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

-------