United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Emergency and
Remedial Response
EPA/ROD/R02-93/210
September 1993
x°/EPA Superfund
Record of Decision:
Naval Air Engineering Center
(Operable Unit 10), NJ
-------
50272-101
REPORT DOCUMENTATION
PAGE
1. REPORT NO.
EPA/ROD/R02-93/210
3. Recipient's Accession No.
4. THIe and Subtitle
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION
Naval Air Engineering Center (Operable Unit 10), NJ
Tenth Remedial Action
5. Report Oat*
09/27/93
6.
7. Author(s)
8. Performing Organization Rapt. No.
9. Performing Organization Nama and Address
10 Projaet Teak/Work Unit No.
11. Contraet(C) or Qrant(G) No.
(C)
(G)
12. Sponsoring Organization Nama and Address
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
13. Typa of Report & Period Covered
800/800
14.
15. Supplementary Notee
PB94-963815
16. Abstract (Limit: 200 words)
The Naval Air Engineering Center (Operable Unit 10) 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
predominantly undeveloped woodlands and open areas, and light commercial and industrial
areas, with the closest residential area, the Borough of Lakehurst, located southeast
of the facility. The Naval Air Engineering Center (NAE.C), 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 was formally 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
(See Attached Page)
17. Document Analysis a. Descriptors
Record of Decision - Naval Air Engineering Center (Operable Unit 10), NJ
Tenth Remedial Action
Contaminated Medium: None
Key Contaminants: None
b. Identifiers/Open-Ended Terms
e. COSATI Field/Group
18. Availability Statement
19. Security Clan (This Report)
None
20. Security Class (This Page)
None •
21. No. of Pages
38
22. Price
(See ANSI-Z39.18)
SM Instructions on Rtvtrse
OPTIONAL FORM 272 (4-77)
(Formerly NTIS-35)
Department of Commerce
-------
EPA/ROD/R02-93/210
Naval Air Engineering Center (Operable Unit 10), NJ
Tenth Remedial Action
Abstract (Continued)
disposal of hazardous substances. During the operational period of the facility, there
were reported and suspected improper 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 Former Hangar 2 Disposal Area (Site 9), the Abandoned Fuel Storage
Facility 141 (Site 12), the Former Refueler Repair Shop, Building 345 (Site 33), the
Former Hangar 1 Waste Disposal Area (Site 36), the Former Fuel Disposal and Drum Storage
Area (Site 37), the Former Petroleum Oils and Lubricants Disposal Site (Site 39), and the
Former Base Landfill (Site 42). Beginning in the early 1950s, Site 9 was used as a
disposal area for unknown waste materials from Hangars 1, 2, and 3. In 1981, waste,
contained in 200 55-gallon drums, was emptied onto the site. Later that year, the State
required that approximately 40 yd^ of stained soil and the empty 55-gallon drums be
removed from the site. From 1923 to 1980, Site 12 was used as a fuel storage facility for
tanks containing heating oil and diesel fuel. While the tanks were in operation, numerous
fuel spills reportedly occurred onsite. In 1980, the tanks were abandoned and filled with
sand, and subsequently, in 1988, the tanks were excavated and disposed of offsite. From
1959 to 1988, Site 33 was used as a deck drain and a dry well, into which waste solvents,
oils, and lubricants were poured. In 1988, the dry well was excavated and disposed of
offsite. From 1921 to 1974, Site 36 was used to dispose of liquid wastes from various
operations in Hangar 1 by pouring them directly onto the pavement or soil surrounding the
area. Liquid wastes potentially disposed of in this area include carbon tetrachloride,
kerosene, benzene, toluene, and sulfuric acid. This area also contained a 500-gallon
storage tank and a dry well, which were removed in 1988. From 1957 to 1967, Site 37 was
used to drain fuel trucks prior to maintenance, during which time approximately 24,000 to
48,000 gallons of fuel and 512 pounds of elemental lead were disposed of onsite. During
the 1950s and 1960s, Site 39 received an unknown quantity of waste oils, solvents,
contaminated fuels, aircraft cleaners, and aircraft washdown rinsate, when the area" was
used for the steam cleaning of various aircraft and equipment. Most of the area has been
covered with blacktop or graded and replanted with grass. From the late 1920s to 1939,
Site 42 received metal scrap, oily turnings, and asbestos from the metal and plumbing
shops, paint thinner cans and other refuse such as dried paint residue and brushes from
the paint shop, ash from the base incinerator, scrap from aircraft wrecks and fires,
mercury, magnesium, vehicles, and contaminated fuels. Most of the area where the former
landfill was located has been developed and is now occupied by facility buildings and
above-ground fuel tanks. Two RODs signed in 1991 and 1992 addressed OUs 1, 2, 3, and 4,
and OUs 5, 6, and 7, respectively. This ROD addresses any potential remaining soil
contamination at Sites 9, 12, 33, 36, 37, 39, and 42, as OU10. Other 1993 RODs address
OUs 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 22, and 23. Based on data collected during the RI, EPA has
determined that the previously implemented removal actions have eliminated the need to
conduct additional cleanup activities at these sites; therefore there are no contaminants
of concern affecting this site.
The selected remedial action for this site is no further action because previously
implemented removal actions have eliminated the need to conduct additional remedial
actions and the results of the RI indicated that conditions at the si,te pose no
unacceptable risk to human health and the environment. There are no present worth or O&M
costs associated with this no action remedy.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS:
Not applicable.
-------
ROD FACT SHEET
SITE
Name : NAWC Lakehurst
Location/State : Lakehurst, New Jersey
EPA Region : II
HRS Score (date): 49.48 (July 22, 1987)
ROD
Date Signed: September 27, 1993
Remedy: No Action
Operating Unit Number: OU-10 (Sites 9, 12, 33, 36, 37, 39, 42)
Capital cost: $ N/A
Construction Completion:
O & M in 1993:
1994:
1995:
1996:
Present worth: N/A
LEAD
Enforcement
Federal Facility
Primary contact Jeffrey Gratz (212) 264-6667
Secondary contact Robert Wing (212) 264-8670
Main PRP U.S. Navy
PRP Contact Lucy Bottomley (908) 323-2612
WASTE
Type Metals, Semi-volatile organics
Medium Soil
Origin Assorted spills
Est. quantity N/A
-------
LAKEHURST
RECORD OF DECISION
FOR
SITES 9, 12, 33, 36,
37, 39 AND 42
NAVAL AIR WARFARE CENTER
AIRCRAFT DIVISION
LAKEHURST, NEW JERSEY
September 14, 1993
-------
RECORD OP DECISION
DECLARATION
SITES 9, 12, 33, 36, 37, 39 AND 42
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 seven individual sites (Sites 9, 12, 33, 36, 37, 39 and 42),
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
The United States Department of the Navy, the lead agency
for these Sites, has selected the "no action" alternative for
Sites 9, 12, 33, 36, 37, 39 and 42.
-------
DECLARATION STATEMENT
The United State Department of the Navy has determined that no
additional remedial action is necessary at Sites 9, 12, 33, 36, 37,
39 and 42 to ensure protection of human health and the environment.
This Record of Decision concerns Sites 9, 12, 33, 36, 37, 39
and 42. 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 Records of Decision.
:aptain LerKy Farr (Date)
Commanding Officer
Naval Air Warfare Center
Aircraft Division
Lakehurst, New Jersey
With the concurrence of:
William J/ tfy^Wski, P.E. (Date)
Acting Regionau: Administrator
U.S. Environmental 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 currently 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 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.
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 Manapagua 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 Manapagua 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
3
-------
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).
STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
NJDEPE Soil Cleanup Criteria (SCC) were utilized as guidance for
the cleanup of soil at all seven sites. NJDEPE SCC includes soil
cleanup levels for residential and non-residential direct contact
scenarios and separate impact to groundwater soil cleanup
criteria for the protection of groundwater. The National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) guidance for sediment was
used as a screening aid to determine ecological risk. A brief
discussion of each of the criteria follows.
NJDEPE SCCs:
The NJDEPE soil cleanup criteria are To Be Considered (TBC)
criteria for determining the need for site cleanup. Although the
NJDEPE SCC are not promulgated requirements, these criteria are
considered an appropriate means by which to assess the risk to
human health and the environment posed by contaminants found in
soil. Therefore, NAWCADLKE has been determining the need for
site cleanup based upon NJDEPE SCC as well as EPA risk-based
levels and other factors, such as aiding the effectiveness and
duration of existing groundwater remediation systems.
The cleanup criteria provide health based levels for residential
use, non-residential use and impact to groundwater (subsurface)
land uses and/or impacts. NAWCADLKE has assumed a non-
residential land use due to its mission and facilities is support
of Naval aviation. Due to our location in the Pinelands National
Preserve (Class I-PL (Pinelands)) and the shallow groundwater
table, the most stringent of the surface and subsurface (impact
to groundwater) non-residential cleanup criteria have been
utilized in our site comparisons.
To satisfy the requirement for establishing EPA risk-based clean-
up criteria, an Endangerment Assessment was performed in October
1992 which included calculated Preliminary Remedial Goals or
PRGs. The PRGs are chemical specific criteria which were
developed using fate and transport and the exposure equations
associated with the relevant pathways. The PRGs determined by
calculation the contaminant concentrations in affected media that
would result in acceptable exposure levels. PRGs were developed
for each site based upon one or more (current or potential) land-
use scenarios. Typically the NJDEPE SCC are more stringent than
the calculated PRGs. With this in mind, the SCC are also
considered preliminary clean-up goals at those sites at the
-------
Lakehurst facility which are determined to require active
remediation.
NOAA:
Since no chemical specific ARARs exist for sediment
contamination, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) sediment quality criteria have been
utilized at NAWCADLKE as TBC cleanup criteria for sediment.
These criteria are provided in the 1990 report, "The Potential
for Biological Effects of Sediment-sorbed Contaminants Tested in
the National Status and Trends Program".
This report assembled and reviewed currently available
information in which estimates of the sediment concentrations of
chemicals associated with adverse biological effects have been
determined or could be derived. The biological data for each
compound was statistically calculated. An Effects Range-Low (ER-
L) , a concentration at the low end of the range in which effects
had been observed, and a Effects Range-Median (ER-M), a
concentration approximately midway in the range of reported
values associated with biological effects, were derived.
In a very qualitative sense, the ER-L value can be taken as a
concentration above which adverse effects may begin or are
predicted among sensitive life stages and/or species. The ER-M
value is taken as a concentration above which effects were
frequently or always observed or predicted among most species.
NAWCADLKE has utilized the chemical specific ER-L and ER-M values
to determine the need for sediment remediation. Where values
have generally exceeded ER-M, further evaluation, site visits,
and contaminant specific literature searches have been conducted
to refute or confirm the potential for existing or future adverse
ecological effects. Site information and NOAA criteria have been
weighed to determine if sediment remediation is advantageous or
potentially destructive to the aquatic habitat (as may be the
case with excavation of sediment).
For sediments requiring remediation, the NOAA criteria are
considered preliminary clean-up goals. ARARs affecting the
chosen remedial alternative for sediments include the Clean Water
Act (40 CFR 404) which prohibit actions that may adversely impact
a wetland unless no other alternatives are available, and the NJ
Water Supply Management Act (NJAC 58:1A-1 et.seq.) which require
permits for groundwater diversion during recovery operations.
Other ARARs which may apply include the Endangered Species Act
(16 USC 1531) where adverse impacts on endangered species or
their habitats must be considered in the implementation of a
remedial action.
-------
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. Based on the results of the Phase II investigation,
several remedial actions were initiated.
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 there is no significant
contamination present at levels of concern at Sites 9, 12, 33,
36, 37, 39 and 42. The individual Site histories and summaries
of past remedial activities at each of the Sites are provided in
the following sections.
Site 9; Former Hangar 2 Disposal Area
Site Description and Background:
Site 9 is located in the asphalt-paved area to the west of Hangar
2 and is approximately 3,300 feet from the nearest (northeastern)
NAWCADLKE boundary (Figure 3). It was reported that this site was
used as a disposal area where unknown waste materials from
Hangars 1, 2 and 3 were disposed of over a 20 year period
starting in the early 1950s. In 1981, an estimated 200 55-
gallon drums of unknown wastes were emptied.at the site. The
source of these wastes was reported to be materials from Hangar
2.
In 1981, approximately 40 cubic yards of stained soil and 200
empty 55-galIon drums were removed from the site under the
direction of the NAWCADLKE.
Summary of Remedial Investigations;
8
-------
During Phase II of the Remedial Investigation, one soil boring
was drilled and two test pits were excavated at the site. Two
samples were collected from the boring and one sample was
collected from each of the test pits. Total petroleum
hydrocarbons (TPHC) were detected at concentrations of 103 and
1,437 mg/kg in the two samples from the boring. No significant
contamination was detected in the two test pit samples, collected
from depths of 2 to 3 feet, indicating that most of the shallow,
visually contaminated soil had probably been removed in 1981.
In January 1990, a soil boring was drilled immediately adjacent
to monitoring well G. Three samples were collected from the
boring at depths of 9 to 10 feet, 15 to 16 feet and 24 to 25
feet. The analysis of these samples did not confirm the presence
of elevated levels of TPHCs and no volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) or semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) were detected.
Site 12; Abandoned Fuel Storage Facility 141
Site Description and Background:
Site 12 is an abandoned fuel storage facility located in Area A-
West, on the northwestern side of Building 266 (Figure 4) . Two
5,000 gallon underground fuel tanks were located under Pad 141.
Records indicate that the fuel tanks were in use from 1923 to
1980 and contained No. 1-heating oil and diesel fuel. In 1980,
the tanks were abandoned and filled with sand. In 1988 the tanks
were excavated and removed from the site. While the tanks were
in operation, numerous fuel spills reportedly occurred at the
site. However, no estimates of the quantity of fuel spilled are
available.
Summary of Remedial Investigations:
A soil sample was collected from directly beneath the location of
the tanks at a depth of 7 feet after their excavation and
removal. Analysis of this sample revealed elevated levels of
TPHC (4,294 mg/kg). Five soil borings were drilled around the
perimeter of Building 266 with two samples collected from each
boring. No compounds were detected in any of the samples at
concentrations exceeding NJDEPE soil cleanup criteria. The two
additional samples were collected from the location of the former
fuel tanks. Analysis revealed TPHC concentrations of 2,300 mg/kg
at a depth of 4 to 6 feet, and 2,900 mg/kg at a depth of 8.5 to
9.5 feet. No targeted VOCs or SVOCs were detected in either of
these samples and no individual polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
(PAH) compounds were present at elevated concentrations.
Sediment and surface water sampling was also conducted in the
wetlands area to the immediate northwest of the site. The
sediment samples detected elevated levels of metals that included
lead, nickel, and vanadium. Two additional rounds of sediment
-------
samples confirmed the elevated levels of these three metals.
However, the results revealed the extent of the contamination to
be limited to a small, isolated area. No contamination was
detected in the surface water sample.
Site 33; Former Refueler Repair Shop. Elder. 345
Site Description and Background:
Site 33 is a former dry well located on the north side of Buildina
345 in close proximity to the original channel of the Ridgeway
Branch (Figure 5). Building 345 was constructed in 1959 and had a
deck drain that led to a dry well on the north side of the
building. It was reported that waste solvents, oils, and
lubricants were poured into the deck drain and flowed into the dry
well. There are no reported estimates of the quantity of wastes
discharged into the well. The dry well was excavated and disposed
of during the Phase II Investigation in 1988.
Summary of Remedial Investigations;
A soil sample was taken from the pit following removal of the dry
well at a depth of 5 feet, which was approximately the same level
as the floor of the dry .well. Analysis of this sample revealed
moderate levels of VOCs, low levels of SVOCs, and a TPHC
concentration of 2,859 mg/kg. No individual compounds were
detected at levels exceeding NJDEPE soil cleanup criteria. In
addition, a soil boring was drilled approximately 20 feet east of
the dry well and samples were collected at depths of 3 to 4 feet
and 5 to 6 feet. Analysis revealed minimal levels of TPHCs, SVOCs,
and non-targeted TICs.
Two additional soil samples were collected from the location of the
former dry well at depths of 5 and 9 feet. In the shallower
sample, contamination was limited to petroleum hydrocarbons at a
concentration of 5,700 mg/kg, one PAH compound and a total of 10
volatile and 20 semi-volatile TICs, all at concentrations below the
NJDEPE soil cleanup criteria. Petroleum hydrocarbons were not
detected in the deeper sample and no other contaminants were
detected at elevated concentrations.
Site 36; Former Hangar 1 Waste Disposal Area
Site Description and Background;
Site 36 encompasses the perimeter of Hangar 1 (Figure 6) . From
approximately 1921 to 1974, liquid wastes from various operations
in the hangar were reportedly disposed of by pouring directly onto
the pavement or soil surrounding the building. Liquids potentially
disposed of in this area are reported to include: carbon
10
-------
tetrachloride, kerosene, benzene, toluene and sulfuric acid. The
combined wastes disposed of in this manner reportedly amounted to
an estimated 6 gallons per day during the period between 1921 and
1974. This may have resulted in the disposal of approximately
83,000 gallons of liquid wastes over the 53 year period. At the
northeast corner of Hangar 1, a 500-gallon gasoline storage tank
was present atop a concrete pad and a dry well was located adjacent
to (to the north of) the pad. The dry well was connected to a sink
located inside Hangar 1, although it is not known what substances
were disposed of in the sink. The tank and dry well were removed
in 1988.
Summary of Remedial Investigations;
During the Phase II Investigation, four test pits were excavated at
locations surrounding Hangar 1 and one soil sample was collected
from each of the pits. Two additional samples were collected from
immediately above and below a concrete pad in the northeast corner
of Hangar 1 on which a gasoline tank was resting. Analysis of the
samples revealed low levels of petroleum hydrocarbons in two
samples, polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) Aroclor 1254 in one sample,
lead in one sample, and low levels of PAH compounds in three
samples. No contaminants were detected at levels that exceed the
NJDEPE soil cleanup criteria.
Four additional soil borings were drilled to a depth of 10 feet at
locations surrounding Hangar 1. Two samples were collected from
each boring and analyzed for TPHC and pesticides/PCBs. TPHC was
detected in two of the eight samples, at concentrations of 53 and
57 mg/kg. No PCBs were detected in any of the eight samples
collected. Several pesticides were detected in three of the
samples collected from the borings on the north side of the site.
Individual pesticide concentrations in soil ranged from 1.3 to 66
ug/kg, with no compound present at concentrations exceeding the
NJDEPE soil cleanup criteria.
site 37: Former Fuel Disposal and Drum Storage Area
Site Description and Background;
Site 37 encompasses an area to the north of Lawrence Road near
Building 271 and south of Site 14 (Figure 7) . Site 37 was used by
the plumbing shop personnel to drain fuel trucks prior to
maintenance. As part of standard practices between 1957 and 1967,
approximately 200 to 400 gallons of aviation gasoline and jet fuel
were disposed of each month at the site. This represents a
potential of 24,000 to 48,000 gallons of fuel and 512 pounds of
elemental lead.
Summary of Remedial Investigations;
11
-------
During the Phase I Investigation, two shallow test pits were
excavated in areas of stressed vegetation, found to the north of
well AC. OVA readings taken in the pits did not exceed background
levels and no contamination was detected in the analysis of a soil
sample collected from one of the pits.
During the Phase II Investigation, three test pits were excavated
at the site to a depth of four feet. No stained soil was observed
within the test pits or elsewhere at the site. One soil sample
was collected from one of the test pits at a depth of four feet.
No targeted contaminants were detected in the analysis of this
sample although a number of non-targeted TICs were present.
In 1988, three test pits were excavated at the site to a depth of
three feet. No staining was observed in any of the excavations and
no contaminants were detected in a sample taken from one of the
pits.
Site 39; Former Petroleum Oils and Lubricants Disposal Site
Site Description and Background;
Site 39 is located to the south of Hangar 3, between the hangar and
Building 562 (Figure 8) . From interviews with NAWCADLKE personnel,
it was learned that this site received an unknown quantity of waste
oils, solvents, contaminated fuels, aircraft cleaners, and aircraft
washdown rinsate during the 1950s and 1960s when the area was
reportedly used for the steam cleaning of various aircraft and
equipment. Most of the site has subsequently been covered with
blacktop or graded and replanted with grass.
Summary of Remedial Investigations:
During the Phase II Investigation, eight test pits were excavated
at Site 39 and three additional pits were excavated in the area
near Buildings 124 and 333 to the northwest of the site. No
visible signs of contamination were observed in the soil and no OVA
readings exceeding background levels were obtained in any of the
pits. Soil samples which were collected from five of the test pits
revealed low levels of several semi-volatile organic compounds
(PAHs) at two locations.
During the Phase III Investigation, a soil boring was drilled to a
depth of 26 feet at a location approximately 75 feet east of
monitoring well EF. Samples were collected at depths of 2 to 4
feet and 24 to 26 feet below grade. Although no contamination was
detected in the deeper sample, the shallower sample was
contaminated with asphalt which resulted in elevated levels of PAH
compounds. A second sample was taken at the same location and
depth to confirm the elevated PAH and base/neutral extractable
organic concentrations. No asphalt was encountered while obtaining
the sample and analysis revealed only slightly elevated (below the
12
-------
NJDEPE soil cleanup criteria) levels of PAH compounds.
Site 42; Former Base Landfill (Inactive)
Site Description and Background;
The exact boundaries of Site 42 are not known. Based on interviews
with Base personnel, it is suspected that the former landfill is
located in the area to the southwest of Building 266 and to the
north of potable water well PW-5 (Figure 9) . The northern limit of
the landfill probably corresponds to the 6 to 8 foot embankment
along the wetlands. The southern limits of the landfill may be
defined by the southern limits of the wetlands. Most of the area
of the former landfill has been developed and is now occupied by a
variety of structures, including facility buildings and above-
ground fuel tanks. It was reported that this area was used as a
landfill from the late 1920s until approximately 1939. Materials
which may have been discarded here include: metal scrap and oily
turnings from the metal and plumbing shops; asbestos from the
plumbing shop; paint thinner cans and other refuse such as dried
paint residue and brushes from the paint shop; ash from the base
incinerator; scrap from aircraft wrecks and fires; mercury,
magnesium, vehicles and contaminated fuels.
Summary of Remedial Investigations;
During the Phase II Investigation, three test pits were excavated
in areas where soil gas samples from a prior survey had detected
elevated levels of petroleum hydrocarbons and chlorinated
hydrocarbons. Samples from two of these test pits revealed minimal
levels of VOCs and no TPHC contamination. The third test pit, was
excavated above an area of groundwater known to contain several
inches of free product. During excavation of the pit, a 1.5 foot
thick petroleum saturated gravel layer was observed at a depth of
2 to 3.5 feet and a soil sample collected at- a depth of 4 feet
revealed high levels (9,248 mg/kg) of TPHC. An investigation was
conducted in April 1991 to better delineate the extent of TPHC
contamination in the area located directly to the north of fuel oil
tank 581. Thirty-four soil borings and five test pits were
excavated to check for any visible petroleum contamination in the
soil. Based on the findings from this investigation, it is
suspected that TPHC contaminated groundwater and subsurface soil
exists north of fuel tank 581 and extends west toward monitoring
well EU.
The contaminated groundwater and subsurface soil is being addressed
by the groundwater treatment facility for Areas A and B. This
system will be modified to include free product recovery and soil
flushing. Effectiveness of this system will be evaluated prior to
the final Record of Decision for Areas A and B groundwater.
13
-------
During the Phase II Investigation, two rounds of sediment samples
were collected from the fire water pond to the west of Site 42 and
the drainage swale north of Site 26, which discharges into the
Ridgeway Branch. Low levels of several PAH compounds and TPHC
along with the following metals; lead, mercury, selenium and
vanadium were detected in these samples. Surface water samples
were also collected from these areas. Analysis revealed only low
levels of several metals which included aluminum, barium, iron and
manganese.
14
-------
NAVAL AIR WARFARE CENTER
AIRCRAFT DIVISION, LAKEHURST
AND NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES
VICINITY MAP
SCMJ: r - 1* ULB
Figure (1)
-------
AREAS A AND B
SCALE (FT)
Fioure (2)
-------
SITE No.9, AREA B
HANGAR 2 DISPOSAL AREA
FZ« MONITORING WELL LOCATION (D=Det?)
H06 PIEZOMETER
?W«-l»® HYDROPUNC^SAMPUNG LOCATION
S-3&] SOIL CR SEDIMENT SAMPLING LOCA710N(PHASc II)
NAVAL AIR WARFARE CENTER-AIRCRAFT DIVISION
LAKEHURST, NEW JERSEY
PUBLIC MEETING - JULY 7. 1993
Figure (3)
-------
12.400
NAWC ^PROPERTYJOUNDARY^ _
SITE No.12
. EXPLANATION:
<*• MONITORING WELL LOCATION (D-Desp)
HC6 PIEZOMETER _
i HYDROPUNCH®SAMPUNG LOCATION
SC-12S STAFF GAUGE LOCATION
312-1(2 SOIL OR SEDIMENT SAMPLING LOCATION(PHASE II)
KT-iwB SURFACE WATER SAMPUNG LOCATION(PKAS£ II)
SOIL BORING LXATION(PHASE HI)
TANK EXCAVATION LOCATION (PHASE III)
(SAMPLE COLLECTED)
1P42-SB TEST PIT LOCATION (PHASE III)
2 5ES (NO SAMPLE COLLECTED)
S SDAW-IA SEDIMENT SAMPUNG LOCATION(PHASE III)
SITE No.12, AREA A WEST
ABANDONED FUEL STORAGE FACILITY 141
NAVAL AIR WARFARE CENTER-AIRCRAFT DIVISION
LAKEHURST, NEW JERSEY
PUBLIC MEETING - JULY 7. 1993
-------
U2.400
SITE No.33
i N AWC^OPERTYJOUNDARY .^TI^^^-
,••—'••—••••—""" ^^. ^/^ WETLANDS
• «—•
/dU.
FORMER
WASTEWATER
TREATMENT
337
EXPLANATION;
EU« MONITORING WELL LOCATION (D=0eep)
«e PIEZOMETER
w**-J® HYOROPUNO^SAMFUNG LOCATION
STAFF GAUGE LOCATION
SOIL OR SEDIMENT SAMPLING LOCATION(PHASE II)
SSSS-l® SOIL BORING LOCAT10N(PHASt HI)
SH3IUENT SAMPLING LOCATION(PHASt III)
GRAPHIC SCALE:
AT
V
•fi
V.
SITE No.33, AREA A WEST
REFUELER REPAIR SHOP. BUILDING 345
NAVAL AIR WARFARE CENTER-AIRCRAFT DIVISION
LAKEHURST. NEW JERSEY
PUBLIC MEETING - JULY 7. 1993
-------
•1
}
I
FORMER FUEL
FARM 125
LOCATION OF
FORMER DRY WELL
AND GASOLINE TANK
SITE 36 i
HANGAR 1
J.y:y:v:M^:^a^
-------
WETLANDS
APPROXIMATE LOCATION
OF FORMER FIRE FIGHTING
TRAINING PITS (SITE 14)
CWS»-2S(2
SB1*-«
MONITORING WELL LOCATION (D°Dmp)
PIEZOMETER
RECOVERY WEU.
HYOROPUNCH®SAMPUNG LOCATION
STAFF GAUGE LOCATION
SOIL OR SEDIMENT SAMPLING LOCATICN(PHASE II)
SURFACE WATER SAMPLING LOCATION(PHASE II)
TEST PIT LOCATION (PHASE 0)
(NO SAMPLE COLLECTED)
SOIL BORING LOCAT10N(PHASC III)
SEDIMENT SAMPLING LOCAT10N(PHAS£ 111)
SURFACE WATER SAMPLE LOCATION (PHASE fll)
SITE No.37, AREA A EAST
•QRMER FUEL DISPOSAL AND DRUM STORAGE AREA
NAVAL AIR WARFARE CENTER-AIRCRAFT DIVISION
LAKEHURST, NEW JERSEY
PUBLIC MEETING - JULY 7. 1993
-------
HANGAR
3
(BUILDING 149)
SUSPECTED EXTENT
OF SITE 39
50 100 150 '200 FEET
s
EXPLANATION:
rr0 MONITORING V€LL LOCATION (D-Deep)
HPAB-18® HYOROPUNO^SAMPUNG LOCATION
S39-3B SOIL OR SEDIMENT SAMPUNG LOCAT10N(PHASE II)
A TEST PIT LOCATION (PHASE II)
W (NO SAMPLE COLLECTED)
5. SU8-10 SOIL BORING LOCATION(PHASE III)
SITE No.39, AREA B
ETROLEUM PRODUCTS DISPOSAL SITE(INACTlVE
NAVAL AIR WARFARE CENTER-AIRCRAFT DIVISION
LAKEHURST, NEW JERSEY
PUBLIC MEETING - JULY 7, 1993
-------
s! NAWC PROPERTY BOUNDARY s;
-- — ^- —~^
WETLANDS
WETLANDS
WETLANDS
EMBANKMENT
(along tree line)
•' r 't
SITE 33 C—-J
REPORTED
EXTENT
OF SITE 42
LANDFILL
WETLANDS
EMBANKMENT
(along tree line) SEDAW-Z
___ (REMOVED IN 1992)
. EXPLANATION:
or* MONITORING WELL LOCATION (D=0eep)
HC© PIEZOMETER
HPAW-1® HYDROPUNCH^ySAMPLING LOCATION
SG-12S STAFF GAUGE LOCATION
SGAE-B(c) SURVEYED CULVERT LOCATION .
RB42-1S51 SOIL OR SEDIMENT SAMPLING LOCATION (PHASE II) "
RB42-1W® SURFACE WATER SAMPLING LOCATION(PHASE II) "£.
SBI2-19 SOIL BORING LOCATION(PHASE III) '^
TFPPI AM TCST PIT (TANK EXCAVATION) LOCATION (PHASE III)
TEPP1-AB (SAMPLE COLLECTED)
TF42-5IS TCST PIT LOCATION (PHASE III)
™ (NO SAMPLE COLLECTED)
SEOAW-1^ SEDIMENT SAMPLING LOCATION(PHASE III)
SITE No.42, AREA A WEST
FORMER BASE LANDFILL (INACTIVE)
NAVAL AIR WARFARE CENTER-AIRCRAFT DIVISION
LAKEHURST. NEW JERSEY
PUBLIC MEETING - JULY 7. 1993
-------
3.0 SUMMARY OF SITE ENDANGERMENT
An Endangerment Assessment (EA) was conducted for NAWCADLKE to
assess the potential current and future human health risks and
potential environmental impacts posed by contaminated soils, ground
water, sediment and surface water detected during past and on-going
site investigations.
For all sites, four different scenarios representing current and
potential future land uses were evaluated to assess applicability
to the site. Evaluated scenarios included military, light
industrial, construction and residential land uses. For each of
these scenarios, human exposure is affected by mechanisms that
include direct contact, inhalation and ingestion. In addition, a
transient scenario was developed to assess the human health risks
associated with direct exposure to contaminated sediment.
More complete EA information for Sites 9, 12, 33, 36, 37, 39, and
42 can be found in Volume VI of the Phase III Rl, which is
available as part of the NAWCADLKE Administrative Record.
The summaries do not address groundwater. Groundwater
contamination which exists beneath all of these sites is being
addressed through a separate interim remedial action. A Record of
Decision for that action was signed on March 16, 1992 and requires
pumping and treatment of the groundwater in Areas A and B.
Remediation should begin in late summer 1993. It is not believed
that the sites addressed in this Proposed Plan are a continuing
source of groundwater contamination.
For each site, the summary will discuss (1) the chemicals
identified by the EA as contaminants of concern (COCs) , (2) the
land use assumptions upon which estimates of potential human
exposure to site contaminants are based, (3) the quantitative
estimates of carcinogenic risk and noncarcinogenic hazard, (4) a
summary of the ecological concerns at the site and, (5) a summary
interpretation of the EA findings with regard to need for site
remediation.
3.1 SITE 9: FORMER HANGAR 2 DISPOSAL AREA
This is a summary of the EA findings for Site 9 (Former Hanger 2
Disposal Area) . Soil is the media of interest for this site.
3.1.1 CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN
For soil, various organic compounds such as xylene and polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and two inorganic metal parameters
(lead and mercury) were identified as contaminants of concern.
3.1.2 LAND USE AND EXPOSURE ASSUMPTIONS
24
-------
For soil, a light industrial land use scenario was assumed because
Site 9 is located within an unrestricted area of the Base near
Hanger 1, traversed occasionally by facility employees. By this
land use scenario, exposure to contaminated soil could occur via
incidental ingestion and inhalation.
3.1.3 HUMAN HEALTH RISK AND HAZARD FINDINGS
For soil, the results of the EA indicate that hazards resulting
from noncarcinogens are not elevated for any chemical above EPA's
hazard index criteria value of 1.0. The hazard index values ranged
from a minimum of 8.16 x 10"7 for pyrene to a maximum of 2.01 x 10~4
for mercury. Similarly, the overall site soil hazard represented
by the hazard quotient or sum of the chemical-specific hazard
indices also does not exceed a value of 1.0. The overall hazard
quotient estimated for soil is 2.02 x 10"4.
Carcinogenic risk estimates for soil at Site 9 also are not
elevated for the only chemical (chrysene) contributing to
carcinogenic risk. The risk potential represented by chrysene is
6.24 x 10"8, which is below EPA's criteria risk level of 10"6. This
risk value for chrysene also represents. the total soil risk.
The maximum concentration of lead detected in soil at Site 9 was 33
mg/kg which is well below the NJDEPE criteria value for lead (600
mg/kg) in surface soils and the EPA criteria (500 mg/kg).
Basic toxicological data are also not readily available for total
petroleum hydrocarbons (TPHC). However, the maximum observed TPHC
concentration (1,437 mg/kg) is below the TPHC soil cleanup criteria
level of 10,000 mg/kg used as a cleanup guideline by NJDEPE.
3.1.4 ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
Site 9 is an asphalt paved area to the west of Hangar 2 and is not
considered a wildlife habitat. No endangered or threatened species
were found in this area. In addition, surface water and sediment
are not present at this site; therefore ho aquatic receptors exist.
3.1.5 SITE 9 CONCLUSION
In summary, the results of the endangerment assessment indicate
that soil at Site 9 does not pose unacceptable levels of risk to
human health and the environment.
3.2 SITE 12: ABANDONED FUEL STORAGE FACILITY
This is a summary of the Endangerment Assessment (EA) findings for
Site 12 (Abandoned Fuel Storage Facility) . The media of interest
at this site are soil. surface water, and sediment.
25
-------
3.2.1 CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN
For soil, a variety of organic compounds including volatiles
(tetrachloroethene and xylene), PAHs, as well as total petroleum
hydrocarbons were evaluated in the EA as COCs. Of the inorganic
parameters, lead was the only COC.
For surface water, no analytes were determined to be COCs. For
sediment. a variety of organic compounds represented by toluene and
PAHs were determined to be COCs. For inorganics, the COCs were
nickel, lead, and vanadium.
3.2.2 LAND USE AND EXPOSURE ASSUMPTIONS
For soil a light industrial land use was assumed, by which direct
exposure to contaminated soil could occur via incidental ingestion
and inhalation.
For sediment, the transient scenario developed for the EA was
assumed, by which direct exposure to contaminated sediment could
occur via incidental ingestion.
3.2.3 HUMAN HEALTH. AND ECOLOGICAL RISK AND HAZARD FINDINGS
For soil, hazards resulting from noncarcinogens are not elevated
for any chemical above EPA's hazard index criteria value of 1.0.
The hazard index values ranged from a minimum of 1.67 x 10"6 for
tetrachlorethane to a maximum of 5.99 x 10"6 for naphthalene.
Similarly, the overall site soil hazard represented by the hazard
quotient or sum of the chemical-specific hazard indices also does
not exceed a value of 1.0. The overall hazard quotient estimated
for soil is 1.93 x 10"5.
Carcinogenic risk estimates for soil at Site 12 also are not
elevated for any chemical above EPA's criteria risk level of 10"6.
Carcinogenic risk potential is only contributed to by
tetrachlorethane, the only potential carcinogen. The carcinogenic
risk posed by tetrachlorethane for soil at Site 12 is 3.09 x 10'10,
which is also the total risk estimate for soil.
For sediment, based on the transient scenario, the hazards
resulting from noncarcinogens are not elevated for any chemical
above EPA's hazard index criteria value of 1.0. The hazard index
values ranged from a minimum of 4.72 x 10"9 for toluene to 5.67 x
10"3 for vanadium. Similarly, the overall site sediment hazard
represented by the hazard quotient or sum of the chemical specific
hazard indices also does not exceed a value of 1.0. The overall
hazard quotient estimated for sediment is 6.13 x 10"3.
Carcinogenic risk estimates for sediment at Site 12 also are not
elevated for any chemical above EPA's criteria risk level of 10"6.
Carcinogenic risk potential is only contributed to by chrysene, the
26
-------
only potential carcinogen. The carcinogenic risk posed by chrysene
for sediment at Site 12 is 1.31 x 10"8, which is also the total risk
estimate for sediment.
3.2.4 ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
Site 12 is located around the dirt and blacktop paved perimeter of
Building 266 and includes a portion of the wetlands area located to
the immediate northwest of the building. The area around Building
266 is not considered a wildlife habitat and no endangered species
were found to exist at or near the site. Aquatic receptors
suspected to be present in the pond located to the northwest of the
site include the following species: chain pickerel, brown bullhead,
american eel, bluegill, and channel catfish. In addition, reptiles
that have been observed at or near the site include the following
species: snapping turtle, red-bellied turtle, spring peeper,
northern water snake, black racer snake, and king snake.
To evaluate the potential for adverse ecological effects associated
with contaminants in sediment, sample results were compared to
guidelines established by NOAA as effects range-low (ER-L) and
range-medium (ER-M).
The evaluation of sediments at Site 12 revealed that the ER-M
guideline of 110 mg/kg for lead was slightly exceeded by two of
nine samples which had levels of 115.5 mg/kg and 113.5 mg/kg. The
average lead sediment level for Site 12 is 40.3 mg/kg which is
well below the ER-M guideline of 110 mg/kg and only slightly above
the ER-L guideline of 35 mg/kg.
The evaluation of sediments at Site 12 also revealed that the ER-M
guideline of 50 mg/kg for nickel was exceeded by three of nine
samples which had nickel concentrations of 134.5 mg/kg, 151 mg/kg,
and 234 mg/kg. The average nickel concentration in sediment at
Site 12 is 62.3 mg/kg which only slightly exceeds the ER-M
guideline.
The Site 12 2-methylnapthalene concentration of 120 ug/kg exceeded
its ER-L value of 65 ug/kg. However, this same 2-methylnapthalene
concentration is less than the ER-M value of 670 ug/kg.
The ecological effects of the remaining sediment COG at Site 12,
vanadium, could not be evaluated due to the lack of any NOAA
screening level value.
As a result of exceedances of the NOAA ER-M guideline for nickel
and lead, an Addendum to the Areas A, B, H, I & J Surface Water,
Soil and Sediment Focused Feasibility Study was prepared to further
evaluate the biological effects of these metals. Contaminants
levels present at Site 12 were compared to the results of metal
spiked-sediment bioassays performed on Daphnia magna, a sensitive
indicator of metals intoxication. The results of this study
27
-------
suggest that the highest nickel or lead sediment concentrations at
Site 12 are well below the concentrations necessary for the
expression unambiguous toxicity. The findings of the Addendum also
indicate that the level of nickel and lead present in Site 12
sediment does not pose an unacceptable ecological hazard due to the
negligible biomagnification of these metals, the limited area in
which they were detected and the absence of any surface water
contamination.
3.2.5 SITE 12 CONCLUSION
In summary, the EA demonstrates that soils, surface water and
sediment at Site 12 do not pose an unacceptable risk to human
health or the environment. For soil, the EPA's risk and hazard
criteria for human health were not exceeded and no contaminants
were detected above the NJDEPE soil cleanup criteria. For surface
water, no analytes were determined to be COCs, and therefore no
human health or ecological risks exist. For sediment, NOAA
guidelines were exceeded for nickel and lead; however the potential
for adverse ecological effects from these contaminants is
considered to be low due to limited area of contamination (150
square feet), the negligible biomagnification of lead and nickel,
the low confidence level for the NOAA nickel values, and the
absence of any surface water contamination.
3.3 SITE 33: FORMER REFUELER REPAIR SHOP, BLDG. 345
This is a summary of the EA findings for Site 33 (Former Refueler
Repair Shop, Building 345). The media that is the subject of
interest for this site is soil.
3.3.1 CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN
For soil, various volatile organic compounds determined to be COCs
include benzene, ethylbenzene, toluene, and xylene. Semi-volatile
compounds determined ,to be COCs included various PAHs and total
petroleum hydrocarbons. The only inorganic determined to be a COC
was mercury.
3.3.2 LAND USE AND EXPOSURE ASSUMPTIONS
For soil, a light industrial land use scenario is applicable
because Site 33 is in an area where numerous base employees are
present on a daily basis and they engage in activities similar to
those associated with the light industrial land use assumptions
specified by EPA. The light industrial land use scenario, and
associated pathways, assume that direct exposure to contaminated
soil could occur via incidental ingestion and inhalation.
28
-------
3.3.2 HUMAN HEALTH RISK AND HAZARD FINDINGS
For soil, the results of the EA indicate that hazards resulting
from noncarcinogenic compounds are not elevated for any chemical
above EPA's hazard index criteria value of 1.0. The hazard index
values ranged from a minimum of 1.38 x 10"8 for toluene to a maximum
of 2.17 x 10"4 for mercury. Similarly, the overall site soil hazard
represented by the hazard quotient, or sum of the chemical-specific
hazard indices, also does not exceed a value of 1.0. The overall
hazard quotient estimated for soil is 2.45 x 10~4. Carcinogenic
risk estimates for soil at Site 33 also are not elevated for any
chemical above EPA's criteria risk level of 10"6. The risk
estimates ranged from a maximum of 4.75 x 10"7 for chrysene to a
minimum of 1.12 x "10 for benzene. The overall -site soil risk
represented by the sum of the chemical-specific risk estimates is
1.28 x 10"6, due to the contribution of benzo (a) anthracene,
chrysene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, and benzo(a)pyrene.
The source of PAH, and other contaminants in soil at Site 33 is
believed to be releases of various liquid wastes, including fuels,
from an unlined dry well formerly present at the site. This dry
well, which was excavated and removed in 1988, received discharges
from a sink drain inside the adjacent refueler repair shop. In
using the results of the EA for assessing the potential need for
remedial action at the site, it should be considered that the
results of the RI have indicated that soil contamination at the
site appears to be localized in the immediate vicinity of the
former dry well. None of the NJDEPE soil cleanup criteria for PAHs
in soil were exceeded by the Site 33 PAH results.
3.3.4 ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
Site 33 is a dirt paved area located on the north side of Building
345 and is not considered a wildlife habitat. No endangered or
threatened species were found in this area. Contamination was
found in subsurface soils which are not part of.'a complete pathway.
In addition, surface water and sediment are not present at this
site; therefore no aquatic receptors exist.
3.3.5 SITE 33 CONCLUSION
In summary, there is no continuing source of soil contamination at
Site 33. Soil in the unsaturated zone (above the groundwater
table) has been determined to meet NJDEPE soil cleanup criteria and
does not pose a risk to human health or the environment. The
presence of free product and petroleum contaminated soil in the
saturated zone at the site will be addressed by the groundwater
treatment facility for Areas A and B. This system will be modified
to include-free product recovery and soil flushing. Effectiveness
of this system will be evaluated prior to the final Record of
Decision for Areas A and B groundwater.
29
-------
3.4 SITE 36: FORMER HANGAR 1 WASTE DISPOSAL AREA
This is a summary of the endangerment assessment findings for Site
36 (Former Hanger 1 Waste Disposal Area). The media that is the
subject of interest for this site is soil.
3.4.1 CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN
For soil, various semi-volatile organics (PAHs, a pesticide, and a
PCB) and one metal (lead) were determined to.be COCs.
3.4.2 LAND USE AND EXPOSURE ASSUMPTIONS
For soil, a light industrial land use was assumed because access to
the site is not restricted and the site is not extremely remote.
Under such a land use scenario human exposure to contaminated soil
could occur via incidental ingestion and inhalation.
3 .4 .' 3 HUMAN HEALTH RISK AND HAZARD FINDINGS
For soil, the results of the EA for soil at Site 36 indicate that
hazards resulting from noncarcinogens are not elevated for any
chemical above EPA's hazard index criteria value of 1.0. The
hazard index values ranged from a minimum of 3.75 x 10~6 for pyrene
to a maximum of 6.47 x 10"5 for 4,4'-DDT. Similarly, the overall
site soil hazard represented by the hazard quotient or sum of the
chemical-specific hazard indices also does not exceed a value of
1.0. The overall hazard quotient estimated for soil is 7.22 x 10"5.
Carcinogenic risk estimates for soil at Site 36 also are not
elevated for any chemical above EPA's-criteria risk level of 10"4.
The risk estimates ranged from a minimum of 3.95 x 10"9 for 4,4'-DDT
to a maximum of 4.85 x 10'7 for Aroclor 1254. The overall site soil
risk represented by the sum of the chemical-specific risk estimates
is 1.40 x 10"6, due primarily to five PAHs compounds.
In using the results of the EA for assessing the potential need for
remedial action at the site, it should be considered that the
maximum observed concentration of the five PAH compounds of concern
were approximated due to the fact that they were below method
detection limits. Also, none of the NJDEPE soil cleanup criteria
for PAHs in soil were exceeded by the Site 36 PAH results.
The highest detected concentration of lead at Site 36 was
25.9 mg/kg. This level is well below the NJDEPE soil cleanup
criteria of 600 mg/kg for non-residential surface soil and the
EPA's soil cleanup standard of 500 mg/kg. The level of lead
detected also does not represent a risk or hazard criteria
exceedance.
The PCB Aroclor 1254 which was the only other contaminant to
significantly impact the site risk, was only detected in one sample
30
-------
from throughout Site 36. The concentration of Aroclor 1254, like
the five PAH compounds, was approximated due to the fact that it
was below method detection limits.
3.4.4 ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
Site 36 encompasses the asphalt paved perimeter of Hangar 1 which
is not considered a wildlife habitat. No endangered or threatened
species were found in this area. In addition, surface water and
sediment are not present at this site; therefore no aquatic
receptors exist.
3.4.5 SITE 36 CONCLUSION
In summary, the results of the EA indicate that soil contamination
detected at Site 36 does not pose an unacceptable risk to human
health or the environment.
3.5 SITE 37: FORMER FUEL DISPOSAL AND DRUM STORAGE AREA
This is a summary of the EA findings for Site 37 (Former Fuel
Disposal and Drum Storage Area). The media that is the subject of
interest for this site is soil.
3.5.1 CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN
For soil, no significant organic contamination was detected.
Numerous inorganic parameters were detected; however, none were
selected as COCs because they failed to pass the background and
essential nutrient screening process.
3.5.2 ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
Site 37 is a grassy area located to the north of Lawrence Road
between the DRMO Storage Area and the CB Compound. The site is
also within the borders of Site 29 (Original Base Landfill) and is
not considered a wildlife habitat. No endangered or threatened
species were found in this area. In addition, surface water and
sediment are not present at this site; therefore, no aquatic
receptors exist.
3.5.3 SITE 37 CONCLUSION
In summary, since no significant organic or inorganic contamination
was detected in soil at Site 37 during the RI, there is no apparent
risk to human health or the environment.
31
-------
3.6 SITE 39: FORMER PETROLEUM OILS AND LUBRICANTS DISPOSAL SITE
This is a summary of the EA findings for Site 39 (Former Petroleum
Oils and Lubricants Disposal Site). The media that is the subject
of interest for this site is soil.
3.6.1 CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN
For soil, various organic compounds such as pyrene and polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) were determined to be COCs. The
inorganic COCs were lead, mercury, nickel, and silver.
3.6.2 LAND USE AND EXPOSURE ASSUMPTIONS
For soil, a light industrial land use was assumed because site
access is uncontrolled and the site is not extremely remote. Under
such a land use scenario human exposure to contaminated soil could
occur via incidental ingestion and inhalation.
3.6.3 HUMAN HEALTH RISK AND HAZARD FINDINGS
For soil, the results of the EA at Site 39 indicate that hazards
resulting from noncarcinogens are not elevated for any chemical
above EPA's hazard index criteria value of i.o. The hazard index
values ranged from a minimum of 5.49 x 10"6 for fluoranthene to a
maximum of 4.40 x 10"4 for-nickel. Similarly, the overall site soil
hazard represented by the hazard quotient or sum of the chemical-
specific hazard indices also does not exceed a value of 1.0. The
overall hazard quotient estimated for soil is 7.95 x 10"4.
Carcinogenic risk estimates for soil at Site 39 also are not
elevated for any chemical above EPA's criteria risk level of 10"6.
The risk estimates ranged from a minimum of 7.3 x 10'8 for
benzo(ghi)perylene to a maximum of 5.13 x 10"7 for
benzo(b)fluoranthene. The overall site soil risk represented by
the sum of the chemical-specific risk estimates is 2.07 x 10"6, due
primarily to five PAH compounds.
In using the results of the EA for assessing the potential need for
remedial action at the site, it should be considered that the
maximum observed concentration of the five PAH compounds of concern
were approximated due to the fact that they were below method
detection limits. Also, none of the NJDEPE soil cleanup criteria
for PAHs in soil were exceeded by the Site 39 PAH results.
3.6.4 ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
Site 39, which encompasses the blacktop paved and grassy areas
between Hanger 3 and Building 562, is not considered a wildlife
habitat. Contamination was detected in subsurface soils which are
not part of a complete pathway. No endangered or threatened
species were found in this area. In addition, surface water and
32
-------
sediment are not present at this site, therefore no aquatic
receptors exist.
3.6.5 SITE 39 CONCLUSION
In summary, the results of the EA indicate that soil contamination
detected at Site 39 does not pose an unacceptable risk to human
health or the environment. Since the.PAH compounds were detected
at a depths below 2.5 feet, direct exposure to the soil via
incidental ingestion and inhalation, as assumed by the light
industrial land use scenario is considered extremely unlikely.
3.7 SITE 42: FORMER BASE LANDFILL (INACTIVE)
This is a summary of the EA findings for Site 42 (Former Base
Landfill (Inactive)). The media that are the subject of interest
for this site are soil. surface water, and sediment.
3.7.1 CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN
For soil, the inorganic COCs were arsenic, beryllium, lead,
mercury, nickel, and vanadium. The organic COCs were
tetrachloroethene, and numerous polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
(PAHs), and total petroleum hydrocarbons.
For surface water, the COCs were aluminum, barium, iron and magne-
sium.
For sediment, the inorganic COCs were iron, lead, mercury, and
selenium. The organic COCs were phenanthrene, fluoranthene,
pyrene, benzo(a)anthracene and chrysene.
3.7.2 LAND USE AND EXPOSURE ASSUMPTIONS
For soilr a light industrial land use was assumed because a
variety of buildings used for office, maintenance, and warehouse
purposes currently exist in the area. Under such a land use
scenario human exposure to contaminated soil could occur via
incidental ingestion and inhalation.
For surface water, frequent direct human exposure was determined to
be relatively unlikely due to the limited extent of contamination
as well as the industrial nature of the area and the minor nature
of the water bodies near this site which make them unattractive for
purposes that would encourage exposure.
For sediment, a transient scenario was assumed, by which direct
exposure to contaminated sediment could occur via incidental
ingestion.
33
-------
3.7.3 HUMAN HEALTH RISK AND HAZARD FINDINGS
For soil, the results of the EA indicate that hazards resulting
from noncarcinogens are not elevated for any chemical above EPA's
hazard index criteria value of 1.0. The hazard index values ranged
from a minimum of 9.79 x 10"8 for anthracene to a maximum of 3.99
x 10"2 for vanadium. Similarly, the overall site soil hazard
represented by the hazard quotient or sum of the chemical-specific
hazard indices also does not exceed a value of 1.0. The overall
hazard quotient estimated for soil is 5.63 x 10"2. The carcinogenic
risk estimates for soil at Site 42 ranged from a minimum of 1.0 x
10"9 for tetrachloroethene to a maximum of 3.45 x 10"6 for arsenic.
The overall risk estimate for soil at Site 42 is 5.72 x 10"6. While
this level is slightly above the EPA's point of departure of 10"6,
it is within the EPA's acceptable risk range of 10~4 to lo"6.
For sediment, based on the transient scenario, the hazards
resulting from noncarcinogens are not elevated for any chemical
above EPA's hazard index criteria value of 1.0. The hazard index
values ranged from a minimum of 2.83 x 10"6 for pyrene to 1.75 x 10'4
for mercury. Similarly, the overall site sediment hazard
represented by the hazard quotient or sum of the chemical specific
hazard indices also does not exceed a value of 1.0. The overall
hazard quotient estimated for sediment is 1.92 x 10~4.
Carcinogenic risk estimates for sediment at Site 42 also are not
elevated for any chemical above EPA's criteria risk level of 10"6.
Carcinogenic risk potential is contributed to by chrysene and
benzo(a)anthracene, the only potential carcinogens. The
carcinogenic risk posed by chrysene is 4.03 x 10~8 while the
carcinogenic risk for benzo (a) anthracene is 3.70 x 10"8. The
overall site sediment risk represented by the sum of these two
contaminants is 7.73 x 10"8.
3.7.4 ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
Site 42 is located in a highly developed area of the base which is
occupied by a variety of structures including a facility building
and above ground fuel tanks. The site is not considered a wildlife
dwelling and no endangered species were found in the area.
Sediment and surface water exist along the northern and western
boundaries of the site. Potential ecological effects associated
with contaminants in sediment were evaluated by comparing the
sample results to guidelines established by NOAA as effects range-
low (ER-L) and range-medium (ER-M). This evaluation of sediments
at Site 42 revealed that the site does not appear to pose a
significant ecological concern. Evidence includes the observation
that there were relatively few exceedances of the ER-L sediment
guideline values and no exceedances of the ER-M values. The
observed ER-L exceedances were noted for the maximum detected
concentrations of mercury (0.39 mg/kg), phenanthrene (0.85 mg/kg),
34
-------
fluoranthene (0.86 mg/kg), pyrene (0.63 mg/kg), and
benzo(a)anthracene (0.43 mg/kg). Even though exceedances were
noted for these contaminants, the maximum detected concentrations
are close to the ER-L sediment criteria values.
Ecological concerns associated with the western boundary of the
site have been addressed as part of Site 12.
3.7.5 SITE 42 CONCLUSION
In summary, with the exception of the TPHC contaminated groundwater
and subsurface soil located to the north of the tank storage area,
contamination at Site 42 does not pose an unacceptable risk to
human health or the environment. This decision is based on the
conclusions of the endangerment assessment, along with the lack of
evidence of landfill wastes, the age of the site, the lack of soil
or sediment contamination exceeding action levels, and the
questionable accuracy of the Base records and personnel
communications describing the contents, quantity and location of
the landfill wastes.
In addition, surface soil located in the TPHC contaminated region
north of the tank storage area is not a continuing source of
contamination. Soil in the unsaturated zone (above the groundwater
table) has been determined to meet the NJDEPE soil cleanup criteria
and does not pose a risk to human health or the environment. The
presence of free product at the site will be addressed by the
groundwater treatment.facility for Areas A and B. This system will
be modified to include free product recovery and soil flushing.
Effectiveness of this system will be evaluated prior to the final
Record of Decision for Areas A and B groundwater.
SUMMARY
In summary, the EA demonstrates that soil, surface water and
sediment at the seven sites does not pose human health risks in
excess of EPA acceptable levels. Likewise, the sites do not pose
unacceptable ecological hazards. All soil contaminants were below
EPA acceptable risk levels and NJDEPE Soil Cleanup Criteria.
35
-------
HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
The Proposed Plan for Sites 9, 12, 33, 36, 37, 39 and 42 was issued
to interested parties on June 7, 1993. On June 16 and 17, 1993, a
newspaper notification inviting public comment on the Proposed Plan
appeared in The Asburv Park Press and The Ocean County Observer and
The Advance News. The comment period was held from June 21, 1993
to July 21, 1993. The newspaper notification also identified the
Ocean County Library as the location of the Information Repository.
A Public Meeting was held on July 7, 1993. At this meeting
representatives from the Navy, USEPA and NJDEPE were available to
answer questions about the seven 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 9, 12, 33, 36, 37, 39 and 42 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 seven 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 9, 12,
33, 36, 37, 39 and 42. No unacceptable risks to human health or
the environment exist at these sites; no action is necessary for
these seven sites.
SUMMARIES OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS
The locations of each of the seven sites within NAWCADLKE are shown
in Figures 1 and 2. Maps of the individual sites are provided in
Figures 3 through 9.
The results of the Remedial Investigations indicate that conditions
at Sites 9, 12, 33, 36, 37, 39 and 42 pose no unacceptable risks to
human health and the environment.
36
------- |