United States Office of
Environmental Protection Emergency and
Agency Remedial Response
EPA/ROD/R02-93/217
September 1993
PB94-963830
&EPA Superfund
Record of Decision
Naval Air Engineering Center
(Operable Unit 23), NJ
-------
50272-101
REPORT DOCUMENTATION
PAGE
1. REPORT NO.
EPA/ROD/R02-93/217
3. Recipient's Accession No.
THIe and Subtitle
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION
Naval Air Engineering Center (Operable Unit 23), NJ
Seventeenth Remedial Action
5. Report Date
09/27/93
7. Aulhor(s)
8. Performing Organization Rapt. No.
9. Performing Organization Name and Address
10 Project Task/Work Unit No.
11. Contract(C) or Grant(G) No.
(C)
(G)
12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Address
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
13. Type of Report & Period Covered
800/800
14.
15. Supplementary Not**
PB94-963830
16. Abstract (Limit: 200 words)
The Naval Air Engineering Center (Operable Unit 23) site is part of the 7,400-acre
Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division located in Lakehurst, Ocean County, New
Jersey, approximately 14 miles inland from the Atlantic Ocean. Land use in the area is
mixed undeveloped woodlands, open areas, and light commercial and industrial areas,
with the closest residential area, the Borough of Lakehurst, located southeast of the
facil-ity. 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 the NAEC, use municipal wells to obtain their
drinking water supply. Some private wells exist, but these are used primarily for
irrigation purposes. In 1916, Eddystone Chemical Company leased the property to
develop an experimental firing range for testing chemical artillery shells. In 1919,
the U.S. Navy assumed control of the property, and it formally was commissioned Naval
Air Station (NAS) Lakehurst in 1921. In 1974, the NAEC was moved from the Naval Base
in Philadelphia to NAS Lakehurst. The NAEC's mission is to conduct research,
development, engineering, testing and systems integration, limited production, and
procurement for aircraft and airborne weapons systems. Historically, various
operations at NAEC have 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 23), NJ
Seventeenth Remedial Action
Contaminated Medium: soil
Key Contaminants: VOCs (xylenes), other organics (PAHs)
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
19
22. Price
(See ANSI-Z39.18)
SM Instructions on Rtverse
OPTIONAL FORM 272 (4-77)
(Formerly NTIS-35)
" nent of Commerce
(Formerly
Departme
-------
EPA/ROD/R02-93/217
Naval Air Engineering Center (Operable Unit 23) , NJ
Seventeenth Remedial Action
Abstract (Continued)
disposal of hazardous substances. During the operational period of the facility, there
have been reported and suspected releases of these substances into the environment. The
Department of Defense's Installation Restoration Program (IRP) has identified 44
potentially-contaminated sites at NAEC, 16 of which have warranted further investigation
to assess potential impacts. IRP investigations have revealed potential soil and ground
water contamination at Site 13; which includes the former Fuel Farm No. 125 and a former
tank farm located in Area B on the north site of Hangar 1. From 1930 until their removal
in 1989, Fuel Farm 125 contained five 10,000-gallon underground fuel tanks which contained
AVGAS, JP-4, JP-5, and MOGAS. The tanks had one end extended into an observation pit.
From 1930 to 1960, condensate from each fuel tank was drained daily, via the extension,
into the observation pit. It is estimated that approximately 450 gallons of waste fluid,
containing water and fuel, were drained from each tank per year. In 1969, approximately
1,500 to 2,000 gallons of MOGAS were spilled. Most of the MOGAS was recovered, however an
unknown amount drained into the sump at the bottom of the observation pit. Numerous other
minor spills were reported; however, no estimate of the volume is available. These spills
and the condensate disposal in the observation pit released organic contamination to soil
and ground water at Site 13. The other tank farm accidentally was discovered in 1984
during installation of a steam pipe. It consisted of four 10,000-gallon gasoline tanks,
which subsequently were removed, and the area was backfilled. The dates of operation of
this tank farm are unavailable. Investigations of the site revealed organic-contaminated
soil and ground water in the vicinity of Site 13. Ground water contamination at this site
currently is being remediated through an interim action documented in a 1992 ROD.
Previous 1991 and 1992 RODs addressed OUs 1, 2, 3, and 4, and 5, 6, and 7, respectively.
This ROD addresses soil contamination at Site 13, as OU23. Other 1993 RODs address OUs 8,
9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 22. The primary contaminants of concern affecting the soil
are VOCs, including xylenes; and other organics, including PAHs.
The" selected remedial action for this site includes treating approximately 700 yd3 "of
contaminated soil by installing and operating a soil vapor extraction system and treating
the extracted vapor using carbon adsorption. The estimated present worth cost of this
remedial action is $256,000, which includes an estimated annual O&M cost of $30,000 for 5
years.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS:
Chemical-specific cleanup goals were not provided; however, the soil will be treated to
meet the State's soil cleanup criteria (SCO or risk-based levels, whichever is more
stringent.
-------
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 1995:
1996:
1997:
1998:
1999:
Present worth:
September 27, 1993
Soil Vapor Extraction
OU-23 (Site 13)
112,000
December, 1994
$30,000 (.909)
$30,000 (.826)
$30,000 (.751)
$30,000 (.683)
$30,000 (.621)
$256,000
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, light fraction
Soil
Spills
700 cubic yards
-------
LAKEHURST
RECORD OF DECISION
FOR
SITE 13 -
NAVAL AIR WARFARE CENTER
AIRCRAFT DIVISION
LAKEHURST, NEW JERSEY
September 14, 1993
93-09-10
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
DECLARATION
SITE 13
NAVAL AIR WARFARE CENTER
AIRCRAFT DIVISION
LAKEHURST, NEW JERSEY
FACILITY NAME AND LOCATION
Naval Air Warfare Center
Aircraft Division
Lakehurst, New Jersey 08733
STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE
This decision document presents the selected remedial action for
one site (Site 13) , 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 In-Situ Vapor Extraction as the selected
remedy for Site 13. Implementation of this alternative entails
extracting contaminants from the subsurface soils in vapor phase.
The subsurface soil will be remediated to risk based levels,and
the New Jersey soil clean up criteria.
It should be noted that this Record of Decision (ROD) addresses
only Site 13 and it is not intended to represent the remedial
action status for other areas of concern at NAWCADLKE. Each
site's conditions and concerns have been or will be addressed in
separate RODs. Ground water contamination at this site is
currently being remediated through an interim action documented
in a previous ROD.
-------
DECLARATION STATEMENT
The United States Department of the Navy has determined that
remedial action is necessary at Site 13 to ensure protection of
human health and the environment.
This Record of Decision addresses Site 13. Other areas of
concern at NAWCADLKE have been or will be the subject of separate
Records of Decision. The location of this Site within NAWCADLKE
is shown in Figures 1 and 2.
3
Captain Leroy Farr (Date)
Commanding Officer
Naval Air Warfare Center
Aircraft Division
Lakehurst, New Jersey
With the concurrence of:
William Jy/Musayn^*/ P.E. (Date)
Acting Regional ^etministrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region II
-------
SITE DESCRIPTION
NAWCADLKE is located in Jackson and Manchester Townships, Ocean
County, New Jersey, approximately 14 miles inland from the
Atlantic Ocean (Figure 1). NAWCADLKE is approximately 7,400
acres and is bordered by Route 547 to the east, the Fort Dix
Military Reservation to the west, woodland to the north (portions
of which are within Colliers 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 J.90 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 adj acent to the western portion of NAWCADLKE. A
Remedial Investigation (RI) was recommended to confirm or deny
the existence of the suspected contamination and to quantify the
extent of any problems which may exist. Following further review
of available data by Navy personnel, it was decided that 42 of
the 44 sites should be included in the Remedial Investigation.
Two potentially contaminated sites, an ordnance site (Site 41)
and an Advanced Underground Storage Facility (Site 43), were
deleted from the Remedial Investigation because they had already
-------
been addressed. In 1987 NAWCADLKE was designated as a National
Priorities List (NPL) or Superfund site under the .federal
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability
Act (CERCLA).
STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
NJDEPE Soil Cleanup Criteria (SCC) were utilized as guidance for
the cleanup of soil at Site 13. 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. A brief discussion
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 Endangennent 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
NAWCADLKE facility which are determined to require active
remediation.
-------
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 contamination is present at
levels of concern for impact to groundwater at Site 13.
It should be noted that the NJDEPE Soil Cleanup Criteria (SCC),
as well as EPA risk based NAWCADLKE Preliminary Remediation Goals
(PRGs) , were utilized as guidance for the cleanup of soil at Site
13. NJDEPE SCC includes cleanup levels for residential and non-
residential direct contact scenarios, and separate impact to
groundwater soil cleanup criteria for the protection of
groundwater.
Site 13: Site Description and Background
Site 13 includes the former Fuel Farm No. 125 and a former tank
farm located in Area B on the north side of Hangar 1 (Figure 2) .
Fuel Farm 125 originally contained five 10,000 gallon underground
fuel tanks which contained AVGAS, JP-4, JP-5, and MOGAS from
1930 until their removal in April 1989. This removal was
performed under the direction of NAWCADLKE. The tanks were
filled via an underground fuel line running from the railroad
tracks on the east side of Hangar 1. Fuel lines also ran from
the fuel farm into Hangar 1 so that blimps could be fueled inside
the hangar. The tanks had one end extended into an observation
pit. From 1930 until approximately I960, it was common practice
to drain the condensate from each fuel tank daily, into the
observation pit. This produced an estimated 1.25 gallons of
waste fluid, which consisted of water and fuel, per day. It is
-------
estimated that 450 gallons of waste fluid was drained from each
of the five tanks each year.
In 1969, a major MOGAS spill occurred in which approximately
1,500 to 2,000 gallons were released. According to personnel
interviewed, most of the MOGAS was recovered. The spill was
contained in the observation pit, although an unknown amount
drained into the sump at the pit bottom. Numerous other minor
spills have been reported at the site, however no estimate of
the volume is available.
A second tank farm was located fifty yards to the east of fuel
farm 125. This tank farm consisted of four 10,000 gallon
gasoline tanks. These tanks were found by accident in 1984
during a steam pipe installation. The tanks were subsequently
removed and the area was back filled.
Site 13: Summary of Remedial Investigation
During Phase II of the RI, two soil borings were drilled at the
site and two samples were collected from each boring. In both
borings, targeted contaminants were only detected in the deeper
samples (S13-2 and S13-4) collected from a depth of 32 to 34
feet, and not in the shallower samples (S13-1 and S13-3)
collected at 4 to 9 feet (Figure 4). This result is consistent
with the fact that the Volume of space that was occupied by the
tanks in both the fuel farm 125 and the tank farm were back
filled with clean soil.
Soil contamination in both borings consisted of high levels of
VOCs and minimal levels of PAHs. High levels of petroleum
hydrocarbons were only detected in S13-2. During the Phase III
of the RI, two additional soil borings were drilled at the site,
SB13-2, at the location of the former fuel farm 125, and SB13-1,
approximately 150 feet east of SB13-2 (Figure 4), at the location
of the former tank farm. The borings were drilled to depths of
32 and 40 feet and two samples were collected for analysis from
each boring. The results from the analysis of boring SB13-2
confirmed the findings of Phase II, that the soil at Site 13 is
contaminated with fuel components, at depths from about 25 feet
below the ground surface to below the water table, at the
location of fuel farm 125. The findings of SB13-1 did not
confirm the presence of contamination at the former tank farm.
The soil above approximately 25 feet does not appear to be
contaminated. The lateral extent of the deep soil contamination
appears to be limited to the immediate area of former Fuel Farm
125.
-------
HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
The Proposed Plan for Site 13 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 June 30, 1993 at the Manchester
Branch of the Ocean County Library at 7:00 p.m. At this meeting
representatives from the Navy, USEPA and NJDEPE were available to
answer questions about the Site, and the preferred alternative.
A list of attendees is attached to this Record of Decision as
Appendix A. Comments received and responses provided during the
public hearing are included in the Responsiveness Summary, which
is part of this Record of Decision. No written comments were
received during the public comment period.. A transcript of the
meeting is available as part of the Administrative Record.
The decision document presents the selected action (i.e., In Situ
Vapor Extraction) for Site 13 of NAWCADLKE in Ocean County, New
Jersey, chosen in accordance with CERCLA, as amended by SARA and,
to the extent practicable, the National Contingency Plan (NCP).
The decision for the Site is based on the information contained
in the Administrative Record, which is available for public
review at the Ocean County Library, 101 Washington Street, Toms
River, New Jersey.
SCOPE AND ROLE OF RESPONSE ACTION
The FFS for Site 13 evaluates several possible alternatives for
remediating the sites and this ROD identifies the Preferred
Alternative for remediating the Site contamination. The Remedial
Action Objective (RAO) of the remedy is to prevent further
contamination of the ground water from leaching of the
contaminants from the soil.
SUMMARIES OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS
The location of the site within NAWCADLKE is shown in Figures 1
and 2. A map of the site is provided in Figure 3.
Summaries of the chemicals detected in the analyses of soil
samples collected at the site are provided in Table 1.
-------
The results of the Remedial Investigations, including the
analytical data summarized in Table 1, indicate that soil
conditions at Site 13 pose no unacceptable risks to human health
and/or the environment. However in order to expedite remediation
of the ground water in Area B, vapor extraction will be completed
at this Site.
SUMMARY OF SITE ENDANGERMENT ASSESSMENT
The Endangerment Assessment (EA) process was performed at
NAWCADLKE to assess the potential current" and future human health
risks and potential environmental impacts posed by contaminated
soil detected during past site investigations.
This is a summary of the Endangerment Assessment for.Site 13
(Former Fuel Farm No. 125 and former tank farm). The assessment
of this site was conducted using all available data generated
during previous remedial investigations (RI). The media that
was the subject of the site specific EA is soil.
For Site 13 the EA Findings Summary is a summary of the complete
assessment) which is documented in the Endangerment Assessment.
The EA is part of the NAWCADLKE Administrative Record.
CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN
For soil, the organic COCs include total petroleum hydrocarbons
(TPHC), xylene, ethylbenzene, and naphthalene. For inorganic
parameters, there were no COCs.
LAND USE AND EXPOSURE ASSUMPTIONS
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 effected by mechanisms that include
direct contact, inhalation and ingestion.
For soil, data used to calculate human health risk for Site 13
were the most contaminated samples which were, collected at depths
of 25 to 40 feet below the ground surface. For this reason, ::soil
exposure scenarios involving direct exposure to surface soil are
not applicable. Rather, a hypothetical construction scenario
involving direct exposure to subsurface soils was assumed.
HUMAN HEALTH RISK AND HAZARD FINDINGS
For soil, the results of the EA for contaminated subsurface soil
at Site 13 indicate that hazards resulting from noncarcinogens
are not elevated for any chemical above EPA's hazard index
criteria value of 1.0. The hazard index values have a single
contaminant maximum of 0.00197. Similarly, the overall site soil
hazard represented by the hazard quotient or sum of the chemical-
specific hazard indices also does not exceed a value of 1.0. The
10
-------
overall hazard quotient estimated for soil is 0.00368. None of
the soil contaminants of concern at this site are currently
classified by EPA as potential human carcinogens and hence,
carcinogenic risk estimates are not presented for the site soils.
These risk findings are qualified by noting the absence of EPA
approved indices of toxicity for TPHC. For this reason, TPHC
results do not contribute to the overall noncarcinogenic hazards
posed by the site. Nevertheless, TPHC concentrations of up to
8,700 mg/kg (parts per million) were detected in soil at the
site.
SUMMARY
In summary, the EA demonstrates that direct contact with
subsurface soil at Site 13 does not pose elevated carcinogenic
risks or noncarcinogenic hazards. However, in consideration of
the fact that contaminants detected in soil represent a
continuing source of BTEX contamination in groundwater at, and
down gradient from Site 13, it is prudent to further consider the
need for treatment of soils at Site 13.
Summary of Remedial Alternatives
Under CERCLA the remedial 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 wherever possible.
All of the remedial alternatives applicable to Site 13, as
discussed in more detail in the FFS, are summarized below.
ALTERNATIVE 1; No Action
Estimated Construction Cost: $ 0
Estimated Net O&M Cost: $ 0
This alternative involves no additional actions at the site. No
contaminants would be treated or contained and the existing
health and environmental risks would remain. No further action
to control the potential release of contaminants into the ground
water would be taken.
ALTERNATIVE 2; Groundwater Monitoring
Estimated Construction Cost: $0
Estimated Net O&M Cost: $60,000 per year
Estimated Present Worth: $630,000
This alternative would provide no reduction in risk to human
health or the environment or reduce contamination at the site.
Long term monitoring of the site can .be accomplished by using
existing monitoring wells utilizing personnel skilled in
sampling. This alternative would allow the natural attenuation
11
-------
process to continue. The monitoring would be performed quarterly
for thirty years. If contamination levels started to rise an
active form of remediation may have to be pursued.
ALTERNATIVE 3; Soil Capping and Ground Water Monitoring
Estimated Construction Cost: $58,000-178,000
Estimated Net O&M Cost: $60,000-70,000
Estimated Present Worth: $664,000
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 fill would be required to establish a 3 to 5 percent
grade over the area. The fill material can be obtained at the
center and would be spread and compacted with 6-inch lifts to
provide uniform support for the cap and to minimize settlement.
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 down gradient
of the site. The monitoring would be performed quarterly for
thirty years.
ALTERNATIVE 4; In-Situ Vitrification
Estimated Construction Cost: $475,000
Estimated Net O&M Cost: $75,000
Estimated Present Worth: $1,244,000
This alternative consists of a technology which is a permanent
control of the contamination source by destroying or immobilizing
contaminants, and generating a stable crystalline mass using
electricity. The volume to be vitrified for this site would be
126,000 cubic feet. The selected electrode spacing would be the
standard 15 foot by 15 foot square array and the electrodes would
be put in using standard drilling techniques.
An off-gas hood would provide confinement for any gases that are
released during the vitrification process. The system
requirements would depend on the size of the site and the
moisture content of the soil. The two factors that can affect
power draw during vitrification are buried metals and water.
High soil moisture content significantly increases the power
needed for this process. Neither of these two conditions exist
at Site 13. •
It is estimated that the run time for the process would be 1500
hours or roughly 63 days. This estimate is based on soil
moisture of 5 percent, low heat loss through the surface and a 15
foot electrode spacing.
12
-------
Following vitrification the area would have to be filled with
clean soil due to the 25 to 30 percent volume loss due to the
increase of the density of the mass from the process. In
addition, ground water monitoring would have to be accomplished
to ensure the site would pose no future risks.
ALTERNATIVE 5; In-Situ Vapor Extraction
Estimated Construction Cost: $112,000
Estimated Net O&M Cost: $30,000
Estimated Present Worth: $256,000
This alternative reduces the volume of contaminants by extracting
the volatile and semi volatile organic compounds from the soil.
A secondary benefit of this alternative is the enhanced
biodegradation of contaminants which typically occurs when
additional oxygen is made available to subsurface microorganisms.
The volume of the contaminants will be reduced because they are
removed and collected. The mobility of the contaminants in the
soil is also reduced by their removal. The vapor extraction
process is as follows: Extraction wells are placed in. a grid
type pattern throughout the site. Air vacuum pumps are attached
to the wells. Air is drawn through the soil into the wells by
the pumps. The discharge of air is blown through activated
carbon filters to draw off the contaminants. Operation of this
system should remove the' contaminants within two years based upon
estimates for other sites. Maintenance for this system will be
basic pump maintenance and changing of the carbon filters as
required. Vapor analysis will be conducted, to determine when
the contamination has been reduced to acceptable levels.
ALTERNATE 6; In-Situ Bioremediation
Estimated Construction Cost: $45,000
Estimated Net O&M Cost: $71,000
Estimated Present Worth: $786,000
This alternative produces a reduction of volume of contaminants
by the introduction of micro-organisms which use the volatile and
semi-volatile compounds for sustenance. The bacteria would
survive on the pollution compounds alone, producing harmless
waste products, such as water and C02. The process is started by
installing several injection wells. The microbes are then
injected into the ground along with a nutrient rich formula. The
microbes are monitored by periodic sampling to ensure their
continued growth The remediation effort could be enhance by
adding a recovery system and continually drawing the microbes
through the soil.
13
-------
Evaluation of Alternatives
During the detailed evaluation of remedial alternatives, each
alternative is assessed against the nine evaluation criteria,
which are summarized below.
Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment draws on
the assessments conducted under the other evaluation criteria and
considers how the alternative addresses site risks through
treatment, engineering, or institutional controls.
Compliance with ARARs evaluates the ability of an alternative to
meet Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs),
and/or provides the basis for a waiver.
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 waste or treatment residuals.
Reduction of Toxicitv. Mobility or Volume Through Treatment
evaluates an alternatives, ability to reduce risks through
treatment technology.
Short Term Effectiveness addresses the cleanup time frame and any
adverse impacts posed by the alternative during the construction
and implementation phase until cleanup goals are achieved.
Implementabilitv is an evaluation of the technical feasibility,
administrative feasibility and availability of services and
material required to implement the alternatives.
Cost .includes an evaluation of capital costs, annual operation
and maintenance (O&M) costs, and net present worth costs.
Agency Acceptance indicates the EPA's and States response to the
alternatives in terms of technical and administrative issues and
concerns.
Community Acceptance indicates the response of the community to
the alternatives.
This section will compare all of the alternatives for Site 13
using the nine criteria outlined above.
ALTERNATIVE 1: NO ACTION
ALTERNATIVE 2: GROUND WATER MONITORING
ALTERNATIVE 3: CAPPING AND GROUND WATER MONITORING
ALTERNATIVE 4: IN-SITU VITRIFICATION
ALTERNATIVE 5: IN-SITU VAPOR EXTRACTION
ALTERNATIVE 6: IN-SITU BIOREMEDIATION
14
-------
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
since contaminated soil would be left in place, there would still
be some risk at the site. Alternatives 4 and 5 and 6 provide the
most protection because they are in-situ alternatives which
eliminate or immobilize the contamination at the site.
Compliance with ARARs
Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 will not reduce the concentration of
contaminants leaching into ground water and therefore will not
aid in reducing contamination concentration in groundwater to
below chemical specific groundwater ARARs. Alternatives 4, 5,
and 6 will achieve chemical specific groundwater protection
ARARs.
Long Term Effectiveness and Permanence
Alternatives 1 and 2 offer no effectiveness or permanence.
Alternative 3 would provide protection. Alternatives 4 and 5 and
6 provide permanent long term protection by totally removing, or
destroying all contaminants at the site.
Reduction of Toxicitv, or Volume through Treatment
Alternatives 1 and 2 do not actively reduce toxicity, or volume
of contamination. Alternative 3 has no effect on toxicity or
volume. Alternative 4 reduces toxicity, and volume by destroying
all contaminants. Alternative 5 reduces volume, and toxicity by
removing the contaminants from the soil in a short amount of
time. Alternative 6 is fair at reducing toxicity and volume of
contaminants.
Short Term Effectiveness
Alternatives 1 and 2 do not change any short term risks that are
presently at the site. Alternative 3 could be implemented rather
quickly therefore rapidly reducing risk at the site. Alternative
4 would take some time to implement (1-2 years) therefore having
a low effectiveness over the short term. Alternative 5 could be
implemented quickly and the reduction of risk would start
concurrently with the start of the system. Alternative 6 would
take the longest (possibly years) to show some reduction in risks
associated with the contamination and therefore would not have
any short term effective.
Implementabilitv
Alternative 2 is easily implemented and would require short set-
up time. Alternative 3 would take approximately six months to
implement. Alternative 4 is also a viable alternative, however
the time required to complete the remediation will be
approximately one to two years. Alternative 4 would require
pilot studies. Alternative 5 is easily implemented and
remediation results will begin to occur immediately. Alternate 6
15
-------
is implementable however the time required for remediation to be
completed may be prohibitive.
Cost
Alternative 5 has the least expense and will remove
contamination. Alternatives 2 and 3 have medium cost but do not
remove contamination and must be operated over a thirty year
life. Alternative 6 has medium cost and removes contamination.
Alternative 4 has high cost but will remediate the site.
Alternative 1: $0
Alternative 2: $630,000
Alternative 3: $665,000
Alternative 4: $1,243,000
Alternative 5: $256,000
Alternative 6: $786,000
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
written comments were submitted for this Site.
THE SELECTED ALTERNATIVE
The selected action for Site 13 is alternative number 5, In-Situ
Vapor Extraction. Implementing this alternative would entail
installing several vapor extraction wells at the site. A system
of manifolded piping would connect the wells to a vacuum pump.
The vacuum pump would draw air through the soil and into the
wells. This air, which would now contain the-volatile organic
compounds present in the soil, would be passed through a carbon
adsorption unit to remove the volatile compounds.
Based upon the information provided in the RI and FFS , soils at
Site 13 do not pose a significant threat to human health and the
environment. However, contamination present in the soil may be a
continuing source of groundwater contamination if it is not
remediated. Groundwater contamination at Site 13 is currently
being remediated through an action initiated in late summer,
1993. Through the selected remedial action of vapor extraction,
the compounds presently impacting ground water quality would be
removed, enhancing the effectiveness of the Areas A & B
groundwater treatment system, thereby eliminating public health
concerns.
16
-------
The emissions from the vacuum extraction unit would be addressed
by a carbon adsorption treatment system.
This alternative is expected to satisfy the Remedial Action
Objective. This alternative will take approximately one year to
complete installation. The expected time required to remove the
contamination by this method is approximately two years. The
operation of the vapor extraction system will be continued until
no further significant contaminant level reduction is achieved.
This alternative is the most cost effective of all of the action
alternatives.
17
------- |