United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Emergency and
Remedial Response
EPA/ROD/R02-93/212
September 1993
PB94-963819
c/EPA Superfund
Record of Decision
Naval Air Engineering Center
(Operable Unit 12), NJ
-------
60272-101
REPORT DOCUMENTATION
PAGE
1. REPORT NO.
EPA/ROD/R02-93/212
3. Recipient's Accession No.
4. Title and Subtitle
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION
Naval Air Engineering Center (Operable Unit 12), NJ
Twelfth Remedial Action
& Report Date
09/27/93
7. Authort.*)
a Performing Organization Rapt. No.
9. Performing Organization Nama and Address
10 Project Taskwork Unit No.
11. Contraet(C) or Qrant(G) No.
(G)
12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Address
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
13. Type of Report & Period Covered
800/800
14.
15. Supplementary Notes
PB94-963819
ia Abstract (Limit: 200 words)
The Naval Air Engineering Center (Operable Unit 12) 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, 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 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 12), NJ
Twelfth Remedial Action
Contaminated Medium: None
Key Contaminants: None
b. Idantlflers/Open-Ended Terms
COSATI Field/Group
Availability Statement
19. Security Class (Thl» Report)
None
20. Security Class (This Page)
None
21. No. of Pages
19
22. Price
(See ANSI-Z39.18)
See Instruction* on Reverse
OPTIONAL FORM 272 (4-77)
(Formerly NTIS-35)
Department ot Commerce
-------
EPA/ROD/R02-93/212
Naval Air Engineering Center (Operable Unit 12), NJ
Twelfth Remedial Action
Abstract (Continued)
disposal of hazardous substances. During the operational period of the facility, there
were reported and suspected releases of these substances into the environment. The
Department of Defense's Installation Restoration Program (IRP) has identified 44
potentially-contaminated sites at NAEC, 16 of which have warranted further investigation
to assess potential impacts. IRP investigations revealed soil, sediment, and surface
water contamination at Sites 7, 22, 24, and 25. From 1958 to 1973, Site 7 reportedly was
used for the disposal of waste solvents and oil. Currently, it is used as an outside
storage area for test equipment. Site 22 is a Jet Blast Deflector test area. In 1981, a
9 by 9 foot area was found containing dark brown material consisting of hydraulic fluid
and fuel oil mixed with soil. In 1985, further investigations could not locate this spill
area; however, 15 empty drums and minor surface staining were found nearby. From the
mid-1960s to the early 1970s, Site 24, a 360 by 105 foot area, was used for testing a
shore-based experimental catapult. Leakage of various fluids occurred during the
catapult's operational life resulting in the staining of the underlying soil with black,
oily residue. Materials which may have leaked on this area include hydraulic fluid,
lubricating oil, and jet fuel. Site 25 is an approximately 450 square foot area
containing dark patches of soil, apparently contaminated by spilled oil, that was found
during a clean-up operation in 1981. The cause of the contamination at this area is
unknown; however, personnel described the area as a disposal area for the Test Department.
Since this practice occurred when the area was used as an aircraft hangar, compounds
associated with aircraft maintenance, such as chlorinated solvents, could be expected.
Previous 1991 and 1992 RODs addressed OUs 1, 2, 3, and 4, and OUs 5, 6, and 7,
respectively. This ROD addresses any potential remaining soil, sediment, and surface water
contamination at Sites 7, 22, 24, and 25, as OU12. Other 1993 RODs address OUs 8, 9, 10,
11, 13, 14, 15, 22, and 23. EPA has determined that the endangerment assessments
performed on the four site areas demonstrate that there are no human health or
environmental risks in excess of EPA acceptable levels; therefore, there are no
contaminants of concern affecting this site.
The selected remedial action for this site is no further action because the endangerment
assessments performed on the four site areas determined that there are no human health or
environmental risks in excess of EPA acceptable levels. 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 :
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:
September 27, 1993
No Action
OU-12 (Sites 7, 22, 24, 25)
None
Construction Completion: N/A
0 & M in 1993: N/A
1994:
1995:
1996:
Present worth: None
LEAD
Enforcement
Federal Facility
Primary contact
Secondary contact
Main PRP
PRP Contact
Jeffrey Gratz (212) 264-6667
Robert Wing (212) 264-8670
U.S. Navy
Lucy Bottomley (908) 323-2612
WASTE
Type
Medium
Origin
Est. quantity
Metals, Semi-volatile organics
Soil
Assorted spills
N/A
-------
LAKEHURST
RECORD OF DECISION
FOR
SITES 7, 22, 24 AND 25
NAVAL AIR WARFARE CENTER
AIRCRAFT DIVISION
LAKEHURST, NEW JERSEY
September 14, 1993
93-09-10
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
DECLARATION
SITES 7, 22, 24 AND 25
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 four individual sites (Sites 7, 22, 24 and 25), located at
the Naval Air Warfare Center, Aircraft Division (NAWCADLKE) in
.Lakehurst, New Jersey (Figures 1, 2 and 3). 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 7, 22, 24 and 25.
-------
DECLARATION STATEMENT
The United States Department of the Navy has determined that
no additional remedial action is necessary at Sites 7, 22, 24 and
25 to ensure protection of human health and the environment.
This Record of Decision concerns Sites 7, 22, 24 and 25
only. Other areas of concern at NAWCADLKE have been or will be
the subject of separate Records of Decision. The locations of
these Sites within NAWCADLKE are shown in Figures 2 and 3.
Farr (Date)
Commanding Officer
Naval Air Warfare Center
Aircraft Division
Lakehurst, New Jersey
With the concurrence of:
William J^XKus^fski, P.E. (Date)
Acting Regiona^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 l). 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 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 Manapaqua Brook. The Ridgeway and Union Branches
then feed Pine Lake; located approximately 2.5 miles east of
NAWCADLKE before joining Toms River. Storm drainage from
NAWCADLKE is divided between the north and south, discharging
into the Ridgeway Branch and Union Branch, respectively. The
Paint Branch, located in the east-central part of the base, is a
relatively small stream which feeds the Manapaqua Brook.
Three small water bodies are located in the western portion of
NAWCADLKE: Bass Lake, Clubhouse Lake, and Pickerel Pond.
NAWCADLKE also contains over 1,300 acres of flood-prone areas,
occurring primarily in the south-central part of the base, and
approximately 1,300 acres of prime agricultural land in the
western portion of the base.
There are 913 acres on the eastern portion of NAWCADLKE that lie
-------
within Manchester Township and the remaining acreage is in
Jackson Township. The combined population of Lakehurst Borough,
Manchester and Jackson Townships, is approximately 65,400, for an
area of approximately 185 square miles. The average population
density of Manchester and Jackson Townships is 169 persons per
square mile.
The areas surrounding NAWCADLKE are, in general, not heavily
developed. The closest commercial area is located near the '
southeastern section of the facility in the borough of Lakehurst.
This is primarily a residential area with some shops but no
industry. To the -north and south are State wildlife management
areas which are essentially undeveloped. Adjacent to and south
of NAWCADLKE are.commercial cranberry bogs, the drainage from
which crosses the southeast section of NAWCADLKE property.
For the combined area of Manchester and Jackson Townships,.
approximately 41 percent of the land is vacant (undeveloped), 57
percent is residential, one percent is commercial and the
remaining one percent is industrial or farmed. For Lakehurst
Borough, 83 percent of the land is residential, 11 percent is
vacant, and the remaining 6 percent commercially developed.
In the vicinity of NAWCADLKE, water is generally supplied to the
populace by municipal supply wells. Some private wells exist,
but these are used primarily for irrigation and not as a source
of drinking water. In Lakehurst Borough there is a well field
consisting of seven 50-foot deep wells, located approximately
two-thirds of a mile south of the eastern portion of NAWCADLKE.
Three of the seven wells (four of the wells are rarely operated)
are pumped at an average rate of 70 to 90 gallons per minute and
supply drinking water for a population of approximately 3,000.
Jackson Township operates one supply well in the Legler area,
approximately one-quarter mile north of NAWCADLKE, which supplies
water to a very small population (probably less than 1,000) in
the immediate vicinity of NAWCADLKE.
The history of the site dates back to 1916, when the Eddystone
Chemical Company leased from the Manchester Land Development
Company property to develop an experimental firing range for the
testing of chemical artillery shells. In 1919, the U.S. Army
assumed control of the site and named it Camp Kendrick. Camp
Kendrick was turned over to the Navy and formally commissioned
Naval Air Station (NAS) Lakehurst, New Jersey on June 28, 1921.
The Naval Air Engineering Center (NAEC) was moved from the Naval
Base, Philadelphia to Lakehurst in December 1974. At that time,
NAEC became the host activity, thus, the new name NAEC. In
January 1992, NAEC was renamed the Naval Air Warfare Center
Aircraft Division Lakehurst, due to a reorganization within the
Department of the Navy.
Currently, NAWCADLKE's mission is to conduct programs of
-------
technology development, engineering, developmental evaluation and
verification, systems integration, limited manufacturing,
procurement, integrated logistic support management, and fleet
engineering support for Aircraft-Platform Interface (API)
systems. This includes terminal guidance, recovery, handling,
propulsion support, avionics support, servicing and maintenance,
aircraft/weapons/ship compatibility, and takeoff. The Center
provides, operates, and maintains product evaluation and
verification sites, aviation and other facilities, and support
services (including development of equipment and instrumentation)
for API systems and other Department of Defense programs. The
Center also provides facilities and support services for tenant
activities and units as designed by appropriate authority.
NAWCADLKE and its tenant activities now occupy more than 300
buildings, built between 1919 and 1989, totaling over 2,845,000
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 all sites. 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 the 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 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 no significant contamination
present at levels of concern at Sites 7, 22, 24 and 25.
The individual Site histories and summaries of past remedial
activities at each of the Sites are provided in the following
sections.
It should be noted that NJDEPE Soil Cleanup Criteria (SCC) were
utilized as guidance for the cleanup of soil at both sites.
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.
Site 7.: Site Description and Background
Site 7 is located to the north of Buildings 370, 369, 341 and
398, which are shops and storage areas where fabrication and
testing is done (Figure 4). The location is described as a 50 by
100 foot area where waste solvents and oil were reportedly
disposed of between 1958 and 1973. Presently, the site is an
outside storage area for test equipment.
8
-------
Site 7; Summary of Remedial Investigations
During the fall of 1988, four, test pits were dug to a depth of
about four feet in the reported disposal area. The only
contaminant detected in any of the sampling conducted was cadmium
at one location at 5.4 mg/kg. To confirm this finding three test
pits were excavated to a depth of 5 feet near the sampling
location where the cadmium had been detected and samples were
taken from each pit. Cadmium was not detected in any of the
samples. Current investigation of the site shows no surface
staining or discoloration. In addition, several 5 to 6 foot long
trenches dug two to three feet deep during utility installation
did not reveal any odors or staining. All contaminants of
concern for soil at Site 7 are listed in Table 1.
Site 22: Site Description and Background
Site 22 consists of the Jet Blast Deflector (JBD) test site
(Figure 5). In 1981, a 9 by 9 foot area east of building 558
(see Figure 5) was found containing dark brown material
consisting of hydraulic fluid and fuel oil mixed with soil.
During further investigations in 1985, this area could not be
found? however, 15 empty drums and minor surface staining were
found in the area north and east of Building 559. The site
remains a JBD test area.
Site 22: Summary of Remedial Investigations
During 1988, two test pits were excavated at the site. One of
the pits was in the reported area of the 9 by 9 foot stain while
the other was taken approximately 50 feet southeast of Building
559 where elevated levels of hydrocarbons were detected in soil
gas. Samples were taken from each of the pits at a depth of 3
to 3.5 feet, however, no elevated concentration of contaminants
were detected. All contaminants of concern for soil at Site 22
are listed in Table 2.
Site 24: Site Description and Background
Site 24 consists of a 360 by 105 foot area which was used for
testing a shore based experimental catapult between the mid-1960s
to the early 1970s (Figure 6). Leakage of various fluids
occurred during the catapults operational life resulting in the
staining of the underlying soil with black oily residue.
Materials which may have been leaked at this site include
hydraulic fluid, lubricating oil and jet fuel. The quantities of
leaked fluids are unknown.
-------
During field investigations in the fall of 1988, no stained soil
was observed to be present at the site. All of the equipment
associated with the experimental catapult including concrete pads
had been removed and the site was covered with a gravelly soil.
Occasionally, standing water is observed in minor surface
depressions in the area. No oily sheen or other visual evidence
of contamination has been found on the surface of this water.
Site 24: Summary of Remedial Investigations
One test pit was excavated at the site in 1988 and soil samples
were collected at .a depth of 3 feet. The only compound detected
was a low concentration of toluene (26 -ppb) . Two additional soil
borings were conducted in late 1991 and one sample was collected
from each boring immediately above the water level (4 to 6 feet
below grade). No targeted Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) ,
Semi Volatile Organic Compounds (SVOCs) or Total Petroleum
Hydrocarbon (TPHC) were detected in either sample. Each boring
was also sampled continuously for visual examination of the soil
and screening with an Organic Vapor Analyzer (OVA), which
revealed no evidence of contamination.
During investigations in the spring of 1992, screening with an
Photo-Ionization Detector (PID) showed levels of 300 to 400 ppm
in three soil borings at the site. In May of 1992, samples were
taken at these three locations and tested for TPHC, VOC and base
neutrals. All samples were below NJDEPE SCC for targeted
compounds as shown in Figure 6. All contaminants of concern for
soil at Site 24 are listed in Table 3.
Site 25; Site Description and Background
Site 25 consists of an approximately 450 square foot area
northwest of Building 386 (Figure 7) . The site was found during
a clean up operation in 1981 and contained dark patches of soil
apparently contaminated by spilled oil. At the time of
discovery the soil was raked by Navy personnel. The cause of
contamination at the site is unknown; however, the area was
described by personnel as a "disposal area" for the Test
Department. Since this practice occurred when building 355 (See
Figure 7) was used as an aircraft hangar, compounds associated
with aircraft maintenance, such as chlorinated solvents, could be
expected.
Site 2.5; Summary of Remedial Investigations
In 1988, three test pits were excavated to a depth of three feet.
No staining was observed in any of the excavations nor was any
soil staining observed at the site. No contaminants were
detected in a sample taken from one of the pits. In addition,
three rounds of sediment samples taken from a drainage swale
10
-------
north of the site revealed no significant levels of
contamination. No contaminants of concern for soil or sediment
exist at Site 25.
SUMMARY OF SITE ENDANGERMENT
An Endangerment Assessment (EA) was conducted at NAWCADLKE to
assess the potential current and future human health risks and
potential environmental impacts posed by contaminated soils,
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.
More complete EA information for Sites 7, 22, 24 and 25 can be
found in volume VI of the Phase III RI, which is available as
part of the NAWCADLKE Administrative Record.
It should be noted that ground water contamination which exists
beneath sites 7, 24 and 25 is not emanating from these sites.
The source areas of contamination and the ground water
contamination itself are being addressed in separate RODs and
will not be addressed here.
For all sites, the summaries 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.
SITE 7 CATAPULT TEST FACILITY STORAGE AREA
Endanaerment Assessment Summary
This is a summary of the endangerment assessment findings for
Site 7 (Catapult Test Facility Storage Area). Soil is the medium
of interest for this site.
CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN
For soil, cadmium and lead were the only COCs.
11
-------
LAND USE AND EXPOSURE ASSUMPTIONS
For soil, a light industrial land use was assumed due to the
site's location near an existing facility building and work
(testing) areas. Under this land use scenario direct exposure to
contaminated soil could occur via incidental ingestion and
inhalation.
HUMAN HEALTH RISK AND HAZARD FINDINGS
For soil, the results of the EA indicate that the hazard
resulting from the only noncarcinogen COC (cadmium) is not
elevated above EPA's hazard index criteria value of 1.0. The
hazard index value estimated for cadmium is 5.29 x 10~3, which is
also the overall site hazard quotient. The carcinogenic risks
posed by cadmium are also below EPA's criteria level of 10"6.
The. estimated cadmium risk is 4.43 x 10~8, which is also the
overall soil risk.
Due to uncertainty regarding lead toxicity, neither a
noncarcinogenic hazard or carcinogenic risk estimate is provided.
Lead was detected at a maximum concentration of 22 mg/kg in soil
at Site 7. It is noteworthy that this maximum observed lead
concentration is well below the USEPA criteria value for lead
which is 500 mg/kg for surface soils.
ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
Site 7 is a storage area that is adjacent to two active shops and
two storage buildings and is not considered a wildlife dwelling.
No endangered or threatened species were found in this area.
Soil contamination at the site is below the surface and not a
threat to transient wildlife receptors. In addition, surface
water and sediment are not contained in this site, therefore, no
aquatic receptors exist.
SITE 7 CONCLUSION
In summary, the results of the endangerment assessment indicate
that soil at Site 7 does not pose unacceptable levels of risk to
human health and the environment.
SITE 22 JET BLAST DEFLECTOR SITE
Endanqerment Assessment Summary
This is a summary of the endangerment assessment findings for
Site 22 (Jet Blast Deflector) . The medium that is the subject
of the EA is soil.
12
-------
CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN
For soil, mercury was the only contaminant of concern.
LAND USE AND EXPOSURE ASSUMPTIONS
For soil, a military land use scenario was assumed because of the
lack of extensive facilities in the immediate vicinity of the
site. The exposure assumptions such as duration and frequency of
contact are less for the military land use scenario as compared,
for example, to a light industrial scenario.
HUMAN HEALTH RISK AND HAZARD FINDINGS
For soil. the results of the EA indicate that hazards resulting
from noncarcinogens are not elevated for mercury above EPA's
hazard index criteria value of 1.0. The hazard index value
estimated for mercury is 5.94 x 10"5, which is also the overall
site hazard quotient. No carcinogenic COCs were found at the
site, therefore, no carcinogenic risk was calculated.
ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
Site 22 is an active test area containing storage buildings and
is not considered a wildlife dwelling. No endangered or
threatened species were found in this area. Soil contamination
at the site is below the surface and not a threat to transient
wildlife receptors. In addition, surface water and sediment are
not contained in this site; therefore no aquatic receptors exist.
SITE 22 CONCLUSION
In summary, the results of the endangerment assessment indicate
that soil at Site 22 does not pose unacceptable levels of risk to
human health and the environment.
SITE 24 CATAPULT TEST SITE NO. 7419
Endangerment Assessment Summary
This is a summary of the endangerment assessment findings for
Site 24 (Catapult Test Site No. 7419). The medium that is the
subject of the EA is soil.
13
-------
CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN
For soil, toluene, isophorone, bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, di-n-
octylphthalate and acetone are the COCs.
LAND USE AND EXPOSURE ASSUMPTIONS
For soil, a military land use scenario was assumed because of the
lack of extensive facilities in the immediate vicinity of the
site. The exposure assumptions such as duration and frequency of
contact are less for the military land use scenario as compared,
for example, to a light industrial scenario.
HUMAN HEALTH RISK AND HAZARD FINDINGS
For soil, the results of the EA indicate that the hazards
resulting from noncarcinogens are not elevated for any chemical
above EPA's hazard index criteria value of 1.0. The hazard index
value estimated for soil was 1.9 X 10"5. The carcinogenic risk
estimate for soil at Site 24 also is not elevated for any
chemical above EPA's criteria risk level of 10"6. The
estimated risk for soil overall is 2.12 x 10"10.
ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
Site 24 is a grassy area that is adjacent to a test runway and
high speed aircraft taxiway and is not considered a wildlife
dwelling. No endangered or threatened species were found in this
area. Soil contamination at the site is below the surface and
not a. threat to transient wildlife. In addition, surface water
and sediment are not contained in this site, therefore no aquatic
receptors exist.
SITE 24 CONCLUSION
In summary, the results of the endangerment assessment indicate
that soil at Site 24 does not pose unacceptable levels of risk to
human health and the environment.
SITE 25 TEST DEPARTMENT DISPOSAL AREA
Endanaerment Assessment Summary
This is a summary of the EA findings for Site 25 (Test Department
Disposal Area). The media that were the subject of the site-
specific EA for this site were soil, surface water, and sediment.
14
-------
CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN
For soil, no organic compounds were detected in the analysis of
samples collected at the site. Further, none of the metals
detected were selected as COCs based on the results of screening
against background data and essential nutrient data.
For sediment, analytical results are also available, however, no
detected chemicals were selected as COCs based on the results of
screening against background data and essential nutrient data.
For surface water.. COCs were aluminum and lead. From an
ecological.perspective, additional COCs included additional
inorganics: copper, iron and zinc.
LAND USE AND EXPOSURE ASSUMPTIONS
For surface water, direct human exposure is unlikely due to the
setting of the site. Rather, criteria for the protection of
aquatic life were considered.
HUMAN HEALTH RISK AND HAZARD FINDINGS
For soil and sediment, the results of the EA indicate that
hazards are not estimated because of the absence of contaminants
of concern.
For surface water, the results of the EA also indicate that
hazards are not estimated for these media because direct human
exposure is considered unlikely.
ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
Site 25 is a grassy area that is adjacent to an office building
and is not considered a wildlife dwelling. No endangered or
threatened species were found in this area. The sediment that is
adjacent to the site contained no COCs from an ecological
standpoint. To evaluate the potential for ecological effects
associated with contaminants in surface water samples, results
were compared to applicable criteria. This revealed that the
maximum detected iron concentration was slightly above EPA's
chronic ambient water quality criteria for iron; however, no
other surface water contaminants exceeded their respective
criteria. Contaminants in surface water that were noted in the
vicinity of Site 25 can be attributed to flow from Site 6. Site
6 will be remediated and is the subject of a separate ROD.
15
-------
SITE 25 SUMMARY
In summary, the EA demonstrates that soils and sediment at Site
25 do not pose an unacceptable risk to human health and the
environment.
SUMMARY
In summary, the EA demonstrates that soil, surface water and
sediment at the four sites do 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 SCC.
HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
The Proposed Plan for Sites 7, 22, 24 and 25 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. On June 18, 1993, a notification also appeared in The
Air Scoop, the Center's weekly publication. 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 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 four 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. A
transcript of the meeting is available as part of the
Administrative Record.
The decision document presents the selected action (i.e., No
Action) for Sites 7, 22, 24 and 25 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 four 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.
16
-------
SCOPE AND ROLE OF RESPONSE ACTION
The results of environmental investigations conducted show no
evidence of any significant contamination remaining at Sites 7,
22, 24 and 25. No unacceptable risks to human health or the
environment exist at these sites; no action is necessary for
these four Sites.
SUMMARIES. OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS
The locations of each of the four Sites within NAWCADLKE are
shown in Figures 1, 2 and 3. Maps of the individual sites are
provided in Figures 4 through 7.
Summaries of the chemicals detected in the analyses of soil,
sediment and surface water samples collected at each of the Sites
are provided in Tables l through 3.
The results of the Remedial Investigations, including the
analytical data summarized in Tables 1 through 3, indicate that
conditions at Sites 7, 22, 24 and 25 pose no unacceptable risks
to human health and the environment.
17
------- |