PB94-963839
EPA/ROD/R02-94/234
January 1995
EPA Superfund
Record of Decision:
Naval Air Engineering Center
(O.U.17) (Site 29), Lakehurst, NJ
9/26/1994
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
FOR
SITE 29 SOIL
NAVAL AIR ENGINEERING STATION
LAKEHURST, NEW JERSEY
August 9, 1994
93-09-iO
-------
ROD FACT SHEET
SITE
Name
Location/State
EPA Region
HRS Score (date):
NAES Lakehurst
Lakehurst, New Jersey
II
49.48 (July 22, 1987)
ROD
Date Signed:
Remedy:
Operating Unit Number:
Capital cost:
Construction Completion:
0 & M in 1993:
1994:
1995:
1996:
Present worth:
September 26,
No Action
OU-17
No Cost
N/A
N/A
N/A
1994
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
Landfill - construction debris, .metal
Soil and debris
From on-base construction/demolition
1-2 acres, buried (to grade)
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
DECLARATION
SITE 29 SOIL
NAVAL AIR ENGINEERING STATION
LAKEHURST, NEW JERSEY
FACILITY NAME AND LOCATION
Naval Air Engineering Station
Lakehurst, New Jersey 08733
STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE
This decision document presents the selected remedial action-'for
soil .at Site 29 (Original Base Landfill (Inactive)), located at
.the Naval Air Engineering Station (NAVAIRENGSTA). 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 Deputy Administrator, and the Commissioner of the New
Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) concur with
the selected remedy.
DESCRIPTION OF THE SELECTED REMEDY
Based on the effectiveness of a prior buried drum removal action,
the United States Department of the Navy, the lead agency for
this site, has selected the "No Further Action" alternative for
Site 29. Groundwater and sediment contamination at this site are
currently being remediated through actions documented in previous
Records .of Decision.
-------
DECLARATION STATEMENT
The United States Department of the Navy and the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency have determined that no '.
additional remedial action is necessary at Site 29 to ensure
protection of human health and the environment. The removal
action implemented previously at the site, during which -drums and
surrounding soil containing petroleum hydrocarbons and solvents
were removed, eliminating the need to conduct additional actions.
This Record of Decision concerns Site 29. The location of this
site within NAVAIRENGSTA is shown in Figure 1. Other areas of
concern at NAVAIRENGSTA have been or will be the subject of
separate Records of Decision. :;:
Captain Leroy Farr (Date)
Commanding Officer
Naval Air Engineering Station
Lakehurst, New Jersey
With the concurrence of:
William ^/flu^mskd/, P.E.
Deputy RegiOTra.1 Adi^inistrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region II
-------
SITE DESCRIPTION
NAVAIRENGSTA is located in Jackson and Manchester Townships,
Ocean County, New Jersey, approximately 14 miles inland from the
Atlantic Ocean (Figure 1). NAVAIRENGSTA is approximately 7/400
acres and is bordered by Route 547 to the east, the Fort Dix
Military Reservation to the west, woodland to the north (portions
of which are within Colliers Mill Wildlife Management Area),
Lakehurst Borough and woodland, including the Manchester Wildlife
Management Area, to the south. NAVAIRENGSTA and the surrounding
area are located within the Pinelands National Reserve, the most
extensive undeveloped land tract of the Middle Atlantic Seaboard.
The groundwater ar NAVAIRENGSTA is currently classified by NJDEP
as Class I-PL (Pinelands)..
NAVAIRENGSTA lies within the Outer Coastal P.Iain physiographic
province, which is characterized by gently rolling terrain with
minimal relief. Surface elevations within NAVAIRENGSTA 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. . .
NAVAIRENGSTA 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
NAVAIRENGSTA 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 NAVAIRENGSTA. 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
NAVAIRENGSTA before joining Toms River. Storm drainage from
NAVAIRENGSTA 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 bas-e> .is. a
relatively small stream which feeds the Manapaqua Brook.
-Th-r-ee-small, water—bodies-are-located—i-n -t-T-i«=> wg-g-hprn portion_..nf__
NAVAIRENGSTA: Bass Lake, Clubhouse Lake, and Pickerel Pond.
NAVAIRENGSTA 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 NAVAIRENGSTA that
3.
-------
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 NAVAIRENGSTA 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 NAVAIRENGSTA are commercial cranberry bogs, the drainage from
which crosses the southeast section of NAVAIRENGSTA 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 NAVAIRENGSTA, 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 NAVAIRENGSTA. 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 mil~e north of
NAVAIRENGSTA, which supplies water to a very small population
(probably less than 1,000) in the immediate vicinity of
NAVAIRENGSTA.
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 p_n__June_ 28, 1921.
"TKe Naval Air Engineerinlg~~C'e1nCeT'^NAE"C")~wa¥~moved" from th~e Naval
Base, Philadelphia to Lakehurst in December 1974. At that time,
NAEC.became the-host activity, thus, the new name NAEC. NAEC was
later renamed the Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division
Lakehurst in January 1992 and the Naval Air Engineering Station
in. January 1994 due to a reorganization within the Department of
the Navy.
-------
Currently, NAVAIRENGSTA'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.
NAVAIRENGSTA 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 catapult and arrest
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 Station
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 NAVAIRENGSTA. The Bomarc
Site is the responsibility of the U.S. Air Force and is located
--on- Fo-r-fe—Dix—adjacent...to .the. westerj^^Qr±.ipn_.of_JNAVAJ.REJ^G_S_TA_._ 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 NAVAIRENGSTA was designated as a .
National Priorities List (NPL) or Superfund site under the
federal Comprehensive. Environmental Response, Compensation and
Liability Act (CERCLA).
STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
NJDEP Soil Cleanup Criteria (SCC) were utilized as guidance to
determine the need for cleanup of soil at Site 29. NJDEP SCC
include soil cleanup levels for residential and non-residential
direct contact scenarios and separate Impact to Grouridwater Soil
Cleanup Criteria for the protection of groundwater.
The NJDEP SCC are not promulgated requirements; "however,' these""
criteria are considered an appropriate screening method for
assessing the risk to human health and the environment posed by
contaminants found in soil. Therefore, NAVAIRENGSTA has been
determining the need for site cleanup based upon NJDEP SCC as
well as EPA risk-based levels and other factors, such as'aiding.
the effectiveness and duration of existing groundwater
remediation systems.
The soil cleanup criteria provide health based levels for
residential use, non-residential use and impact to groundwater
(subsurface) land uses and/or impacts. NAVAIRENGSTA has assumed
a non-residential land use since its mission and facilities
support Naval aviation. The Impact to Groundwater Soil Cleanup
Criteria have been utilized since the existing landfill soil cap
prevents direct contact exposure and due to the shallow
groundwater table.at the site and our location in the Pinelands
National Preserve (Class I-PL (Pinelands)).
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS
Phase I of the RI was conducted from 1985 to 1987 to confirm or
deny the existence of contamination at reportedly contaminated
sites identified during previous studies and to develop
recommendations for future (Phase II) investigations. The
results of the Phase I RI were presented in a.report issued in
1987. "
Phase II of the RI was initiated in the summer of 1988 to perform.
the following:
1. Confirm the results of the Phase.I study, and in particular
the presence or absence of, contamination.
2. Identify the location of cbhtam±n'atibh.
3. Assess the potential for the migration of contamination.
4. Identify the sources of contamination.
5. Support a Focused Feasibility Study (FFS) and final action at
the site.
Following the Phase II investigation-which was issued in 1990,
Phase III of the RI commenced .in the summer of 19'91. The purpose
.of Phase III was to:
"1. Confirm the presence or absence of contamination where
previous investigations were not definitive.
2. Delineate -the lateral and vertical extent of contamination
where contamination was found.
3. Collect and evaluate all data for each site to determine
risk. . . -
4. Assess the need for remedial action.
The RI for Site 29 included additional investigations and removal
actions following the discovery of buried drums at the site in
April of 1993. The purpose of the investigations..was to:
1. Assess the extent of the buried drums within the former
landfill at Site 29..
2. Unearth-and remove buried drums and associated contaminated
soil for proper disposal.
3. Assess the adequacy of drum and soil removal through
collection of post-excavation soil samples.
The Navy determined in January 1994, subsequent to completion"of
the buried drum removal program, that it had sufficient data
based on the RI, and EA to propose the "No Further Action"
alternative for soil at Site 29. '
The individual site history and summary of past remedial and
removal activities at Site 29 are provided in the following
section. • . -.
-------
Site 29: Original Base Landfill (Inactive)
Site Description and Background;
Site 29 covers an estimated 20-acre area which was once occupied
by the original creek bed- and marsh land of the Ridgeway Branch
(Figure 2). The northern limit of the landfill is defined by a
steep embankment, approximately 6 to 10 feet high, adjacent to
the wetlands. Based on a review of a topographical map of the
NAVAIRENGSTA dated 1919, it is postulated that the southern limit
is generally defined by the former southern boundary of the
wetlands. The landfill extends as far east as the eastern edge
of the Construction Battalion (CB) Compound and as far west as
Building 191. The water table in the area is shallow, ranging
from approximately .6 to 12. feet, and groundwater flow is to the
north/northeast, toward the wetlands and Ridgeway Branch.
The landfill was established and operated by. the Public Works
Department from the early 1920s until 1960. Following its
closure in 1960, the site was graded, covered with natural soil
and seeded. A portion of the site is presently covered with
vegetation which helps to minimize erosion.
Potential sources of contamination include: Metal scrap and oily
turnings from the metal and plumbing shops, asbestos., thousands
of fluorescent light tubes, paint thinner and solvent cans from
the paint shop, a 55-gallon drum of hydrofluoric acid from the •
blimp fuel tank clean out procedure, scrap from aircraft wrecks,
ash from the station incinerator,;, mercury, magnesium, benzol
solvents, vehicles, blimp gondolas, and contaminated fuels. It
was also reported that aircraft dials containing radium dials may
have been disposed of at the site.
Summary of Remedial Investigations:
During the Phase II Investigation, five test pits (S29-1 through
S29-5) were excavated to verify, the existence of landfill wastes
and potential soil contamination. The pits were dug to depths
ranging from 4.5 to 5.0 feet and one soil sample was collected
from each pit. No significant contamination (above NJDEP SCC)
was detected in any of the test pits and no debris from the ;•
former-landfill was discovered. Eight additional test pits were
excavated to depths ranging from 2 to 5 feet in conjunction with
investigations of Sites 14 (Old Fire Fighting School) and 37
.. .(FQrmer.,.F.uel._Disppsall and Drum Storage...Area) which are located
near the borders of Site 29. Debris including scrap metal and
wooden 2x4s were discovered only at test pit no. S14-6 located
within 50 feet of the northern boundary of the landfill. Debris
was also encountered along the northern boundary during the
installation of monitoring wells AE, AF, GU and FA.
During the Phase II Investigation, two rounds of sediment samples
8
-------
were also collected to determine the impact of the landfill
wastes on the wetlands located to the north. Sediment samples
were collected from: 1) the outfall of the drainage swale which
discharges to the Ridgeway Branch; 2) the groundwater seep near
the wetlands downgradient from Site 14; and 3) the Ridgeway
Branch at the Intersection of Route 547. Analysis of these
samples revealed sediment contamination to be limited to the
groundwater seep downgradient from the former fire 'fighting pits
located.at Site 14. Eight additional sediment samples collected
during.the Phase III Investigation confirmed these findings.
Sediment contamination .in this area is considered to be a direct
result of the former practices of the former .fire fighting pits.
During heavy rains, the pits would overflow, spreading soil
contaminated with total petroleum hydrocarbons.(TPHC), volatile
organic compounds (VOCs), and semi-volatile organic compounds
(SVOCs) north into the area of the groundwater seep as shown on
Figure 2. Although some wetlands contamination may be attributed
to the Original Base Landfill (Site 29), for streamlining
purposes, all sediment and surface water contamination which .
exists in the wetlands located along the northern boundary of
Site 29 has been addressed as "Site 14 sediment and surface
water". Sediment and surface water contamination in this area
has already been addressed in a Record of Decision (ROD) for Site
14 and specific cleanup levels will be determined through further
ecological assessments to be performed pursuant to that ROD.
In addition to this data, groundwater samples from wells within
Site 29 were monitored for landfill indicator parameters for the
years 1982, 1983, 1984, 1988 and 1991. The landfill indicator
parameters were chloride, nitrate, sulfate and fluoride. The
data from this monitoring program is presented in the Table 2.1.
Table 2.1 Landfill Leachat.e Data
Landfill Indicator
Parameters (mg/1)
Chloride: Range
Mean
Nitrite: Range
Mean
Sulfate: Range
Mean
Fluoride: Range
Mean
Year
..1982
5-19
12.1
.12-5.8
1.6
5-15
10.1
.01-0.1
0.07
1983
6-24
10.8--
.1-3.2
0.7
8-16
12.3
.01-0.1
0.07
1984
...6-32.8
13.4
.1-2.5
0.6
8-50
21.3
0.1
0. 1
1988
0-35.6
10.3
0-3810
437
0-17.9
10.4
0
0
' 1991
NA
NA
0-1.9
0.6
NA
NA"
NA
NA
-------
The monitoring of landfill indicator parameters at Site 29
revealed generally consistent, low concentrations of the four
chemicals. The exception to this general characterization is
the elevated level of nitrate detected in some wells during the
second round samples of the Phase II Investigation in 1988.
Because this was the only sampling period that recorded elevated
levels of nitrate and additional sampling performed in 1988 and
1991 did not confirm the high levels, these results are
considered erroneous.
The generally low levels of landfill indicator parameters
detected and minimal variation in concentration since 1982
suggests that the period of maximum biological activity took
place prior to 1982. This information coupled with the lack of
chlorinated organic compounds in monitoring wells, exclusive of
Site 14, indicate that waste materials buried within .the landfill
are not contributing significantly to the groundwater
contamination.
Summary of Drum Investigation and Removal" Actions;
On April 14, 1992, several 55-gallon drums were discovered along
the northern boundary of the site during the installation of an
influent pipe for the Areas A and B pump and treat facility. One
partially buried drum was observed to be approximately half full
of a dark mixture. A sample taken from this drum revealed the
liquid to contain cadmium, lead, benzene, and '2-methylphenol. On
April 15, 1992, a contractor hit and punctured" a second buried
drum containing heavy oil from this same area. A sample from
this drum was found to contain barium, cadmium, lead, benzene, 2-
methylphenol, and 4-methylphenol.
On May 7, 1992, a team from the NAVAIRENGSTA Environmental Branch
removed more than 40 empty drums, some on the surface, some
partially buried, along the tree line that defines the northern
boundary of'the site. ..The majority of drums removed-were in very
poor condition -and were completely -rusted, crushed and full of
holes. Two of these drums were observed to contain an oily/water
product. Samples were taken from both drums and analyzed for
metals. The results of the analysis revealed low levels of
barium, cadmium and lead. " ;
A geophysical survey was conducted in September 1992 to delineate
the extent of buried drums at the site. The survey was conducted
over the entire accessible area (approximately 18 acres) using an
electron magnetometer and ground penetrating radar to identify
any subsurface magnetic anomalies (e.g.: buried drums and
magnetic landfill wastes). Results of the geophysical survey
were presented in a Dames & Moore report titled "Geophysical
Investigation Report - Volume II", dated November 6, 1992. The
report results revealed anomalous data zones subdivided into four
categories (high, moderate high, moderate, and low) which
10
-------
indicated relative amounts, and/or closeness to the surface, Qf..
buried metal. The findings from the survey revealed that the
extent of the landfill correlates closely with the.limit of the
wetlands as they were found to exist on a 1919 topographic -map of
the site.
Additional investigations were conducted to assess the extent of
buried drums due to the fact that the geophysical data did not
distinguish buried drums from other buried metal. A field
investigation was conducted from December 1992 through January
1993 which consisted of the excavation of 54 test pits (Figure
3). The test pit locations were selected based on the
geophysical data. The dimensions of the test pits ranged from 10
to 20 feet in length and 4 to 10 feet in width. The pits were
generally excavated either to the depth of the water table or the
depth at. which drums were first encountered. Detailed results of
the investigation were presented in a Dames & .Moore report titled
"Subsurface (Test Pit) Investigation Report and Work Plan for
Additional Actions", dated April 19, 1993. A summary of the
findings are as follows:
1) Drums accounted for only a very minor percentage of metallic
material encountered in the test pits. Man-made materials
encountered in the pits included, but were not limited to: .metal.
cans, metal matting and grating, aircraft and refrigerator parts,-
gas cylinders, metal fencing, pipes, steel cable, reinforcing
bars, concrete, glass jars, bricks, tires, nylon arresting gear
straps, and miscellaneous wooden debris.
2) A total of 24 drums/drum fragments were excavated in 11 of the
54 test pits. The drums were encountered primarily in.test pits
excavated along the northern edge (embankment) within the high
and moderate high anomalous zones identified in the geophysical
survey. All drums and drum fragments encountered were severely
crushed and deteriorated.
3) Soil samples were collected from seven of the pits (T-13, -36,
-37, -38, -44, -45, and -47) in which the presence of drums,
Organic Vapor Monitor (OVM) readings or visual observations
indicated possible contamination. Soil samples were analyzed -.for
Base/Neutral Organic Compounds, TPHC, Toxicity Characteristic"
Leachate Procedure (TCLP) metals, and TCLP pesticides. Sample
analysis revealed elevated levels of TPHC and lead in two test
pits (T-37 & T-44) and elevated levels of TPHC and Base/Neutral
Organic Compounds' in a" third test pit (T-47) .
4) A groundwater sample was collected from one test pit (T-38)
where the groundwater encountered was a green color resembling
antifreeze and analyzed for Priority Pollutant Metals. Analysis
of the sample revealed elevated levels of antimony, cadmium,
chromium, and lead.
11
-------
5) In addition to Rencountering drums, evidence of local
.contamination was noted at Test Pit 1.5 where a layer of fuel- '
saturated wood chips and free product on the groundwater was
observed.
A source removal effort was conducted from April 21 through June
18, 1993. The objective of the effort was to'remove all buried
drums and associated contaminated soil from the site and to
excavate additional soil at three locations (T-15, -37, and -38)
where no drums were encountered but the previous test pit
investigation had -revealed evidence of soil contamination. Drum
removal took place in five general areas of the site, indicated
on Figure (3) as Areas I, II, III, IV, and V. Buried drums were
unearthed, removed and staged for future testing, classification,
and disposal off-base. A .total o.f 417 buried drums were
encountered and removed from the site. The condition of the
drums was generally poor. Approximately 150 of the drums
contained liquids that appeared to range from groundwater to
possible solvent and petroleum products. All drums containing
liquids were overpacked and staged at the NAVAIRENGSTA Hazardous
Waste Transfer Facility for sampling, classification, and
disposal in accordance with all federal, state and local
regulations.. Also, during the soil- excavation and drum removal,
a total of 26 soil samples and one groundwater sample were
collected and analyzed for the parameters indicated in the Drum
Removal Area discussions below. The majority of the soil samples
collected were post-excavation samples obtained from the lower
periphery of excavations 'for assessing whether all potentially
contaminated soil had been removed. In addition, a. limited
number of biased samples were collected of excavated soil
exhibiting visual evidence of contamination. Detailed results of
the removal effort were presented in a Dames & Moore Report
titled "Drum Removal/Soil Investigation Report". A summary of
the findings are as follows:
1) Drum -Removal Area I: Drum Removal Area I is located in the
area of Test Pits 13, 14, and 16. A total of 65 drums, and
approximately 500 cubic yards of soil was excavated and staged on
site. Most of the drums removed from this area were severely
deteriorated, crushed and empty. A small number of these drums
were partially "filled With liquid. Liquids observed in these
drums included groundwater, a clear fluid (possibly solvent), and
a dark liquid that appeared to be a petroleum product. All drums
containing liquid were overpacked for future sampling and
classification. Six post-excavation samples (PE-1 through PE-6)
were collected and analyzed for VOCs, SVOCs, Target Analyte List
(TAL) metals, and TPHC. No contaminants were found to exceed the
NJDEP Impact to Groundwater SCC. Sample results are listed in
Table 2.2.
2) Drum Removal Area II: .Drum Removal Area II is located in the
area near Test Pits 45 and 46. A total of 44 drums and
12
-------
approximately 400 cubic yards of soil was excavated and staged on
site. Most of the drums removed from this area were severely
deteriorated, crushed and empty. The few drums excavated that
contained liquids were overpacked for future sampling and -
classification. Three post-excavation samples (PE-7 thr'ough PE-
9) were collected and analyzed for VOCs, SVOCs, TAL metals, and
TPHC. No contaminants were found to exceed the NJDEP Impact to
Groundwater SCC. Sample results are listed in Table 2.2.
3) Drum Removal Area III: Drum Removal Area III is located in
the area near Test-Pit 44. A total of 280 drums and
approximately 700 cubic yards of soil was excavated and staged at
the site. Although the majority of drums removed- from -this area •
were partially crushed, very few were severely deteriorated and
many were inta'ct and contained liquid. The types of liquid
observed included groundwater, clear liquid (possibly solvent),
and various petroleum products. Several drums had markings that
indicated the contents to be lubricating oil, hydraulic; fluid,
arid'gear oil. All drums excavated from the area that contained
liquid were overpacked for future sampling and.classification.
Floating fuel product was present on the groundwater as a result
of the excavation. After completion of the drum removal, the
free product was removed from the bottom of the pit. This.was
.accomplished by dredging the bottom of the pit after it drie'd out
following a natural lowering of the water table. Five post-
excavation samples (PE-iO through PE-14) Were collected and
'analyzed for VOCs, SVOCs, TAL metals, and TPHC. Analysis of one
sample (PE-13) revealed a 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane concentration
of 5.50 mg/kg which exceeded the NJDEP Impact to Groundwater SCC
along with elevated TPHC (11,000 mg/kg). An additional 40 cubic
yards of soil was excavated from this area and two additional
samples (29-SS1 and 29-SS2) were collected. Analysis of these
samples revealed that all contamination exceeding- the NJDEP
Impact to Groundwater SCC was removed from the area. The results
from samples PE-10-, PE--11, PE-12. PE-14, 29-SS1, and 29-SS2 are
listed in Table 2.2. The results from sample PE-13 have been
omitted from this table since the soil surrounding the sample was
excavated and staged for future treatment. '
4) Drum Removal Area IV: Drum Removal Area IV is located in -the
area near Test Pit 15. A total of 21 drums and approximately 180
cubic yards of soil was excavated at the site. Most of the drums
removed from this area were severely deteriorated, crushed and
empty. The few drums excavated that contained liquid were
overpacked for future sampling and classification. Four post-
excavation samples (PE-15 through PE-18) were collected and
analyzed for VOCs, 'SVOCs,''TAL metals, and TPHC. No contaminants
were found to exceed the NJDEP Impact to Groundwater SCC. Sample
results are listed in Table 2.2. In addition to the drums
removed from this area, approximately 3 cubic yards of
contaminated soil containing fuel saturated wood chips identified
in the prior test pit investigation was removed, stockpiled on an
13 """
-------
impermeable plastic liner and covered for future testing,
classification, and disposal off-base.
5) Drum Removal Area V: Drum Removal Area V is located in. the
area near Test Pit 47. A total of 7 drums and approximately 110
cubic yards of soil was excavated and staged on site. Most of
the drums removed from this area were severely deteriorated,
crushed and empty. The few drums excavated that contained liquid
were overpacked for future sampling and classification. Two
post-excavation samples '(PE-19 and PE-20) were collected and
analyzed for VOCs, SVOCs, TAL metals, and TPHC. No. contaminants
were found to-exceed NJDEP Impact to groundwater SCC. Sample •
results are listed in Table 2.2.
6) Soil Excavation at Test Pit 37: Soil excavation was conducted
at Test Pit 37 due to the fact that samples taken during.the
prior test pit investigation revealed the presence of TPHC and
lead at elevated levels. A total of approximately 45 cubic yards
of soil was excavated, stockpiled on an impermeable plastic
liner, and covered for future testing, classification and
potential disposal off-base. Soil was excavated, to the water
table at a depth of approximately eight feet below the ground
surface. A silver sheen and grayish-green discoloration of the
groundwater was noted at this location. One post-excavation
sample (TP-37) was collected from the sidewall of the pit
immediately above the groundwater and analyzed for VOCs, SVOCs,
metals and TPHC. No contaminants were found to exceed.the NJDEP
Impact to Groundwater SCC. The sample results for TP-37 are
listed in Table 2.3. An additional biased sample of a silvery
material was collected from the stockpiled soil for TCLP testing
(VOCs, SVOCs and metals). Barium was the only contaminant
detected in this sample at a concentration of 1.3 mg/1 which is
well below the 100 mg/1 regulatory limit.
7) Soil Excavation at Test Pit No. 38: Soil excavation was
conducted at Test Pit 38 due to the fact that during the prior
test pit investigation Organic Vapor Monitor (OVM) readings of up
to 20 parts per million (ppm) were recorded from soil within the
pit. A total of approximately 5 cubic yards of soil was
excavated, stockpiled on an impermeable plastic liner and covered
for future testing, classification and potential disposal off-
base. Soil was excavated to the water table at a depth of
approximately eight feet below the ground surface. Groundwater
at.this location was bright green in color, due possibly to-some
solidified yellow/green paint which was present in the soil. One
post-excavation sample (TP-38) was collected from the sidewall of
the pit immediately above the groundwater. Analysis of the
sample revealed a concentration of benzene" (2.0 mg/kg) exceeding
the NJDEP Impact to groundwater SCC of 1.0 mg/kg. Sample results
for TP-33 are listed in Table 2.3. Two biased TCLP samples were
collected from the stockpiled soil. One (TP'-38A) contained the
yellow/green paint, and the second contained a crystalline blue
14
-------
powder-like material. The biased TCLP sample of solidified paint
also contained an elevated concentration of benzene (6.1 mg/1).
In addition, one groundwater sample (GW-38) was collected from
the bottom of the open pit and analyzed for VOCs and ethylene
glycol. Analysis of the groundwater sample revealed
concentrations of benzene (1400 ug/1) and 1, 2-dichloroethene that
exceed NJDEP Groundwater. Quality Standards for Class I-PL
(Pinelands) . • ....
On August 24, 1993, monitoring well KB was installed to the
immediate north-west of Test Pit 38 to assess groundwater quality
in this area. One sample was collected and analyzed for VOCs,
SVOCs, pesticides, PCBs, and TAL metals. Both filtered and
unfiltered samples were collected for the metal analyses. The
results revealed three VOCs, acetone (10.0 ug/1), 1,1-
dichloroethane (3.0 ug/1), and 1,1,1-trichloroethane (5.0 ug/1),
as shown in Table 2.4. The Class I-PL (Pinelands) criteria was
exceeded by 1,1,1-trichloroethane; however, it should be noted
that 1,1,1-trichloroethane was also detected in the laboratory
method blank and field blank, and may be attributable to
laboratory or field contamination of.the sample." One SVOC,
bis (2-ethylhexyl)phthalate was detected at a concentration of
13.0 ug/1; however, this compound is commonly detected in
environmental samples and is likely to be attributable to a
laboratory .or sampling-artifact. Several metals.were detected in
both the filtered and unfiltered samples that exceed both NJDEP
Class I-PL standards and NAVAIRENGSTA average calculated
background concentrations. The elevated metals concentrations
are likely to be attributable to the high metal-content of the
landfill in the area where well KB is located. The primary metal
of concern from the sample is lead which was detected at 234 ug/1
in the unfiltered sample. However, in the filtered sample, the
lead concentration was only 8.9 ug/1 (below NJDEP-Class I-PL
standards). No pesticides or PCB's'were detected in the sample.
Well KB will- be monitored for metals and VOCs on a quarterly
basis as part of the ongoing Areas A.and B groundwater remedial
action.
On November 15, 1993,.an additional 120 cubic yards of soil and
landfill debris was excavated from the area of Test Pit 38 and
staged on an impermeable liner. During the excavation,
approximately 10 pounds of paint was observed and collected for
disposal as hazardous waste. On January 5, 1994, three post-
excavation soil samples (29-SS3 through 29-SS5) were collected
from the lower periphery of the pit and analyzed for VOCs, B/Ns,
'•TAL metals, and TPHC. Analysis of these samples revealed that
all contamination exceeding the NJDEP Impact to Groundwater SCC
had been removed.from the area. Sample results are listed in
Table 2.3. '..'"'
Following completion of the source removal effort, 21 composite
samples were collected from the staged soil piles and analyzed
15
-------
for Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) hazardous
waste parameters and TPHC. The sample results revealed generally
low levels of TPHC and no exceedences of either RCRA or NJDEP
hazardous waste limits. Soil -piles containing..less than 1,000
rag/kg TPHC were returned to the excavated areas of the site as
fill. Soil piles exceeding 1,000 mg/kg TPHC will be recycled on-
site-.into cold mix asphalt.
Soil recycling will be performed using a portable cold mix
bituminous stabilization plant. The plant will mix the petroleum
contaminated soil with stone aggregate and a water based, asphalt
emulsion. The asphalt material produced will be sampled for TCLP
hazardous waste parameters .to ensure it is not a source of
leachable hazardous contaminants. Approximately 1,100 cubic.
yards of contaminated soil excavated from Site 29 Drum Removal
Areas II and III will be 'recycled.
The asphalt produced by this process will be utilized at the
NAVAIRENGSTA for the paving of existing gravel roads and parking
lots. The roads and parking lots will consists of a sub-base
course, a .base course of cold mix asphalt made from the
contaminated soil, and a final cap of hot mix asphalt for the
wearing course. . Soil recycl-ing and road construction operations
are scheduled to begin in July 1994 and be completed by September
1994.
16
-------
Table 2.2 Post Excavation Soil Samples: Drum Disposal Areas (1993)
VOC's (mg/kg)
Ethylbenzene
1 , 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
Trichlbr'dethene
Xylenes
SVOC's (mg/kq)
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b) f I uoranthene
Benzo(k)f luoranthene
Benzo(ghi )perylene
Butylbenzylphthalate
Carbazole .
Chrysene
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene
2-Me thy I naphthalene
Uaphthalene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Hetals (mg/kg)
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryl I ium
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Magnesium •
Manganese
Selenium
Silver
Vanadium
Zinc
TPHC (mg/kg)
NJDEPE
SCC(a)
100
1
1
500
1
10
100
NL
500 .
500
100
500
500
500
100
NL
500
500
500
500
500
NL
100
NL
'' " 500 '
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
10,000*
Drum
Area I.
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND-.002J
• ND
ND
ND
ND-.082J
.048J-.39
.05J-.57
.069J-.98
.063J-.80
ND-.650J
ND-.055J
ND-.16J
.068J-.97
ND-.16J
.063J-1.7
ND
ND-.640
ND
ND-.043J
ND-1.50
.094J-1.5
ND-11.9J
.61J-1.8J
11. 9-59. 2J
ND
1.3J-12.1
3.9-22.5
41.6J-651J
57-495
ND-61.0
ND
ND-2.3
7.8-68.6
47.9J-561
109-1150
Drum
Area II
ND
ND
ND-.002J
ND
ND
ND
ND-.100J
ND-.240J
ND-.590J
.046J-1.9
ND-1.50
ND-1.70
ND-1.90
ND-.950
ND
ND-.270
.068J-2.20
ND-.330J.
.08J-4.2
ND-.340J .
ND-.930
ND-.280J
ND-.210J
.051J-4.40
.12J-4.6
ND
.50J-2.2J
8.5-35.0
ND-2.8
.99J-2.6
11.0-87.8
34.1-179J
80.2-1170
15.4-156
ND
ND
12.3-15.3
46.3J-256
483-3410
Drum
Area III.
ND
ND
ND-.003J
ND-.006J
' ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND. .
ND
ND
ND
' ND
ND
ND
ND
.. .ND
ND
ND
.33J-1.5J
ND-3.3
ND-.13
ND
'3.1-10.8
.94-16.4
ND-36B
2.4-10.5
ND-0.37B
ND
2.5-25.1
3.1B-897J
ND-3880
Drum
Area IV
NO
ND
ND
ND-.002J
ND-.002J
ND-.003J
ND-.081J
ND
ND-.210J
ND-.470
ND-.380
ND-.440
ND-.32J
ND-.11J
ND-.16J
ND-.11J
ND-.490
ND
ND-.910
ND-.082J
ND-.2SOJ
ND
ND-.031J
ND-.800
ND-.590
ND
.68J-1.4J
4.1-29.8
.08-. 17
ND-1.6
3.8-11.5
3.7-46.7
6K9-238
10.7-24.4
ND
ND
5.3-13.0
12.7B-88.5
ND-212
Drum
Area V
ND •
ND
ND
ND-.002J .
ND
ND-.002J
ND
ND
ND
.057J-.086J
.054J-.077J
.061J-.091J
.066J-.086J
ND
ND
.Hw
•-074J-.11J
' ND
.12J-.17J
ND
ND
ND .
ND
'.064J-.10J
.09J-.13J
ND
ND-.57J
8.9-12.8
.08-. 12
ND-1.5
3.1-5.0
8.8-19.4-
8.2-42.4
12.2-18.4
ND
ND
5.4-7.9
52.3J-67.5J
ND-287
(a) - NJDEPE Impact to Groundwater Soil Cleanup Cri.teria.
ill • Hot listed in the literature reviewed.
ND • Indicates compound was analyzed for but not detected.
J • Indicates an estimated value due to the sample quantisation limit.
B - Indicates the analyte was also found in the laboratory method blank,'field (rinsate) blank, or trip blank.
* - The value listed is not an Impact to Groundwater number but is considered by the NJDEPE to be a total
organic "Cap" value.
-------
Table 2.3 Post Excavation Soil Samples: Test Pits 37 and 38 (1993 and 1994)'
VOC's (mg/kg)
Benzene
Ethylbenzene
1 , 1 , 2, 2-Tetrach loroethane
Tet rach I oroethene
Toluene
Trichloroethene
Xylenes
SVOC's (mg/kq)
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)f luoranthene
Benzo(k)f luoranthene
BenzoCghi )perylene
Butylbenzylph thai ate
Carbazole
Chrysene
Dibenz(a,h) anthracene
F luoranthene.
Fluorene
Indenod ,2,3-c,d)pyrene
2-Methylnaphthalene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Metals (mg/kg}
Antimony - -
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Magnesium
Selenium
Silver
Vanadium
. Zinc
TPHC (mg/kg)
NJDEPE
SCC(a)
1
100
1
' 1
500
1
10
100
ML
500
500
100
500
500
500
100
NL
. 500
500
500
500
500
NL
100
NL
500
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
NL
10,000*
TP-37
NO
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND .
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.050J
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.059J
ND
6.2J
48. 5J
0.05
3.5J
21.2
187J
339
ND
10. U
ND
503J
186
TP-38
2
0.017
ND
ND
30
ND
0.052
ND
ND
ND
0.200J
0.160J
0.150J
0.150J
0.140J
ND
ND
0.170J
'NO
0.220J
ND
0.150J
ND •
ND
0.084J
0.280J
ND
0.99J
36. 7 J
0.06
0.98J
14.6
93. 3 J
926
ND
ND
11.4
82. 2 J
3410
29-SS3
(1/5/94)
ND
ND
ND
ND
N.D.
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.085J
0.077J
0.076J
0.089J
0.044J
ND
ND
0.097J
ND
0.130J
ND
0.048J
ND
ND
0.067J
0.160J
ND
1.5B
12.1
• 0.07B
1.3
9.7
33.2
187 B
0.27B
ND
13.0
52.3
83
29-SS4
(1/5/94)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.200J
0.150J
0.170J
0.170J
0.076J
ND
ND
0.200J
ND
0.320J
ND
0.087J
ND
ND
0.062J
" 0.420J
ND
1.5B
10.3
ND
ND
5.3
97.4
127B
0.26B
• ND
7.9B
244
140
29-SS5
(1/5/94)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND'
ND
ND
ND
0.044J
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.060J
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.054J
ND
1.78
20.9
0.07B
2.6,
14.3
68.7
3760
ND
ND
13.6
62.6
100
(a) - NJDEPE Impact to Groundwater Soil Cleanup Criteria.
NL - Not listed in the literature reviewed.
ND - Indicates compound was analyzed for but not detected.
J - Indicates an estimated value due to the sample quantitation limit.
B - Indicates the analyte was also found in the laboratory method blank, field (rinsate) blank, or trip blank,
* - The value listed is not an Impact to Groundwater number but is considered by the NJDEPE to be a total
organic "Cap" value.
-------
Table 2.4 Groundwater Sample: Monitoring Well KB (1993)
VOC'S
Acetone
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
Total VOCs (a)
Total Est. VOC TICs
SVOC'S -
Bis(2-Ethylhexy[)phthalate
Total SVOCs (a) . .'
Total Est. SVOC TICs
Hetals
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt- '
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
NJDEPE
Class I-PL
(ug/l)
NL
HI
1
30 '
200
20
8
200
20
2
NL
10
NL • • ••
1000
100
10
NL
6
0.5
10
NL
10
2
400
10
NL
30
Well
KB
(ug/l)
Filtered
126 B
29 .'1 UJ
2.2 UJ
46.1
1.4. U
2.6 UJ.
19600
8.8 U
• .3 U
21.7 J. .
765
8.9
5060
95.4
0.2 U
13.8 U
3940 J
1.8 UJ
4.9 UJ
38800
. 1.3. UJ
3.4 U
82:6 J
10 JB
3 J
5 JB
3 J
ND.
13
ND
23 J
Unf iltered
21700
29.1 UJ
7.2 UJ
168
1.4
71.9
24600
•204
10.1
389
40700 .
234
6470
276
0.2 U
58.7
4210 B
2.2 J
• 30.8 J
38800
1.3 UJ
61 J
908
Field
Blank
(ug/l)
9 J
'10 U
1 J
1 J
• ND
10 U
ND
NO
49.8
29.1 UJ
2.2 U
4.5 U
1.4 U
2.6 UJ
49.4
8.8 U
3.0 U
5.1 U
39.6 U
1.9 U
41 U
2.1 U
0.2 U
13.8 U
105
1.8 U
5.1 J
383
1.3 U
3.4 U
8.0 J
Trip
Blank
(ug/l)
7 J
10 U
10 U
ND
ND
10 U
ND
ND
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA '
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Notes:
NL - Not listed in the literature reviewed.
NA - Not analyzed.
U • Undetected (preceded by the method detection limit).
J - Concentration may be unreliable due to deficiencies identified during data
(a) - Total concentration provided does not include compounds whose presence is
to laboratory and/or field contamination.
validation/review.
believed to be attributable
-------
SUMMARY OF SITE ENDANGERMENT
In October 1992, an overall Endangerment Assessment (EA) for
NAVAIRENGSTA was conducted; however, it was completed prior to
the Site 29 drum investigations. As a result,- the EA focu.ses on
the soil around the landfill and not the potential current and
future environmental impacts posed by the buried drums and
associated contaminated soil. The EA for Site 29 was later
revised to include all available data generated during the drum
investigations and subsequent removal actions.
The EA summary for Site 29 discusses (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 rioncarcinogenic 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.
The EA summary for Site 29 does not address groundwater.
Groundwater contamination which exists beneath the site is being
addressed through a separate interim remedial action. A Record
of Decision for that action was signed on March 16, 1992 and
requires pumping and treatment of the groundwater in"Areas A & B.
Groundwater remediation in this area began on October 18, 1993.
Removal actions were performed at Site 29 to aid the
'effectiveness and duration of the groundwater remediation system
and it is believed that the remaining soil is not a significant
continuing source of groundwater contamination.
The EA summary for Site 29 also does not address sediment and
surface water. Sediment and surface water located to the
immediate north of the site has already been addressed in a ROD
for Site 14. Specific cleanup levels will be addressed through
further ecological assessments to be performed pursuant to that
ROD.
More complete EA information for Site 29 can be found in Volume
VI of the Phase III RI, which is available as part of the
NAVAIRENGSTA Administrative Record.
SITE 29: ORIGINAL BASE LANDFILL (INACTIVE)
This is a summary of the Endangerment Assessment (EA) findings
for Site 29. Soil is the media of interest at this site.
CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN
For soil, contaminants of concern included -several volatile
organic compounds that included aromatics such as ethylbenzene,
benzene, toluene, and xylenes, a large number of semi-volatile
20
-------
organic compounds composed primarily of polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons, and metals that include antimony, arsenic, barium,
beryllium, cadmium, chromium, lead, magnesium, manganese, .
selenium, silver, vanadium, and zinc.
LAND USE AND EXPOSURE ASSUMPTIONS
For soil a light industrial land use-was assumed, by which direct
exposure to contaminated soil could occur via incidental .
ingestion and inhalation.
HUMAN HEALTH. AND ECOLOGICAL RISK AND HAZARD FINDINGS
For soil, hazards resulting from noncarcinogens are not elevated
for any chemical above EPA's hazard index criteria value of 1.0.
The hazard index values ranged from a minimum of 6.90 x 10"9 for .
toluene to a maximum of 1.19 x 10'2ifor cadmium. Similarly, the
overall site-soil "hazard represented by the hazard quotient ot
'sum of the'chemical-specific hazard indices also does not exceed
a value of 1.0. The overall hazard quotient estimated for soil
is 2.87 x 10'2.
The risk estimate values posed by carcinogenic chemicals detected
within the soil ranged .from a minimum of 3.86 x 10"12 for
trichloroethene to a maximum of 2.82 x 10"6'for chrysene. The'
total risk estimated for Site 29 soil is 1.76 x 10 . While this
level is above the EPA's point of departure of 10"6, it is within
. the EPA's acceptable risk range of 10"* to 10"6.
ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
Site 29 covers an estimated 20-acre area, a large portion of
which is occupied by the CB Compound and the DRMO. storage areas.
This area is not considered a wildlife habitat and no endangered
species were fpund. t,o exist at or near the site." The
contamination which exists in the-wetlands directly adjacent to
the Site 29 Landfill is being addressed through further
ecological assessments associated with the Record of Decision for
Site 14. • .
SUMMARY
In summary, the EA demonstrates that soil surrounding the
landfill at Site 29 does not pose a risk to human health or the
environment in excess of EPA acceptable levels. Through removal
actions, all potential sources of contamination in the form of
buried drums were excavated and all contaminated soil exceeding
the NJDEP Impact to Groundwater SCC has been removed from the
site. The existing landfill soil cap further protects against
direct contact with any residual soil contaminants and the
operational groundwater treatment system greatly reduces the
potential for contaminant migration.
21
-------
HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
On April 27 and 28, 1994, a newspaper notification inviting
public comment on the Proposed Plan for soil at Site 29 appeared
in The Asburv Park Press and The Ocean County Observer. The
comment period was held from May 1, 1994 to June 1, 1994. The
newspaper notification also identified the Ocean County Library
as the location of the Information Repository. .
A Public Meeting was held on May 11, 1994. At this meeting
representatives from the Navy, USEPA and NJDEP were available to
answer questions about the Site and the "No Further Action"
determination. A list of attendees is attached to this Record of
Decision as Appendix A. Comments received and responses provided
during the public hearing are .included in .the...Responsiveness
Summary, which is part of this Record of Decision. No written
comments were received during the public comment period.
The decision document presents the selected action (i.e., No
Further Action) for Site 29 of NAVAIRENGSTA 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 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 results of environmental investigations conducted show no
evidence of any significant contamination remaining at Site 29.
No unacceptable risks to human health or the environment exist at
the site and -no further action is necessary.
SUMMARIES OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS
The location of Site 29 within NAVAIRENGSTA is shown in Figure 1.
Additional maps of the site are provided in Figures 2 and 3.
The results of the Remedial Investigations indicate that the soil
conditions at Site 29 pose no unacceptable risks to human health
.and the environment.
22
-------
RECORD OP DECISION
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
SITE 29 SOIL
NAVAL AIR ENGINEERING STATION
LAKEHURST, NEW JERSEY
The purpose of this responsiveness summary is to review public
response to the Propos'ed Plan for Site 29 Soil. It also
documents NAVAIRENGSTA's consideration of such comments during
the decision making process and provides answers to any comments
raised during the public comment period.
The responsiveness summary for Site 29 is divided into, the,
following three sections:
Overview - This section briefly describes the process
to develop and evaluate the appropriate remedial
responses for the seven sites, the No Action
alternative recommended in the. Proposed Plan .and any
impacts, .on the.proposed plan due to public comment.
Background on Community Involvement - This section
describes community relations activities conducted with
respect to the area of concern. . . . ..>-••
Summary of Major Questions and Comments - This section
summarizes verbal ..and written comments received during
the Public Meeting and public comment period.
OVERVIEW
Site 29 is located at NAVAIRENGSTA in Ocean County, Lakehurst,
New Jersey.. The site has been under investigation for potential
environmental contamination. This responsiveness summary
addresses public response to the Proposed Plan for Site 29 Soil
which proposed the "No Further Action" alternative.
The Proposed Plan arid other supporting information are available
.for public review at the information repository located at the
Ocean County Library, 101 Washington Street, Toms River, New
Jersey.
BACKGROUND ON COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT
This section provides a brief history of community participation
in the investigation and interim remedial planning activities
conducted at Site 29. Throughout the investigation period, the
USEPA and NJDEP have been reviewing work plans and reports and
have been providing comments and recommendations which are
23
-------
incorporated into the appropriate documents. A Technical Review
Committee (TRC), consisting of representatives of the Navy, the
USEPA, the NJDEP, the Ocean County Board of Health, the New
Jersey Pinelands Commission, other agencies and communities
surrounding NAWCADLKE .was formed and has been holding periodic
meetings to maintain open lines of communication and to inform
all parties of current activities.••
Prior to public release of site-specific documents,
NAVAIRENGSTA's public relations staff compiled a list of local
public officials who demonstrated or were expected to have an
interest in the investigation. Local environmental interest
groups were also identified and included oh this list. The list
is attached as Appendix B to this Record of Decision.
On April 27 and 28, 1994, the NAVAIRENGSTA Public Affairs Office
(PAO) issued a press release to local radio stations and a
newspaper notification to The Asburv Park Press and The Ocean
County Observer inviting public comment on the Proposed Plan.
The public notice summarized the Proposed Plan and the preferred
(No Further Action) alternative. The announcement also
identified the time and location of a Public Meeting .and
specified a public comment period, and the address to which
written comments could be sent. Public .comments were accepted
.from May 1, 1994. through June 1, 1994. . . . .
A Public Meeting was held on May 11, 1994, at 7:00 p.m. at
Manchester Township Library, Colonial Drive, Manchester, New
Jersey. The site investigations, site evaluation process and
proposed remedial alternative (No Further Action) were discussed.
NAVAIRENGSTA representatives present included: CAPT Leroy Farr,
Commanding Officer; CDR Joseph LoFaso, Public Works Officer; Lucy
Bottomley, Supervisory Environmental Engineer; Frank Montarelli,
Public Affairs Officer; and Lawrence Lemig, Environmental
Engineer. Mr. Jeffrey Gratz, represented the USEPA's Federal
Facility Section; Ms. Donna Gaffigan represented the NJDEP's
Bureau of Federal Case Management; The complete attendance list
is provided in Appendix A to this Record of Decision.
SUMMARY OF MAJOR QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS
Written Comments
During the public comment period from May 1, 1994 through June 1,
1994,-'no written comments were received pertaining to Site 29.
Public Meeting Comments
A summary of major questions and comments is contained in
Appendix C. A complete transcript of the meeting is available as
part of the NAVAIRENGSTA Administrative Record.
24
-------
LOCATION PLAN
SCMK: V - IOOOVOT
NAVAL AIR WARFARE CENTER, LAKEHURST
AND NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES
-------
WETLANDS
SCOAE-5I
DRAINAGE' *~
, SWALE
WETLANDS
EMBANKMENT
(along tree line)
WETLANDS
GROUNDWATER
SEEPS
} ESTIMATED EXTENT
OF SITE 29
, 'SITE : H
;
/ SITE 37
mi,
JOAO H'. lep
— 1111,200
~"~^f^
,., L^
HI-. l:p/?f»v*l
UK. t*F f»\
Wm
79
>
\
•— -^
JX* "~
^-^.
tlk. lop
1 1
^~-s' \
IIP All -3
J*. J -•-"
~"-""- >
1 I .] j
!5 n/
/u
129
123
^\
i AC J-—--rr^
"** ^^ x:7
271
SITE Mo.29
457 | 263 .| ™wn»l,
EXPLANATION;
£?• MONITORING V€LL LOCATION (D=Deep)
HA^ PIEZOMETER
RWAB-3® RECOVERY WELL .
HPAB-1(S> HYOROPUNCh/®SA}HPLING LOCATION
SOAE-IH STAFF GAUGE LOCATION
S«AE-«c) SURVEYED CULVERT LOCATION
Sl4-c|g,SOIL OR SEDIMENT SAMPLING LOCATIOM(PHASE
RB-2W0 SURFACE WATER SAMPLING LOCATION(PHASE II)
SBH-lfl) SOIL BORING LOCATIOII(PHA5E III)
SEORO-H SEDIMENT SAMPLING LOCATION(PHASE III)
A SURFACE WATER SAMPLE LOCATION (PHASE III)
0 100. 200 300 FEET
GRAPHIC SCALE
figure 2. SITE No.29, AREA A EAST
ORIGINAL BASE LANDFILL (INACTIVEV
FEASIBILITY STUDY SITE 29
NAVAL AIR WARFARE CENTER-AIRCRAFT DIVISION
LAKEHURST. MEW JERSEY
NAWCADLKE CODE 1823 PUBLIC WORKS
-------
1
O TOP EOOt Of SLOPE °RUU R3TAL "f l
Xx / ._^v.-» \
\ v / '~y "•*•/• YTV?"~7\
VU^B^^Ls 1
•^~"^|3'«. ^- -*«f^£|
at>^^:
6 /> . % DRUM REMOVAL AREA E >'
' ,^STO,ACE ! \ iel, x
/ !. ™s v* \ \
^> TRAILERS ( 1 /> V. \ g
JV —
,. a imD**IOWT Tilt fit lOCAliOlt (OlXlu
OCCtW«» Uil IQ MvjiRT i«tl tut
3tcz=z3 imowiorr nit m ioc»iio» (i to
1 { . .
— """ ""X ' '•'"' " '~~:' " """
,--"'" p • =,-i:feX"-.»
WETLANDS y/ 36| 'iSthK-"
. >-/ C38 ,^-v
TOP EOCC or sic?: ^ . "" ,/ ' S. 1 e
\->- '" ' ^ 5V5 Vw -V
. ./ (35 XiE. | ^ >,..," \ WETLANDS
- 'i ' \ '-••iV 39 \
i • * ' j \^ •'• V7: V
si^ -1 1 X" 3> '^'-ir^»j ho *A •
-71 ' v^V" • If
, ./ \ j^' X ^..^ DRUM REMOVAL ARE* 31
i>? 6^; S:-AI- •vT'V- '?•-../ \
7g RV.-AS-J^,..-- ., ----- -J- ^- -^ - ~-xvT*p*-'^^"'--^ \ DRUM REMOVAL AREA S
B /J'V".---~" 1 ' 1 I STORAGE "i .'/**! V1""- iRWAB-2
f •-•-•• J '• SIORAC-E L • .. ('J; ! ,'TP|'- \ /'
• " " -^^ ; . OFOO STORAGE YARD • (/ PC"'° \ N^ "x ; /
•=™] : ! i/ \ N ^. • i
Z> i T _ ; J DRUM REMOVAL AREA 3Z ' ' •:
_ i STORAGE ' '-, •'" .'/ - ''., ''., . :
i — T , ,ll x\ii
t11Tic«ncif
1 IXCOVNUliD)-
to«r«- KVIII^'ICH
SI
) DRUM flt»CVIWIS CKCCVTino}- ^
(ft * fXO^dUD HOM1CIBMC WtlL tOCAttO*! . * • ' • " NAY,
f RWAB-2 H tntnHC MCOVtW *tU
Out
/_ "=7 SltE-i
< / LOCATION
y
-^->' /
^-^'" /' /
lit '''''''
.£
/ '% '
' 1 A - '
•1- C3 COVPOUNO
1
I ;
o eo 120 rcn
' ' 1
HAP SHOWING AREAS OF DRUM REMOVAL,
SO. EXCAVATION, AKD SAM7LENC LOCATIONS
E 29 - FORMER (WACTTVC) BASE LANDFILL
iL AIR WARFARE CCNTCR - AIRCRAFT DIVISION
LAXCHURSI. NEW JCR5CY
»\1C\« |«0 Hft 7«0-0«-I7« 1 fW«
Dames & Moore, Inc. 1 3
-------
APPENDIX A
LIST OF ATTENDEES
NAVAL AIR ENGINEERING STATION
PUBLIC MEETING
11 MAY 1994
-------
-------
APPENDIX B
LIST OF CONCERNED PARTIES
-------
updated 6-2-93
APPENDIX B
LIST OF CONCERNED PARTIES
Naval Air Warfare Centef- Lakehurst
Captain L. Farr
Commanding-Officer
Naval Air Warfare. Center " -
Aircraft Division
Lakehurst, NJ 08733-5000
Mr. Frank Montarelli, Public Affairs
Naval Air Warfare Center
Aircraft Division
Lakehurst, NJ 08733-5000
Commander J. M. LoFaso
Public.Works Officer
Naval Air Warfare Center
Aircraft Division
Lakehurst,'NJ '08733-5000
Federal•Elected Officials
Senator William Bradley
1705 Vauxhall Road
P.O. Box 1720
Union, NJ 07083
(908) 688-0960
Senator Frank R..Lautenberg
208 White Horse Pike
Suite 18-1.9
Harrington, NJ 08007
(609) 757-5353
Congressman H. James Saxton
lO'O High Street
.Mount Holly, NJ 08060
(609) 261-5800
Congressman Christopher H. Smith
100 Lacey Road
Suite 38A
Whiting, NJ 08759
(908) 350-2300
Congressman Frank Pallone, -Jr.
540 Broadway
Room 118
Long Branch, NJ 07740
(201) 571-1140
-------
State Elected Officials
Senator Leonard T. Connors, Jr.
620 West Lacey Road
Forked River, NJ 08731
(609) 693-6700
Assemblyman Jefferey Moran
620 West Lacey Road
Forked River, NJ 08731 •
(609) 693-6700
Assemblyman Christopher J. Connors
620 West Lacey Road
Forked River, NJ 08731
•Assemblywoman Marlene L. Ford
2611 Spruce Street
Point Pleasant, NJ. 08742
(609.). 693-6700
(908) 899-1208
U.S. Environmental'Protection Aaency Officials
Ms. Laura Livingston"
Federal Facilities Coordinator '
Room 1104
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region II
26 Federal Plaza
.New York, NY 10278 . -
Mr. Steven Katz .
Superfund Community Relations Coordinator
U.-S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region II
External Programs Division, Room 905
26 Federal Plaza •.. .-.,..,,,.:..
New York, NY 10278 •
Other Federal Acencies
Mr. Ste.ve Aoyama
Agency for Toxic Substances and
Disease Registry
1600 Clifton Road
Mail Stop E-56
Atlanta, GA 30333
New Jersey Pinelands Commission
. ' •
Mr. Alan W. Avery, Jr..., Commissioner
Ocean County Plann-ing Board
P.O. Box 2191
Toms River, NJ 08754-2191
(212) 264-6723
(212) "264-2515
(404) 639-6070
(903) 929-2054
-------
:•. :.-.rr;-^^^;, .'.:..
Mr. Bob Howell
The Pinelands Commission
P. O. Box 7-
New Lisbon, NJ 08064
Ocean County Officials
Mr. Joseph H. Vicari, Director
Ocean County Board of Freeholders
P.O. Box 2191 '"
Toms River, NJ-:Q8754
(609) 894-9342
(908) 244-2121
Mr.. Joseph Przywara, Coordinator
Ocean County Health Department
Environmental Health
2191 Sunset Avenue
Toms River,. NJ 08753
(908) 341-9700
Mr. A. Jerome Walnut, Chairman
Ocean County Environmental Agency
1623 Whitesville Road
Toms River, NJ 08755
(908) 349-1152
Dover Township Officials
Hon. J. Mark Mutter- ..
Mayor of Dover Township
P.O. Box 728
33 Washington Street '
Toms River, NJ 08754
(908) 341-1000
Ms. Janet Carson
Dover Townshir> Environmental Commission
P.O. Box 728
33 Washington Street
Toms River, NJ 08754
(908) 341-1000
Manchester Township Officials
Hon. Jane Cardo Cameron
Mayor of Manchester Township
One Colonial Drive
Lakehurst, NJ 08733
(908) 657-8121
Mr. Wynn A. Mauer, Chairman
Manchester Township Municipal Utilities Authority
One Colonial Drive .-*_>.
Lakehurst, NJ 08733
-------
Mr. William Jamieson, Jr., Chairman
Manchester Township Environmental Commission
One Colonial Drive
Lakehurst, NJ 08733
Jackson Township Officials
Mr. Richard Bizub, Chairman- ;••
Jackson.Township Environmental'Commission
128 Willow Drive
Jackson, NJ 08527 '
(908) 928-0900
Borough of Lakehurst Officials
Hon. Alton Tilton
Mayor of Lakehurst Borough
5 Union Avenue
Lakehurst, NJ 08733
Mr. Robert J. Morris
Municipal Clerk, Borough of Lakehurst
5 Union Avenue
Lakehurst, NJ 08733
(908) 657-4141
(908) 657-4141
PluTusted' Township Officials
Hon. Ronald S. Dancer
Mayor of Plumsted Township
P.O. Box 398
New Egypt, NJ 08533-0398
(609) 758-2241
Community Groups and Interested Citizens
'Pine Lake Park Association
1616 Seventh Avenue
Toms River, NJ 08757
Mr. Holmes Ertley
699C Friar Court
Lakehurst, NJ 08733
Mr. John Lewis
315 Beckerville Road
Lakehurst, NJ 08733
Ms. Theresa Lettman
Pinelands Preservation Alliance
120-34B White Bogs -Road
Browns Mills, NJ 08015
(908) 341-3653
(908) 657-4690.
(908) 657-1890
(609) 893-4747
-------
Media ^Organizations
Advance News
2048 Route 37 West
Lakehurst, NJ 08733
Aiyn -Acker-man
Asbury Park Press
3601 Highway 66
P.O. Box 1550
Neptune, NJ 07,754-1550
Ms. Debra Coombe
Newark Star Ledger
44 Washington Street
Toms River, NJ 08753
New Egypt Press
37 Main Street- .
P.O. Box 288
New Egypt, NJ 08533
Ocean County Leader
P.O." Box 1771
Point Pleasant Beach,
NJ 08742
Ms. Lisa Peterson
Ocean County Review
P.O. Box 8
Seaside Height's,-NJ 08751
Ocean County Reporter
8 Robbins Street
P.O. Box 908
Toms River, NJ 08753
Mr. Sam Christopher
Ocean County Observer
8 Robbins Street
CN 2449
Toms River, NJ 08753
(908) 657-8936
1-800-822-9770
(908) 244-7171
(609) 758-2112
(908) 899-1000
(908) 793-0147
(908) 349-1501
(908) 349-3000
-------
3&M*&£"^
^||«P??:V"'- ''
RADIO
Mr. Shawn Marsh (908) 774-7700
WJLK Radio .....
Press Plaza
Asbury Park, NJ 07712
.. ' . 4 ... . •
Ms. Joan Jones /, ' (908) 2.70-5757
WJRZ Radio . .
22 West Water Street
P.O. Box 100
Toms River, NJ 08754 , .......
Mr. Doug Doyle (908) 269-0927
WOBM Radio
U.S. Highway 9
Bayville, NJ 08721
Mr.- Gary Myervich•• . (908) 341-8818
Adelphia Cable
830 Highway 37 West . ...
Toms' River, NJ 08753 : .
Mr. Abi Montefiore - (908) 681-8222
Monmouth Cable . •
P.O. Box 58 ' ''..'..
Belmar, NJ 07719
Mr. Ed Rogers (609) 530-5252
WNJN-TV
1573 Parkside Avenue
Trenton, NJ 08638
-------
APPENDIX C
SUMMARY OF MAJOR QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS
-------
SUMMARY OF QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
PUBLIC MEETING - SITE 29 SOIL
Question was raised as to whether there was any risk to the public
from the contaminated soil. The soil in-place was at depth and
therefore did not pose a risk to human health. If a risk
assessment was performed on the excavated soil, there may have been
a calculated risk, but the soil was staged on the base in a way
that there was no risk to the public.
The impact to groundwater was also subject of discussion. It was
pointed out that there is a groundwater treatment facility
currently running in the area, with recovery wells located adjacent
to the drum removal areas.
A reporter wanted to know if the drums found were standard size.
They were standard 55 gallon drums.
The same reporter asked if the Navy was conducting an investigation
as to who buried the drums. Such an investigation is outside the
purpose of the environmental team's mission. .However, in the
1950's, 1960's, environmental regulations were not in force and
therefore, it may not have been considered an unacceptable practice
to bury hazardous waste during that time.
It was asked when the new technology (asphalt batching) will be put
in use. The demonstration was scheduled for the day of the meeting
'but was re-scheduled for the -following day. The presenter gave the
reporter his work phone number to arrange attendance at the
demonstration.
The reporter asked how it is that contaminated soil can be used as
road material. It was explained that the contamination makes the
soil asphaltic in nature and that road material's normal components
consist of oil (petroleum products) iri the form of a stable
material.
He also asked if the material found in the drums was in the form of
oils. The majority of the drums contained oils and a few contained
solvents. . .
He asked if the soil will be used for base roads. The soil will be
processed on the base and used for base roads, approximately four
miles of roads.
It was explained that the process will use soil from seven
contaminated sites on the base and that Site 29 is just one of the
seven. The total tonnage of the soil to be processed is around
seven to eight thousand tons.
------- |