United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Emergency and
Remedial Response
L., ™,K}D/R02-93/211
September 1993
PB94-963817
&EPA Superfund
Record of Decision
Naval Air Engineering Center
(Operable Unit 11), NJ
-------
50272-101
REPORT DOCUMENTATION
PAGE
1. REPORT NO.
EPA/ROD/R02-93/211
3. Recipient's Accession No.
Title and Subtitle
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION
Naval Air Engineering Center (Operable Unit 11) , NJ
Eleventh Remedial Action
5. Report Oat*
09/27/93
6.
7. Author(s)
8. Performing Organization R«pt. No.
9. Performing Organization Name and Address
10 Project Task/Work Unit No.
11. Contracl(C) or Grant(G) No.
(C)
(G)
12. Sponsoring Organization Nam* 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
PB94-963817
16. Abstract (Limit: 200 words)
The Naval Air Engineering Center (Operable Unit 11) 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 light 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 w-ithin 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
(See Attached Page)
17. Document Analysis a. Descriptors
Record of Decision - Naval Air Engineering Center (Operable Unit 11), NJ
Eleventh Remedial Action
Contaminated Media: soil, sediment
Key Contaminants: VOCs (benzene, PCE, TCE, toluene, xylenes), other organics (oils,
PAHs, pesticides), metals (lead)
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
24
22. Price
(SeeANSI-Z39.18)
S*e Instructions en Rtvone
OPTIONAL FORM 272 (4-77)
(Formerly NTIS-35)
Department of Commerce
-------
EPA/ROD/R02-93/211
Naval Air Engineering Center (Operable Unit 11), NJ
Eleventh Remedial Action
Abstract (Continued)
required the use, handling, storage, and occasional onsite disposal of hazardous
substances. During the operational period of the facility, there have been 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 old fire fighting training area (Site 14). From the 1920s or 1950s
to 1980, a mixture of flammable materials, including solvents, AVGAS, and JP fuels were
placed and ignited into two 20 by 40 foot fire fighting training pits. Although much of
the material burned, a significant quantity may have leached into the subsurface. An
estimated 10,000 gallons of flammable material was burned each year; possibly totalling
600,000 gallons of mixed flammable waste fuels. The site also consists of a wetlands area
downhill from the site to where the overflow from the fire pits drained, causing
contamination of the sediment. Sediment samples collected during phase investigations
revealed high levels of VOCs, SVOCs, and TPH in the onsite soil and sediment. Two" RODs
signed in 1991 and 1992 addressed OUs 1, 2, 3, and 4, and 5, 6, and 7, respectively. This
ROD addresses the contaminated soil and sediment for Site 14, as OUll. A 1992 ROD
addressed an interim remedy to recover and treat the contaminated ground water, as OU7.
Other 1993 RODs address OUs 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 22, and 23. The primary
contaminants of concern affecting the soil and sediment are VOCs, including benzene, PCE,
TCE, toluene, and xylenes; other organics, including oils, PAHs, and pesticides; and
metals, including lead.
The selected remedial action for this site includes excavating, analyzing, and sorting
approximately 1,200 yd^ of contaminated soil and 75 yd^ of contaminated sediment;
disposing of soil and sediment with a TPH concentration greater than 30,000 mg/kg offsite
in a hazardous wajste treatment and-disposal facility; conducting onsite recycling of the
remaining soil and sediment into cold mix asphalt or conducting offsite recycling into hot
batch asphalt; shipping offsite or containerizing onsite the petroleum-contaminated soil
and sediment; backfilling the excavated areas with clean fill, as necessary; and sampling
to determine that the site meets remediation goals. The estimated present worth cost for
this site is 5124,000.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS:
Soil and sediment cleanup goals are based on State soil cleanup goals, To Be Considered
(TBC) criteria, EPA risk-based levels, and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) sediment quality criteria. Chemical-specific cleanup goals were not provided;
however, a soil and sediment excavation goal of TPH 30,000 mg/kg will be used to further
segregate and dispose of the contaminated source material at a hazardous waste treatment
and disposal facility.
-------
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:
September 27, 1993
Asphalt Batching and Offsite Disposal
OU-11 (Site 14)
$124,000
December, 1994
$124,000 (no O & M)
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
Petroleum Hydrocarbons
Soil and Sediment
Fire training exercises, spills
Several hundred cubic yards
-------
LAKEHURST
RECORD OF DECISION
FOR
SITE 14 ^
NAVAL AIR WARFARE CENTER
AIRCRAFT DIVISION
LAKEHURST, NEW JERSEY
September 14, 1993
93-09-10
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
DECLARATION
SITE 14
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
one site (Site 14), located at the Naval Air Warfare Center,
Aircraft Division (NAWCADLKE) in Lakehurst, New Jersey (Figures 1
and 2). 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
this Site, has selected Excavation with On Site Recycling and Off
Site Disposal as.the selected remedy for Site 14. Implementation
of this alternative entails excavating contaminated soil and
sediment from the site, that is above EPA risk based levels or
the New Jersey soil clean up criteria.
It should be noted that this Record of Decision (ROD) addresses
only Site 14 and it is not intended to represent the remedial
action status for other areas of concern at NAWCADLKE. Each
site's conditions and concerns have been or will be addressed in
separate RODs. Ground water contamination at this site is
currently being'remediated through an interim action documented
in a previous ROD.
-------
DECLARATION STATEMENT
The United States Department of the Navy has determined that
remedial action is necessary at Site 14 to ensure protection of
human health and the environment.
This Record of Decision addresses Site 14. Other areas of
concern at NAWCADLKE have been or will be the subject of separate
studies and Records of Decision. The locations of this Site
within NAWCADLKE is shown in Figures 1, 2 and 3.
93
Captain LeroyYFarr
Commanding Officer
Naval Air Warfare Center
Aircraft Division
Lakehurst, New Jersey
(Date)
With the concurrence of:
Acting Reg46nal Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region II
(Date)
-------
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 at 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 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
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 test 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 addressed. 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 Site 14. NJDEPE SCC includes soil cleanup
levels for residential and non-residential direct contact
scenarios and separate impact to ground water soil cleanup
criteria for the protection of ground water. 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 need for site cleanup. Although the
NJDEPE soil cleanup criteria 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 the NAWCADLKE 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 significant contamination is
present at levels of concern at Site 14.
It should be noted that the NJDEPE Soil Cleanup Criteria (SCC),
as well as EPA risk based NAWCADLKE Preliminary Remediation Goals
(PRGs) , were utilized as guidance for the cleanup of soil and
sediment at Site 14. NJDEPE SCC includes cleanup levels for
residential and non-residential direct contact scenarios, and
separate impact to groundwater soil cleanup criteria for the
protection of groundwater. In addition, the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration screening levels were used as
guidelines for the protection of aquatic life.
Site 14: Site Description and Background
Site 14, the old fire fighting training area, is located between
the Construction Battalion (CB) compound and .the Defense
Reutilization and Marketing Office (DRMO) storage yard in the
northeastern corner of the NAWCADLKE (Figure 2). The northern
limit of the site borders the wetlands and the Ridgeway Branch is
approximately 400 feet to the north. The water table at Site 14
is approximately 9 to 12 feet below the surface and the
groundwater flow is to the north/northeast toward the wetlands
and Ridgeway Branch.
The site contains two 20 by 40 foot fire fighting training pits,
into which a mixture of flammable materials including solvents,
8
-------
AVGAS, and JP fuels were placed and ignited. It is not known
when the training began in this area. Reported estimates range
from the 1920's to the 1950's and continued until 1980. Although
much of the material burned, a significant quantity may have
leached into the subsurface. It is estimated that 10,000 gallons
of flammable materials were burned each year. Assuming the worst
case of the area being in operation since 1920, as much as
600,000 gallons of mixed flammable waste fuels may have been
burned.
The site also consists of a wetlands area downhill from the site
to where the overflow from the fire pits drained. This caused
contamination of the sediment. The lateral extent of the
sediment contamination appears to be 150 feet long and 20 feet
wide from the base of the steep embankment, down grade from site
14. The vertical extent of the sediment contamination is within
the first foot of the surface.
Summary of Remedial Investigation
During the Phase II Investigation, five test pits were excavated
at Site 14, to depths ranging from 3 to 5 feet. One soil sample
was collected from each pit. The primary soil contaminants were
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH) and Total Petroleum
Hydrocarbons (TPHC).
During the Phase III Investigation, four soil borings, SB14-1
through SB14-4, were drilled in the vicinity of Site 14 at depths
ranging from 7 to 10 feet. Two samples were collected from each
boring for chemical analysis. The highest levels of soil .
contamination were detected in boring SB14-1. Total targeted
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) concentrations in the 2 to 4
foot and 8.5 to 10 foot samples were 24,550 and 154,000/109,300
ug/kg (duplicate samples), respectively. Ten volatile
Tentatively Identified Compounds (TICs) were detected in each
sample at total concentrations of 85,500 and 542,000/236,300
ug/kg, respectively. TPHC concentrations in the samples were
69,000 and 82,000/55,000 mg/kg, respectively. Contamination at
levels exceeding the SCC in borings SB14-2 and SB14-3 were
limited to TPHC and no contaminants were detected at
concentrations exceeding the SCC in boring SB14-4.
Analysis of sediment samples collected during the Phase II
Investigation from the groundwater seep down gradient from the
site revealed high levels of semi-volatile organic compounds
(SVOCs) and TPHC. Analysis of additional sediment samples
collected during the Phase III Investigation confirmed these
results. An additional sediment sample (SEDAE-2) was collected
from the wetland area to the immediate north of Site 14 and
approximately 150 feet west of the groundwater seep. Analysis of
this sample revealed elevated levels of TPHC (88,000 mg/kg). See
figure 3 for sample locations. All contaminants of concern for
-------
sediment at Site 14 are listed in Table 1. The table compares
the maximum detected level of each contaminant with the NOAA
value. All contaminants of concern for soil at site 14 are listed
in Table 2. The table compares the maximum detected level for
each contaminant to the NJDEPE SCC and the Lakehurst Preliminary
Remediation Goal (PRG) value, which is based upon the risk to
human health.
HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
The Proposed Plan for Site 14 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
Asbury Park Press and The Ocean County Observer. On June 18,
1993 a notification also appeared in The Air Scoop, the Center'1 s
weekly publication. The comment period was held from June 21,
199'3 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 June 30, 1993 at the Manchester
Branch of the Ocean County Library at 7:00 p.m. At this meeting
representatives from the Navy, USEPA and NJDEPE were available to
answer questions about the Site, and the preferred alternative.
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. A transcript of the
meeting is available as part of the Administrative Record.
The decision document presents the selected action (i.e.,
Excavation with On Site Recycling and Off Site Disposal) for Site
14 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 site
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 FFS for Site 14 evaluates several possible alternatives for
remediating the sites and this ROD identifies the Preferred
Alternative for remediating the Site contamination. The Remedial
Action Objectives (RAO) of the remedy are to:
10
-------
1. Prevent further exposure of sensitive aquatic organisms
and/or species to sediment contamination.
2. Prevent contamination of surface water due to leaching of
contaminants from sediment.
3. Remediate soil and sediment as necessary to levels that
are protective of human health and the environment.
SUMMARIES OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS
The location of the Site within NAWCADLKE is shown in Figures 1
and 2. A map'of the Site is provided in Figure 3.
Summaries of the chemicals detected in the analyses of soil and
sediment samples collected at the Site are provided in Tables 1
and 2.
The results of the Remedial Investigations, including the
analytical data summarized in Tables 1 and 2, indicate that soil
conditions at Sites 14 pose no unacceptable risks to human health
and/or the environment. However, in order to expedite
remediation of the ground water at and around Site 14, excavation
of the contaminated soils will be accomplished at this Site. The
sediment at Site 14 poses risk to the environment/ therefore a
removal action will be performed.
SUMMARY OF ENDANGERMENT ASSESSMENT
An Endangerment Assessment (EA) 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.
More complete EA information for Site 14 can be found in Volume
VI of the Phase III RI, which is available as part of the
NAWCADLKE Administrative Record.
The groundwater at Site 14 is the subject of 'an interim remedial
action to recover and treat groundwater. Therefore, groundwater
is not further discussed within the following summary.
For Site 14, 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
11
-------
remediation.
CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN
For soil. COCs included one metal, (lead) and various volatile
and semi-volatile organic compounds. Volatile organic compounds
included aromatic alkylbenzenes (ethylbenzene, toluene and
xylenes) and chlorinated aliphatic compounds (including
tetrachloroethene and trichloroethene) . Semi-volatile organic
compounds included PAHs (chrysene and 2-methylnaphthalene) and 4-
methylphenol. Three pesticides (delta-BHC, 4,4'-DDD and 4,4'-
DDT) and total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPHC) were determined to
be COCs.
For sediment, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (e.g.,
phenanthrene, fluoranthene), volatile organic compounds (benzene
and 2-butanone), one pesticide (4,4'-DDD) and the metals
potassium, lead, mercury, nickel and zinc were determined to be
COCs.
For surface water. COCs included one volatile aromatic compound
(benzene), two chlorinated aliphatic compounds (1,1-dichloro-
ethane and l,1-dichloroethene), one semi-volatile organic
compound (4-methylphenol) and two pesticides (delta-BHC and 4,4'-
DDD) .
LAND USE AND EXPOSURE ASSUMPTIONS
For soil, a light industrial land use was assumed due to the
sites relative location to existing facilities. By this land use
scenario, direct exposure to contaminated soil could occur via
incidental ingestion and inhalation.
For sediment, frequent direct human exposure was determined to be
highly unlikely due to the nature of the sediment body which is a
heavily wooded wetlands swamp. It is not likely that this
wetlands area downgradient of Site 14 would be used for
recreational purposes (e.g., fishing, swimming). Potential
ecologic exposure to sediments is a possibility. Future use is
assumed to be the same as current use.
For surface water, frequent direct human exposure was also
determined to be highly unrealistic and, therefore, direct human
exposure was not considered an applicable scenario. Future use
is assumed to be the same as current use.
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 1.47 x 10'7 for 4-methylphenol to a
12
-------
maximum of 5.13 x 10"4 for 1,2-dichloroethene. The overall
hazard quotient estimated for soil is 7.78 x 10"4. Carcinogenic
risk estimates for soil at Site 14 also are not elevated for any
chemical above EPA's "point of departure" risk level of 10"6.
The risk estimates ranged from a minimum of 3.47 x 10"9 for
trichloroethene to a maximum of 1.54 x 10"7 for chrysene. The
overall site soil risk represented by the sum of the chemical-
specific risk estimates is 2.17 x 10"7, due primarily to
chrysene.
For surface water and sediment, based upon the transient exposure
scenario, risks and hazards to human health are minimal.
ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT FINDINGS
To evaluate the potential-for ecological effects associated with
contaminants in sediment samples, results were compared to
criteria established by NOAA as effects range-low (ER-L) and
range-medium (ER-M) sediment criteria. This evaluation of
sediments at Site.14 revealed that the following chemicals
exceeded the ER-L: zinc, and five different PAHs, in one sample.
None of these sediment COCs exceeded the ER-M, however.
SUMMARY
In summary, the calculated risks to human health posed by soil
contamination at Site 14, as presented above, do not exceed the
upper limit of EPA's risk criteria range and hence, do not
necessarily warrant remedial action. It should be noted, that
significantly elevated levels of TPHC (up to 82,000 mg/kg) were
present in soil at Site 14. Because toxicity data is not
available for many of the compounds classified as TPHC, a risk
assessment value is not provided. However, because the
contaminants in the soil and sediment continue to be a source of
ground and surface water contamination, remediation at Site 14 is
recommended.
Summary Of Remedial Alternatives
Under CERCLA, the alternative selected must protect both human
health and the environment, be cost effective and comply with
statutory requirements. Permanent solutions to contamination
problems are to be achieved whenever possible and there is a bias
for treatment of waste rather than disposal. All of the Remedial
alternatives, which are discussed in more detail in the
Feasibility Study for Site 14, are summarized below.
13
-------
ALTERNATIVE 1: No Action (Sediment and Soil)
Estimated Construction Cost: $ o
Estimated Net Annual O&M Cost: $ o
Estimated Net Present Worth: $ o
This alternative involves no additional actions at the site. No
contaminants would be treated or contained. No further action to
control the source would be taken.
ALTERNATIVE 2: Ground Water Monitoring
Estimated Construction Cost: $ 0
Estimated Net Annual O&M Cost: $ 60,000
Estimated Net Present Worth $ 630,000
This alternative would provide no reduction in risk to human
health.or the environment or reduce contamination at the site.
Long term monitoring of the site would evaluate the effects of
the source area on groundwater and can be accomplished by using
the extensive array of existing monitoring wells. Sampling would
be conducted quarterly for a period of thirty years. If
contaminant levels started to increase, an active form of
remediation may have to be pursued.
ALTERNATIVE 3: Soil Capping and Ground Water Monitoring
Estimated Construction Cost: $ 2,000
Estimated Net Annual O&M Cost: $ 61,000
Estimated Net Present Worth: $ 635,000
This alternative would act as a source control action by
minimizing the infiltration of precipitation into the
contaminated soil, thus reducing the amount of leachate. Prior
to capping, backfill would be required to establish a 3 to 5
percent grade over the area. The backfill material can be
obtained at the center and would be spread and compacted in 6-
inch lifts to provide uniform support for the cap and to minimize
settlement. Upon completion of cap construction, the area would
be vegetated to decrease erosion and promote the development of a
stable surface. Maintenance and monitoring of this alternative
would include inspection of the cap to detect signs of erosion or
settlement. Since the contamination would 'still be present at
the site, groundwater monitoring would still have to be performed
downgradient of the site.
ALTERNATIVE 4: Excavation and Off-Site Disposal
Estimated Construction Cost: $554,000
Estimated Net Annual O&M Cost: $0
14
-------
Estimated Net Present Worth: $554,000
This alternative includes the removal of all contaminated soil
and sediment from the site through excavation. The volume of
excavation is estimated to be 1200 cubic yards of soil and 75
cubic yards of sediment. Sediment excavation could be
accomplished with a 1 cu. yd. dragline which could easily
excavate the area at Site 14. Soil excavation would be
accomplished using a backhoe and or a clamshell. Once removed,
the soil and sediment would be disposed of at a landfill as an
industrial waste or at a hazardous waste landfill depending on
its hazardous waste characteristics. The contaminated soils
would either be containerized or bulk transported depending on
contamination levels.
Following excavation, sampling would be performed to determine
that the site meets remediation goals. Clean fill would be
applied as needed.
ALTERNATIVE 5: Excavation with Recycling and Off-Site
Disposal
Estimated Construction Cost: $124,000
Estimated Net Annual O&M Cost: $0
Estimated Net Present Worth: $124,000
This alternative includes the excavation of all contaminated
sediment and soil from the site as described in Alternative 4.
Once the waste is removed it would be analyzed for TPHC and other
contaminants. All portions of the sediment and soil that have a
TPHC concentration greater than 30,000 ppm would be sent to a
hazardous waste landfill for disposal as described in alternative
4. The remaining sediment and or soil would either be sent to a
permitted off-base plant for reuse in the making of hot batch
asphalt or kept for recycling in cold mix asphalt batching on
base. Shipping of the petroleum contaminated -sediment or soil
would be done as described in alternative 4.
Following excavation, sampling would be performed to determine
that the site meets remediation goals. Clean fill would be
applied as necessary.
15
-------
ALTERNATIVE 6: Excavation and Thermal Treatment
Estimated Construction Cost: $355,000
Estimated Net Annual O&M Cost: $o
Estimated.Net Present Worth: $355,000
This alternative includes the excavation of all contaminated
sediment and soil from the site as described in Alternative 4.
Once the waste is removed it would be thermally treated. Thermal
treatment involves the permanent removal of contaminants by
exposure to elevated temperatures, typically greater than 1000°F,
which causes the volatilization, combustion, and destruction of
the contaminants. This process has been proven effective in
treating both sediments and soil containing contaminants such as
those present at Site 14. A portable system may be brought on
site for this option, or if permitting constraints preclude the
use of a portable system, the material would be transported to a
licensed treatment facility.
Three waste streams would be generated by this technology: solids
(ash and treated sediment and soil) from the treatment system,
water from the air pollution control (APC) system, and air
emissions. Solids would remain on site and, after testing, may
be used as fill material. Liquid waste from the APC system that
contains substances such as caustic high chlorines, volatile
metals, trace organics, metal particulates and inorganic
particulates would be treated prior to discharge. Flue gases
would be treated by the APC system prior to discharge from the
stack. Permits or permit equivalents for the discharges of the
process would be attained prior to implementing this process.
Following excavation sampling would be done to determine that the
site meets remediation goals. The site would be filled with
clean soil as needed.
ALTERNATIVE 7: In-Situ Vitrification and Ground Water
Monitoring
Estimated Construction Cost: $188,000
Estimated Net Annual O&M Cost: $74,000
Estimated Net Present Worth: $955,000
This alternative consists of a technology which is a permanent
control of the contamination source by destroying and
immobilizing contaminants, and generating a stable crystalline
mass using electricity. The area of sediment to be vitrified
would be 100 feet by 20 feet. The area of soil to be vitrified
is two rectangles of 20 by 40 feet. The selected electrode
spacing would be the standard 15 foot by 15 foot square array and
the electrode would be put in using a standard drilling
technique.
16
-------
The off-gas hood would provide confinement for any gases that are
released during the vitrification process.
The system requirements would depend on the size of the site and
the moisture content of the soil. The two factors that can
affect power draw during vitrification are buried metals and
water. High soil moisture content significantly increases the
power needed for this process. A pilot scale study would be
needed prior to implementation.
Estimated run time for the process is 1.5 years for Site 14.
Estimate for the site was made based on soil moisture of 5
percent, low heat loss through the surface and a 15 foot
electrode spacing.
Following vitrification the area would be backfilled with clean
soil due to the 25 to 30 percent volume loss due to the increase
of .the density of the mass from the process. In addition, ground
water monitoring would be conducted quarterly for a period of
thirty years to ensure the site would pose no future risks.
17
-------
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
During the detailed evaluation of remedial alternatives, each
alternative is assessed against the nine evaluating criteria
which are summarized below.
1. Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment draws
on the assessments conducted under other evaluation criteria and
considers how the alternative addresses site risks through
treatment, engineering, or institutional controls.
2. Compliance with ARARs evaluates the ability of an alternative
to meet Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
(ARARs) and/or provides the basis for a waiver.
3. Long Term Effectiveness and Permanence evaluates the ability
of an alternative to provide long term protection of human health
and. the environment and the magnitude of residual risk posed by
untreated wastes or treatment residuals.
4. Reduction of Toxicitv. Mobility or Volume through. Treatment
evaluates an alternative's ability to reduce risks through
treatment technology.
5. Short Term Effectiveness addresses the cleanup time frame and
any adverse impacts posed by the alternative during construction
and implementation phase until clean up goals are achieved.
6. Implementability is an evaluation of the technical
feasibility, administrative feasibility and availability of
services and material required to implement the alternatives.
7. Cost includes an evaluation of capitol costs, annual operation
and maintenance (O&M) costs, and net present worth costs.
8. Agency Acceptance indicates whether the EPA and State concur
with, oppose or have no comment on the preferred alternative in
terms of technical and administrative issues and concerns.
9. Community Acceptance evaluates the issues and concerns the
public may have regarding the alternatives.
This section will compare all of the alternatives for Site 14
using each of the nine criteria outlined above.
Site 14 Old Fire Fighting School
ALTERNATIVE 1: NO ACTION
ALTERNATIVE 2: GROUND WATER MONITORING
ALTERNATIVE 3: CAPPING OF SOIL AND GROUND WATER MONITORING
ALTERNATIVE 4: EXCAVATION WITH OFF-SITE DISPOSAL
ALTERNATIVE 5: EXCAVATION WITH RECYCLING AND OFF-SITE DISPOSAL
18
-------
ALTERNATIVE 6: EXCAVATION WITH THERMAL TREATMENT
ALTERNATIVE 7: IN-SITU VITRIFICATION AND GROUNDWATER MONITORING
Overall Protection of Human Health
Alternatives 1 and 2 provide no protection to human health or the
environment, .because the contamination is neither controlled or
removed. Alternative 3 would reduce risk at the site, by
preventing direct contact with the soil, but by leaving the
contaminated soil at the site, threat to groundwater would still
exist. Also, the sediment is not addressed. Alternatives 4 and 5
have potential for health risks over the short term due to the
transportation of the contamination over public roadways;
however, once completed these two alternatives would eliminate
health and environmental risks at the site. Alternative 6 would
also have short term health risks; however, it also would provide
a permanent means of protecting human health. Alternative 7
provides the most protection because it is an in-situ alternative
and eliminates or contains all contamination at the site.
Compliance with ARARs
Alternatives 1 and 2 would allow the continued leaching of soil
contaminants into groundwater, at levels above chemical specific
groundwater ARARs. Alternative 3 would prevent leaching of the
contaminants into the groundwater, however, the source areas will
remain, and, therefore the SCC would not be met. Alternatives 4,
5, 6 and 7 comply with ARARs.
Long Term Effectiveness and Permanence
Alternatives 1 and 2 offer neither effectiveness or permanence.
Alternative 3 would provide partial protection. Alternatives 4,
5 and 6 provide permanent long term protection by totally
removing all contaminants from the site. Alternative 7 would
also be considered a long term and permanent solution because all
of the contamination would either be destroyed or immobilized.
Reduction of Toxicitv, Mobility or Volume through Treatment
Alternatives 1 and 2 do not reduce any toxicity, mobility or
volume of contamination at the site. Alternative 3 partially
reduces mobility of contamination; however, toxicity and volume
remain unchanged. Alternatives 4, 5 and 6 remove the
contaminants from the site; they are transferred to a more secure
location where mobility is reduced. Alternative 6 also reduces
volume and toxicity. Alternative 7 reduces toxicity, mobility
and volume by destroying or immobilizing all contaminants.
Short Term Effectiveness
Alternatives l and 2 do not change any short term risks at the
site. Alternative 3 could be implemented within 2 years time
therefore rapidly reducing risk at the site. Alternatives 4, 5,
and 6 could also be implemented quickly (under 1 year), however
excavation presents problems over the short term by possible
release of contaminants during the process. A pilot study would
19
-------
have to be performed for the implementation of either
alternatives 5 or 6. Alternative 7 would take the longest time
to implement, because of the need for pilot studies and analysis,
therefore having a very low effectiveness over the short term.
Implementability
Alternative 2 is easily implemented and would require a short
set-up time frame. Alternative 3 is implementable only after
grading. Alternative 4, 5 and 6 can be implemented and would
require about I year to'complete. Alternative 7 is also a viable
alternative if the area is de-watered.
Cost
Alternative 1 has no cost associated but does not "remove
contamination. Alternative 4, 5 and 6 have minimal cost.
Alternatives 2 and 3 have medium cost. Alternative 7 has high
cost. The total cost, for each alternative proposed for the
site, has been developed and is presented in the table below.
Alternative 1:
Alternative 2:
Alternative 3:
Alternative 4:
Alternative 5:
Alternative 6:
Alternative 7:
$0
$630,000
$635,000
$554,000
$124,000
$355,000
$955,000
State Acceptance
The State of New Jersey concurs with the with the selected
remedial action.
Community Acceptance
All public questions were answered during the public meeting.
written comments were submitted for this Site.
No
20
-------
THE SELECTED ALTERNATIVE
The selected alternative for Site 14 is alternative 5 which is
excavation with a combination of recycling and off site disposal.
Implementation of the preferred alternative entails excavation
and removal of all contaminated soil and sediments above EPA risk
based levels and New Jersey soil cleanup criteria at 'Site 14.
By excavating the contaminated soil and sediment, the preferred
alternative removes the possibility of further bioaccumulation of
contaminants in aquatic receptors thereby reducing adverse
ecological effects associated with this site. Human health risks
associated with the site are reduced by the elimination of the
source area for groundwater contamination. Few short-term
impacts exist for the preferred alternative. Short term
concerns, which include the disturbance of the sediment resulting
in the release of contamination to surface water during
excavation would be addressed in a detailed design plan which
will be submitted to the EPA and NJDEPE.
Excavated soil or sediment will be sorted based on prior sampling
results and each pile will be tested for TPHC and RCPvA hazardous
waste characteristics. Soil or sediment which contains
concentrations of TPHC greater than 30,000 mg/kg or exceeds RCRA
hazardous waste limits will be further segregated and disposed of
at a hazardous waste treatment and disposal facility. The
remainder of the soil and sediment will be asphalt batched on-
site by transportable cold mix processing equipment. The asphalt
produced by this process will be utilized at NAWCADLKE for the
paving of designated existing gravel roads and parking lots.
The roads and parking lots will consist of a gravel course, a
sub-base of cold mix asphalt made from the excavated soil and a
final cap of hot mix asphalt for the wearing course.
Prior to full scale production of asphalt, a demonstration will
be conducted at NAWCADLKE. This demonstration will be conducted
indoors and will treat soil which would produce the worst case
air emission scenario. The soil would be batched at the maximum
usage rate for one hour. The soil, air emissions and resulting
asphalt must meet specific NJDEPE permit requirements.
If this process cannot meet NJDEPE and EPA 'requirements through
engineering controls, the soil will be sent to a permitted off-
base asphalt recycling facility, as outlined in Alternative 5, .
which utilizes a hot-mix process.
Long term adverse impacts are not anticipated with the preferred
alternative since no long term changes in the environment are
being made.
The preferred alternative is the most cost effective of all the
21
-------
remedial technologies for Site 14.
This selected remedial action provides excellent protection of
human health and the environment by removing all sbil
contamination above NJDEPE soil cleanup criteria, and sediment
above NOAA ER-L. This will prevent further leaching of
contaminants into groundwater and, Remedial Action Objectives
will be met once these cleanup levels have been achieved.
For Site 14, the cleanup time frame would be approximately one
year once the selected remedial action is initiated.
The selected remedial action utilizes permanent solutions and
treats (or reuses) the majority of the contaminated soil and
sediment, satisfying the statutory preference for treatment as a
remedy.
It should be noted that this Record of Decision addresses only
Site 14 and it is not intended to represent the remedial action
status for the rest of the areas of concern at NAWCADLKE. Each
site's conditions and concerns have been or will be addressed in
separate Records of Decision. Groundwater contamination which
exists beneath Site 14 is being addressed pursuant to a Record of
Decision signed in 1992 which requires the recovery and treatment
of contaminated groundwater. The system should be operational in
early summer, 1993.
22
------- |