United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Emergency and
Remedial Response
EPA/ROD/R02-93/213
September 1993
PB94-963814
Superfund
Record of Decision
Naval Air Engineering Center
(Operable Unit 13), NJ
-------
50272-101
REPORT DOCUMENTATION
PAGE
1. REPORT NO.
EPA/ROD/R02-93/213
3. Recipient's Accession No.
Title and Subtitle
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION
Naval Air Engineering Center (Operable Unit 13), NJ
Thirteenth Remedial Action
S Report Date
09/27/93
7. Authors)
& Performing Organization Rapt. No.
>. Performing Organization Nama and Address
10 Project Task/Work Unit No.
11. Contract(C) or Grant(G) No.
(Q
(G)
12, Sponsoring Organization Nama and Address
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
13. Type ol Report & Period Covered
800/800
14.
1& Supplementary Notes
PB94-963814
ia Abstract (Umlt: 200 words)
The Naval Air Engineering Center (Operable Unit 13) 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 13), NJ
Thirteenth Remedial Action
Contaminated Medium: sediment
Key Contaminants: VOCs, other organics (oils, PAHs, pesticides), metals (lead),
b. Identlfiera/Open-Ended Terms
e COSATI Field/Group
ia Availability Statement
19. Security Class (This Report)
None
20. Security Class (This Page)
None
21. No. of Pages
30
22. Price
(SeeANSI-Z39.18)
See Inttructlont on R»v»rf»
OPTIONAL FORM 272 (4-77)
(Formerly NTIS-35)
Iment of Commerce
**• ir**«i
(Former
Departn
-------
EPA/ROD/R02-93/213
Naval Air Engineering Center (Operable Unit 13), NJ
Thirteenth Remedial Action
Abstract (Continued)
disposal of hazardous substances. During the operational period of the facility, there
were reported and suspected improper releases of these substances into the environment.
The Department of Defense's Installation Restoration Program (IRP) has identified 44
potentially-contaminated sites at NAEC, 16 of which have warranted further investigation
to assess potential impacts. IRP investigations revealed sediment contamination at the
Runway Arrested Landing site (Site 3) and the Catapult Test Facility (Site 6). Site 3
consists of an underground facility where shipboard-type arresting gear is located and
tested. From 1958 to 1986, ground and rain water infiltrated into the underground test
facility, mixed with contaminants in the facility, and was discharged into the 20 by
4,000-foot drainage swale. Usually, the discharge in the swale flowed for a short
distance and eventually infiltrated into the ground. However, during periods of high
water table or after heavy rain, the flow filled the swale and reached the Manapaqua
Brook. Contaminants entering the discharge included TCE, hydraulic fluid, and ethylene
glycol. In 1986, discharge procedures changed and the use of chlorinated solvents in the
facility were banned. Studies conducted from 1988 to 1993 determined that the discharge
contained water similar in quality to the ground water found in this area. As a result,
the discharge will be connected to a ground water treatment facility proposed to be
constructed in the area. In 1988, sampling revealed contaminated sediment in the drainage
swale in the immediate vicinity of Site 3. Site 6 consists of a Catapult Test Facility
and associated support buildings, including a Power Plant and photographic lab. During
operations of the two test catapults, industrial wastewater was generated and accumulated
into the bilges of the facility. From 1958 to 1978, the bilges were pumped out into three
holding ponds in the area that were baffled so they would act as oil/water separators.
Oily waste in the ponds was removed through sewage pumping contracts on a yearly basis.
The effluent from the ponds, which included water-soluble hydraulic fluid, ethylene
glycol, TCE, and lubricating oil, was allowed to drain into swales which eventually
discharged into the Manapaqua Brook. In the late 1970s, the holding ponds were replaced
with three oil/water separators which discharge into the same swales. In 1986, an
equalization basin, equipped with oil/water separators was constructed to enhance the
efficiency of the existing oil/water separators. From 1985 to 1989, an estimated 1,000
gallons of solvents, oil, and catapult grease spilled onto the ground at Site 6. It is
not known how much of this material was recovered and how much leaked into the ground. At
the time of the latest spill at this site, all of the stained surface soil was removed and
disposed of as hazardous waste. There are currently four underground and one above-ground
storage tanks containing fuel oil, diesel fuel, and MOGAS onsite. In 1988, sediment
samples from the holding ponds and drainage swales revealed high levels of contamination.
Previous 1991 and 1992 RODs addressed OUs 1, 2, 3, and 4, and OUs 5, 6, and 7,
respectively. This ROD addresses the contaminated sediment for Sites 3 and 6, as OU13.
Other 1993 RODs address OUs 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 22, and 23. The primary
contaminants of concern affecting the sediment are VOCs; other organics, including oils,
PAHs, and pesticides; and metals, including lead.
The selected remedial action for this site includes excavating, analyzing, and sorting
approximately 3,146 yd^ of contaminated sediment; disposing of sediment with a total
petroleum hydrocarbon (TPHC) concentration greater than 30,000 rag/kg offsite in a
hazardous waste treatment and disposal facility; recycling the remaining sediment onsite
into a cold mix asphalt or offsite into a hot batch asphalt; shipping offsite or
containerizing onsite the petroleum-contaminated sediment; backfilling the excavated areas
with clean fill, as necessary; and sampling to ensure that the site meets remediation
goals. The estimated present worth cost for this remedial action is $472,000.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS:
Sediment cleanup goals are based on State soil cleanup criteria, State 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.
-------
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:
Construct i on Comp1etion:
0 & M in 1993:
1994:
1995:
1996:
Present worth:
September 27, 1993
Asphalt Batch Recycling/Offsite Disposal
OU-13 (Sites 3 and 6)
$472,000
December, 1994
N/A
$472,000 (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, Sediment
Assorted spills
3,000 cubic yards
-------
LAKEHURST
RECORD OF DECISION
FOR
SITES 3 AND 6
NAVAL AIR WARFARE CENTER
AIRCRAFT DIVISION
LAKEHURST, NEW JERSEY
September 14, 1993
93-09-10
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
DECLARATION
SITES 3 AND 6
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
two individual sites (Sites 3 and 6), located at the Naval Air
Warfare Center, Aircraft Division (NAWCADLKE) in Lakehurst, New
Jersey (Figure 1). The selected remedial action was chosen in
accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), as amended by the
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA), and, to the
extent practicable, the National Oil and Hazardous Substances
Pollution Contingency Plan. This decision is based on the
Administrative Record for these sites, which is available for
public review at the Ocean County Library, 101 Washington Street,
Toms River, New Jersey.
Both the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA),
Region II Acting Administrator, and the Commissioner of the New
Jersey Department of Environmental Protection-and Energy (NJDEPE)
concur with the selected remedy..
DESCRIPTION OF THE SELECTED REMEDY
The United States Department of the Navy, the lead agency for.
these Sites, has selected Excavation with On-Site Recycling and
Off-Site Disposal as the selected remedy for Sites 3 and 6.
Implementation of this alternative entails excavation and removal
of all contaminated sediments at both sites above EPA risk based
levels, New Jersey soil clean up criteria and NOAA guidance for
sediment.
DECLARATION STATEMENT
The United States Department of the Navy has determined that
remedial action is necessary at Sites 3 and 6 to ensure
-------
protection of human health and the environment.
This Record of Decision addresses Sites 3 and 6. 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 Figure 1, 2 and 3.
?3
Captain Leroy Farr (Date)
Commanding Officer
Naval Air Warfare Center
Aircraft Division
Lakehurst, New Jersey
With the concurrence of:
William J./fius'^yn^l, P.E. (Date)
Acting Reigional^aministrator
U.S. Environmerrcal 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 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 2,845,000
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 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. 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 (BR-
IO , a concentration at the low end of the range in which effects
had been observed, and a Effects Range-Mediah (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 Sites 3 and 6.
The individual Site histories and summaries of past remedial and
removal activities at each of the Sites are provided in the
following sections.
Site 3: Site Description and Background
Site 3, the Runway Assisted Landing Site (RALS) is an underground
facility were shipboard type arresting gear is located. The
facility is located under a metal deck in a test runway such that
testing of the arresting gear can be accomplished utilizing
aircraft. A portable control tower is also present at the site
(See figure 4). Contamination at this site is situated in a
drainage swale which is approximately 20 feet wide and 4000 feet
long. Historically, ground and rain water .that infiltrated into
the underground RALS test facility mixed with contaminants in the
facility and was discharged into the swale through a 6-inch pipe.
Usually, the discharge into the swale flows for a short distance
eastward and eventually infiltrates into the ground. However,
during periods of high water table or after heavy rain the flow
may continue eastward the full 4000 feet of the swale and
possibly reach the Manapaqua Brook. Contaminants entering the
discharge were trichloroethene, hydraulic fluid and ethylene
glycol. It is estimated that the contamination in the swale
8
-------
occurred from 1958, when discharge operations began, until 1986
when discharge procedures were changed. This change in
procedures included banning the use of chlorinated solvents in
the facility. Additional procedures, have also been established
to prevent discharge of contaminants into the bilges of the test
facility. Studies conducted over the last 5 years assessing
discharge quality have determined that the discharge contains
water similar in quality to the ground water found in this area.
Because of this, the RALS discharge will be connected to a
proposed ground water treatment facility to be constructed in the
area.
Site 3: Summary of Remedial Investigations
During the fall of 1988, two samples were taken from test pits
excavated at Site 3. One shallow pit was excavated in an area
where high levels of petroleum hydrocarbons were detected in soil
gas and the second pit was excavated near monitoring well GZ. No
significant levels of contaminants were detected. All
contaminants of concern for soil at Site 3 are listed in Table 1.
During 1988, two rounds of sediment samples were collected from
three different location of the drainage swale at the site. One
sample was taken at the point where the effluent from RALS
discharges into the swal-e while the other two were 400 and 800
feet from the discharge point. The sample collected at the
discharge point was contaminated with high levels of base/neutral
compounds, some metals and 'Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPHC).
Further downstream, no contamination was evident. Further
samples taken at 2400 feet and at the end of the swale (4000
feet) again showed no significant levels of contaminants. This
leads to the conclusion that contamination is limited to the
sediment in the drainage swale in the immediate vicinity of the
RALS discharge.
In the summer and fall of 1992, six samples were taken from the
swale at the RALS facility. Three samples were taken at the RALS
discharge point, and at 84 and 180 feet from this point. Three
additional samples were taken at the discharge point and at 5 and
10 feet from the discharge point. The samples were analyzed for
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC), Base Neutral (B/N) and TPHC.
Significant concentrations of contaminants .were not detected,
however the information from this round of sampling confirmed
that sediment contamination is limited to the immediate vicinity
of the RALS discharge. All contaminants of concern for sediment
at Site 3 are listed in Table 2.
Surface water samples taken near the RALS discharge in 1985
showed 1,1,1-trichloroethane at a maximum level of 160 ppb and
1,1-dichloroethane at a maximum level of 150 ppb. In addition
-------
elevated levels of petroleum hydrocarbons and chromium were
detected in one sample. Further testing done since this time at
further distances downstream of the discharge showed no
significant contamination. It is thought that the sampling in
1985 represents the low quality of the discharge from the RALS
discharge at the time and that water in the area of the discharge
was influenced by the contaminated sediment at this point.
Presently, the discharge quality has been improved. However,
water is still being adversely influenced in the immediate area
of the contaminated sediment through direct sediment contact.
Site 6: Site Description and Background
Site 6 consists of a Catapult Test Facility and associated
support buildings including a Power Plant and Photographic lab
(See Figure 5). During operations of the two test catapults,
industrial waste water is generated and accumulates in the bilges
of the facility. From 1958, the time the facility was built,
until approximately 1978, the bilges were pumped out into three
holding ponds in the area that were baffled so they would act as
oil. water separators. Oily waste in the ponds was removed
through sewage pumping contracts on a yearly basis. The
effluent from the ponds was allowed to drain into swales which
eventually discharged into the Manapaqua Brook. Wastes
introduced into the ponds included water- soluble hydraulic
fluid, ethylene glycol, trichloroethylene and 30-weight
lubricating oil. The holding ponds were replaced in the late
1970s with three oil/water separators which discharge into the
same swales. In 1986, an equalization basin equipped with oil
water separators was constructed to enhance the efficiency of the
existing oil/water separators. This facility has a New Jersey
Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NJPDES) permit.
A small storage area for solvents and other liquids was located
approximately 10 feet north of Steam Power Plant No. 2. Leakage
from the facility caused an oil-stained area about 15 feet by 15
feet at the site. However, the type or quantity of materials
spilled there are unknown. This area was cleaned up during a
spill response at the site.
Numerous spills of oil and catapult grease occurred at Catapult
Lift Station No. 2 between 1985 and 1989. .Estimates of the total
quantity spilled during this time frame are over 1000 gallons.
However, it is not known how much of this material was recovered
and how much leaked into the ground. At the time of the latest
spill at this site, all of the stained surface soil was removed
and disposed of as hazardous waste.
There are currently four underground and one above ground storage
tanks in the Site 6 area containing fuel oil, diesel fuel and
10
-------
MOGAS. Two of the underground storage tanks are empty and no
longer in use. Quantities of petroleum are closely monitored for
the two active tanks and all records indicate that no leakage has
occurred. The above ground tank is in a containment. No major
spills have occurred from the tanks at this site.
Site 6: Summary of Remedial Investigation
In 1988, five test pits were excavated at the site in areas of
visible surface staining to a depth of approximately 4 feet.
Soil samples where collected from two of the test pits, one near
the corner of the equalization basin (Building 363) and one 100
feet west of the basin. No significant contamination was
detected. There was no visual staining noted in the test pits.
All contaminants of concern for soil at Site 6 are listed in
Table 3.
In addition to the soil samples, sediment samples were also taken
from Site 6. During 1988, sediment samples were taken from the
three holding ponds, the confluence of the drainage swales
leading from the holding ponds and a retention basin near the
southeast corner of Building 561. In addition, two rounds of
sediment samples were taken from the Manapagua Brook at three
locations approximately 900 to 1300 feet downstream from Site 6.
Samples of the sediment -from the three holding ponds revealed
high levels of Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds (SVOCs), metals
and TPHCs. High levels of TPKC and Polyaromatic Hydrocarbon
(PAH) were detected in the first round sample from the
convergence of the swales. However, second round samples showed
no contamination. Samples taken from the retention basin also
showed moderate levels of TPHC. Moderate levels of TPHC were
also detected in the sediment samples taken from the western
drainage swale which received discharge from a holding pond. No
significant contamination was found in the samples taken at the
further distances from the site.
From July 1991 to April 1992, additional sediment samples were
taken at the three holding ponds and the confluence of the
drainage swales emanating from oil/water separators No. 2 and No.
3. In addition, samples were collected from the dredge spoils
adjacent to the four sediment sample locations described above.
The dredge spoils were created by dredging .of the swales onto
their embankments which was performed by NAWCADLKE personnel in
the early 1980s. Sediment samples taken from the holding ponds
again revealed elevated levels of metals and TPHC. 'Holding Pond
3 was by far the most contaminated with a TPHC level of 56,000
mg/kg and elevated levels of cadmium, copper and lead. In
general, TPHC levels in the dredge piles were higher at the
surface of the pile than at a deeper (1 to 2 foot) level. The
dredge spoils at the convergence of the swale had the highest
level of TPHC at 49,000 'mg/kg followed by pond 3 at 2200 mg/kg.
11
-------
Ponds 1 and 2 dredge spoils showed low levels of contamination.
The convergence of the swales showed a TPHC level of 2500 mg/kg
in the surface layer while at 1 to 2 foot the contamination was
at a slightly lower level.
Additional sampling to determine contamination extent was
conducted in the summer of 1992. Samples were taken at a depth
of one to two feet and analyzed for VOC, B/N and TPHC. Results
for swale 1 showed significant TPHC (1400-130,000 ppm)
contamination for the 115 feet examined parallel to taxiway No.
4. A sample taken in the entrance of the holding pond adjacent
to building 561 showed low levels of TPHC contamination. Swale 2
had trace amounts of TPHC contamination.. Swale 3 also had
.significant TPHC contamination (580-23,000 ppm) with no other
significant compounds found. Examination of the sediment at"the
convergence of swale 2 and 3 and the dredged spoils adjacent to
each of the swales revealed moderate levels of TPHC. All
contaminants of concern for sediment at Site 6 are listed in
Table 4.
Surface water samples taken in 1988 from the western most swales
emanating from site 6 revealed trichloroethane (13 ppb), toluene
(22 ppb), and 1,2 dichloroethene (4 ppb). However, these
compounds were not detected in a second round of sampling.
Ethylene Glycol was also detected in three first round samples.
A sample taken approximately 1200 feet from Site 6 in 1989 showed
no contamination. The surface water contamination at this site
is thought to be due to contaminated sediment and a leaky fluid
cooler located at the site at the time of sampling that
discharged non-contact cooling water into the swales.
HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
The Proposed Plan for Sites 3 and 6 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 two Sites, 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
12
-------
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 and On-base Recycling and Off-Site Disposal) for Sites
3 and 6 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 Sites is based on the information contained in the
Administrative Record, which is available for public review at
the Ocean County Library, 101 Washington Street, Toms River, New
Jersey.
SCOPE AND ROLE OF RESPONSE ACTION
The FFS for Sites 3 and 6 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:
1. Prevent further contamination of ground water and surface
water from leaching of contaminants from the sediment.
2. Remediate sedime-nt to levels that are protective to human
health and the environment.
3. Prevent human contact with contaminated dry sediment and
vapors and dust from dry sediment.
SUMMARIES OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS
The locations of both of the Sites within NAWCADLKE are shown in
Figure 1, 2 and 3. Maps of the individual sites are provided in
Figures 4 and 5.
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 1 through 4.
The results of the Remedial Investigations,, including the
analytical data summarized in Tables 1 through 4, indicate that
sediment conditions at Sites 3 and 6 pose unacceptable risks to
human health and/or the environment.
SUMMARY OF SITE ENDANGERMENT ASSESSMENT
An Endangerment Assessment (EA) was conducted for NAWCADLKE to
13
-------
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 both 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 would be effected by mechanisms
that include direct contact, inhalation and ingestion.
More complete EA information for Sites 3 and 6 can be found in
Volume VI of the Phase III RI, which is available .as part of the
NAWCADLKE Administrative Record.
Remediation of ground water is discussed in a separate ROD,
therefore, further discussion of ground water within the
following summaries is not included.
For both 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 3 RUNWAY ARRESTED LANDING SITE (RALS)
Endangerment Assessment Summary
This is a summary of the endangerment assessment (EA) findings
for Site 3 (Drainage ditch at Runway Arrested Landing Site
(RALS)). Media subjects of the site-specific EA for this site
were soil, surface water, and sediment.
CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN
For soil, COCs were determined to be benzoic acid, Aroclor-1254
(a type of PCB), beta-BHC and mercury.
For sediment, COCs included a large number of volatile organic
compounds that included chlorinated aliphatics, a large variety
of PAHs, pesticides and miscellaneous other organics, including
TPHC. Human health risk sediment COCs also included inorganics
(metals). From an ecological perspective, additional COCs
included inorganics such as copper and zinc.
For surface water, COCs were a subset of the sediment COCs
14
-------
including organics and inorganics (metals). From an ecological
perspective, additional COCs included various inorganics such as
copper, iron and zinc.
LAND USE AND EXPOSURE ASSUMPTIONS
For soil, a light industrial land use was assumed because the
site is adjacent to existing facilities that involve a
significant worker population. In this land use scenario, direct
exposure to contaminated soil could occur via incidental
ingestion and inhalation.
For sediment. a transient scenario was assumed due to vegetative
overgrowth within the swale. In addition, because the swale
discharges to a tributary to Manapaqua Brook, the sediment
results were compared to NOAA aquatic criteria for sediments for
protection of aquatic life.
For surface water, criteria for the protection of aquatic life
were considered.
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 value
estimated for mercury was 2.01 x 10"3, which also represents the
hazard quotient for soil. Carcinogenic risk estimates for soil
at Site 3 also are not elevated for any chemical above EPA's
criteria risk level of 10"6. The risk estimates ranged from a
minimum of 6.65 x 10"9 for beta-BHC to a maximum of 1.21 x 10"7
for aroclor-1254. The overall site soil risk represented by the
sum of the chemical-specific risk estimates is 1.28 x 10"7.
For sediment, results of the EA indicate that hazards for
noncarcinogens are not elevated above EPA's hazard index criteria
value of 1.0 at a value of 2.70 x 10"1. The sum of the
Carcinogenic risks at the site are 4.81 x 10"6.
ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
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)
sediment criteria. This evaluation of sediments at Site 3
revealed that numerous metals and PAHs exceed their respective
criteria.
15
-------
SITE 3 CONCLUSION
In summary, although the human health risk assessment results do
not indicate unacceptable health risks, the ecological assessment
findings suggest potential ecological impacts if the monitored
sediments and surface water near the site reach receiving natural
water bodies without substantial attenuation of contamination.
Since stabilization of .the contaminated sediments at their
present location may be difficult to ensure, evaluation of
sediment removal options warrants consideration. For soil, the
endangerment assessment indicates that remediation is not
required.
Due to the fact that the contaminated surface water at Site 3 is
in close proximity to sediment contamination, the problem of
contaminated surface water will be readdressed following remedial
actions occurring at the site. Once remediation is completed,
extensive surface water sampling will be conducted to ensure that
surface water contamination is no longer a concern.
SITE 6 CATAPULT TEST FACILITY
Endangerment Assessment Summary
This is a summary of the endangerment assessment (EA) findings
for Site 6 (Catapult Test Facility). Media subjects of the site-
specific EA for this site were soil, surface water, and sediment,
CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN
For soil, the contaminants of concern were limited to cadmium and
lead.
For sediment, COCs included a large number of volatile organic
compounds that included aromatics and a large variety of PAHs.
Also, sediment COCs included inorganics such as cadmium, lead,
mercury and nickel.
For surface water. COCs were a subset of the sediment inorganic
COCs. From an ecological perspective, additional COCs included
various other inorganics such as chromium and selenium.
LAND USE AND EXPOSURE ASSUMPTIONS
For soil, a light industrial land use was assumed due to the
site's location adjacent to various facility buildings and
operations. In this land use scenario direct exposure to
contaminated soil could occur via incidental ingestion and
inhalation.
16
-------
For sediment,, at this site, the portion of the sediments that
were within the holding pond areas of the three swales were
treated within the EA as if they were soil, due to the potential
for the holding ponds to become dry and expose sediment. The
same exposure assumptions as specified for soil were assumed..
For the sediment that is downstream of the holding ponds, a
transient scenario was used since this soil is always underwater.
For surface water, during storm events, surface water has the
potential to discharge into tributaries to the Manapagua Brook.
Therefore, criteria for the protection of aguatic life were
considered.
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 value
estimated for cadmium was 1.18 x 10~3, which also represents the
hazard quotient for soil. Carcinogenic risk estimates for soil
at Site 6 also are not elevated for any chemical above EPA's
criteria risk level of 10"6. Only one carcinogen (also cadmium)
contributed to the risk potential. The risk estimate for cadmium
and soil overall is 9.84 x 10"9.
Due to the uncertainty regarding lead toxicity, neither a non-
carcinogenic hazard or carcinogenic risk estimate is provided for
the lead. Lead was detected at a maximum concentration of 20.1
mg/kg in soil at Site 6. It is noteworthy, however, that this
maximum observed lead concentration is well below the USEPA
criteria value for lead which is 500 mg/kg for surface soils.
For sediment in the holding ponds, the results of the EA indicate
that hazards resulting from noncarcinogens are elevated above
EPA's hazard index criteria value of 1.0. The hazard index
values ranged from a minimum of 8.44 x 10"5 for toluene to a
maximum of 3.50 x 10*1 for naphthalene. The overall hazard
quotient estimated for soil is 3.85 x 10+1. Carcinogenic risk
estimates for soil at Site 6 also are elevated above EPA's
criteria risk level of 10'6. The risk estimates ranged from a
minimum of 3.16 x 10"7 for cadmium to a maximum of 6.03 x 10"2 for
several PAHs. The overall site soil risk represented by the sum
of the chemical-specific risk estimates is 2.77 x 10"1..
For sediment downstream of the holding ponds, the hazard index
was calculated to be 7.53 x 10'3.No carcinogenic compounds were
detected in concentrations large enough to support a risk for
this medium.
For surface water, evaluation of criteria intended for the
protection of aquatic life reveals exceedances for iron, lead,
17
-------
and mercury.
ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
To evaluate the potential for ecological effects associated with
contaminants in sediment and surface water samples, results were
compared to criteria established by NOAA as effects range - low
(ER-L) sediment criteria. The ER-L number is a reference number
that is used to identify the presence of contamination exceeding
levels potentially harmful to aquatic life. The ER-L level is
defined as the level where adverse effects may begin or are
predicted among sensitive life stages and/or species. This
evaluation of sediments at Site 6 revealed that numerous metals
and PAHs exceeded their respective criteria (See Table 4). The
evaluation of surface water results also indicated exceedances of
applicable criteria by various inorganics.
SITE 6 CONCLUSION
In summary, both the human health risk assessment results and the
ecological assessment findings suggest potential detrimental
human health and ecological impacts. Since stabilization of the
contaminated sediments at their present location may be difficult
to assure, evaluation of- sediment removal options warrants
consideration. For soil, the endangerment assessment findings
indicate that contamination does not pose an unacceptable risk to
human health and the environment.
Surface water contamination at Site 6 is minimal and is being
caused by its contact with the heavily contaminated sediment at
the site. The remediation of sediment at the site will alleviate
surface water contact with contaminants and thus surface water
contamination. The problem of contaminated surface water will be
readdressed following remedial actions occurring at the site.
Once remediation is completed, extensive surface water sampling
will be conducted to ensure that surface water contamination is
no longer a concern.
SUMMARY
In summary, the EA demonstrates that soil at the two sites and
sediment at Site 3 do not pose human health risks in excess of
EPA acceptable levels. However, sediment at Site 6 does pose
human health risks. In addition, the sediment at both sites do
pose unacceptable ecological hazards. Surface water at both
sites is being influenced by the contaminated sediment and will
be readdressed following sediment remediation.
18
-------
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 Sites 3 and 6, are summarized below.
ALTERNATIVE 1; No Action
Estimated Construction Cost: $ 0
Estimated Net Annual O&M Cost: $ 0
This alternative involves no additional actions at the sites. No
contaminants would be treated or contained and the existing
health and environmental risks would remain. 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: $ 60,000/110,000 (site 3/6)
Net Present Worth: $ 630,000/1,155,000 (site 3/6)
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 ground water and can be accomplished by using
the extensive array of- existing monitoring wells utilizing
personnel skilled in sampling. Sampling would be conducted
quarterly for a period of thirty years. If contaminant levels
started to increase, an active form of remediation would have to
be pursued.
ALTERNATIVE 3: Capping and Ground Water Monitoring
Estimated Construction Cost: $ 30,000/302,000 (site 3/6)
Estimated Net Annual O&M Cost: $ 91,000/116,000 (site 3/6)
Net Present Worth: $ 663,000/1,509,000 (site 3/6)
This alternative would act as a source control action by
minimizing the infiltration of precipitation into the
contaminated sediment, 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
19
-------
settlement. Upon completion of the 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, ground water monitoring would still
have to be performed downgradient of the site.
ALTERNATIVE 4: Excavation and Off-Site Disposal
Estimated Construction Cost: $207,000/1,940,000 (site 3/6)
Estimated Net Annual O&M Cost: $0
Net Present Worth: $207, 000/1,940,000.(site 3/6)
This alternative includes the removal of all contaminated
sediment from the sites through excavation. The volume of
excavation would be site dependent. Approximately 296 cubic
yards would be excavated from Site 3, while 2850 cubic yards
would have to be removed from Site 6 to meet remediation goals.
Sediment excavation could be accomplished with a 1.0 cu. yd. drag
line which could easily excavate to the depths required at Sites
3 and 6. Once removed, the sediment would be disposed of at a
landfill as industrial waste or at a hazardous waste landfill,
depending upon its petroleum hydrocarbon content. The
contaminated sediment 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 and Off-Site Recycling and Off-Site
Disposal
Estimated Construction Cost: $52,000/442,000 (site 3/6)
Estimated Net Annual O&M Cost: $0
Net Present Worth: $52,000/442,000 (site 3/6)
This alternative includes the excavation of all contaminated
sediment from the site as described in Alternative 4. Once the
waste is removed, it would be analyzed for-petroleum content and
other contaminants. All portions of the sediment that have a
petroleum concentration greater than 30,000 ppm or Resource
Conservation and Recovery Amendment (RCRA) hazardous waste
characteristics (approximately 10% of the estimated volume for
each site) would be sent to a hazardous waste landfill for
treatment and disposal as described in Alternative 4. The
remaining sediment would be sent to a permitted off-base plant
for reuse in the making of asphalt. Shipping of the petroleum
contaminated sediment would be done as described in Alternative
20
-------
4.
Following excavation, sampling would be performed to determine
that the site meets remediation goals. Clean fill would be
applied as necessary.
ALTERNATIVE 6: Excavation and On-Site Recycling and Off-Site
Disposal
Estimated Construction Cost: $50,000/422,000 (site 3/6)
Estimated Net Annual O&M Cost: $0
Net Present Worth: $50,000/422,000 (site 3/6)
This alternative includes the excavation of all contaminated
sediment from the site as described in Alternative 4. Once the
waste is removed, it would be analyzed for petroleum content and
other contaminants. All portions of the sediment that contain a
petroleum concentration greater than 30,000 ppm or hazardous
waste characteristics will be sent to a hazardous waste landfill
for disposal as described in Alternative 4. A portable asphalt
batching system would be brought on base to allow reuse of
contaminated sediment containing petroleum concentrations below
30,000 ppm and not having RCRA hazardous waste characteristics in
making asphalt for the base roads.
Following excavation, sampling would be performed to determine
that the site meets applicable standards. Clean fill would be
applied as necessary.
ALTERNATIVE 7: Excavation and On-Site Thermal Treatment
Estimated Construction Cost: $168,000/710,000 (site 3/6)
Estimated Net Annual O&M Cost: $0
Net Present Worth: $168,000/710,000 (site 3/6)
This alternative includes the excavation of all contaminated
sediment 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 sediment and sediments containing contaminants such
as those present at sites 3 and 6.
Three waste streams would be generated by this technology: solids
(ash and treated sediment) 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
21
-------
substances such as caustic high chlorides, 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 obtained
prior to implementing this process.
Following excavation, sampling will be done to determine that the
site meets remediation goals. The site would be leveled with
clean fill as needed.
ALTERNATIVE 8: Excavation and On-Site Recycling/On-Site Thermal
Treatment ^.
Estimated Construction Cost: $136,000/389,000 (site 3/6)
Estimated Net Annual O&M Cost: $0
Net Present Worth: $136,000/389,000 (site 3/6)
This alternative includes the excavation of all contaminated
sediment from the site as described in Alternative 4. Once the
sediment is removed,-it would be analyzed for total petroleum
hydrocarbon and hazardous waste characteristics. All portions of
the sediment that are not suitable for recycling would be treated
at an on-site thermal treatment unit as described in Alternative
7. A portable asphalt batching plant would then be brought on
base to use the recyclable contaminated sediment in making
asphalt for the base roads.
Following excavation, sampling would be performed to determine
that the site meets RAOs. Clean fill will be applied as
necessary.
ALTERNATIVE 9: In-Situ Vitrification and Ground Water
Monitoring
Estimated Construction Cost: $134,000/957,000 (site 3/6)
Estimated Net Annual O&M Cost: $62,000/120,000 (site 3/6)
Net Present Worth: $780,000/2,211,000 (site 3/6)
This alternative consists of a technology which is a permanent
control of the contamination source by destroying and
immobilizing contaminants using electricity generating a stable
crystalline mass. The area to be vitrified would be the 200 feet
directly downstream of the RALS discharge at Site 3 and the three
swales that are in-situ to Site 6. To perform this process, the
water flow through the swales would need to be diverted and the
surface devegetated and leveled. The swales would then be
• allowed to dry before the vitrification process begins. The
selected electrode spacing would be the standard 15 foot by 15
foot square array and the electrode would be put in using a
22
-------
standard drilling technique.
An off-gas hood would provide confinement for any gases that are
released during the vitrification process.
System requirements would depend on the size of the site and the
moisture content of the sediment. Two factors that can affect
power draw during vitrification are buried metals and water.
High sediment moisture content also significantly increases the
power needed for this process. A pilot study would be necessary
prior to implementation.
Estimated run time for the process is 1.5 years for Site 3 and
3.5 years for Site 6. Estimates for both sites were made based
on sediment 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
sediment due to the 25 to 30 percent volume loss due to the
increased density of the mass from the process. In addition,
ground water monitoring would be conducted quarterly for a period
of thirty years to ensure that the site would pose no future
risks.
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
During the detailed evaluation of remedial alternatives, each
alternative is assessed against the nine evaluation 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 Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate
Requirements (ARARs) evaluates the ability of an alternative to
meet 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 Toxicity, Mobility or Volume through Treatment
evaluates an alternatives ability to reduce risks through
treatment technology.
5. Short Term Effectiveness address the cleanup time frame and
any adverse impacts posed by the alternative during construction
and implementation phase until clean up goals are achieved.
23
-------
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 capital costs, annual
operation and maintenance (O&M) costs, and net present worth
costs.
8. Agency Acceptance indicates whether the EPA and State concurs
with, opposes or has no comment on the preferred alternative in
terms of technical and administrative issues and concerns.
9. Community Acceptance discusses public questions and comments
on the RI/FFS reports and the Proposed Plan.
This section will compare all of the alternatives for sites 3 and
6 using the nine criteria outlined above.
ALTERATIVE 1: NO ACTION
ALTERNATIVE 2: GROUND WATER MONITORING
ALTERNATIVE 3: CAPPING AND GROUND WATER MONITORING
ALTERNATIVE 4: EXCAVATION AND OFF-SITE DISPOSAL
ALTERNATIVE 5: EXCAVATION AND OFF-SITE RECYCLING AND OFF-SITE
DISPOSAL
ALTERNATIVE 6: EXCAVATION AND ON-SITE RECYCLING AND OFF-SITE
DISPOSAL-
ALTERNATIVE 7: EXCAVATION AND ON-SITE THERMAL TREATMENT
ALTERNATIVE 8: EXCAVATION AND ON-SITE RECYCLING/ON-SITE THERMAL
TREATMENT
ALTERNATIVE 9: IN SITU VITRIFICATION AND GROUND WATER MONITORING
Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
Alternatives 1 and 2 provide no protection to human health or the
environment since they leave all contamination present at both
sites that the EA and NOAA guidance showed to pose both human
health and ecological risks. Alternative 3 would reduce risk at
the site by preventing water filtration through the contaminated
sediment, but would leave the contaminated sediment at the site;
potential impacts to ground water would still exist and the
alternative would not meet RAOs. 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 sites. Alternatives 6, 7
and 8 would have minimal.short term health risks due to
excavation, however,'"both -alternatives provide a permanent means
of protecting human health. Alternative 9 provides the most
protection because it is an in-situ alternative and eliminates or
contains all contamination at the site.
24
-------
Compliance with ARARs
Alternatives 1 and 2 would allow for the continued leaching of
sediment contaminants into ground water above chemical specific
ground water ARARs. Alternative 3 would comply with ARARs but
residual source areas would remain. Alternative 4 through 9
would 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, 6, 7 and 8 provide permanent long term protection by totally
removing all contaminants from the sites. Alternative 9 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 greatly
reduces mobility of contamination, however, toxicity and volume
remain unchanged. Alternatives 4, 5 and 6 remove the
contaminants from the sites; they are transferred to a more
secure location where mobility is reduced. Alternatives 7 and 8
reduce toxicity, mobility and volume by destroying contaminants.
Alternative 9 also reduces toxicity, mobility -and volume by
destroying or immobilizing all contaminants.
Short _Term Effectiveness
Alternatives 1 and 2 do not change any short term risks at the
sites. Alternative 3 could be implemented within a 2 year time
frame and therefore rapidly reduce risk at the sites.
Alternatives 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8-could also be implemented quickly
(under 1 year); however, over the short term there may be
possible releases of contaminants during processing of the waste.
Alternative 9 would take the longest time to implement (1.5 to
3.5 years), therefore having a very low effectiveness over the
short term.
Implementability
Site 3
Alternative 2 is easily implemented and would require a short
set-up time frame. Alternative 3 is attainable only after the
25
-------
flow of water through the swale is diverted into another ditch.
In addition, grading the site would be difficult due to its
present elevation compared with its surroundings. Alternative 4,
5, and 6 still require the digging of a diversionary ditch yet
are much more readily implemented and would require about l year
to complete. Alternatives 7 and 8 also require a diversionary
ditch and may take slightly longer to complete because of delays
from regulatory requirements associated with thermal treatment.
Alternative 9 is also a viable alternative if the flow through
the swale is alleviated.
Site 6
Alternative 2 is easily implemented and would require a short
set-up time frame. Alternative 3 is attainable only after the
flow of water through the three swales is permanently diverted
downstream of the contaminated swales. In addition, grading of
the site would be difficult due to its present elevation compared
with its surroundings. Alternative 4, 5, and 6 are much more
readily implemented and would require approximately l year to
complete. Alternatives 7 and 8 may take sightly longer than 4 ,
5, and 6 due to regulatory requirements for thermal treatment.
Alternative 9 is also a viable alternative if the flow through
the swale is alleviated.
Cost
Alternative 2 has costs associated only with Operations and
Maintenance (O&M) and also does not meet any RAOs. Alternative 3
has significant capital and O&M costs but does meet some of the
RAOs for the sites. Alternatives 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 have only
capital costs associated with their remedial efforts and all will
meet all RAOs. Alternative 9 also meets all RAOs, however, its
capital and O&M costs are extremely high. The present worth
costs for each site and each alternative are as follows:
ALTERNATIVE
NO.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
. 9
SITE 3
$0
$630,000
5663,000
$207,300
$51,500
$49,900
$168,800
$135,880
$780,000
SITE 6
$0
$1,155,000
$1,509,000
$1,940,000
$442,000
$422,000
$710,000
$388,900
$2,211,000
26
-------
State Acceptance
The state of New Jersey concurs with the selected remedy.
Community Acceptance
All public questions were answered during the Public Meeting. No
additional written questions or comments were received during the
Public comment period.
SELECTED REMEDY
- -- - {
The United States Department of the Navy, the lead agency for
these Sites, has selected Excavation with On-Site Recycling and
Off-Site Disposal as the selected remedy for Sites 3 and 6.
Implementation of this alternative entails excavation and removal
of all contaminated sediments at both sites above EPA risk based
levels, New Jersey soil clean up criteria and NOAA guidance for
sediment.
By excavating the contaminated sediment, the possibility of
further bioaccumulation of contaminants in aquatic receptors is
removed, thereby reducing ecological and human health risks
associated with the two sites. Few short-term impacts exist for
the preferred alternative. Short term concerns, which include
disturbance of the sediment resulting in the release of
contamination to surface water during excavation, will be
addressed in a detailed design plan.
Excavated sediment will be sorted based on prior sampling
results. Each sorted pile will be tested for TPHC and RCRA
hazardous waste characteristics. 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 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 sediment which would produce the worst
case air emission scenario. The sediment would be batched at the
maximum rate for one hour. The sediment, air emissions and
27
-------
resulting asphalt are required to 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
remedial technologies for the two sites.
This preferred alternative provides excellent protection to human
health and the environment by removing all sources of
contamination above EPA risk based levels and NJDEPE Soil Clean
up Criteria. Remedial Action Objectives will be met once these
clean up levels have been achieved.
For each site, the clean-up time frame would be approximately one
year once the preferred alternative is initiated.
For both sites, excavation of the area of contamination would be
accomplished when the swales are dry using a crane with a drag
line. The excavated sediment would be staged in small mounds
with each mound being sampled according to EPA guidelines.
The preferred alternative utilizes permanent solutions and treats
the majority of contaminated sediments from the two sites
satisfying the statutory preference for treatment as a remedy.
It should be noted that-this Record of Decision (ROD) addresses
only Sites 3 and 6 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 these
two sites will be addressed in the ROD for Areas I and J ground
water.
23
------- |