United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Emergency and
Remedial Response
EPA/ROD/R02-93/214
September 1993
PB94-963827
ve/EPA Superfund
Record of Decision:
Naval Air Engineering Center
(Operable Unit 1.4), NJ
-------
80272-101
REPORT DOCUMENTATION
PAGE
1. REPORT NO.
EPA/ROD/R02-93/214
3. Recipient'* Accession No.
4. Till* and Subtitle
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION
Naval Air Engineering Center (Operable Unit 14), NJ
Fourteenth Remedial Action
5. Report Date
09/27/93
7. Author(s)
8. Performing Organization Rapt. No.
9. Performing Organization Name and Address
10 Project Taskwork Unit No.
11. Contract(C) or Grant(G) No.
(C)
(0)
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
PB94-963827
16. Abstract (Limit: 200 words)
The Naval Air Engineering Center (Operable Unit 14) 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
(See Attached Page)
17. Document Analysis a. Descriptors
Record of Decision - Naval Air Engineering Center (Operable Unit 14), NJ
Fourteenth Remedial Action
Contaminated Medium: soil
Key Contaminants: VOCs (toluene, xylenes), other organics (oils), metals
b. Identifiers/Open-Ended Terms
c. COSATI Field/Group
18. Availability Statement
19. Security Class (This Report)
None
20. Security Class (This Page)
None
21. No. of Pages
27
22. Price
(See ANSI-239.18)
SM Instructions on R»vtne
OPTIONAL FORM 272 (4-77)
(Formerly NTIS-35)
Department of Commerce
-------
EPA/ROD/R02-93/214
Naval Air Engineering Center (Operable Unit 14) , NJ
Fourteenth Remedial Action
Abstract (Continued)
operations at NAEC have required the use, handling, storage, and occasional onsite
disposal of hazardous substances. During the operational period of the facility, there
were reported and suspected improper releases of these substances into the environment.
The Department of Defense's Installation Restoration Program (IRP) has identified 44
potentially-contaminated sites at NAEC, 16 of which have warranted further investigation
to assess potential impacts. IRP investigations revealed soil contamination at the launch
end of the test tracks (Site 32). Site 32 consists of the launching ends of five recovery
system test tracks and ancillary facilities built in 1958. The test tracks are used to
launch sled mounted aircraft jet engines, simulating aircraft landings on aircraft carrier
decks. The ancillary facilities are used to store equipment and supplies, and a drainage
system is used to receive oil and fuel runoff. Each track drainage system consisted of a
catch basin at the end of the track. The catch basin was connected to a dry well located
adjacent to the track. Fuel drained from the jet engines into the catch basins, and
ultimately into the dry wells. Storm water also entered the system, mixed with the fuel,
and drained to the dry wells which were intended to act as oil/water separators with the
fuel floating on top and rain water percolating through to the ground water. In 1986, the
dry wells were taken out of service, and, in 1988, were removed. During the period that
the dry wells were not serviced, oily waste overflowed from the concrete dry well at Track
4 and into the swales between Tracks 3 and 4. There is no estimate of what or how much
waste may have been released. In 1958, a 1,500-gallon UST was installed and used for
holding jet fuels. In 1985, it was taken out of service, and in 1989, was removed. A
distinct fuel odor was reported when the tank was removed, and soil adjacent to the tank
was saturated with fuel. Other primary sources of fuel releases were the leaky valves in
the pump house and spills from refueling. Two RODs signed in 1991 and 1992 addressed OUs
1, 2, 3, and 4, and OUs 5, 6, and 7, respectively. This ROD addresses an interim remedy
for the contaminated soil at Site 32, as OU14. A 1991 ROD addressed the onsite ground
water contamination, as OU2. Other 1993 RODs address OUs 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 22,
and 23. The primary contaminants of concern affecting the soil are VOCs, including
toluene and xylenes; other organics, including oils; and metals.
The selected remedial action for this site includes excavating, analyzing, and sorting
approximately 250 yd3 of contaminated soil; disposing of soil with a total petroleum
hydrocarbon (TPHC) concentration greater than 30,000 mg/kg offsite in a hazardous waste
treatment and disposal facility; recycling the remaining soil onsite into cold mix asphalt
or offsite into hot batch asphalt; shipping offsite or containerizing onsite the
petroleum-contaminated soil; 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 $39,000.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS:
Soil cleanup goals are based on State soil cleanup criteria, State To Be Considered (TBC)
criteria, and EPA risk-based levels. Chemical-specific soil cleanup goals include cadmium
100 mg/kg; ethylbenzene 100 mg/kg; fluoranthene 500 mg/kg; fluorene 100 mg/kg; mercury 270
mg/kg; naphthalene 100 mg/kg; toluene 500 mg/kg; TPHC 10,000 mg/kg; and xylenes 10 mg/kg.
-------
ROD FACT SHEET
SITE
Name
Location/State
EPA Region
HRS Score (date):
NAWC Lakehurst
Lakehurst, New Jersey
II
49.48 (July 22, 1987)
ROD
Date Signed:
Remedy:
Operating Unit Number:
Capital cost:
Construction Completion:
O & M in 1993:
1994:
1995:
1996:
Present worth:
September 27, 1993
Asphalt Batch Recycling/Offsite Disposal
OU-14 (Site 32)
$39,000
December, 1994
N/A
$39,000 (no 0 & 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
700 cubic yards
-------
LAKEHURST
RECORD OF DECISION
FOR
SITE 32 C
NAVAL AIR WARFARE CENTER
AIRCRAFT DIVISION
LAKEHURST, NEW JERSEY
September 14, 1993
93-09-10
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
DECLARATION
SITE 32
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
an individual site (Site 32), 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
this site, has selected Excavation with On-Site Recycling and
Off-Site Disposal as the selected remedy for Site 32.
Implementation of this alternative entails excavation and removal
of all contaminated soil at the site above EPA risk based levels
or NJDEPE soil cleanup criteria.
DECLARATION STATEMENT
The United States Department of the Navy has determined that
remedial action is necessary at Site 32 to ensure protection of
human health and the environment.
-------
This Record of Decision addresses Site 32. The other areas of
concern at NAWCADLKE have been or will be the subject of separate
Records of Decision.
Captain Leroy Farr
Commanding Officer
Naval Air Warfare Center
Aircraft Division
Lakehurst, New Jersey
(Date)
With the concurrence of:
William J.
Acting Region
U.S. Envoronm
Region II
., P.E.
^Administrator
ital Protection Agency,
(Date)
-------
SITE DESCRIPTION
NAWCADLKE is located in Jackson and Manchester Townships, Ocean
County, New Jersey, approximately 14 miles inland from the
Atlantic Ocean (Figure 1). NAWCADLKE is approximately 7,400
acres and is bordered by Route 547 to the east, the Fort Dix
Military Reservation to the west, woodland to the north (portions
of which are within Colliers Mills 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 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 the appropriate authority.
NAWCADLKE and its tenant activities now occupy more than 300
buildings, built between 1919 and 1989, totaling over 2,845,00
square feet. The command also operates and maintains: two
5,000-foot long runways, a 12,000-foot long test runway, one-mile
long jet car test track, four one and one-quarter mile long jet
car test tracks, a parachute jump circle, a 79-acre golf course,
and a 3,500-acre conservation area.
In the past, the various operations and activities at the Center
required the use, handling, storage and occasionally the on-site
disposal of hazardous substances. During the operational period
of the facility, there have been documented, reported or
suspected releases of these substances into the environment.
INITIAL INVESTIGATIONS
As part of the DOD Installation Restoration Program and the Navy
Assessment and Control of Installation Pollutants (NACIP)
program, an initial Assessment Study was conducted in 1983 to
identify and assess sites posing a potential threat to human
health or the environment due to contamination from past
hazardous materials operations.
Based on information from historical records, aerial photographs,
field inspections, and personnel interviews, the study identified
a total of 44 potentially contaminated sites. An additional
site, Bomarc, was also investigated by NAWCADLKE. The Bomarc
Site is the responsibility of the U.S. Air Force and is located
on Fort Dix adjacent to the western portion of NAWCADLKE. A
Remedial Investigation (RI) was recommended to confirm or deny
the existence of the suspected contamination and to quantify the
extent of any problems which may exist. Following further review
of available data by Navy personnel, it was decided that 42 of
the 44 sites should be included in the Remedial Investigation.
Two potentially contaminated sites, an ordnance site (Site 41)
and an Advanced Underground Storage Facility (Site 43), were
-------
deleted from the Remedial Investigation because they had already
been rehabilitated. In 1987 NAWCADLKE was designated as a
National Priorities List (NPL) or Superfund site under the
federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and
Liability Act (CERCLA).
STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
NJDEPE Soil Cleanup Criteria (SCC) were utilized as guidance for
the cleanup of soil at Site 32. NJDEPE SCC includes soil cleanup
levels for residential and non-residential direct contact
scenarios and separate impact to groundwater soil cleanup
criteria for the protection of groundwater. The National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) guidance for sediment was
used as a screening aid to determine ecological risk. A brief
discussion of each of the criteria follows.
NJDEPE SCCs:
The NJDEPE soil cleanup criteria are To Be Considered (TBC)
criteria for determining the need for site cleanup. Although the
NJDEPE SCC are not promulgated requirements, these criteria are
considered an appropriate means by which to assess the risk to
human health and the environment posed by contaminants found in
the 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 which
support 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 cleanup goals at those sites at the
-------
Lakehurst facility which are determined to require active
remediation.
ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS
Phase I of the Remedial Investigation (RI-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; and
(c) collect and evaluate data to perform a risk assessment and
assess the need for remedial action at sites.
These investigations indicated that significant contamination is
present at levels of concern at Site 32.
The site history and a summary of past remedial and removal
activities at the site is provided in the following sections.
Site 32 - Launch End of the Test Tracks - Site Description
Site 32 consists of the launching ends of five recovery system
test tracks and ancillary facilities, all built in 1958. The
test tracks are used to launch sled mounted aircraft jet engines,
simulating aircraft landings on aircraft carrier decks. The
ancillary facilities consist of several buildings used for
storage of equipment and supplies. A drainage system, located at
the launch end of each of the five test tracks, was designed to
receive oil and fuel runoff.
Site 32 is located approximately 4,000 feet from the nearest
NAWCADLKE boundary. Approximately 1,200 feet to the southeast is
the Manapaqua Brook; the general direction of groundwater flow at
this site is to the southeast. The water table ranges from eight
-------
to twelve feet below the ground surface. The drainage swales are
located between each of the test tracks which generally drain to
the east, except Track 1 which drains to the north through a
culvert. The swales are not connected to a stream.
An interim remedial action for.groundwater was initiated in the
spring of 1992 in the area encompassing Site 32 (Area H). A
recovery well is located immediately in Site 32, downgradient of
the drainage system at the launch end of the tracks.
Each of the track drainage systems consisted of a catch basin at
the end of the tracks. The catch basin was connected to a dry
well located adjacent to the track. Fuel drained from the jet
engines into the catch basins and ultimately into .the dry wells.
Storm water also entered the system, mixed with the fuel, and
drained to the dry wells which were intended to act as oil/water
separators with the fuel floating on top and rain water
percolating through to groundwater. The intent of the original
design was to pump out the top of the dry wells and reuse or
dispose of the fuels. At some time between 1958 and 1979, the
manhole covers to the dry wells were paved or covered over with
fill material. They were not pumped out until 1979 when access
ports to the dry wells were discovered. The dry wells were taken
out of service in 1986 and removed in 1988.
During the period that the dry wells were not serviced, oily
waste overflowed from the concrete drywell (seepage pit) at Track
4. Because this drywell had a bottom, the rain water could not
percolate through the bottom. Consequently, the oily waste was
forced out of the top and ran off into the swales between Track 3
and Track 4. There is no estimate of what or how much waste may
have been released.
A 1,500 gallon underground storage tank (UST) was installed in
1958 and was used for holding JP-4 and JP-5 fuels. It was then
taken out of service in 1985 and removed in April of 1989. A
distinct fuel odor was reported when the tank was removed and
soil adjacent to the tank on the north side was determined to be
saturated with fuel. The primary sources of fuel releases were
leaky valves in the pump house and spills from refueling.
Site 32: Summary of Remedial Investigations
During the initial site investigation it was assumed that the
areas between the jet car tracks would be carrying water most of
the time. The result was that the investigation included samples
which were labeled as sediment, deposited during water flows
through the site. However, it is rare1 that any water flows or
pools in this area. Also, the swales are man made ditches and
8
-------
any contaminated soil (or sediment) could be directly acted upon,
or removed without any ecological effects. Therefore, all soil
and sediment samples taken at Site 32 are considered to be soil
in the argument presented in the discussion that follows, even if
referred to as sediment during the RI. All contaminants of
concern for soils at Site 32 are listed in Table 1.
1981 - 1984: Six monitoring wells were installed by
NAWCADLKE. The wells were monitored for about three years for
the presence of floating fuel product. None was detected.
Groundwater samples were not collected for analysis.
November 1985 - January 1986; Remedial Investigation -
Phase I. Groundwater samples collected from two monitoring wells
and one nonpotable water supply well. Other media were not
investigated. Additional investigations were recommended.
May - June 1988; A soil gas and groundwater screening
survey indicated the presence of floating product in the drainage
swale between test tracks 1 and 2. The data suggested that more
than one source of contamination may exist. Additional
investigations were recommended.
August - December 1988; Remedial Investigation - Phase
II. Analysis of groundwater, soil and sediment samples revealed
contamination of all media. Five drywells were excavated and
removed from the site. Post excavation samples were collected.
January 1990; Aquifer Characterization Study. Soil
samples were collected from a test pit excavated at the site for
soil flushing, biological and stabilization bench-scale
treatability studies. Contamination detected in the analysis of
these samples was limited to low levels of a few VOC compounds.
February 1990; NAWCADLKE implemented a program to monitor
the amount of floating product in well GX.
July 1991 - October 1992; The investigations conducted
during this period included soil, groundwater, surface water and
sediment sampling.
To evaluate the extent of soil contamination in areas where
previous sampling had revealed contamination or where potential
contamination sources (e.g., underground storage tanks (USTs) and
dry wells) existed, seven soil borings were collected.
Contamination consisting of volatile and semi-volatile fuel
components and total petroleum hydrocarbons was found, extending
to the saturated zone at the locations of the former dry wells
and surficial staining between Tracks 3 and 4. Petroleum
contamination of soils was highest at the former UST at Track 1.
No significant contamination was detected in the analysis of
-------
sediment and surface water samples collected from the man made
ponds downgradient of the site and Manapaqua Brook, and from a
drainage swale near Track 1.
The results of the Phase III Investigation generally confirm
those of prior investigations and indicate that there are
isolated soil locations at Site 32 where contamination levels
exceed the NJDEPE Soil Cleanup Criteria (SCC) for xylene and
TPHC.
In late 1990, NAWCADLKE designed a groundwater recovery and
treatment system to be installed at Site 32, as an interim
remedial action to recover, treat, and further impede the
downgradient migration of contaminated groundwater, thus
minimizing future environmental impacts. Construction of this
system, which includes two groundwater recovery wells at the site
(GX and GG) became operational in May 1992.
Investigations conducted at Site 32 have identified contamination
in the surficial soils in the drainage swales at the launching
end of the test tracks, particularly between Tracks 3 and 4. The
soils under the dry wells at Tracks 1, 2, 3, and 5 also exhibited
a higher degree of contamination. The analyses also confirmed the
contamination suspected when the 1,500 gallon tank was removed at
the launch end of Track 1. The primary contaminant present in
soil is TPHC. Some metals were detected sporadically in soil
samples but none above NJDEPE soil cleanup criteria.
The soil contamination at Site 32 does exceed cleanup levels
recommended by the NJDEPE for xylene and TPHC and will be
remediated. The Navy and members of the Technical Review
Committee further note that the remediation will expedite the
groundwater cleanup operations by eliminating the contaminant
pathway through the soil at Site 32.
HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
The Proposed Plan for Site 32 was issued to interested parties on
June 4, 1993. On June 16 and 17, 1993 a newspaper notification
inviting public comment on the Proposed Plan appeared in The
Asbury Park Press and The Ocean County Observer. On June 18,
1993, a notification also appeared in the Air SCOOP, the Center'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 June 30, 1993 at the Manchester
Branch of the Ocean County Library at 7:00 p.m. At this meeting,
representatives from the Navy, USEPA, and NJDEPE were available
to answer questions about the site and the preferred alternative.
A list of attendees is attached to the. Record of Decision as
10
-------
Appendix A. Comments received and responses provided during the
public meeting are included in the Responsiveness Summary, which
is part of this Record od Decision. No written comments were
received during the public comment period. A transcript of the
meeting is available as part of the Administrative Record.
The decision document presents the selected action (i.e.,
Excavation and On-base Recycling and Off-site Disposal) for Site
32 at NAWCADLKE in Ocean County, New Jersey, chosen in accordance
with CERCLA, as amended by SARA and, to the extent practicable,
the National Contingency Plan (NCP). The decision for the site
is based on the information contained in the Administrative
Record, which is available for public review at the Ocean County
Library, 101 Washington Street, Toms River, New Jersey.
SCOPE AND ROLE OF RESPONSE ACTION
The Focused Feasibility Study (FFS) for Site 32 evaluates several
possible alternatives for remediating the site 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 groundwater and surface
water from leaching of contaminants from the soil.
2. Remediate soils to levels that are protective to human
health and the environment.
SUMMARIES OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS
The location of Site 32 within NAWCADLKE is shown in Figure 1.
map of the site is provided in Figure 2.
A summary of the chemicals detected in the analyses of soil,
sediment and surface water samples collected at the site is
provided in Table 1.
The results of the Remedial Investigations, including the
analytical data summarized in Table 1, indicates that soil
conditions at Site 32 pose an unacceptable risk to human health
and/or the environment.
SUMMARY OF SITE ENDANGERMENT ASSESSMENT
An Endangerment Assessment (EA) was conducted for NAWCADLKE to
assess the potential current and future human health risks and
potential environmental impacts posed by contaminated soils,
groundwater, sediment and surface water detected during past and
11
-------
on-going site investigations.
For Site 32, 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 Site 32 can be found in Volume
VI of the Phase III RI, which is available as part of the
NAWCADLKE Administrative Record.
Remediation of groundwater is being addressed through a separate
remedial action. Therefore, groundwater is not discussed within
the following summaries.
For Site 32, the summary will discuss (1) the chemicals
identified by the EA as contaminants of concern (COCs), (2) the
land use assumptions upon which estimates of potential human
exposure to site contaminants are based, (3) the quantitative
estimates of carcinogenic risk and noncarcinogenic hazard, (4) a
summary of the ecological concerns at the site and (5) a summary
interpretation of the EA findings with regard to need for site
remediation.
SITE 32 RECOVERY SYSTEMS TRACK SITES, LAUNCH END
Endangerment Assessment Summary
This is a summary of the endangerment assessment (EA) findings
for Site 32 (Recovery System Track Sites, Launch End). The media
that is the subject of this site-specific EA for this site is
soil.
CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN
For soilf COCs for which hazard quotients or risks were
calculated are cadmium, mercury, ethylbenzene, toluene, 2-
methylnaphthalene, dibenzofuran, fluoranthene, fluorene,
naphthalene, phenanthrene, xylene, and TPHC. Of these COCs, only
TPHC exceeded the non-residential NJDEPE soil cleanup criteria.
However, since the Impact to Groundwater SCC values are more
stringent, both xylene and TPHC exceed the cleanup criteria.
LAND USE AND EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT
For Site 32, the light industrial scenario has been chosen
because it is the current land use and expected future land use,
12
-------
HUMAN HEALTH RISK AND HAZARD FINDINGS
For soil at Site 32, the overall hazard index is 0.00236, well
below the EPA criteria of 1.0. The overall risk estimate for
soil is 1.39 x 10"8 based on cadmium, well below the EPA
acceptable level of 10"6.
ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT FINDINGS
An endangerment assessment was performed to determine ecological
risks. Based on the results, contaminants at Site 32 have
limited potential to adversely effect terrestrial or avian biota.
Since Federal Ambient Water Quality Criteria (AWQC) and National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration criteria are not
applicable to terrestrial or avian biota, the risk assessment
consisted of identifying indicator species, identifying the COCs
for the indicator species, and comparing estimated contaminant
uptakes to acceptable levels. The acceptable levels are based on
toxicological data.
The indicator species chosen for the analysis are the field
mouse, northern bobwhite, and barred owl. These species were
chosen because they are well represented at NAWCADLKE, have
restricted home ranges, and have been extensively studied in
toxicological experiments.
The extent of contaminant-related impact to terrestrial or avian
receptors is minimal at Site 32. The maximum inorganic soil
concentrations for Site 32 are well below the 95 percent upper
confidence level (UCL) New Jersey background concentrations. The
only COCs found in soil are xylene and TPHC, which appear at low
levels. These findings indicate that the contamination in this
area does not constitute a current ecological threat to the
resident indicator species.
CONCLUSION
Soils at Site 32 do not pose unacceptable risks to human health
or the environment. However, the presence of high levels of TPHC
and xylenes warrant action, since these compounds at their
respective concentrations may be a continuing source of
groundwater contamination in Area H.
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
13
-------
Alternatives which are discussed in more detail in the
Feasibility Study for Site 32, 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: Groundwater Monitoring
Estimated Construction Cost: $ O1
Estimated Net Annual O&M Cost: $ 0
Net Present Worth: $ 0
This alternative would provide no reduction in risk to human
health or the environment or reduce contamination at the site.
Long term monitoring of the site would evaluate the effects of
the source area on groundwater and can be accomplished by using
the extensive array of existing monitoring wells utilizing
personnel skilled in sampling. Sampling would be conducted
quarterly for a period of thirty years as required by the
existing pump and treat operations. If contaminant levels
started to increase, an active form of remediation would have to
be pursued.
ALTERNATIVE 3; Capping and Groundwater Monitoring
Estimated Construction Cost: $ 42,000
Estimated Net Annual O&M Cost: $ 30,000
Net Present Worth: $ 218,000
This alternative would act as a source control action by
minimizing the infiltration of precipitation into the
contaminated soil, thus reducing the amount of leachate. Prior
to capping, backfill would be required to establish a 3 to 5
percent grade over the area. The backfill material can be
obtained at the center and would be spread and compacted in 6-
inch lifts to provide uniform support for the cap and to minimize
settlement. Upon completion of the cap construction the area
would be vegetated to decrease erosion and promote the
development of a stable surface. Maintenance and monitoring of
1 The cost associated with the construction, annual O&M and
the net present worth are included in the ongoing interim remedial
action for groundwater at Area H. There would be no additional
cost associated with soil remediation at Site 32.
14
-------
this alternative would include inspection of the cap to detect
signs of erosion or settlement. Since the contamination would
still be present at the site, groundwater monitoring would still
have to be performed downgradient of the site.
ALTERNATIVE 4: Excavation and Off-Site Disposal
Estimated Construction Cost: $ 104,000
Estimated Net Annual O&M Cost: $ 0
Net Present Worth: $ 104,000
This alternative includes the removal of all TPHC contaminated
soil exceeding the NJDEPE SCC from the site through excavation.
Approximately 250 cubic yards would be excavated from Site 32.
Soil excavation could be accomplished with a backhoe' which could
easily excavate to the depths required. Once removed, the soil
would be disposed of at a landfill as industrial waste or at a
hazardous waste landfill, depending upon its petroleum
hydrocarbon content. The contaminated soils would either be
containerized or bulk transported depending on contamination
levels and quantity.
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: $ 40,000
Estimated Net Annual O&M Cost: $ 0
Net Present Worth: $ 40,000
This alternative includes the excavation of all TPHC contaminated
soil from the site exceeding NJDEPE SCC as described in
Alternative 4. Once the waste is removed, it would be analyzed
for petroleum content and other contaminants. All portions of
the soil that have a petroleum concentration greater than 30,000
ppm or exhibit 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 soil would be sent to a permitted
off-base plant for reuse in the making of asphalt. Shipping of
the petroleum contaminated soil would be done as described in
Alternative 4.
Following excavation sampling would be performed to determine
that the site meets remediation goals. Clean fill would be
applied as necessary.
ALTERNATIVE 6; Excavation and On-Site Recycling and Off-Site
15
-------
Disposal
Estimated Construction Cost: $ 39,000
Estimated Net Annual O&M Cost: $ 0
Net Present Worth: $ 39,000
This alternative includes the excavation described in Alternative
4. Once the waste is removed it would be analyzed for petroleum
content and other contaminants. All portions of the soil that
contain petroleum concentration greater than 30,000 ppm or
exhibit 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 soil containing petroleum
concentrations below 30,000 ppm and not having RCRA hazardous
waste characteristics in making asphalt for the bases 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: $ 84,000
Estimated Net Annual O&M Cost: $ 0
Net Present Worth: $ 84,000
This alternative includes the excavation of all contaminated soil
from the site as described in Alternative 4. Once the waste is
removed it would be thermally treated. Thermal treatment
involves the permanent removal of contaminants by exposure to
elevated temperatures, typically greater than 1000°F, which
causes the volatilization, combustion, and destruction of the
contaminants. This process has been proven effective in treating
soils containing contaminants such as those present at Site 32.
Three waste streams would be generated by this technology: solids
(ash and treated soils) from the treatment system, water from the
air pollution control (APC) system and air emissions. Solids
would remain on-site and, after testing, may be used as fill
material. Liquid waste from the APC system that contains
substances such as caustic high 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 would be done to determine that the
site meets remediation goals. The site would be leveled with
clean fill as needed.
16
-------
ALTERNATIVE 8; Excavation and On-Site Recycling/On-Site Thermal
Treatment
Estimated Construction Cost: $ 141,000
Estimated Net Annual O&M Cost: $ 0
Net Present Worth: $ 141,000
This alternative includes the excavation of all contaminated soil
from the site as described in Alternative 4. Once the soil is
removed it would be analyzed for total petroleum hydrocarbon and
hazardous waste characteristics. All portions of the soil that
are unsuitable 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 soil in making asphalt for the
bases roads.
Following excavation, sampling would be performed to determine
that the site meets RAOs. Clean fill would be applied as
necessary.
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 ARARs evaluates the ability of an alternative
to meet Federal Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate
Requirements (ARARs), and/or provides the basis for a waiver.
3. Long Term Effectiveness and Permanence evaluates the ability
of an alternative to provide long term protection of human health
and the environment and the magnitude of residual risk posed by
untreated wastes or treatment residuals.
4. Reduction of Toxicity. Mobility or Volume through Treatment
evaluates an alternatives ability to reduce risks through
treatment technology.
5. Short Term Effectiveness addresses the cleanup time frame and
any adverse impacts posed by the alternative during construction
and implementation phase until cleanup goals are achieved.
6. Implementabilitv is an evaluation of the technical
feasibility, administrative feasibility and availability of
services and material required to implement the alternatives.
17
-------
7. Cost includes an evaluation of capitol costs, annual operation
and maintenance (O&M) costs, and net present worth costs.
8. Agency Acceptance indicates whether the EPA and State concurs
with, opposes or has no comment on the preferred alternative in
terms of technical and administrative issues and concerns.
9. Community Acceptance evaluates the issues and concerns the
public may have regarding the alternatives. Acceptance will be
gauged in the Record of Decision (ROD) following a review of
public comment on the RI/FFS and Proposed Plan.
This section will compare all of the alternatives for Site 32
using the nine criteria outlined above.
ALTERNATIVE 1: NO ACTION
ALTERNATIVE 2: GROUNDWATER MONITORING
ALTERNATIVE 3: CAPPING AND GROUNDWATER 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
Overall Protection of Human Health
Alternatives 1 and 2 provide no protection to human health or the
environment. Alternative 3 would reduce risk at the site but by
leaving the contaminated soil at the site, threats to groundwater
would still exist and the alternative would not meet Remedial
Action Objectives (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.
Compliance with ARARs
Alternatives 1 and 2 would allow for the continued leaching of
soil contaminants into groundwater above chemical specific ARARs.
Alternative 3 would comply with ARARs but residual source areas
would remain. Alternative 4 through 8 would comply with ARARs.
Long Term Effectiveness and Permanence
Alternatives 1 and 2 offer neither effectiveness or permanence.
18
-------
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 site.
Reduction of Toxicity. 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.
Short term Effectiveness
Alternatives 1 and 2 do not change any short-term risks that are
presently at the sites. Alternative 3 could be implemented
within 2 years time therefore rapidly reducing risk at the site.
Alternatives 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 could also be implemented quickly
(under 1 year), however with minor problems over the short term
by possible release of contaminants during the process.
Implementability
Alternative 2 is easily implemented and would require a short
set-up time frame. Alternative 3 is easily implementable only if
there is no water flow into the location where the capping would
take place. Otherwise damming of the flow or tunneling below
tracks 3 and 4 would need to be implemented. In addition, grading
the site would be difficult due to its present elevation compared
with its surroundings (it is a ditch). Alternative 4, 5, and 6
still requires a diversionary ditch yet are much more readily
implemented and would require about 1 year to complete.
Alternatives 7 and 8 also require a diversionary ditch and may
require slightly more time to complete due to the removal of the
asphalt cover.
Cost
Alternative 2 only has costs associated 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
19
-------
meet all RAOs. Alternatives to be considered for all sites have
been developed and presented in the section below:
ALTERNATIVE NO.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
COST OF
ALTERNATIVE
$0
$0
$218,000
$104,000
$40,000
$39,000
$84,000
$141,000
State Acceptance
The State of New Jersey concurs with the selected remedial
action.
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 the
site, has selected Alternative 6 which is Excavation and a
combination of On-Site Recycling and Off-Site Disposal.
Implementation of this alternative entails excavation and removal
of all contaminated soils above EPA risk based levels or New
Jersey soil cleanup criteria and the removal of soils heavily
contaminated with TPHC that may be contributing to groundwater
contamination.
By excavating the contaminated soils, the possibility of further
bioaccumulation of contaminants in aquatic receptors thereby
reducing ecological and human health risks associated with the
sites. Few short-term impacts exist for the preferred
alternative.
Excavated soils will be sorted based on prior sampling results
20
-------
and each pile will be tested for TPHC and RCRA hazardous waste
characteristics. Soil 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 soils 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 soils which would produce the worst case
air emission scenario. The soils would be batched at the maximum
usage rate for one hour. The soils, air emissions and 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 selected
remedial action since no long term changes in the environment are
being made.
The selected remedial action is the most cost effective of all
the remedial technologies for the site.
This selected remedial action provides excellent protection to
human health and the environment by removing all sources of
contamination above EPA risk based levels and NJDEPE Soil Cleanup
Criteria. Remedial Action Objectives will be met once these
cleanup levels have been achieved.
For Site 32, the cleanup time frame would be approximately one
year once the selected remedial action is initiated.
For Site 32, excavation of the area of contamination would be
accomplished using a backhoe. The excavated soil would be staged
in small mounds and each mound would then be sampled according to
EPA's guidelines.
The selected remedial action utilizes permanent solutions and
treats the majority of the contaminated soils from the site
satisfying the statutory preference for treatment as a remedy.
It should be noted that this Record of Decision addresses only
21
-------
Site 32 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. Groundwater contamination at this site has been
addressed by an interim remedial action for groundwater as
outlined in a Record of Decision which was signed in February
1991. A groundwater recovery and treatment facility is currently
operating in Area H.
22
-------
VICINfTY MAP
SCALE: 1 • IB UUS
LOCATION PLAN
XUE r - vxxr-o
Figure 1
.NAVAL AIR WARFARE CENTER, LAKEHURST
AND NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES
-------
Table 1: Contaminants of concern for Soils at Site 32
Contaminant :
Ethylbenzene
Toluene
Xylenes (Total)
Dibenzofuran
Flouranthene
Fluorene
2 -Methy Inaphthal ene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Cadmium
Mercury
Total Petroleum
Hydrocarbons (TPHC)
Level in-situ
mg/kg
0.8
0.38
210.0
0.91
0.39
0.42
27.0
24.0
0.07
6
1.7
0.2
84,000
PRGs
mg/kg
380, 000 (H)
290,000(H)
NR
NL
81, 800 (H)
81,800(H)
81,000(H)
NL
NL
1,020(H,C)
260(H)
NR
sec
mg/kg
100
500
10
NL
500
100
NL
100
NL
100
270
10,000
1) H-PRG for Hazard Index
2) C-PRG for Carcinogenic
3) NL-Not listed in literature review
4) NR-Not relevant
-------
Former 1,500
Underground Storage Tank
area To be Excavated
Surficial
Staining ^.i—,
Track 4 [/
---. • "H /
Indicates Dry Well
Area of Excavatio
Site 32 Area' H
RSTS Launch End
NAWGADLKE
------- |