EPA/ROD/R02-95/248
August 1995
EPA Superfund
Record of Decision:
Naval Air Engineering Station,
Area I and J, Groundwater,
Lakehurst, NJ
1/5/1995
-------
INTERIM RECORD OF DECISION
AREA I AND J, GROUNDWATER
NAVAL AIR ENGINEERING STATION'
LAKEHURST, NEW JERSEY
30 November 1994
-------
30 November 1994
INTERIM RECORD OF DECISION
DECLARATION STATEMENT
AREA I AND J GROUNDWATER
NAVAL AIR ENGINEERING STATION
FACILITY NAME AND LOCATION
Naval Air Engineering Station
Lakehurst, New Jersey 08733
STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE
This decision document presents the selected alternative to
address Areas I and J groundwater at the Naval Air Engineering
Station in Lakehurst, New Jersey. The selected interim alternative
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 Substance
Pollution Contingency Plan.
This decision is based on information contained in the
Remedial Investigation (RI) Report (October 1992), the Endangerment
Assessment (EA) Report (October 1992), the Focused Feasibility
Study for Area I and J Groundwater (May 1993) and the Pre-Design
Groundwater Remedial Investigation _ (Groundwater Modeling
Study/Wetland Impact Study/Recharge Basin Study) for Areas I and J
(April 1994). These reports and other information used in the
remedy selection process are part of the Administrative Record file
for Areas I and J, which is available for public review at the
Ocean County Library in Toms River, New Jersey.
This document provides background information on the Area,
presents the selected alternative, reviews the public's response to
the Proposed Plan and provides answers to comments raised during
the public comment period. The selected interim action is intended
to be consistent with the final action' for remediating groundwater
-------
at Areas I and J. The final remedial action for Areas I and J will
be proposed after three years of monitoring.
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
The selected interim alternative to address groundwater at
Area I and J is: A Natural Restoration Study with Groundwater
Monitoring. The NAES proposes to evaluate the effects of natural
restoration for a period of three years. The data obtained from
this investigation will be used to refine the existing contaminant
transport model. The revised model will provide more accurate
predictions of the time required for natural restoration of the
entire plume. Upon completion of this interim action, a final
Record of Decision will be prepared. The findings of this study
will form the basis of the final Record of Decision.
The objectives of the proposed interim action are to: 1) show
that contaminant concentrations are being reduced through the
natural restoration process; 2) monitor contaminant plume migration
and verify whether the plume has reached a steady state and 3)
revise the mass transport model to determine rates of attenuation
and site specific half-lives of contaminants to provide more
accurate time-frame for remediation of the plume.
Extensive monitoring will be performed to show the
effectiveness of this alternative and monitor the extent and
migration of groundwater contamination (if any). To monitor the
plume, the existing monitoring well network will be supplemented
with additional monitoring wells. In addition, institutional
controls will be implemented to protect human health.
-------
STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
A three year study has been selected to determine if natural
restoration processes will be effective. This interim action
alternative is protective of human health and the environment. The
results of this action will aid in determining whether natural
restoration will attain Federal and State applicable or relevant
and appropriate requirements (ARARs) as part of the final action
for Areas I and J.
Captain Leroy Farr
Commanding Officer
Naval Air Engineering Station
Lakehurst, New Jersey
(Date)
With the concurrence of:
/ '
William^- Mus^ly^iski, P.E. (Date)
Deputy ^Regional Administrator <•
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region II
-------
DECISION SUMMARY
INTERIM RECORD OF DECISION
AREA I AND J, GROUNDWATER
NAVAL AIR ENGINEERING STATION
SITE DESCRIPTION
The Naval Air Engineering Station (NAES) is located in Jackson
and Manchester Townships, Ocean County, New Jersey, approximately
14 miles inland from the Atlantic Ocean (Figure 1) . NAES 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. NAES 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 NAES is currently classified by NJDEP
as Class I-PL (Pinelands).
NAES lies within the Outer Coastal Plain physiographic
province, which is characterized by gently rolling terrain with
minimal relief. Surface elevations within NAES 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.
NAES 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 NAES 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 NAES. 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 NAES before joining Toms River.
Storm drainage from NAES is divided between the north and south,
discharging into the Ridgeway Branch and Union Branch,
respectively. The Paint Branch, located in the east-central part
of the base, is a relatively small stream,which feeds the Manapaqua
Brook.
Three small water bodies are located in the western portion of
NAES: Bass Lake, Clubhouse Lake, and Pickerel Pond. NAES 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 NAES 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 NAES 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
NAES are commercial cranberry bogs, the drainage from which crosses
the southeast section of NAES 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 NAES, 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 NAES. 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 NAES, which supplies water to a very
small population (probably less than 1,000) in the immediate
vicinity of NAES.
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 (NAWCADLKE), due to a ^reorganization within the
Department of the Navy. In January 1994, the NAWCADLKE was renamed
the Naval Air Engineering Station (NAES), due to continued
reorganization within the Department of the Navy.
Currently, NAES'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.
NAES and its tenant activities now occupy more than 300
buildings, built between 1919 and 1989, totaling over 2,845,00
square feet. The command also operates and maintains: two 5,000-
foot long runways, a 12,000-foot long test runway, one-mile long
jet car test track, four one and one-quarter mile long jet car test
tracks, a parachute jump circle, a 79-acre golf course, and a
3,500-acre conservation area.
In the past, the various operations and activities at the
Center required the use, handling, storage and occasionally the on-
site disposal of hazardous substances. During the operational
period of the facility, there have been documented, reported or
suspected releases of these substances into the environment.
SITE HISTORY
Areas I and J are located along the southern boundary of the
NAES in the west central portion of the base (Figure 2). The NAES
property boundary forms the southern border of Area I. Areas I and
J are largely developed and include various facility buildings,
including Steam Plant No. 2, the catapult launching facilities and
the Runway Arrested .Landing Site (RALS) facility (Figures 5-6) .
The catapult runway traverses Areas I and J and Taxiway No. 4
parallels the southern NAES property line in the eastern portion of
the Area (Figure 5A). Groundwater flow in Areas I and J is in a
generally east to southeast direction toward the facility boundary
(Figure 7).
7
-------
The Remedial Investigation (RI) in Areas I and J has revealed
the existence of an extensive groundwater contaminant plume
(Figures 2A, 3 and 4) . The primary contaminants present in the
groundwater are chlorinated volatile organic compounds (VOCs),
which appear to occur in two discrete areas of highest
concentration. One zone extends east of the base catapult area and
the other area is to the south and east of the catapult runway. At
the former area, detectible levels of VOCs appear to occur in a
plume extending approximately 5,000 feet beyond the NAES boundary.
In the latter area, the contaminant plume extends approximately
4,400 downgradient from the facility boundary. Upgradient of this
area, lower levels ( < 15 ppb) of contamination extend to the area
near the Runway Arrested Landing Site (RALS) tower.
Areas I and J contain a wide range of potential contaminant
sources generally related to past facility activities and possible
associated releases. Reported or potential contaminant sources at
these sites which may have contributed to the plume are summarized
below:
AREA SITE REPORTED OR POTENTIAL CONTAMINANT SOURCES
J 3 Releases of contaminated waste water into the
adjacent drainage swale has occurred during the
past (Figure 6)
I 6 Contaminated sediment present in the holding
ponds and drainage swales (Figure 5)
I 7 Potential disposal of various liquid wastes at
the Catapult Test Facility Storage Area
(Figures 5)
J 22 Former activities at the Jet Blast Deflector
which may have resulted in the release of fuels
or other liquid wastes into the ground
8
-------
(Figure 6)
24 Testing of catapult equipment took place and
associated releases of various liquid wastes may
have occurred (Figure 5)
A gravel and blacktop area in which catapult
testing also occurred, located approximately 450
feet to the south/southeast of the catapult
runway, and south of Site 24 (Figure 5)
The area to the southwest of Building 453 and
Site 25, in which the steam-cleaning of various
equipment reportedly occurred (Figure 5)
An area located adjacent to (on both the
southeast and northwest sides of) Taxiway No. 4,
approximately 3,450 feet northeast of Site 6, in
which catapult testing also occurred (Figure 5A)
The area surrounding the Conservation Club (Rod
and Gun Club Building 525), located to the
• immediate northwest of Taxiway No. 4 where it was
reported that various liquid wastes may have been
disposed of around the building, which was
formerly used for storage (Figure 5A)
These potential source areas were investigated as part of the
Remedial Investigation for the entire facility. The remediation of
these areas is being performed through previously signed Records of
Decision.
-------
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 NAES. The Bomarc
Site is the responsibility of the U.S. Air Force and is located on
Fort Dix adjacent to the western portion of NAES. 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. Fo.llowing 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 NAES was designated as a National Priorities List (NPL) or
Superfund site under the federal Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA).
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.
10
-------
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.
Groundwater monitoring wells were installed in Area I and J in
1982 and were monitored on a regular basis for the presence of free
petroleum product. Additional investigations conducted at Areas I
and J include:
Phase I Remedial Investigation ("1985-1986) - Additional monitoring
wells were installed and groundwater samples were collected from
all new and existing wells for comprehensive chemical analysis. A
visual inspection of the area was conducted to locate possible
source areas. The Phase I groundwater analytical results can be
found in the Phase I Remedial Investigation Report (April 1987) and
the Feasibility Study (May 1993) , f both located in the
Administrative Record. Table 1 contains a summary of contaminants
which exceeded Federal or State cleanup standards during Phase I.
Soil Gas and Groundwater Screening Survey (May - June 1988) - A
soil gas and groundwater screening survey was conducted at and
downgradient from several sites in Area I and J to determine
possible source areas. On the basis of the data, additional
investigations were recommended.
11
-------
Phase II Remedial Investigation (1988) - Additional monitoring
wells were installed and two rounds of samples were collected from
all new and existing wells for comprehensive chemical analyses.
The Phase II groundwater analytical results for Areas I and J can
be found in the Phase II Remedial Investigation Report (July 1990)
and Feasibility Study (May 1993), both located in the
Administrative Record. Table 1 contains a summary of contaminants
which exceeded Federal or State cleanup standards during Phase II.
Phase III Remedial Investigation (1991-1992) - Analysis of
groundwater, using the Hydropunch, at 39 locations allowed samples
to be collected and analyzed at different depths of the plume
(approximately 10, 30, 50, 70 feet below groundwater). The
Hydropunch was used throughout potential source areas and
downgradient (including off-base locations) to determine both the
horizontal and vertical extent of detected groundwater
contamination. Figures 8A, 8B, 8C and 8D show the estimated
concentration of total chlorinated volatile compounds in
groundwater at the four different sampling depths. The "A" zone is
approximately 10 feet below the groundwater table, The "B" zone is
approximately 30 feet below the groundwater table, the "C" zone is
approximately 50 feet below the groundwater table and the "D" zone
is approximately 70 feet below the groundwater table.
Monitoring wells were then installed throughout and
downgradient of the plume in order to monitor plume migration and
define the downgradient extent of the plume. The Phase III
groundwater analytical results for Areas I and J can be found in
the Phase III Remedial Investigation Report (October 1992) and
Feasibility Study (May 1993), both located in the Administrative
Record. Table 1 contains a summary of contaminants which exceeded
Federal or State cleanup standards during Phase III.
Aquifer Characterization Investigation in Areas I and J (February
1993) - The objective of this investigation was to develop data
that could be used to design a groundwater remedial system capable
12
-------
of capturing and treating the contaminated groundwater as discussed
in the previous section. A preliminary groundwater flow model was
developed based on the results of this study. This model, which
provided an adequate representation of groundwater conditions at
Areas I and J, was used in the preliminary design of remedial
alternatives.
A long-term (72 hour) pumping test was conducted on a recovery
well placed in the Area to obtain preliminary estimates of aquifer
characteristics. This data was used to generate different pumping
scenarios based on the recovery of plumes of different contaminant
concentrations (>50 ppb, >10 ppb, >1 ppb) . The pump test was
performed 22-26 October 1992.
Within the study area, there are several surface water bodies,
such as wetlands and streams, that may be impacted as a result of
groundwater pumping (Figure 2B). As part of the aquifer
characterization report, drawdown projections were estimated for
the preliminary groundwater recovery scenarios.
The results of the report, concerning plume capture and impact
to wetlands, have been used to develop the preliminary alternatives
presented in the feasibility study for Area I and J groundwater.
Groundwater. Sediment, and Surface Water Sampling and Analysis at
Area I and J (July 1993) - Sediment and surface water samples were
taken at six locations in the North Ruckles Branch, Black Branch
and Manapaqua Brook. These samples were taken at locations where
the plume appears to discharge to surface water. These samples
were taken to determine if plume contaminants could be detected in
the downgradient surface water bodies. The results indicate the
presence of trace concentrations of volatiles in the North Ruckles
and Black Branch sediment. No volatile contaminants were detected
in surface water samples.
All the monitoring wells and supply wells in the Area were
also sampled (in February 1993) to provide an overall set of well
sampling data. Forty-three of the fifty-eight monitoring wells
sampled had non-detectable levels of volatile organic
13
-------
contamination. Remaining wells generally had low levels of
chlorinated VOCs. No contamination was found in downgradient
perimeter wells or supply wells. Data from the additional sampling
round can be found in the Feasibility Study for Area I and J
groundwater (May 1993) located in the Administrative Record.
Semi-Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report, August 1993 Monitoring
Event. Perimeter Wells at Area I and J (October 1993) - Twenty
(20) wells located along the downgradient perimeter of the
contaminant plume are sampled semi-annually to assess the
concentrations of VOCs along the downgradient perimeter of the
plume and to compare the current results with previous results to
assess potential plume migration or changes in the nature and/or
extent of contamination.
During the August 1993 sampling round, VOCs were detected in
only 5 of the 20 wells sampled. No VOCs were detected at
concentrations exceeding applicable State or Federal groundwater
standards. The downgradient and sidegradient extent of the plume
did not appear to have migrated or changed significantly since the
Phase III Investigation. In some of the wells sampled there
appears to be a general reduction in contaminant levels.
Semi-Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report, February 1994 Monitoring
Event, Perimeter Wells at Area I and J (May 1994) - Nineteen (19)
wells located along the downgradient perimeter of the contaminant
plume were sampled to assess the concentrations of VOCs along the
downgradient perimeter of the plume and to compare the current
results with previous results to assess potential plume migration
or changes in the nature and/or extent of contamination.
During the February 1994 sampling round, VOCs were detected in
only 4 of the 19 wells sampled and chlorinated VOCs were detected
in only two of the wells. No VOCs were detected at concentrations
exceeding applicable State or Federal groundwater standards. The
contaminant levels in the perimeter wells appear to be reducing
over time.
14
-------
Pre-Design Groundwater Remedial Investigation (Groundwater Modeling
Study/Wetland Impact Study/Recharge Basin Study). Areas I and J
(April 1994) - A three part investigation was conducted between
July 1993 and February 1994 to obtain data necessary for the design
of a system to remediate VOCs present in Areas I and J groundwater.
The investigation consisted of the following three studies which
were conducted in parallel: 1) Groundwater Modeling Study; 2)
Wetland Impact Study; and 3) Recharge Basin Study.
The goal of the modeling was to identify a groundwater
recovery/recharge scheme that would allow optimal remediation of
the contaminant plume while minimizing wetland impacts. A
combination of on-site pumping and off-site monitoring was
selected. The modeling effort, however, indicated that the effect
of contaminant degradation is the most important attenuation
mechanism for the plume. The benefit achieved by pumping is
somewhat questionable considering that for realistic half-lives,
the effect of recovery and treatment becomes insignificant compared
to the mass loss due to degradation.
The results of the Wetlands Impact Study indicated that a
wetland loss of 87 acres or more could result due to aquifer
drawdown if the optimal pumping scenario was implemented to
remediate the plume.
Summary
The results of the above investigations have revealed that the
**•
primary contaminants present in groundwater are chlorinated
volatile organic compounds. The chlorinated compounds most
commonly detected include cis-l,2-dichloroethene, 1/1-
dichloroethene, 1,1-dichloroethane, 1,1,1-trichloroethane,
trichloroethene and tetrachloroethene.
Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylene (BTEX) were detected
at few locations and, with one exception, at low concentrations.
BTEX in a shallow sample collected at one off-base location is
believed to be attributable to an unidentified minor off-base
15
-------
petroleum release and not related to activities at NAES.
Several metals (aluminum, cadmium, chromium, lead, and nickel)
were detected sporadically at concentrations exceeding EPA and/or
NJDEP groundwater standards in unfiltered samples. However, these
metals were generally not detected in the filtered splits of these
samples, indicating that their presence may be attributable to
sediment in the samples and not to metals dissolved in groundwater.
Also, established background levels for metals in groundwater at
NAES were compared to the detected levels at Areas I and J. The
NAES background levels of several metals were higher than the
applicable groundwater standards. Only cadmium was detected above
the NAES background levels. Cadmium, however, was only detected in
one filtered sample and this result is considered suspect.
Based on the results of previous investigations, figures of
the plume have been developed (see figures 8A-8D) which indicate
the extent of the plume and most probable sources of contamination.
Contamination appears to occur at low levels at and downgradient of
the RALS facility. This was probably the result of releases of
contaminated waste water into the drainage swale at Site 3 and, to
a lesser extent, the former activities at the Jet Blast Deflector
which may have resulted in the releases of liquid wastes (Figure
6).
The area of higher contamination to the south of the catapult
runway appears to be the result of catapult testing which occurred
on a gravel and blacktop area located approximately 450 feet to the
south/southeast of the catapult runway and south of Site 24
(Figure 5).
The area of contamination which extends off-base, to the east
of the catapult area, appears to emanate from the area where steam-
cleaning of various equipment reportedly occurred, to the southwest
of building 453 and Site 25. Contamination could also be from the
area adjacent to Taxiway No. .4, in which catapult testing also
occurred, and possibly from the area surrounding the Conservation
Club (Bldg 525), where it was reported that liquid wastes may have
been disposed (Figures 5 and 5A).
16
-------
The downgradient extent of contamination appears to be bounded
by the North Ruckles Branch and Black Branch. It does not appear
that the plume has migrated since the Phase III Remedial
Investigation (1991-1992). Sampling of downgradient perimeter
wells indicates a general reduction in contaminant levels since
sampling began in April 1992.
Based on the preliminary results of the mass transport
modeling effort, the effects of contaminant degradation is the most
important attenuation mechanism for the groundwater contamination
in Areas I and J. Pumping of groundwater may have little effect on
remediating the plume and may produce an unacceptable impact on
wetlands.
17
-------
TABLE 1
Volatile Organic Compounds Which
Exceeded Federal or State Groundwater Cleanup Standards
AREA I&J Groundwater Phase I Results (1986)
CONTAMINANT
.1,2-Dichloroethene
Trichloroethene
Tetrachloroethene
DETECTED EPA
CONCENTRATIONS MCL (1)
(ug/1) (ug/1)
ND-20.1 70.0
ND-3.61
ND-38.1
5.0
5.0
NJDEP
PQL (2)
(ug/1)
2.0
1.0
1.0
AREA IfiJ Groundwater Phase
CONTAMINANT
Methylene Chloride
Trichloroethene
Tetrachloroethene
II Results (1988)
DETECTED EPA
CONCENTRATIONS MCL (1)
(ug/1) (ug/1)
ND-440J 5.0
ND-140
. ND-3J
1,1, 1-Trichloroethane ND-2 9
1 , 2-Dichloroethene
ND-44
5.0
5.0
200.0
•-*
70.0
NJDEP
PQL (2)
(ug/1)
2.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
J - Quantitation is approximate due to limitations identified
during data validation.
ND - Nondetect
18
-------
TABLE 1 (cont.)'
Volatile Organic Compounds Which
Exceeded Federal or State Groundwater Cleanup Standards
AREA IfiJ Groundwater Phase III
Results (1992)
DETECTED EPA
CONTAMINANT CONCENTRATIONS MCL (1)
(ug/1) (ug/1)
Vinyl Chloride
Chloroform
1, 1-Dichloroethene
cis-1 , 2-Dichloroethene
Benzene
Trichloroethene
Toluene
Tetrachl oroethene
Ethylbenzene
Xylenes
ND-23.1
ND-1.81
ND-4.08
ND-170J
ND-4.55
ND-64 . 6
ND-24.1
ND-39.3
ND-7 . 5
ND-55.1
2
100
7
70
5
5
1000
5
700
10,000
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
NJDEP
PQL (2)
(ug/1)
2.
1.
2.
2.
1.
1.
5.
1.
5.
2.
' 1.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 (m+p)
0 (o)
J - Quantitation is approximate due to limitations identified
during data validation.
ND - Nondetect
19
-------
TABLE 1 (cont.)
Volatile Organic Compounds Which
Exceeded Federal or State Groundwater Cleanup Standards
AREA I&J Groundwater Additional
CONTAMINANT DETECTED
CONCENTRATIONS •
(ug/1)
1, 2-Dichloroethene ND-170
1,1, 1-Trichloroethane ND-5 J
Trichloroethene ND-8J
Tetrachloroethene ND-2J
Vinyl Chloride ND-33
Sampling
EPA
MCL (1)
(ug/1)
70.0
200.0
5.0
5.0
2.0
(1993)
NJDEP
PQL (2)
(ug/1)
2.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
Notes:
J - Quantitation is approximate due to limitations identified
during data validation.
ND - Nondetect
(1) Primary Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) are Federally
enforceable contaminant levels allowable in public drinking water
*-
supplies. They have been established from health-based data by
EPA's Office of Drinking Water Regulations (40 CFR 141)
established under the authority of the Safe Drinking Water Act.
MCLs are periodically revised as more information becomes
available. When MCLs are not available, proposed MCLs were used
as the comparison criteria for some analytes.
(2) On 13 January 1993, the revised N.J.A.C. 7:9-6 which
include the Groundwater Quality Criteria was signed. The
criteria establish the groundwater classifications for the
20
-------
Pinelands, including Class I-PL (Preservation Area) and Class I-
PL (Protection Area). The actual groundwater criteria are the
natural quality and background quality, respectively (N.J.A.C.
7:9-6.7). PQLs will be used to determine compliance with
groundwater quality criteria for Class I-PL groundwater.
Practical Quantitation Levels (PQLs) are the lowest
concentration of a constituent that can be reliably achieved
among laboratories within specified limits of precision and
accuracy during routine laboratory operating conditions.
HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
The Proposed Plan for Areas I and J groundwater was issued to
interested parties on July 8, 1993. Based on additional studies
performed in Areas I and J, the Proposed Plan was revised and
issued on August 26, 1994. On September 13 and 14, 1994, a
newspaper notification inviting public comment on the revised
Proposed Plan appeared in The Ocean County Observer. On
September 13, 14, 15 and 16, 1994, the notification appeared in
The Asbury Park Press. On September 14, 1994 the notification
also appeared in The Advance News. The comment period was held
from September 14, 1994 to October 14, 1994. The newspaper
notification also identified the Ocean County Library as the
location of the.Information Repository.
A Public Meeting was held on September 14, 1994 at the
Manchester Branch of the Ocean County Library at 7:00 p.m.. At
this meeting representatives from the Navy, USEPA and NJDEP were
available to answer questions concerning Areas I and J
groundwater, 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. A transcript of the meeting is available as
part of the Administrative Record.
21
-------
During the public comment period from September 14, 1994
through October 14, 1994, no written comments were received
pertaining to Areas I and J groundwater.
This decision document presents the selected alternative
(i.e., Study of Natural Restoration with Groundwater Monitoring)
for Areas I and J groundwater, chosen in accordance with CERCLA,
as amended by SARA and, to the extent practicable, the National
Contingency Plan (NCP). The decision for Areas I and J
groundwater 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
Studies conducted between 1985 and 1992 showed that the
groundwater in Areas I and J had been contaminated with various
VOCs as a result of past operations dating back to the 1960s and
1970s. In 1993, the Navy proposed and the regulatory agencies
(U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and New Jersey Department
of Environmental Protection) concurred that a groundwater
extraction, treatment and recharge system was the preferred
option to remediate the contaminated groundwater. In 1993 and
1994, additional studies, including a Numerical Groundwater
Modeling Study and a Wetlands Impact Study were conducted to
design the optimum groundwater extraction and recharge system
capable of remediating the contamination while at the same time
minimizing the potential adverse impact on wetlands. The results
of these studies indicated the following: 1) Due to natural
attenuation, the extent of the contaminant plume may have reached
a quasi-steady state and, therefore, no further significant
migration of the plume would occur; 2) The effect of pumping
could be insignificant compared to the mass loss of contaminants
resulting from natural attenuation of the plume; 3) Groundwater
22
-------
recovery would probably result in the loss of approximately 87
acres of wetlands.
As a result of new sampling data and the findings of the
1994 groundwater modeling and wetlands studies, the NAES revised
the Proposed Plan for public review .and comment.
SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS
In April 1992, a facility-wide endangerment assessment for
NAES was conducted. The objective of this Endangerment
Assessment (EA) was to assess the potential current and future
human health risks and potential environmental impacts posed by
contaminated soils, groundwater, sediment, and surface water at
NAES.
This is a summary of the Endangerment Assessment (EA)
findings for groundwater in Areas I and J. The assessment of
this site was conducted using all available data generated during
previous remedial investigations (RI). This assessment is
conservative since the highest levels of contamination detected
were used to calculate risk even though these contaminant levels
may not represent the concentration throughout the plume and may
no longer be detected at these elevated levels.
This risk summary is limited to groundwater, the only media
addressed in this Record of Decision. All other media associated
with these areas are addressed in separate documents. This
summary will discuss (1) the chemicals identified by the EA
addendum as contaminants of concern (COCs), (2) the land use
assumptions upon which estimates of potential human exposure to
site contaminants are based, (3) the quantitative estimates of
carcinogenic risk and noncarcinogenic hazard, and (4) a summary
interpretation of the EA findings with regard to need for site
remediation.
CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN
23
-------
The EA focused on the Area contaminants which are likely to
pose the most significant risks to human health and the
environment. Eight contaminants of concern (COCs) were selected
for evaluation in the EA addendum (see Table 2). The selection
of these chemicals was based on EPA maximum contaminant levels
(MCLs) and frequency of detection throughout the Area. For Area
I and J groundwater. COCs were determined to be the following
chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons: 1,2-dichloroethene, 1,1-
dichloroethane, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, trichloroethene,
tetrachloroethene, cis-1,2-dichloroethene, chloroform and vinyl
chloride.
TABLE 2
Comparison of Highest Detected Contaminant Concentrations to
Federal MCLs and State PQLs
Areas I and J
CRITERIA
EXCEEDANCES
CONTAMINANT OF
CONCERN
1 , 2-Dichloroethene
1 , 1-Dichloroethane
1,1,1-
Trichloroethane
Trichloroethene
Tetrachloroethene
cis-1,2-
Dichloroethene
Chloroform
Vinyl Chloride
MAXIMUM
LEVEL
(ug/i)
170
900J
29
140
39.3
170J
1.81
33
USEPA
MCL
(ug/1)
70.0
—
200.0
5.0
5.0
70.0
100.0
2.0
NJDEP
PQL
(ug/l)
2.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
1.0
5.0
EPA
MCL
YES
NO
NO
YES
YES
YES
NO
YES
NJDEP
PQL
YES
NO
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
J - Quantitation is approximate due to limitations identified
during data validation.
24
-------
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.
Based on current land use conditions within Areas I and J, a
light industrial land use scenario was quantified for direct
exposure to contaminated groundwater via incidental ingestion.
Due to the fact that the groundwater contamination plume in these
Areas extends beyond the NAES boundary a residential land use
scenario was also quantified for potential future land use
conditions.
HUMAN HEALTH RISK AND HAZARD FINDINGS
For groundwater, the results of the EA for the current light
industrial land use scenario at Areas I and J indicate that
hazards resulting from noncarcinogens are not elevated for any
chemical above EPA's hazard index criteria value of 1.0. The
overall area hazard represented by the hazard quotient, or sum of
the chemical-specific hazard indices, was also below a value of
1.0. The overall hazard quotient estimated for -groundwater is
3.2 x 10"1. Carcinogenic risk estimates for groundwater at Areas
I and J are within EPA's acceptable risk range of 10"6 to 10"4.
The overall area groundwater risk represented by the sum of the
chemical-specific risk estimates is 1.66 x 10"4.
The results of the EA for the potential future residential
land use scenario at Areas I and J indicate that hazards
resulting from noncarcinogens are elevated above EPA's hazard
index criteria value of 1.0. The overall hazard quotient, or sum
of the chemical-specific hazard indices estimated for groundwater
is 2.02. Carcinogenic risk estimates for groundwater at Areas I
25
-------
and J are above EPA's acceptable risk range of 10"6 to 10~4. The
overall area groundwater risk represented by the sum of the
chemical-specific risk estimates is 1.21 x 10"3.
ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
As part of the Endangerment Assessment, a Baseline
Ecological Evaluation (BEE) was conducted at NAES. The objective
of the BEE was:
- To identify contaminants at each site that are of
ecological concern
- To identify whether sensitive ecological receptors are
present or may have been present at the contaminated site
- To identify potential exposure pathways to sensitive
ecological receptors that exist or may have existed
- To determine whether or not sensitive ecological receptors
are being or potentially may be adversely impacted by
contaminants
Areas I and J contain several surface water bodies. The
Black Branch, North Ruckles Branch and Manapaqua Brook exist in
this Area. Cranberry bogs are located to the north-east of Areas
I and J. Several large wetland areas cover a majority of Areas I
and J (Figure 2B). Wetlands border the Black Branch and Ruckles
Branch located in the west and south sections of the site.
Wetlands also exist upgradient of the northern plume within the
NAES property. This wetland area is the largest single wetland
area on base.
The BEE contains information obtained from a comprehensive
endangered species study conducted in 1988. This study indicates
that wetlands in Area I and J contain an endangered amphibian and
several endangered plants.
The Pine Barrens treefrog is a State endangered species. It
inhabits low areas with standing acid water (pH from 4.2 to 5.2)
in pitch pine lowlands, pine oak and oak pine stands, white cedar
26
-------
swamps, and bogs, and red maple swamps of the pinelands. The
treefrog must have acid water plus proper' conditions of humidity
and plant cover for breeding. Inimical factors for the treefrog
are habitat destruction, particularly from draining wetlands.
The Barratt's sedge is a threatened pinelands plant. It can
be found growing in areas of pitch pine lowlands. It is a
wetlands species occurring in swales and the margins of bogs and
Atlantic white cedar swamps. Inimical factors include succession
of habitat due to wetland disturbances and degradation.
The pale beaked rush is a rare species which can be found in
sedge and grass bogs and seepage areas adjacent to stream
corridors. This plant is vulnerable to wetland disturbance.
The slender nut rush is a listed pinelands protected plant.
This plant lives in moist to sandy pine barren thickets, swales,
and depressions. Inimical factors include succession of
wetlands.
The two-flowered bladderwort is a state endangered plant.
Its habitat is open water of ponds and streams, also boggy or
sandy shores. This plant is possibly vulnerable to disturbances
of wetland habitat.
The wetlands and surface water of the Manapagua Brook, Black
Branch and North Ruckles Branch may be receiving very low levels
of chlorinated organics. Sampling of sediment and surface water
at downgradient locations, where the Area I and J groundwater
contaminant plume appears to discharge into the streams, has
indicated low levels of volatiles in the North Ruckles Branch and
t~
Black Branch sediment but that surface water is not being
impacted. It appears that the downgradient Black Branch and
North Ruckles Branch may be acting as a hydraulic containment for
the plume. Currently, the levels of contamination in the area
wetlands 'are close to background levels and no visible effects on
the ecology of the area appear to exist.
The potential environmental impacts of each remedial
alternative on surface water and wetlands will be addressed in
the development and analysis of each individual alternative.
27
-------
However, any alternative that involves pumping may have a
negative effect on the endangered species indicated above,
especially since the species are vulnerable to wetland
disturbance.
ENDANGERMENT ASSESSMENT SUMMARY
The results of the RI and EA indicate that contaminants
present in groundwater at Areas I and J do' not currently pose a
concern relative to current land use conditions within the
affected area. Active remediation of groundwater contamination
in the area may be necessary to address future residential use
concerns. The results of the RI and EA indicate that, currently,
there is no ecological risk present. The potential wetlands loss
and impact to endangered species associated with pumping in Areas
I and J may present a greater negative impact than if the
contaminants are allowed to remain and reduce through natural
restoration.
DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES
Under CERCLA, the alternative selected must be protective of
human health and the environment, cost effective, and in
accordance with statutory requirements. Permanent solutions to
contamination are to be achieved wherever possible. The remedial
«~
alternatives considered for the site are summarized below.
Detailed descriptions of the remedial alternatives can be found
in the FFS (May 1993), which is available in the Administrative
Record for NAES.
28
-------
5.1 Remedial Alternative No. 1:
Natural Restoration Study/ Groundwater Monitoring
Estimated Capital Cost: $550,000
Estimated Annual O&M Cost: $250,000
Estimated Implementation Timeframe: 6 months (to establish a
workplan for monitoring of natural restoration and establish a
complete monitoring well network)
This alternative consists of a groundwater monitoring
program and rigorous study of the natural attenuation processes
at the site. This 3 year monitoring and study program would
verify whether the contaminant plume has reached a quasi-steady
state and evaluate whether natural restoration is a viable
process alternative at the site. During this period, data
obtained from the program will be entered into a previously
developed 3-dimensional numerical model for Areas I and J. Model
parameters such as degradation and retardation rates will be
determined and the transport model will be revised to: (a)
provide more accurate predictions of plume migration (if any);
and (b) evaluate whether the plume is being remediated as a
result of natural restoration processes. The model will also be
used to estimate a completion time for natural remediation of the
entire plume. An extensive monitoring well network will be set
up, using both new and existing wells (see alternatives 2 and 3).
A downgradient "line of compliance" (LOG) will also be
r*
established. This LOG will consist of a series of monitoring
wells located at the downgradient extent of the plume which will
be required to meet cleanup objectives (EPA MCLs and State PQLs).
The information from this proposed study/action will be used
to make a final remedial action determination for Areas I and J.
The design for a treatment system indicated under Alternative 2
is in the process of being prepared. This will allow for
implementation of active pumping and treating of groundwater
within a year if it becomes necessary, either during this
29
-------
proposed interim action or as part of a final action for Areas I
and J.
5.2 Remedial alternative No. 2;
Capture of the Maximum Amount of Contamination With Limited
Impact to Wetlands/ Physical/Chemical Treatment/ Discharge to
Groundwater
Estimated Capital Cost: $3,000,000
Estimated Annual O&M Cost: $1,200,000
Estimated Implementation Timeframe: 1-2 years
This alternative will consist of a groundwater remediation
system. The groundwater remediation system involves groundwater
recovery (pumping), treatment, and recharge of the treated
groundwater to the aquifer. Contaminated groundwater would be
extracted from the ground through a series of groundwater
recovery wells strategically located to create a zone of capture
that will intercept the higher levels of contamination while
limiting wetland loss.
Based on the BEE, an ecological issue of concern at Area I
and J is that the wetlands may be adversely effected by pumping
of the hydraulically linked aquifer. To evaluate the impact of
pumping on Area wetlands, a wetlands impact study was performed.
The results of this study indicated that the wetland loss which
could potentially result from the implementation of this
alternative is 87 acres or more. The report also suggests that
populations of wetlands species may decline in the drawdown area.
This alternative provides a balance between protection of
human health and the environment. The higher levels of
contamination are removed and treated while limiting drawdown on
wetlands as much as possible.
For this alternative the extracted groundwater would be
diverted through underground piping to a treatment unit which
30
-------
will be constructed in Area I. The system will be designed based
on "performance" specifications to be provided by the Navy, which
will require compliance with NJDEP Groundwater Discharge Effluent
Limitations, Air Pollution Control Requirements and other
applicable regulations. It is currently planned that the
proposed groundwater recovery and treatment system will operate
continuously, 24 hours per day, 365 days per year.
The treated groundwater, which will meet NJDEP Discharge
Effluent Limitations, will be discharged to groundwater through
infiltration basins.
Extensive monitoring of the site would be implemented by
using existing monitoring wells, which will be supplemented by
additional monitoring wells to create an effective monitoring
well network. A "downgradient line of compliance" will be
established. This line of compliance will consist of a series of
monitoring wells located at the downgradient extent of the plume
which will be required to meet cleanup standards (EPA MCLs and
State PQLs). Existing and new monitoring wells, located
throughout and downgradient of the plume, would be monitored
during treatment operation to confirm that contaminant levels of
concern have not migrated to the downgradient line of compliance
and to evaluate the treatment system performance. If contaminant
levels of concern are discovered in well(s) which are part of the
downgradient line of compliance, the well(s) where the high
levels were detected will immediately be resampled and
appropriate actions will be taken. These actions may include but
not be limited to, installation of additional wells,
modifications of the existing pumping rates, modifications of the
pumping well arrays (i.e. pumping other wells), etc. The
monitoring well network would be effective in providing data to
show the effectiveness of treatment as well as other attenuation
mechanisms, and indicate the extent of the contaminant plume.
31
-------
5.3 Remedial Alternative No. 3;
Capture of the Flume above ARARs, Physical/Chemical Treatment/
Discharge to Groundwater
Estimated Capital Cost: $4,500,000
Estimated Annual O&M Cost: $1,800,000
Estimated Implementation Timeframe: 1-2 years
This alternative will consist of a groundwater remediation
system. The groundwater remediation system involves groundwater
recovery (pumping), treatment, and recharge of the treated
groundwater to the aquifer. Contaminated groundwater would be
extracted from the ground through a series of groundwater
recovery wells strategically located to create a zone of capture
that will intercept the extent of the VOC plume above cleanup
standards. For Area I and J groundwater, EPA MCLs and State PQLs
will be considered cleanup standards. Contaminant levels
detected at lower levels than PQLs are considered unreliable
based on lab detection limits.
The plume extent and migration would be monitored through an
extensive monitoring well network.
For this alternative the extracted groundwater will be
diverted through underground piping to a treatment unit which
will be constructed in Area I. The system will be designed based
on "performance" specifications to be provided by the Navy, which
will require compliance with NJDEP Groundwater Discharge Effluent
Limitations, Air Pollution Control Requirements and other
applicable regulations.
Extensive monitoring of the site would be implemented by
using existing monitoring wells, which will be supplemented by
additional monitoring wells to create an effective monitoring
well network.
32
-------
EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
During the detailed evaluation of remedial alternatives,
each alternative is assessed against the nine evaluation criteria
which are summarized below.
1. Overall Protection of Human Health and The Environment draws
on the assessments conducted under other evaluation criteria
. and considers how the alternative addresses site risks
through treatment, engineering, or institutional controls.
2. Compliance With ARARs evaluates the "ability of an
alternative to meet Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate
Requirements (ARARs) established through Federal and State
statutes and/or provides the basis for invoking a waiver.
3. Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence evaluates the ability
of an alternative to provide long term protection of human
health and the environment and the magnitude of residual
risk posed by untreated wastes or treatment residuals.
4. Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility or Volume Through Treatment
evaluates an alternative's ability to reduce risks through
treatment technology.
^
5. Short-Term Effectiveness addresses the cleanup time frame
f
and any adverse impacts posed by the alternative during the
construction and implementation phase, until cleanup goals
are achieved.
6. Implementability is an evaluation of the technical
feasibility, administrative feasibility, and availability of
services and material required to implement the alternative.
7. Cost includes an evaluation of capital costs, annual
33
-------
operation and maintenance (O&M) costs, and net present worth
costs.
8. Agency Acceptance indicates the EPA's and the State's
response to the alternatives in terms of technical and
administrative issues and concerns.
9. Community Acceptance evaluates the issues and concerns the
public may have regarding the alternatives.
The first two criteria, protection of human health and the
environment and compliance with Applicable or Relevant and
Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) are considered by the EPA to be
threshold criteria which each alternative must meet. The next
five are balancing criteria, and the final two are considered
modifying criteria.
ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
Overall Protection of Human Health and Environment -
Alternative 1 will monitor the effects of natural restoration for
an "interim" period of three years to determine if this process
will be effective at reducing contamination. Alternative 1
provides overall protection of human health through extensive
monitoring throughout the area of contamination and along the
plume boundary.
Alternatives 2 and 3 would provide protection of human
health through active pumping and treatment of groundwater.
However, based on modeling, these alternatives would induce
significant drawdowns on area wetlands which may be detrimental
to the wetlands and the species which rely on these wetlands for
their habitat.
Initial studies conducted for this Area indicate that the
effect of pumping on remediating the plume is questionable when
34
-------
compared to the ability of natural restoration to reduce the mass
of contaminants.
As part of all three alternatives, measures to restrict
groundwater usage and access within the areas of contamination
would also be implemented to minimize risk to human health.
Compliance with ARARs - For all remedial alternatives
considered, a detailed sampling plan and analytical schedule will
be developed to ensure compliance with ARARs. For all remedial
alternatives, a downgradient "line of compliance" (LOG) will be
established. This LOG will consist of a series of monitoring
wells located at the downgradient extent of the plume (outside
the area of contamination). If contaminant levels above ARARs
are discovered in well(s) which are part of the downgradient LOG,
the well(s) where the high levels were detected shall immediately
be resampled. The sampling results will be presented to the
regulatory agencies and appropriate action will be taken.
Appropriate action may include, but not be limited to,
installation of additional monitoring wells, or implementation of
active treatment.
Alternative 1 will comply with ARARs at the line of
compliance. The purpose of Alternative 1 is to determine whether
ARARs will be reached within the area of contamination through
the natural restoration process. Active pumping and treatment
would be implemented should it become necessary.
For this Record of Decision, compliance with ARARs would be
determined at a downgradient "line of compliance".
Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence - If the
processes of natural restoration proves to be effective based on
the findings of the three year investigation, long-term
monitoring will be proposed as a final action for Areas I and J
groundwater. Long-term permanence will be ensured since
monitoring wells throughout and downgradient of the plume are
monitored until all levels within the plume have been reduced
35
-------
below ARARs. Should natural attenuation prove ineffective, then
a pump and treat remedy would be proposed as a final action for
Areas I and J.
Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility or Volume - Alternative
1 studies the effectiveness of natural restoration to reduce
contamination. Initial studies indicate that the natural
restoration process may be capable of reducing toxicity and
volume of contamination. The last three sampling rounds indicate
that the plume is not migrating but is in a quasi-steady state.
Implementation of Alternative 1 will not reduce toxicity of
the contaminants nor limit the mobility or volume of the plume
through treatment. However, it will provide information as to
the ability of natural biodegradation to reduce site risks. The
sampling information will be utilized to determine if additional
remedial action is necessary for protection of human health and
the environment.
Alternative 2 actively treats the higher levels of
contamination and uses natural restoration to reduce the
remainder of the contamination. Some wetland loss would occur.
Alternative 3 would reduce the volume and migration of
contaminants by capturing and treating all contamination but
would cause extensive loss of wetlands.
Short-Term Effectiveness - In Alternative 1, a short-
term, three year natural restoration investigation will be
.-*
conducted. This study will be effective at providing more
accurate predictions of plume migration and evaluate whether the
plume is being remediated as a result of the natural restoration
process.
Remedial action Alternatives 2 and 3 in the. short-term,
would halt the continued downgradient migration of contaminated
groundwater from source areas on the base.
Implementability - Alternative 1 is easiest to
36
-------
implement. This alternative can be implemented in several months
with the installation of several monitoring well clusters,
preparation of a monitoring plan and workplan for natural
restoration monitoring.
Alternatives 2 is the most implementable treatment option
due to the size of the plume to be captured, the number of
recovery wells necessary and the required pumping rate.
Alternatives 3 would be much more difficult to implement due
to the much larger extent of the plume to be captured, greater
number of recovery wells and higher pumping rate.
The recovery and treatment options would take 1-2 years to
implement.
Cost - Alternative 1, the-natural attenuation/long term
monitoring alternative, has the lowest associated cost.
Alternative 2 is the least expensive treatment alternative. The
cost for Alternative 2 is much lower than the cost for
Alternative 3 due to the number of recovery wells and the size of
the treatment system necessary based on recovery rates.
State Acceptance - The NJDEP and The Pinelands Commission
concur with the Proposed Alternative.
Community Acceptance - Except for some initial
reservations by a downgradient property owner, the community
appears to accept the selected remedy. Community Acceptance is
f~
addressed in the responsiveness summary of this document.
THE SELECTED ALTERNATIVE
The selected interim alternative to address groundwater at
Area I and J is Alternative 1: Natural Restoration Study/
Groundwater Monitoring.
Based on: (1) initial data in the Groundwater Modeling
37
-------
Report which indicates that natural attenuation may be an
effective remediation process in Areas I and J; (2) the Wetlands
Impact Study, which shows that even under the most efficient
pumping scenario, there would be a loss of approximately 87 acres
of wetlands and (3) more than 2 years of groundwater monitoring
data which indicates that the contaminant plume may have reached
a steady state, Alternative 1 has been selected to address
groundwater contamination in Areas I and J.
The NAES will evaluate the effects of natural restoration
for a period of three years. The data obtained from this
investigation will be used to refine the existing contaminant
transport model. The revised model will provide more accurate
predictions of the time required for natural restoration of the
entire plume. Upon completion of this interim action, a final
Record of Decision will be prepared. The findings of this study
will form the basis of the final Record of Decision.
The objectives of the selected interim action are to: 1)
show that contaminant concentrations are being reduced through
the natural restoration process; 2) monitor contaminant plume
migration and verify whether the plume has reached a steady state
and 3) revise the mass transport model to determine rates of
attenuation and site specific half-lives of contaminants to
provide a more accurate time-frame for remediation of the plume.
A workplan to study natural restoration will be prepared.
To monitor the plume, the existing monitoring well network will
be supplemented with additional monitoring wells. The number and
location of these wells will be presented in a monitoring plan to
be prepared concurrently with the natural restoration workplan.
Institutional controls will be implemented to protect human
health. The NAES will request the State and Township to impose
the appropriate restrictions on groundwater use in the area of
groundwater contamination (no one is currently drinking this
water). Pursuant to N.J.A.C. 7:9-6.6D, NJDEP will establish a
Classification Exception Area (CEA). In accordance with this
section of the regulation, NJDEP shall restrict or require the
38
-------
restriction of potable groundwater uses within any CEA where
there'- is or will be an exceedance of the Primary Drinking Water
Standards. The NAES will also provide for limited access to the
area.
STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
Under CERCLA, the alternative selected must protect both
human health and the environment, be cost effective and comply
with statutory requirements. Permanent solutions to
contamination problems are to be achieved whenever possible.
Based on the consideration of alternatives, Alternative 1
has been selected as the preferred interim alternative to address
the groundwater in Areas I and J for the following reasons:
4 This alternative will provide protection of human health by
meeting ARARs at an established downgradient line of compliance.
A combination of extensive monitoring and institutional controls
will ensure protection of human health.
4 The effects of natural restoration appear to be a significant
mechanism for reduction of contaminants in Areas I and J. This
alternative will study the natural restoration process in great
detail to determine if it is a viable way of reducing contaminant
concentrations to acceptable levels.
4 This alternative will protect the environment. It does not
impact the Area wetlands and endangered species as would the
f
treatment alternatives presented.
4 This alternative is easily implemented and cost effective.
39
-------
INTERIM RECORD OF DECISION
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
AREA I AND J, GROUNDWATER
NAVAL AIR ENGINEERING STATION
The purpose of this responsiveness summary is to review
public response to the Proposed Plan for Areas I and J
groundwater. It also documents the Navy's consideration of
comments during the decision making process and provides answers
to any comments raised during the public comment period.
The responsiveness summary for Areas I and J groundwater is
divided into the following sections:
OVERVIEW - This section briefly describes the Focused
Feasibility Study (FFS) process used to develop and
evaluate remedial responses for Areas I and J groundwater,
the remedial 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.
t*
OVERVIEW
Areas I and J are located at NAES in Ocean County,
Lakehurst, New Jersey. This responsiveness summary addresses
public response to the Proposed Plan, proposing a three year
study of the natural restoration processes with extensive
groundwater monitoring.
The Proposed Plan and other supporting information are
40
-------
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 the four Sites. Throughout the
investigation period, the USEPA and NJDEP have been reviewing
work plans and reports and have been providing comments and
recommendations which are 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 NAES 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, NAES'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 on this list. The list is attached as
Appendix B to this Record of Decision.
NAES mailed the Proposed Plan for this Area to concerned
parties on the list described above. On September 13 and 14,
1994, a newspaper notification inviting public comment on the
revised Proposed Plan appeared in The Ocean County Observer. On
September 13, 14, 15 and 16, 1994, the notification appeared in
The Asbury Park Press. On September 14, 1994 the notification
also appeared in The Advance News. The public notice summarized
the Proposed Plan and the preferred 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
41
-------
accepted from September 14, 1994 through October 14, 1994.
A Public Meeting was held on September 14, 1994, at 7:00
p.m. at the Manchester Branch of the Ocean County Library,
Colonial Drive, Manchester, New Jersey. The Area Investigations,
Area evaluation process and the proposed remedial alternative
were discussed. NAES representatives present included: CAPT
Leroy Farr, Commanding Officer; CDR Joseph LoFaso, Public Works
Officer; Robert Kirkbright, Engineering Director; Lucy Bottomley,
Supervisory Environmental Engineer; Michael Figura, Environmental
Engineer; and Carole Ancelin, Public Affairs Officer.
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 September 14, 1994 through
October 14, 1994, no written comments were received pertaining to
Areas I and J groundwater.
Public Meeting Comments
The following is a summary of major questions and comments
•-*
received at the Public Meeting held on September 14, 1994. A
complete transcript of the Public Meeting is provided in the
Information Repository at the Ocean County Library, Toms River
NJ.
Question No. 1
In the.previous proposed plan how much did it cost to pump
and treat the groundwater?
42
-------
Response
The previous proposed plan (issued 8 July 1993) for Area I
and J groundwater proposed to pump and treat the higher levels of
contamination and allow the lower levels to reduce naturally.
The total cost to construct and run the proposed groundwater
recovery and treatment system for 30 years is currently estimated
to be approximately 38 million dollars.
Question No. 2
How much would it cost to construct the treatment facility?
Response
The cost to construct the previously proposed groundwater
recovery and treatment system is estimated to be approximately 3
million dollars. As part of the selected alternative, the Navy
will prepare the specification to construct and operate the
groundwater treatment facility. This, will allow for
implementation of active pumping and treating of groundwater
within a year if it becomes necessary, either during this
proposed interim action or as part of a final action for Areas I
and J.
Question No. 3
Mr. plackwell Albertson, a resident of Beckerville Road,
expressed concern that the plume was migrating toward his
property. He indicated that the plume should be actively
treated.
Response
Currently, twenty downgradient monitoring wells are sampled
semi-annually to assess the concentrations of VOCs along the
downgradient perimeter of the contaminant plume and to compare
the current results with previous results to assess potential
plume migration or changes in the nature and/or extent of
contamination. Over the past two years of sampling, no levels
43
-------
were detected at concentrations exceeding applicable State or
Federal groundwater standards. The extent of the plume does not
appear to have migrated or changed significantly since the Phase
III investigation conducted in 1991-1992. The contaminant levels
in the perimeter wells appear to be reducing over .time.
As part of this selected alternative, forty-one additional
monitoring wells will be added to the existing forty-nine
monitoring wells in the Area. Extensive monitoring of the Area
will be implemented using both existing and additional monitoring
wells to create an effective monitoring well network. A
"downgradient line of compliance" will be established. This line
of compliance will consist of a series of monitoring wells
located at the downgradient extent of the plume which will be
required to meet cleanup standards. If contaminant levels of
concern are discovered in these downgradient well(s) appropriate
action will be taken. These actions may include additional
sampling, additional monitoring well installation and/or
initiation of active treatment.
Question No. 4
Mr. Albertson indicated that when investigations were
initiated at the base he was assured that contamination did not
leave the base.
Response
During the initial Remedial investigations conducted from
1985 to 1990, the Navy had not discovered contamination leaving
the base. It was not until the Phase III Remedial Investigation
(initiated in 1991) that contamination was discovered at and
downgradient of the base boundary.
Question No. 5
Mr. Albertson indicated that additional wells existed which
were not shown during the Public Hearing.
44
-------
Response
Figures 8A through 8D show all existing off-base sampling
points. On September 15, 1994, Ms. Lucy Bottomley and Mr.
Michael Figura of the NBAS Environmental Branch accompanied Mr.
Albertson to the locations where he said he saw additional wells
installed. Although we were unable to locate the wells, Mr.
Albertson will contact the Environmental Branch if he can find
the wells. Mr. Albertson was shown the line of compliance the
Navy is establishing and was presented the sampling plan and
additional wells planned by the Navy. Mr. Albertson expressed
that his concerns have been alleviated now that he has seen the
locations of the additional monitoring wells to be installed.
Question No. 6
What wells in the area have been sampled?
Response
There are currently forty-nine (49) monitoring wells located
throughout Areas I and J. All the monitoring wells and supply
wells in the Area were sampled in February 1993, to provide an
overall set of well sampling data. Twenty downgradient wells
have been sampled semi-annually since February 1993. No
contamination exceeding applicable State or Federal groundwater
standards were found in the downgradient perimeter wells.
One private well was sampled in February 1992. The well is
located on Mr. Stevenson's property at 183 Beckerville Road.
This well was sampled because it was the closest private well to
the Area I and J plume. No contamination exceeding applicable
State or Federal groundwater standards were found in this well.
Question No. 7
Is Mr. Stevenson's the only private well that was sampled?
Why didn't the Navy sample all the private wells located
downgradient of the plume?
45
-------
Response
Mr. Stevenson's well (the nearest downgradient potable well)
was the only private well sampled. No contamination exceeding
applicable State or Federal groundwater standards were found in
this well. The downgradient private wells were not sampled
because it does not appear that contamination has migrated past
the downgradient monitoring wells in the Area. It is not the
Navy's obligation to sample off-base private wells. The NJDEP's
function is to do testing off-base and then determine appropriate
action if necessary.
Question No. 8
What types of contamination do you have in Areas I and J
groundwater?
Response
The primary contaminants present in groundwater are
chlorinated volatile organic compounds. The chlorinated
compounds most commonly detected include cis-l72-dichloroethene,
1,1-dichloroethene, 1,1-dichloroethane, 1,1,1-trichloroethane,
trichloroethene and tetrachloroethene.
Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylene (BTEX) were
detected at few locations and, with one exception, at low
concentrations. BTEX in a shallow sample collected at one off-
base location is believed to be attributable to an unidentified
minor off-base petroleum release and not related to activities at
»•*
NAES.
Several metals (aluminum, cadmium, chromium, lead, and
nickel) were detected sporadically at concentrations exceeding
EPA and/or NJDEP groundwater standards in unfiltered samples.
However, these metals were generally not detected in the filtered
splits of these samples and were not detected significantly above
unfiltered background concentrations.
46
-------
Question No.9
Mr. Dieter Rauch, a resident of Nicoletti and Johnson
Avenues located approximately one mile east of the base,
indicated that three weeks ago, 13 of 26 homes located in his
neighborhood tested positive for mercury. He indicated that he
met with the Township but no one can determine the source. He
indicated that the Ocean County Board of Health, the Mayor of
Manchester Township, Congressman Smith and the EPA were also
contacted. He questioned if the mercury ,was coming from the
base.
Response
The primary contaminants present in Areas I and J
groundwater are chlorinated volatile organic compounds. Several
metals (aluminum, cadmium, chromium, lead, and nickel) were
detected sporadically at concentrations exceeding EPA and/or
NJDEP groundwater standards in unfiltered samples. However,
these metals were generally not detected in the filtered splits
of these samples and were not detected significantly above
unfiltered background concentrations. Mercury was not found in
Areas I and J above EPA or NJDEP groundwater standards.
The NJDEP Bureau of Well Field Remediation (a sub-group of
Safe Drinking Water) is investigating the problem. Mr. Rocky
Richards, heads the investigating group and can be reached at
(609) 984-5862.
»*•
Question No. 10
Areas I and J were mainly polluted during the 1960s?
Response
The groundwater in Areas I and J was contaminated by
activities conducted during the 1960s and early 1970s. Page 8 of
this document lists the reported or potential contaminant
sources.
47
-------
Question No. 11
How does the Navy know where the contamination was going the
first ten or twenty years after its release?
Response
When chlorinated solvents are poured on the ground surface
they travel vertically through the soil until they reach
groundwater. Once they reach groundwater they may become
dissolved in the groundwater and begin to move with the
groundwater. As the contaminants move away from the source they
tend to spread out and reduce in concentration due to natural
attenuation and dilution.
The extensive monitoring well network throughout Areas I and
J has been used to identify the extent of contamination resulting
from past releases. The results show the higher levels of
contamination at and near the source areas (areas where
contaminants were released onto the ground surface). Contaminant
levels decrease downgradient of the source areas to
non-detectable levels near the downgradient surface water bodies.
A groundwater .contaminant transport model has been produced
to simulate the plume migration at Areas I and J. The model is
calibrated by simulating the release of contaminants at source
areas and comparing the subsequent migration to field conditions.
This model can then be used to predict future migration of the
plume. The three year study to be conducted, will provide data
to allow a more accurate prediction of future plume migration and
natural attenuation.
Question No. 12
Ms. Gisela Tsambaou, a resident of Pine Lake Park, indicated
that her groundwater was polluted with similar chemicals as those
in Areas I and J.
Response
Many contaminated sites throughout the state have
48
-------
chlorinated solvents. These chemicals were commonly used in the
past for degreasing operations.
Question No. 13
What is natural restoration?
Response
Natural restoration is the use of naturally occurring
attenuation mechanisms, such as biodegradation, to reduce the
total amount of contaminant dissolved in groundwater. Natural
restoration permits the degradation of organic contaminants under
natural, in situ, conditions. Natural Restoration is an
important process at contaminated sites because it limits
pollutant migration and reduces contaminant mass in the
subsurface.
Identifying the impact of natural restoration at a site
involves a comprehensive sampling program in conjunction with
extensive modeling of contaminant fate and transport.
Question No. 14
Rather than pumping, you are just going to let the
contamination sit?
Response
Rather than pumping, the Navy is going to conduct a rigorous
three year study of the natural restoration processes at the
Area. Ongoing sampling has indicated that the plume has reached
a steady state and may be reducing over time. An extensive
contaminant transport model prepared for the Area indicates that
even with conservative degradation rates natural attenuation will
be effective at reducing contamination over time. The study will
identify if natural restoration is an effective process at this
site.
Extensive monitoring throughout and downgradient of the
plume will be conducted to protect human health. The design to
49
-------
construct a treatment system will be prepared. This design can
be implemented within a year should active treatment of the plume
become necessary.
Question No. 15
Mr. Albertson stated that he did not believe that the plume
would reduce through natural attenuation but only through
dilution.
Response
Removal of contaminants by natural processes has been
evaluated in field and laboratory investigations. Both types of
investigations demonstrate that natural restoration can be
effective at remediating groundwater contamination. Research has
documented microbial systems that destroy chlorinated organic
contaminants. Natural restoration has shown to be an effective
remedial process at many sites.
An extensive three year study of the natural processes at
Areas I and J will be conducted to determine if natural
restoration will be effective at reducing contaminants to
acceptable levels.
50
-------
Appendix A
Attendance List for Public Meeting Held
September 14, 1994
-------
SEP-20-1995 15:58
PUBLIC WORKS DEPT
S0S 323 52S6 P.01/32
NAVAL AIR ENGINEERING STATION
PUBLIC MEETING
AREAS I AND J GROUNDWATER
. £/
POSTERS RADIO
NEWSPAPER KAIL
POSTERS RADIO
NEWSPAPER MAIL
POSTERS RADIO
NEWSPAPER MAIL
If interested in future mailings, please provide your full address.
-------
SEP-20-1995 15:58
PUBLIC WORKS DEPT
90S 323 5286 P.02/02
NAVAL AIR ENGINEERING STATION
PUBLIC MEETING
AREAS I AND J GROUNDWATER
SIGN-IN SHEET
NAME
( .xWr f/l +:-Ts VzT fr c? , TT/7-r*
-r^&pdr **<**?'<
Q/*^&t*tJt»ttf fl&&
/
*• ' ~
AFFILIATION/ADDRESS
& e*f~i £s { S'/ot? v*«£_
/A %/u £{,"*.£ C i- f
SS-iJfWfi >".
7> 2 iKp ' '. W yt.- i ,.:>" '^^
^ /O' £/&A'f^'&'j{r/#A
HOU 010 YOU HEAR OF THE
MEETING? CIRCLE ONE
POSTERS 'RAD tO
NEWSPAPER • HAIL
POSTERS RADIO
MEUSPAPER HAIL
POSTERS RADIO
S(. ^«/ViEWSPAPER HAIL
POSTERS RADfO
NEWSPAPER HAIL
POSTERS RADIO
NEWSPAPER NAIL
POSTERS RADIO
NEWSPAPER MAIL
POSTERS RADIO
NEWSPAPER MAIL
POSTERS RADIO
NEWSPAPER MAIL
POSTERS RADIO
NEWSPAPER HAIL
POSTERS RADIO
NEWSPAPER HAIL
POSTERS RADIO
NEWSPAPER HAIL
POSTERS RADIO
NEWSPAPER MAIL
POSTERS RADIO
NEWSPAPER HAIL
POSTERS RADIO
NEWSPAPER MAIL
POSTERS RADIO
NEWSPAPER HAIL
POSTERS RAO 10
NEWSPAPER HAIL
POSTERS RADIO
NEWSPAPER HAIL
•POSTERS RADIO
NEWSPAPER MAIL
POSTERS RADIO
NEWSPAPER HAIL
If interested in future mailings, please provide your full address.
TOTftL P.92
-------
updated 9-20-94
APPENDIX B
LIST OF CONCERNED PARTIES
Naval Air Engineering Station - Lakehurst
Captain L. Farr
Commanding Officer
Naval Air Engineering Station
Lakehurst, NJ 08733-5000
Mr. Frank Montarelli, Public Affairs
Naval Air Engineering Station
Lakehurst, NJ 08733-5000
Commander J. M. LoFaso
Public Works Officer
Naval Air Engineering Station
Lakehurst, NJ 08733-5000
(908) 323-2380
(908) 323-2620
(908) 323-2601
Northern Division. Naval Facilities Engineering Command
Mr. Lonnie Monaco
Northern Division
Naval Facilities Engineering Command
Code 182
10 Industrial Highway
Mail Stop 82
Lester, PA 19113-2090
(215) 595-0555
Federal Elected Officials
Senator William Bradley
1705 Vauxhall Road
P.O. Box 1720
Union, NJ 07083
Senator Frank R. Lautenberg
208 White Horse Pike
Suite 18-19
Barrington, NJ 08007
Congressman H. James Saxton
100 High Street
Mount Holly, NJ 08060
Congressman Christopher H. Smith
100 Lacey Road
Suite 38A
Whiting, NJ 08759
(908) 688-0960
(609) 757-5353
(609) 261-5800
(908) 350-2300
-------
Congressman Frank Pallone, Jr. . (201) 571-1140
540 Broadway
Room 118
Long Branch, NJ 07740
State Elected Officials
Senator Leonard T. Connors, Jr. (609) 693-6700
620 West Lacey Road
Forked River, NJ 08731
Assemblyman Jefferey Moran (609) 693-6700
620 West Lacey Road
Forked River, NJ 08731
Assemblyman Christopher J. Connors (609) 693-6700
620 West Lacey Road
Forked River, NJ 08731
Assemblywoman Marlene L. Ford (908) 899-1208
2611 Spruce Street
Point Pleasant, NJ 08742
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Officials
Ms. Laura Livingston (212) 264-6723
Federal Facilities Coordinator
Room 1104
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region II
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
Mr. Steven Katz (212) 264-2515
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 Agencies
Mr. Steve Aoyama (404) 639-6070
Agency for Toxic Substances and
Disease Registry
1600 Clifton Road
Mail Stop E-56
Atlanta, GA 30333
-------
Commanding Officer
Attn: Joyce Patterson
NEESA Code 112E2
1001 Lyons St. Suite 1
Port Hueneme, CA 93043-4340
New Jersey Pinelands Commission
Mr. Todd DeJesus (609) 894-9342
The Pinelands Commission
P. 0. Box 7
New Lisbon, NJ 08064
Ocean County Officials
Mr. Alan W. Avery, Jr., Commissioner (908) 929-2054
Ocean County Planning Board
P.O. Box 2191
Toms River, NJ 08754-2191
Mr. Joseph H. Vicari, Director (908) 244-2121
Ocean County Board of Freeholders
P.O. Box 2191
Toms River, NJ 08754
Mr. Joseph Przywara, Coordinator (908) 341-9700
Ocean County Health Department
Environmental Health
2191 Sunset Avenue
Toms River, NJ 08753
Mr. A. Jerome Walnut, Chairman (908) 505-3671
Ocean County Environmental Agency
1623 Whitesville Road
Toms River, NJ 08755
Dover Township Officials
Hon. J. Mark Mutter (908) 341-1000
Mayor of Dover Township
P.O. Box 728
33 Washington Street
Toms River, NJ 08754
Ms. Janet Carson (908) 341-1000
Dover Township Environmental Commission
P.O. Box 728
33 Washington Street
Toms River, NJ 08754
-------
Manchester Township Officials
Hon. Jane cardo Cameron (908) 657-8121
Mayor of Manchester Township
One Colonial Drive
Lakehurst, NJ 08733
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 (908) 928-0900
Jackson Township Environmental Commission
128 Willow Drive
Jackson, NJ 08527 .
Borough of Lakehurst Officials
Hon. Alton Tilton (908) 657-4141
Mayor of Lakehurst Borough
5 Union Avenue
Lakehurst, NJ 08733
Mr. Robert J. Morris (908) 657-4141
Municipal Clerk, Borough of Lakehurst
5 Union Avenue
Lakehurst, NJ 08733
Plumsted Township Officials
Hon. Ronald S. Dancer (609) 758-2241
Mayor of Plumsted Township
P.O. Box 398
New Egypt, NJ 08533-0398
Community Groups and Interested Citizens
Pine Lake Park Association (908) 341-3653
1616 Seventh Avenue
Toms River, NJ 08757
-------
Mr. Holmes Ertley (908) 657-4690
699C Friar Court
Lakehurst, NJ 08733
Mr. John Lewis (908) 657-1890
315 Beckerville Road
Lakehurst, NJ 08733
Ms. Candy Vesce
733 Sixth Ave.
Pine Lake Park
Toms River, NJ 08757
Ms. Theresa Lettman (609) 893-4747
Pinelands Preservation Alliance
120-34B White Bogs Road
Browns Mills, NJ 08015
Ms. Susan Marshall
1716 Ninth Ave.
Toms River, NJ 08757
Ms. Gisela Tsambikou
1162 Beacon St.
Pine Lake Park
Toms River, NJ 08757
Mr. Dieter Rand
3288 Johnson Ave.
Lakehurst, NJ 08733
Mr. & Mrs. Blackwell Albertson
135 Beckerville Rd.
Lakehurst, NJ 08733
Media Organizations
Advance News (908) 657-8936
2048 Route 37 West
Lakehurst, NJ 08733
Alyn Ackerman 1-800-822-9770
Asbury Park Press
3601 Highway 66
P.O. BOX 1550
Neptune, NJ 07754-1550
Ms. Debra Coombe (908) 244-7171
Newark Star Ledger
44 Washington Street
Toms River, NJ 08753
-------
New Egypt Press (609) 758-2112
37 Main Street
P.O. Box 288
New Egypt, NJ 08533
Ocean County Leader (908) 899-1000
P.O. Box 1771
Point Pleasant Beach, NJ 08742
Ms. Lisa Peterson (908) 793-0147
Ocean County Review .
P.O. BOX 8
Seaside Heights, NJ 08751
Ocean County Reporter (908) 349-1501
8 Robbins Street
P.O. Box 908
Toms River, NJ 08753
Mr. Sam Christopher (908) 349-3000
Ocean County Observer
8 Robbins Street
CN 2449
Toms River, NJ 08753
Mr. Shawn Marsh (908) 774-7700
WJLK Radio
Press Plaza
Asbury Park, NJ 07712
Ms. Joan Jones (908) 270-5757
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
-------
Federal and State Case Managers
Mr. Jeffrey Gratz, Project Manager (212) 264-6667
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region II
26' Federal Plaza, Room 2930
New York, NY 10278
Ms. Donna Gaffigan, Case Manager (609) 633-1455
Bureau of Federal Case Management, CN 028
New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection and Energy
401 East State Street
Trenton, NJ 08625-0028
Ms. Linda Welkom, Geologist (609) 292-8427
Bureau of Groundwater Pollution Abatement
New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection and Energy
401 East State Street
Trenton, NJ 08625
Mr. Kevin Schick (609) 984-1825
Bureau of Environmental Evaluation
and Risk Assessment
New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection and Energy
401 East State Street
Trenton, NJ 08625
-------
NEW
JERSEY
WARFARE CENTER
PINE LAKE PARK
LAKEHUR5T
OBltt
NAVAL AIR WARFARE CENTER -
AIRCRAFT DIVISION
LAKEHURST, NEW JERSEY
VICINITY MAP
REFERENCE:
HAGSTROM MAP OF
OCEAN COUNTY, NEW JERSEY
APPROXIMATE SCALE IN HILLS
Dames & Moore rG,URE
CRANFORD. NEW JERSEY ' '
-------
APPROXIMATE
AREA OF INVESTIGATION
LOCATION MAP
AREAS I AND J AND
ADJACENT OFF-BASE REGION
NAVAL AIR WARFARE CENTER-
AIRCRAFT DIVISION
LAKEHURST. NEW JERSEY
Dames & Moorv IFIGURE
CRANFORD. NEW JERSEY I 2
-------
SOURCE: U.S.G.S. 7V,' Quads. , Cassviile and Lakshurst. :-!J , IS57
ravisid ;371
Ex.ts.nt O^" Cortex ivM
FIGURE 2.-A
SUliTACE DRAINAGE PATTERNS AND TRIBUTARIES
NAVAL AIR WARFARE CENTER
LAKEHURST. NEW JERSEY
Dames & Moore
-------
SOURCE: U.S.G.S. ?«• Quads., Cassville and Lakehurst. NJ . 1957
Fhotcrevised 1971
FIGURE Z-
WETLANDS AND NEIGHBORING PALUSTRINE REGIONS
NAVAL AIR WARFARE CENTER"
LAKE HURST, NEW JERSEY
6-12
Dames & Moore
-------
—-^T^^^p^'-^^y^^ HK
x--1"^ ™«"~ s\ -; ;i!K<3&- ... W^j£
^»fS5=«V,,l /~S;.
/"*" /' 'Xv SED-2^P';;^:r.
, ,.,-r---^ - A-(..^-r
^~—<./f I N7
« rsrv*Tri> t»ttMT w voc fiwc *t m jo.
>o 'lit BtiQK ixt w»n» tmt. set ncunts
& c «^ o. t.-u-tcr.vf.v.
icwH «ovccs * ct»C*HittO «ru»r(
zo«tti ((UNI or THE co«i**'N*n»<
fiOjrt DOCS ^9T PHOVVC isTMunUM (
rcn ttSWSutiON w COHIUInine".
COrlCCNtRAtlOH OF TOTAL VOL* 111C ORGANIC
!OUPOUNDS IN CROUNOWAICR - SOUtKEASICRN
NAWC (AREAS I AND J) AND
HtlCMBOBIHC Orr-OASE AREA
NAVAL AIR WARFARt CEHTCR
AIRCRAFT DIVISION
UKEHURST. NEW JERSEY
\X9 HO 7980-018
Domes & Moore
-------
Total VOa NAWC Areas I&J
Map View, Qit at 28 ft elevation (figure 4)
-------
Reported
Steam
Cleaning.
Area
LOCATION PLAN
FXPLAMAT10N:
•y!:Vi;j APPROXIMATE LIMIT OF SITE
(^ ) BOUNDARY OF ^VOOOED AREAS
NOTE:
REFER TO SITE SUMMARIES IN SECTION 4.2.2
FOR INDIVIDUAL SITE HISTORIES •
0 100 200 300 400 500 FEET
GRAPHIC SCALE
AREA I
BASE MAP WITH SITE LOCATIONS
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION - PHASE II
NAVAL AIR ENGINEERING CENTER
LAKEHURST NEW JERSEY
S NOTED
Dames & Moore
_CRANFQRO. NEW JERSEY
R.G.B.
7-12-90 APP"'°y C.I.T. TO-TO 5
- 7980-01 3
-------
BLDG 525
Storage
i ' AKEHURST NAVAL AIR
' ' WARFARE CENTER
AREA I
FIGURE 5A
-------
V
LOCATION PLAN
APPROXIMATE LIMIT OF SITE
<^ 3 BOUNDARY OF WOODED AREAS
NOTE:
REFE3 TO SITE SUMMARIES IN SECTION 4.2.2
FOR INDIVIDUAL SITE HISTORIES
0 100 200 300 400 500 FEET
GRAPHIC SCALE
AREA J
BASE MAP WITH SITE LOCATIONS
INVESTIGATION - PHASE 11
NAVAL AIR ENGINEERING CENTER
LAKEHURST. NEW JERSEY
?gB Dames & Moore
CRANFORO. NEW JERSEY
7-3-90
R.G.B.
C.I.T.
7980-013
-------
GROUND**!!* CUV* trorlS »«0
CSTI«*ttO FlOW DIHECIICSS
SOUIHEASItHN M«WC (*B[»S H. I * J)
HDGHBOOII1G orr-B»St BfC'CH
NAVAL AIR VMRFARt Ct'lUR
AIRCRAFT OlVISlOfl
LAKEMURST. NEW JERSEr
-------
iwj«.niC L(
.T 10 fill
S in vj/l - '*,'
I*9i.£i
I. CC"«.'i
•(C»(
IS CM.1
*rsOtlS SHOUi ARC rot CM.W--l*r£0 CC«fCT,NOS;
» CCUPOUNO DCICCICD. XMtHE KESCKI. C
Cf am is SHOAN SCPARAFUT. rouo*io e» '(9it»r-
I. cc^ccure*news SHOM *AC ron o»ou^D*»itR SIMPLES
CCUCCUO fO«« UW1ICR;I(C «U( «M *SM*uOnT *CB£
- ''
•• ;S
.
VOLATILE ORCAIIIC tl'UFOUHDS III CROUHQVMICR.
*A" ZONE - SOUTHEASTERN fJAWC (AREAS
I AMD J) AND NEIGHBORING Ofr-BASC AREA
NAVAL AIR WARFARE CENItR
AIRCRAFT DIVISION
LAKEHURST. NEW JERSET
Dames & Moore
8A
-------
>-"e tuic-l
,.•= "m
'* IS(l)
KEY:
rao) • «;•;
'-.•
ftt'.L wlH CC'JCtNt3»^Oy
Olf.C CCwPOo^Sl « ufl
s PM»SE « - » o*r*j
, .
soituiiELY » FECI eao* *»u» i*sn>
*l(0 CO"IOOH V CC%CENlS»nON Of IOI«. Cm«w*IEB
DlC 4MC1UC CC-^COS3S n u,/l
HtO KH(j;t AP?flOi!«*ICD DUE 10 LACK or DMA)
Ltccico rosu uCNircvMC »tu$ win -i.s;[;vtC'»if
TABLES I* AMD I
COIJCCHIHAllOfJ Or TOTAL CHLORIIUICO
VOUTIIC ORCAtilC COMPOUNDS IK CROUHOWAIER,
'B' ZONE - SOUTHEASTERN NAWC (AREAS
t *!ID J) AtiO HEICHBOR1HC Ofr-8AS[ AREA
NAVAL AIR WARFARE CENTER
AIRCRAFT DIVISION
LAKEHURST. NEW JERSEY
f't. 9-30-92
Damos & Mooro
86
-------
•••""'' vX ''' - -•
... HH-ia,fei.,, '
11(0)
KEY:
uOMTtmiC MILL OIIH COT'CINl
(ii wttcirts PHASE • - BI 0*1
„«'...
jifl!?1' - -*«.-»
- - - WH-lV'.'
--;•/
XXD) •
"*)-.. w
N
- IOUt VO.ATILC 0«C*wC COuPOUNOS w »
(*PpBOUU*t[(.T SO fill BtlO" WAltK UBK
C1RuAI[t) CONIOU4 Of CONCCwm*riO:i or II
«Xmt CTOtrC CCUPCUNOS IN ufl/1.
D KICCtCO. «w£Rt P«EUNI..COKCEMIB*I10N
C «ciis **t>« 'oct
'C' OtI»IM nlEKV*!
ICi.T 70 fttl BUO
COHCEItTRAIIOM Or TOTAL CHLORlrlATEO
VOUTILC ORCAtliC COUPOUitDS W CROUNOWATER.
"C" 20MC - SOUTHCASICRH MAWC (AREAS
I AHO J) AMD NCIGKBORINC OIT-BASE AREA
NAVAL AIR WARFARE CENTER
AIRCRAFT DIVISION
UKEHURST. NEV/ JCRSEY
0"t. 9-30-9 Z
Dames & Mooro
8C
-------
••"""V
v 7o reel sao* **m t«9:o
3 CC'tKXJH W COfJCDi^!»:.;•! tS «»v C-.c^NAlf
S ri u;/i
O CUE 10 l*C* CT 0»IA)
coticciiiRAriOH or TOTAL CHLOIIIUTCO
VOUI1LC ORCUItC COMPOUNDS IN CBOUHDV/AUB.
'0' ZOHC - SOUTHCASICRN NAV-C (Afi£*S
I *»0 J) AND HDCHaOSttJC Orr-BASE AflCA
HAVAL AIR WARfARC
AIlitlCAl I UIVIjI'JII
LAKEHURST. HCV/ JERSEY
CMC fl-30-9I
1X3 M> 7930-029
Dames & Moore
8D
-------
ROD FACT SHEET
SITE
Name :
Location/State :
EPA Region :
HRS Score :
EPA Site ID # :
ROD
Date Signed:
(Inter im) Remedy:
Op. Unit No.:
Capital cost:
Const. Completion:
O & M in 1995:
1996:
1997:
1998:
Present worth:
LEAD
Enforcement
Primary contact
Secondary contact
Federal Facility
FF Contact
Naval Air Engineering Station (NAES)
Lakehurst (OU-16)
Lakehurst, Ocean Co., New Jersey
II
49.48
NJ7170023744
NAES - Nov. 29, 1994; EPA - Jan. 5, 1995
3 year study of effectiveness of natural
biodegredation
OU-16
$550,000
6/95
none
$250,000
$250,000
$250,000
$1,300,000 (assumes 3 years O & M)
Federal Facility lead, EPA oversight
Jeffrey Gratz (212) 637-4320
Bob Wing (212) 637-4332
Navy - NAES Lakehurst
Lucy Bottomley (908) 323-2612
WASTE
Type
Medium
Origin
Est. quantity
Gasoline, Jet fuel, solvents
Groundwater
assorted spills
Plume size (> 5ppb): >1 mile long, 1/2 mile
wide
------- |