and treat system, located downgradient of Site 11. Soil sampling
conducted in 1988 and 1992 revealed two areas of elevated organic contamination at Site
11. To address these areas, approximately 76 yd^ of soil was excavated from Site 11 and
staged at Site 35 for ultimate disposal. Site 35 was used as the helicopter and aircraft
defueling area until 1986 and, is located 2,000 feet from the southern facility boundary,
northwest of Hangar 5. The defueling process may have involved the disposal of fuel
directly to the ground. In 1986, several dark soil stains and areas of stressed
vegetation were observed at the site. In 1988, soil gas and ground water investigations
revealed slightly elevated levels of organic contamination. Subsequent investigations
indicated no ground water contamination and elevated organic contamination in soil at Site
35. In 1992, three distinct areas of elevated organic contamination were identified.
These areas of contamination were subsequently removed and staged for ultimate disposal.
Previous 1991 and 1992 RODs addressed OUs 1, 2, 3, and 4, and OUs 5, 6, and 7,
respectively. This ROD addresses any potential remaining soil contamination at Sites 1,
11, and 35, as OUS. Other 1993 RODs address OUs 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 22, and 23.
EPA has determined that the previously implemented removal actions have eliminated the
need to conduct additional cleanup activities at the OU8 sites; therefore, there are no
contaminants of concern affecting Sites 1, 11, and 35.
The selected remedial action for this site is no further action with ground water
monitoring at Site 1. EPA has determined that previously implemented removal actions have
eliminated the need to conduct additional remedial actions and the results of the RI
indicated that conditions at the site pose no unacceptable risk to human health or the
environment. There are no costs associated with this no action remedy.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS:
Not applicable.
-------
ROD FACT SHEET
SITE
Name :
Location/State :
EPA Region :
HRS Score (date):
NAWC Lakehurst
Lakehurst, New Jersey
II
49.48 (July 22, 1987)
ROD
Date Signed:
Remedy:
Operating Unit Number:
Capital cost: $
Construction Completion:
0 & M in 1993:
1994:
1995:
1996:
Present worth:
June 21, 1993
No Action; Site 1 includes gw monitoring
OU-8 (Sites 1, 11, 35)
N/A
N/A
LEAD
Enforcement
Federal Facility
Primary contact
Secondary contact
Main PRP
PRP .Contact
Jeffrey Gratz (212) 264-6667
Robert Wing (212) 264-8670
U.S. Navy
Lucy Bottomley (908) 323-2612
WASTE
Type
Medium
Origin
Est. quantity
Metals, Organics
Soil, Groundwater
Assorted spills
N/A
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
FOR
SITES 1, 11, AND 35
NAVAL AIR WARFARE CENTER
AIRCRAFT DIVISION
LAKEHURST, NEW JERSEY
17 MARCH 1993
0
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
DECLARATION
SITES 1, 11 AND 35
NAVAL AIR WARFARE CENTER
AIRCRAFT DIVISION
LAKEHURST, NEW JERSEY
FACILITY NAME AND LOCATION
Naval Air Warfare Center
Aircraft Division
Lakehurst, New Jersey 08733
STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE
This decision document presents the selected remedial action
for three individual sites (Sites 1, 11 and 35) , located at the
Naval Air Warfare Center, Aircraft Division (NAWCADLKE) in
Lakehurst, New Jersey (Figure 1) -. The selected 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. This decision is based on the
administrative record for these sites, which is available for
public review at the Ocean County Library, 101 Washington Street,
Toms River, New Jersey.
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 remedy.
DESCRIPTION OF THE SELECTED REMEDY
Based on the effectiveness of prior removal actions to
remove petroleum contaminated soils, the United States Department
of the Navy, the lead agency for these Sites, has selected the
"no action" alternative for Sites 1, 11 and 35. The Site 1
alternative includes a program to monitor the status of
groundwater quality.
-------
DECLARATION STATEMENT
The United States Department of the Navy and the United
States Environmental Protection have determined that no
additional remedial action is necessary at Sites 1, 11 and 35 to
ensure protection of human health and the environment. The
removal actions implemented previously at these sites, in which
soil contaminated with unacceptable levels of petroleum
hydrocarbons was removed, have eliminated the need to conduct
additional remedial action.
This Record of Decision concerns Sites 1, 11 and 35 only.
The locations of these Sites within NAWCADLKE are shown in Figure
2. Other areas of concern at NAWCADLKE have been or will be the
subject of separate studies and Records of Decision.
IJ3
Captain Davsi^~>Ra&Łetto (Date)
Commanding Officer
Naval Air Warfare Center
Aircraft Division
Lakehurst, New Jersey
With the concurrence of:
William J. Mds^ns^Q, P.E. (Date)
Acting Reo^ona/x^dministrator
U.S. Envitonme/n4^al Protection Agency,
Region II
-------
SITE DESCRIPTION
NAWCADLKE is located in Jackson and Manchester Townships, Ocean
County, New Jersey, approximately 14 miles inland from the
Atlantic Ocean (Figure 1). NAWCADLKE 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. NAWCADLKE and the surrounding
area are located within the Pinelands National Reserve, the most
extensive undeveloped land tract of the Middle Atlantic Seaboard.
The groundwater ar NAWCADLKE is classified by NJDEPE as Class I-
PL (Pinelands).
NAWCADLKE lies within the Outer Coastal Plain physiographic
province, which is characterized by gently rolling terrain with
minimal relief. Surface elevations within NAWCADLKE range from a
low of approximately 60 feet, above mean sea level in the
eastcentral 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.
NAWCADLKE lies within the Toms River Drainage Basin. The basin
is relatively small (191 square miles) and the residence time for
surface drainage waters is short. Drainage from NAWCADLKE
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 NAWCADLKE. 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
NAWCADLKE before joining Toms River. Storm drainage from
NAWCADLKE 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
NAWCADLKE: Bass Lake, Clubhouse Lake, and Pickerel Pond.
NAWCADLKE 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 NAWCADLKE 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.
The areas surrounding NAWCADLKE 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 NAWCADLKE are commercial cranberry bogs, the drainage from
which crosses the southeast section of NAWCADLKE property.
For the combined area of Manchester and Jackson Townships,
approximately 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 NAWCADLKE, 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 NAWCADLKE.
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 NAWCADLKE, which supplies
water to a very small population (probably less than 1,000) in
the immediate vicinity of NAWCADLKE.
The history of the site 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. In 1919, the U.S. Army
assumed control of the site and named it Camp Kendrick. Camp
Kendrick was turned over to the Navy and formally commissioned
Naval Air Station (NAS) Lakehurst, New Jersey on June 28, 1921.
The Naval Air Engineering Center (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. In
January 1992, NAEC was renamed the Naval Air Warfare Center
Aircraft Division Lakehurst, due to a reorganization within the
Department of the Navy.
Currently, NAWCADLKE's mission is to conduct programs of
-------
technology development, engineering, developmental evaluation and
verification, systems integration, limited manufacturing,
procurement, integrated logistic support management, and fleet
engineering support for Aircraft-Platform Interface (API)
systems. This includes terminal guidance, recovery, handling,
propulsion support, avionics support, servicing and maintenance,
aircraft/weapons/ship compatibility, and takeoff. The Center
provides, operates, and maintains product evaluation and
verification sites, aviation and other facilities, and support
services (including development of equipment and instrumentation)
for API systems and other Department of Defense programs. The
Center also provides facilities and support services for tenant
activities and units as designed by appropriate authority.
NAWCADLKE and its tenant activities now occupy more than 300
buildings, built between 1919 and 1989, totaling over 2,845,00
square feet. The command also operates and maintains: two
5,000-foot long runways, a 12,000-foot long catapult and arrest
runway, 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.
In the past, the various operations and activities at the Center
required the use, handling, storage and occasionally 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.
INITIAL INVESTIGATIONS
As part of the DOD Installation Restoration Program and the Navy
Assessment and Control of Installation Pollutants (NACIP)
program, an initial Assessment Study was conducted in 1983 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 study identified
a total of 44 potentially contaminated sites. An additional
site, Bomarc, was also investigated by NAWCADLKE. The Bomarc
Site is the responsibility of the U.S. Air Force and is located
on Fort Dix adjacent to the western portion of NAWCADLKE. 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 rehabilitated. In 1987 NAWCADLKE was designated as a
National Priorities List (NPL) or Superfund site under the
federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and
Liability Act (CERCLA).
ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS
Phase I of the Remedial Investigation (Rl-Phase I) was conducted
from 1985 to 1987 to (a) confirm or refute the existence of
contamination at potentially contaminated sites identified during
previous studies; and (b) develop recommendations for further
Phase II investigations. The results of the Rl-Phase I were
presented in a report issued in 1987.
Phase II 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) identify where
contamination is located; (c) assess the potential for
contaminant migration; (d) define the sources of contamination;
and (e) support a feasibility study and final actions at the
sites.
Phase III of the RI was initiated in the summer of 1991 to: (a)
confirm the presence or absence of contamination at sites where
the results of previous investigations were not definitive; (b)
delineate the lateral and vertical extent of contamination; (c)
collect and evaluate data to perform a risk assessment and assess
the need for remedial action at sites.
These investigations indicated that the only significant
contamination present at levels of concern at Sites 1, 11, and 35
was total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPHC) in soil. As a result,
additional soil sampling was conducted by NAWCADLKE at the sites
in the winter of 1991 and the spring of 1992 to delineate the
extent of PHC contamination. Based on the results of this and
prior sampling, small-scale soil removals were conducted at each
of the sites, after which, post-removal samples were collected to
confirm the removal of contaminated soil. The analyses of these
samples revealed TPHC at levels below the NJDEPE Soil Cleanup
Criteria of 10,000 ppm and no semi-volatile organic compounds
(SVOCs) above the USEPA acceptable risk range and the NJDEPE Soil
Cleanup Criteria.
The individual Site histories and summaries of past remedial and
removal activities at each of the three Site are provided in the.
following sections.
-------
Site 1 (Blimp Crash Site) Background
Site Description
Site 1 is located at a 1931 blimp crash site (See Figure 2).
This crash resulted in the release of approximately 1,000 gallons
of fuel and hydraulic fluid onto the ground. At the time of
cleanup operations in 1981, two areas were identified as
contaminated. These areas are located west of the roadway, where
the blimp crashed, and east of the roadway where visually stained
soil was identified. The west site contained remnants of the
crashed blimp and an abandoned car. The east site was covered
with what appeared to be black sludge resembling No. 6 fuel oil.
The east site also contained five empty 55-gallon drums (removed
in 1981), whose compressed appearance suggested that they had
been dropped from some height or crushed. The approximate area,
which contained the drums, was 50 feet by 60 feet.
The site is approximately 3,190 feet from the nearest NAWCADLKE
boundary. A small fire water pond is located to the west of the
Site. The groundwater table is at an approximate depth of 2
feet. There are no potable water wells in the vicinity of the
site. Monitoring well GP is located in the eastern portion of
the site. Trace amounts of floating product (<1/16") can be
found in the well on occasions. (See Figure 3)
Summary of Remedial Investigation and Removal Actions
In 1981, five 55-gallon drums and 100 cubic yards of visually
stained soil were removed from the eastern portion of the site,
along with the debris from the blimp crash on the western portion
of the site. The Remedial Investigation - Phase I, conducted in
November 1985 - January 1986, revealed elevated levels of
petroleum hydrocarbons (PHCs) in the soil (54,000 ppm PHC) .
In May - June 1988, a groundwater screening survey revealed
elevated levels of petroleum hydrocarbons and low levels of
chlorinated hydrocarbons in shallow groundwater at the site.
A monitoring well designated GP was installed during the Remedial
Investigation - Phase II, conducted from August - December 1988.
Samples collected from.this well contained chromium (14-360.4
ug/1), lead (7-67.7 ug/1) and mercury (ND-2.23 ug/1) at levels
exceeding ARARs. The analysis of two soil samples (Sl-2 and Sl-
3) collected at the site revealed elevated levels of PHCs (4,847
and 455 ppm respectively). One of the soil samples also revealed
low levels of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) (51 ug/kg
toluene, 11 ug/kg ethylbenzene, and 23 ug/kg xylene), semi-
volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) (40 ug/kg pyrene) and
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) (270 ug/kg aroclor 1254).
Analysis of a sediment and surface water sample from the fire
water pond (near the western portion of the site) did not reveal
-------
elevated levels of contaminants.
During the Remedial Investigation - Phase II Addendum, both
unfiltered and filtered groundwater samples were collected from
well GP and analyzed for chromium, lead and mercury. None of the
metals were detected at concentrations exceeding ARARs in the
unfiltered sample (chromium 14.3 ug/1 and lead 2.7 (B) ug/1) and
all three metals were nondetect in the filtered sample.
PHC contamination in soil was confirmed during grid sampling of
both the western and eastern portions of the site in February
1991. The concentrations ranged from nondetect to 59,000 ppm
TPHC. Based on these findings, approximately 7 cubic yards of
soil, exhibiting PHC concentrations greater than 1,000 ppm, were
removed from the western portion of the site. The soil was
shipped for disposal off-site to Atlantic Thermal Soil
Remediation, Inc. in Delaware. Two post excavation samples were
taken and tested for TPHC and one was tested for SVOC's. One of
the samples showed an elevated level of PHCs (18,000 ppm); no
base neutral acid extractables were identified. In August of
1992, the western portion of the site-was excavated approximately
6 inches further. This excavation was based on the original post
excavation sample taken in 1991 and grid sampling results from
both 1991 and 1992. After this excavation, one post excavation
sample was taken from the area which registered 18,000 ppm PHC in
the 1991 post excavation sampling, and analyzed by an EPA
Certified Laboratory Program (CLP) Laboratory for TPHC and base
neutral/acid extractables. The results indicated that the sample
contained 5760 ppm PHC and no base neutrals above the USEPA
acceptable risk range and the NJDEPE Soil Cleanup Criteria.
During the July 1991 - April 1992 Remedial Investigation - Phase
III, groundwater samples were collected, using a Hydropunch, at
two locations. Three samples were collected at each location at
different depths. Two VOCs were detected in groundwater, 1,1,1-
trichloroethane and xylene, at concentrations below ARARs.
1,1,1-trichloroethane was found in five of the six samples
collected, at concentrations ranging from 0.43 to 2.57 ug/1 and
xylene was detected in three of six samples at concentrations
ranging from 0.6 to 6.65 ug/1(total xylene).
A piezometer (HR) was installed downgradient of well GP to
monitor the potential presence of floating fuel product. No
product was found in the piezometer. Trace amounts of floating
product (1/16") are found periodically in well GP, located in the
north eastern portion of the site.
The area on the eastern portion of the site was also excavated in
August 1992. The extent of the excavation was based on
delineation sampling results and the visual examination of the
soil during excavation. The delineation sampling, during the
spring of 1991 and the spring of 1992, identified areas of soil
8
-------
which ranged from nondetect (ND)-170,000 ppm PHCs. The soil was
excavated to an approximate depth of 36 inches. Approximately
230 cubic yards of contaminated soil was removed. Groundwater
and free product seeped into the pit soon after excavation of the
area commenced. (The water table is only 2 feet below ground
surface in this area.) Approximately 3000 gallons of groundwater
was pumped from the excavation area to a tank truck in order for
the excavation to proceed as planned. A sample from the tanker
of the residual oily product was collected and analyzed for VOCs.
The results of this test indicated the following: methylene
chloride 3 ug/1, toluene 5 ug/1, ethylbenzene 3 ug/1, o-xylene 9
ug/1 and m+p xylene 13 ug/1. A sample was also taken from the
oily residue left on the soil after the water was removed. This
sample was analyzed for SVOCs and the results indicated di-n-
butylphthalate at a level of 6400J ug/kg (J= detected below the
method detection limit) (the complete results are located in the
Confirmation Sampling Plan and Report). The moderate levels of
tentatively identified SVOCs found are indicative of an old,
highly weathered fuel oil. (See Figure 4 for excavated areas)
After the excavation on the eastern portion of Site 1, three post
removal samples were collected and analyzed for TPHC. One of the
three was analyzed for SVOCs. The results indicate that PHC is
below the NJDEPE Soil Cleanup Criteria of 10,000 ppm PHC (ND-4720
ppm PHC) and that there are no SVOCs above the USEPA acceptable
risk range and the NJDEPE Soil Cleanup Criteria. The excavated
area on the west side will be filled with clean soil in 1993.
The excavation on the east side of the Site will be left as a
fire pond. This will enable continuous monitoring, as part of a
groundwater monitoring plan, for floating free product.
The Site l alternative will include a program to monitor the
status of groundwater quality. This five year program will
consist of a general groundwater monitoring plan which will
evaluate any continuing potential impacts of the site upon
groundwater or the created ponded area. At the completion of the
monitoring program the need for further action will be evaluated.
Site 11 (Hangar 5 Storage^ Background
Site Description
.:
Site 11 consists of a former drum storage area approximately 200
ft. by 100 ft. located about 50 yards north of Hangar 5. The
drum storage area may have been a source of contamination
although no information is available regarding its history or
.past usage. Adjacent to the site was an area about 1,000 by 300
feet from which approximately 350 cubic yards of surficial PHC
contaminated soil was removed between 1981-1984. The removal was
conducted based on visual examination and odor. The visual
discoloration was found to a depth of five inches. The site was
-------
subsequently expanded to include this area.
Site 11 is located approximately 830 feet "Upgradient from the
Paint Branch, a relatively small stream which feeds the Manapaqua
Brook. There is a shallow groundwater table depth of
approximately 8 feet at Site 11. (See Figure 5)
Summary of Remedial Investigations and Removal Actions
As stated above, in the early 1980s, approximately 350 cubic
yards of PHC contaminated soil were excavated from the site. To
assess groundwater contamination in the area, four shallow
monitoring wells (N, 0, P and BG) were installed near the site.
Additional monitoring wells were also installed near the site
(approximately 1200 feet south and southwest) as part of the
investigation of nearby Sites 16 and 17. On November 13, 1982,
it was reported that a trace of floating product was detected in
well N, and a 1/8 inch of floating product was detected in well
P. No floating product has been detected in well N since that
time. A trace of floating product was detected in well P on July
20, 1984. No product was detected in these wells during the
Phase I, or subsequent, investigations. It is possible that this
contamination was due to the fuel spill which occurred in
September 1981 at the nearby Fuel Farm 196 (Site 17). Although
no free product has been detected in recent years, any potential
contamination emanating from the site will be captured and
treated by the Area C Pump and Treat Facility located
downgradient of Site 11.
During the Remedial Investigation - Phase I, an additional
monitoring well (DN) was installed at the site. Analyses of
groundwater samples revealed cyanide at a concentration of 225
ppb.
The Remedial Investigation - Phase II failed to confirm the
presence of cyanide. The investigation did reveal low levels of
1,2-Dichloroethene in groundwater (ND-7 ug/1), below ARARs, and
levels of lead slightly above ARARs in one well. High levels of
petroleum hydrocarbons (21>489.75 ug/g) were detected in a soil
sample collected near the dirt road in the middle of the site.
Groundwater samples were collected with a Hydropunch from three
depth intervals during the Remedial Investigation - Phase III.
No contaminants were detected at levels exceeding ARARs in these
samples. Also, no targeted VOCs or SVOCs were detected, with the
exception of di-n-butylphthalate, which is believed to be a
sampling or laboratory artifact. Well DN was also resampled
.during Phase III to confirm the presence of lead at
concentrations exceeding ARARs. In the unfiltered sample, lead
was detected (11 ug/1), although the result was qualified during
the data validation process as being unreliable and biased low.
10
-------
In the filtered sample, however, lead was not detected.
Delineation sampling-was undertaken in the spring of 1992, based
on the high level of petroleum hydrocarbons found in the soil
sample taken during the RI - Phase II. The delineation soil
sampling was conducted for the whole site because of the limited
petroleum hydrocarbon data. After the initial round of sampling,
it was determined that the areas of concern included the area
around the sample area in the RI - Phase II (near sample Sl-11 on
Figure 4) and adjacent to the drum storage area. The excavation
for Site 11, which included two distinct areas, was based on this
delineation sampling.
The contaminated area in the middle of the Site near the dirt
road (where RI - Phase II sample was taken) was excavated to 40
inches and staged at Site 35 for ultimate removal. The
approximate volume removed was 76 cubic yards. Also based on the
delineation sampling, it was determined that the contamination in
the drum storage area was surficial. One delineation sample was
taken at a depth of 24 inches and was determined to contain 890
ppm PHC. The visibly stained area, approximately 5 cubic yards,
was determined to contain high levels of petroleum hydrocarbons
(10,000 ppm). This area was also removed and staged at Site 35.
(See Figure 6 for area of excavation)
After excavation, post removal samples were taken and analyzed.
Three samples were taken in the larger contaminated area and one
sample was taken near the drum storage area. The samples were
analyzed for TPHC and one sample from the large area was analyzed
for SVOCs. The sample taken in the area near the drum storage
was analyzed for SVOCs, VOCs, pesticides and polychlorinated
biphenyls. The results indicated that the level of PHC is below
the NJDEPE Soil Cleanup Criteria of 10,000 ppm PHC and that there
are no SVOCs above the USEPA acceptable risk range and the NJDEPE
Soil Cleanup Criteria. The excavated areas will be filled with
clean fill in the beginning of 1993.
Site 35 (Helicopter Defuelina) Background
Site Description
Site 35 is located approximately 2,000 feet from the southern
facility boundary, northwest of Hangar 5 and adjacent to a black
topped tarmac. The site is grassy, with a wooded area to the
west. The site was the location of helicopter and aircraft
defueling operations, which may have included the disposal of
fuel directly onto the ground, until about 1986. Due to the
turnover of military personnel, no information on the quantity of
fuel disposed of could be obtained. Fuel from defueling
operations is now collected and properly disposed of off-site.
The site is located near the Paint Branch of the Toms River.
11
-------
Some shallow groundwater from the southern portion of the site
may discharge into the Paint Branch. However, most of the
groundwater flow at the site is in a generally northeasterly
direction away from the Paint Branch. (See Figure 7)
Summary of Remedial Investigations and Removal Actions
Site observations, during the Remedial Investigation - Phase I in
August 1986, revealed the presence of several dark soil stains,
which were due to spills of petroleum products, such as oils and
fuels. Locally, a surficial dark brown to black crust had
developed on the ground surface, apparently the result of old
spills. Some areas of stressed vegetation were also observed.
Several shallow (one foot) test pits were excavated throughout
the site. Locally, discolored soil extended to a depth of 3 to 4
inches below the land surface. At one location, stains were
covered with approximately 4 to 6 inches of clean fill. A
maximum organic vapor analyzer (OVA) level of 320 ppm was
recorded in one of the test pits excavated at this location. OVA
levels in test pits excavated in areas of apparently old spills
were generally between 0 and 3 ppm. In general, most of the
stains were observed adjacent to the tarmac, and decreased toward
the tree line to the west. A visual inspection of the Paint
Branch at the point where it enters the culvert did not reveal
any evidence of stained sediment or water.
In June 1988, soil gas and groundwater screening surveys revealed
slightly elevated levels of both petroleum and chlorinated
hydrocarbons in soil gas and shallow groundwater at the site.
As part of the Remedial Investigation - Phase II an analysis of
groundwater samples from four monitoring wells installed at the
site revealed no significant contamination and failed to confirm
the petroleum and chlorinated hydrocarbons detected in the
screening survey. Two of the six soil samples collected at the
site contained elevated levels of petroleum hydrocarbons.
Two rounds of groundwater samples were collected from each of the
four monitoring wells located at the site (FU, FV, FW and FX),
also during the RI Phase II. Duplicate samples were collected
and analyzed from well FW during both rounds. The only
contaminant detected was xylene at a concentration below ARARs in
one of the two second round samples obtained from well FW.
Xylene was not detected in an EPA split of this sample.
During the RI - Phase II soil sampling was performed in the
middle of the defueling area, where surficial soil stains had
been observed in 1986. Five test pits were excavated to a depth
of five feet. One sample was collected from three of the pits at
depths ranging from 2 to 2.5 feet. In addition, one soil boring
was drilled at the site to a depth of 8 feet (where groundwater
12
-------
was encountered). Two samples were collected from the boring,
one at a depth of 0 to 2 feet and the other at a depth of 6 to 8
feet. A background soil sample was collected from a test pit
excavated in the wooded area west of the site.
High levels of total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPHC) (up to
12,073.33 ug/g) were detected in two samples. Slightly elevated
levels of tentatively identified compounds (TICs) were detected
in all on-site samples, suggesting minor contamination. OVA
readings above background levels were not recorded in any of the
test pits or in the boring. No significant staining was observed
in any of the test pits.
Analysis of three groundwater samples, collected from one bore
hole at three different depth intervals using a Hydropunch, was
conducted during the Remedial Investigation - Phase III. The
samples were taken from a location 100 feet directly downgradient
from the location of a Phase II soil sample which had contained
high levels of PHC. The samples revealed no significant
contamination.
In the spring of 1992, delineation soil sampling was conducted to
identify areas of high PHC contamination. A biased grid sampling
approach was used, which identified the extent and depth of the
PHC contamination. Three distinct areas were identified that
contained levels of PHC in excess of 10,000 ppm. Based on the
results of this sampling an excavation was planned.
The excavation of Site 35 was planned to be done in three phases.
The plan for the first phase was to remove the top layer of
contaminated soil. This soil was to be staged near the site on
impermeable plastic. The next phase was to remove an asphalt
layer, which was discovered during the delineation sampling.
This layer, approximately 4 inches, was part of the largest
contaminated area. The third phase was to remove the remaining
layer of contaminated soil and any visibly stained areas.
The plan proceeded as intended and the top layer was removed and
placed on impermeable plastic. An attempt was made to remove the
next layer, but the asphalt was not continuous throughout the
excavation and it disintegrated during the excavation. Although
there was not as much asphalt as believed, this layer was
segregated from the other layers. 'The remaining contaminated
soil was excavated and staged on impermeable plastic. (See
Figure 8 for area of excavation)
After excavation, eleven post removal samples were taken and
analyzed for TPHC. Six of the samples were also analyzed for
SVOCs. The TPHC readings ranged from 20-4360 mg/kg which is
below the NJDEPE Soil Cleanup Criteria of 10,000 ppm PHC. There
are no SVOCs identified above the USEPA acceptable risk range and
the NJDEPE Soil Cleanup Criteria. The excavated areas will be
13
-------
filled with clean soil in the beginning of 1993.
ENDANGERMENT ASSESSMENT
An endangerment assessment (EA) was conducted at NAWCADLKE to
assess the potential current and future human health risks and
potential environmental impacts posed by contaminated soils,
groundwater, sediment and surface water detected during past and
on-going site investigations.
For Sites 1, 11, and 35, the EA Findings Summaries are summaries
of the complete assessments, which are documented in the
Endangerment Assessment. The EA is part of the NAWCADLKE
Administrative Record.
Site 1 (Blimp Crash Site)
Endangerment Assessment Summary
Contaminants of concern (COCs) were identified for groundwater,
soil, sediment and surface water. The COCs for groundwater
included volatile organics and metals. The COCs for soil
included volatile organic compounds, polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons, PCBs, and total petroleum hydrocarbons. Chromium
was determined to be COC for surface water.
Human Health and Hazard Findings
Groundwater exposure is highly unlikely due to the remote
location and lack of potable wells of the site making the pathway
incomplete. It is also located in a wetlands area within the
Pinelands Preservation area, which would make the possibility for
future residential development unlikely. Groundwater
contaminants do not exceed their respective Maximum Contaminant
Levels (MCLs), which are imposed for the protection of human
health and the environment.
A military land use scenario was assumed for soil due to the
remote location of the site. Exposure pathways include ingestion
and inhalation. The overall site soil hazard quotient or
individual hazard indices for noncarcinogenic contaminants did
not exceed the EPA's criteria value of 1.0. The total risk posed
by carcinogenic chemicals detected in soil did not exceed EPA
criteria of 10"6.
All contaminants were below EPA acceptable risk levels. High
levels of TPHC were addressed by the removal actions. This
action eliminated any potential adverse human health or
ecological effects.
Ingestion of surface water by humans was not considered a
significant exposure pathway. However, potential effects on
14
-------
ecological receptors were evaluated to determine risks (See
ecological assessment). If no elevated ecological risk is found,
the risk to humans can be considered insignificant. The
ecological assessment determined that contaminants in surface
water did not pose a significant risk to the environment.
Ecological assessment
The ecological assessment portion of the Endangerment assessment
was conducted prior to the excavation performed in 1992. Site 1
is located within a wetlands area. It is a possible habitat for
many aquatic and land-dwelling species. Both the grasshopper
sparrow and upland sandpiper were sighted within 2500 feet of
Site 1. The upland sandpiper is a state-listed endangered
species and the grasshopper sparrow is a state-listed threatened
(although globally secure) species.
The results of the ecological assessment revealed that the site
does not pose a sediment contamination problem. Although lov;
levels of metals were found in sediments at Site 1, the
ecological assessment determined that contamination is minimal
and probably presents little, if any, potential hazard to
surface-dwelling or free-swimming biota.
The excavation activity resulted in the formation of a large
pond. In order to monitor the surface water at the site, the
excavated area was not backfilled. The base forester has
initiated planting around the edges of the pond in order to
restore the area. This pond is a potential future habitat for
various aquatic species.
Site 1 Summary
No groundwater contaminants exceeded MCLs, nor.did contaminants
in soil exceed EPA acceptable risk levels. Long term monitoring
of groundwater and surface water is proposed in response to the
slight oil sheen which developed during excavation. Little, if
any, adverse ecological effects exist.
Site 11 (Drum Storage Area)
Endangerment Assessment Summary
The media evaluated were groundwater and soil. The COCs for
groundwater include 1,2-dichloroethene and lead. Arsenic as a
COC for groundwater was screened out due to its presence below
maximum background level in unfiltered samples. In addition,
cyanide was screened out since its presence could not be
established in the last two phases of the remedial investigation.
For soil, the COCs evaluated included 1,1,1-trichloroethane and
TPHC.
15
-------
Human Health Risk and Hazard Findings
At Site 11, a light industrial land use was employed. Due to its
proximity to military aircraft hangars, a future residential land
use scenario.is unlikely.
Hazards resulting from soil noncarcinogens are not elevated for
any chemical above EPA's hazard index criteria of 1.0.
Similarly, the overall site hazard quotient does not exceed 1.0.
None of the soil COCs exhibit carcinogenic potential. All
contaminants were below EPA acceptable risk levels. High levels
of TPHC were addressed by the removal actions. This action
eliminated any potential adverse human health or ecological
effects.
For groundwater the assessment showed no hazard indices for
individual contaminants above 1.0 nor a hazard quotient above
1.0. None of the COCs are classified as potential carcinogens.
In addition, no contaminants exceed their respective MCLs which
are established to be protective of human health and the
environment.
Ecological assessment
The ecological assessment portion of the Endangerment assessment
was conducted prior .to any excavation at the site. Sites 11 is a
grassy area adjacent to two aircraft hangars and an active
helicopter field. This area is not considered a wildlife
dwelling. No endangered or threatened species were found in this
area.
There were no COCs identified at this site. Surface water and
sediments are not contained in this site, therefore no aquatic
receptors exist. Other ecological receptors may use this site on
a transient basis. Risks associated with soil have been
addressed by the removal action.
Site 11 Summary
No groundwater contaminants exceeded MCLs, nor did contaminants
in soil exceed EPA acceptable risk levels. Elevated levels of
TPHC were addressed by the removal action. No ecological hazards
were determined to exist.
Site 35 (Helicopter Defueling)
Endangerment Assessment Summary
The media of concern at the site are groundwater, soil and
sediment. The COCs for groundwater includes xylene and various
metals found at low levels. TPHC was determined to be a COC for
soil. In sediment, chromium is a COC.
16
-------
Human Health Risk and Hazard Findings
A light industrial land use was assumed for soil. None of the
soil COCs are classified as potential carcinogens. All
contaminants were below EPA acceptable risk levels. High levels
of TPHC were addressed by the removal actions. This action
eliminated any potential adverse human health or ecological
effects.
For groundwater, the light industrial land use was also employed.
The EA indicates that hazards indices resulting from
noncarcinogens are not elevated for any chemical above 1.0. The
overall hazard quotient estimated for groundwater is also below
the EPA level of 1.0. None of the groundwater COCs are
classified as potential carcinogens. In addition, no groundwater
contaminants exceeded MCLs.
The ecological exposure to sediment was identified as a potential
concern. Frequent direct human exposure was not considered a
significant exposure pathway. The ecological affects were
therefore utilized as a screening tool to determine sediment
risks (see ecological assessment). Ecological effects were
determined to be minimal.
Ecological assessment
The ecological assessment portion of the Endangerment assessment
was conducted prior to any excavation at the site. Site 35 is a
grassy area adjacent to two aircraft hangars and an active
helicopter field. This area is not considered a wildlife
dwelling. No endangered or threatened species were found in this
area.
Chromium was considered a COC for sediment at the Paint Branch
which is located sidegradient to Site 35. This was considered
the only COC for sediment at this site. The ecological
assessment determined that contamination is minimal and probably
presents little, if any, potential hazard to surface-dwelling or
free-swimming biota.
Site 35 Summary
No groundwater contaminants exceeded their respective MCLs, nor
were soil contaminants above EPA acceptable risk levels. Little,
if any, adverse ecological effects were determined to exist.
17
-------
SUMMARY • • •• '
In summary, the EA demonstrates that groundwater and soil at the
three sites do not pose human health risks in excess of EPA
acceptable levels. Likewise, the sites do not pose unacceptable
ecological hazards. All groundwater contaminants were below
their respective MCLs. All soil contaminants were below EPA
acceptable risk levels and NJDEPE Soil Cleanup Criteria. Levels
of PHC in excess of the 10,000 ppm NJDEPE Soil Cleanup Criteria
were addressed by the removal actions as documented in the
Confirmation Sampling Plan and Report available in the
Administrative Record.
18
-------
HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
Vi»The Proposed Plan for Sites 1, 11 and 35 was issued to interested
parties on December 3, 1992. On December 7-8, 1992, a newspaper
notification inviting public comment on the Proposed Plan
appeared in The Asbury Park Press and The Ocean County Observer.
On December 9, 1992, a notification also appeared in The Advance
News. The comment period was held from December 11, 1992 to
January 11, 1993. The newspaper notification also identified the
Ocean County Library as the location of the Information
Repository.
A Public Meeting was held on December 15, 1992. At this meeting
representatives from the Navy, USEPA and NJDEPE were available to
answer questions about the three Sites, and the "No Action"
determination. A list of attendees is attached to this Record of
Decision as Appendix A. Comments received and responses provided
during the public hearing are included in the Responsiveness
Summary, which is part of this Record of Decision. No written
comments were received during the public comment period.
The decision document presents the selected action (i.e., No
Action) for Sites 1, 11 and 35 of NAWCADLKE in Ocean County, New
Jersey, chosen in accordance with CERCLA, as amended by SARA and,
to the extent practicable, the National Contingency Plan (NCP).
The decision for the three Sites is based on the information
contained in the Administrative Record, which is available for
public review at the Ocean County Library, 101 Washington Street,
Toms River, New Jersey.
SCOPE AND ROLE OF RESPONSE ACTION
The results of environmental investigations conducted show no
evidence of any significant contamination remaining at Sites 1,
11 and 35. The PHC contamination in soil which was identified at
these Sites has been remediated to levels below the NJDEPE Soil
Cleanup Criteria and there are no SVOCs above the USEPA
acceptable risk range and the NJDEPE Soil Cleanup Criteria.
Because the available data indicate that conditions at Sites 1,
11 and 35 pose no unacceptable risks to human health or the
environment, no action is necessary for these three Sites. The
Site 1 plan includes a 5 year program of groundwater monitoring.
Other areas of concern at NAWCADLKE will be or have been the
subject of separate studies and response actions.
SUMMARIES OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS
The locations of each of the three Sites within NAWCADLKE are
shown in Figure 2. Maps of the individual sites are provided in
Figures 3, 5 and 7. The areas of soil removal for each
19
-------
individual Site are provided in Figures 4, 6 and 8.
The general direction of groundwater flow at NAWCADLKE is to the
east-northeast. Summaries of the chemicals detected in the
analyses of groundwater, soil and sediment samples collected at
each of the Sites are provided in Tables 1 through 3.
The results of the Remedial Investigations, including the
analytical data summarized in Tables 1 through 3, indicate that
conditions at Sites 1, 11 and 35 pose no unacceptable risks to
human health and the environment.
20
------- |