PB96-963802
EPA/ROD/R02-96/269
October 1996
EPA Superfund
Record of Decision:
Naval Air Engineering Station,
Area H Groundwater, Lakehurst, NJ
2/20/1996
-------
NAVAL AIR ENGINEERING STATION, Lakehurst, NJ
RECORD OF DECISION
Area H Groundwater
10 January 1996
^
rwv.iwa.er*
-------
10 January 1996
RECORD OF DECISION
DECLARATION STATEMENT
AREA B GROtJNDWATER
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 Area H groundwater at the Naval Air Engineering Station in
Lakehurst, New Jersey. The selected 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 H Groundwater (March 1995), the Proposed Plan for
Area H Groundwater (August 1995), and sampling data obtained from
the Area H interim pump and treat facility (July 1992 - May 1995).
These.reports and other information used in the remedy selection
process are part of the Administrative Record file for Area H,
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.
Both the United States Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA), Region II Regional Administrator and the Commissioner of
the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP)
concur with the selected remedy.
The selected alternative to address groundwater at Area H is:
continued operation of the existing groundwater treatment facility
with modifications to enhance system performance.
The objectives of the proposed action are to: 1) remediate
Area H groundwater to meet applicable or relevant and appropriate
requirements (ARARs); and 2) control contaminant plume migration
-------
and treat higher levels of groundwater contamination via the
existing groundwater treatment facility.
Extensive monitoring will be performed to show the
effectiveness of this alternative and monitor the extent and
migration of groundwater contamination (if any).
STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
This final action for Area H is protective of human health and
the environment. The results of this action will attain Federal
and State applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements
(ARARs).
V
Captain L^roy Farr (Date)
Commanding Officer
Naval Air Engineering Station
Lakehurst, New Jersey
With the concurrence of:
/ '<
Jeanne JJox f (Date)
Regional Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region II
-------
DECISION SUMMARY
RECORD OF DECISION
AREA H GRODNDWATER
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 Pirielands 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 Manapagua 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 Manapagua
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 support 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 Station
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
Station 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
Area H is located in the central portion of the NAES, to the
south of Area G (Figure 2) . Area H consists of Sites 2, 21 and 32.
The predominant physical feature in Area H is the Recovery System
Track Sites (RSTS), Site 32, which consists of the launch end of
five system test tracks and ancillary facilities (Figure 3). The
test tracks are used to launch sled-mounted aircraft or jet engines
that simulate aircraft landings on aircraft carriers. The sleds
are arrested at the other end of the tracks to test arresting
cables and nets. The tracks, which resemble railroad tracks, are
one to one and one-half miles long. Ancillary facilities consist
of several buildings used for storage and maintenance of equipment
and supplies. Site 32 is believed to be responsible for the
groundwater contamination present at Area H.
Tow Way No. 11 is located at the end of the test track and
runs southeastward from Area H toward Area I and the southeastern
NAES boundary. Several small buildings and two non-potable water
supply wells are also present near the end of the tracks. The test
tracks and buildings are surrounded by wooded areas which are
transected by several dirt roads. To the southeast of the test
tracks and associated buildings are several small duck ponds. The
Manapaqua Brook traverses the southeast corner of Area H,
immediately southeast of the ponds. The general' direction of
groundwater flow in Area H is to the east/southeast (Figure 4).
Of note, the results of previous investigations and removal
actions conducted at former Sites 2 and 21 in Area H have
documented the absence of any significant contamination posing a
threat to human health or the environment. Site 2, located between
-------
tracks 1 and 2, had 200 cubic yards of visually oil-stained soil,
removed in 1981. At Site 21, 22 cubic yards of petroleum
hydrocarbon contaminated soil were removed in March 1991. Proposed
Plans were prepared for these former Sites, proposing the "no-
action" alternative, and released for public comment. Following
30-day public comment periods, the Navy, with EPA, issued Records
of Decision, documenting the no action determination for these two
sites.
Potential sources of contamination at Site 32 included:
1. A drainage system located at the end of each of the five test
tracks designed to receive oil and fuel runoff. Each system
consisted of a catch basin at the end of the track connected to
a dry well located adjacent to the track. The five dry wells,
which were constructed in 1957 of terra-cotta and/or concrete,
were about 5 to 6 feet in diameter and 6 to 8 feet deep. Some
were unlined and some had bottoms. As part of standard
operating procedures, fuel drained from the jet engines would
enter the catch basin and drain into the dry well. It was
originally intended that the fuel would then be pumped out for
reuse or disposal. However, the fuel was not pumped out until
1979, when access ports to the dry wells were discovered.
Subsequently, the dry wells were pumped out by a contractor
periodically until about 1985 or 1986, when they were taken out
of service and the drains were plugged. The dry wells were
excavated and removed in October 1988. Currently, the fuel
drained from the jet engines is collected in a container
attached to the engines and disposed of appropriately. During
the 22-year period that the dry wells were not pumped, oily
waste may have run off into swales between the tracks that led
to a swale leading to the north of the launching area from the
beginning of Track 1. The swale is not connected to any of the
streams that traverse NAES and discharge to other major
streams in the area. The quantity of waste released is not
known.
2. A 1,500-gallon underground fuel storage steel tank located near
Building 408, at the south launching end of Test Track No. 1.
The tank, which was used initially to store JP-4 and later JP-
5, was installed in 1958, was taken out of service around 1985,
and was removed in April 1989. The tank was connected to a
pump housed in an adjacent shed (Building 518). It was
reported that when the tank was excavated and removed, the soil
adjacent to the tank on the northern side was saturated with
fuel. It was also reported that leaky valves in the pump house
and spills from overfilling the tank were the primary sources
of fuel releases.
3. A 15,000-gallon underground JP-5 fuel storage tank and a 400-
gallon underground alcohol tank located adjacent to Building
393, to the east of Tracks 4 and 5. The tanks were connected
-------
to pumps housed in an adjacent shed (Building 406). The tanks,
which served as the central RSTS fuel storage for jet sled
operations, were installed in 1958, taken out of service in
1986, and excavated and removed in April 1989.
4. A 5,400-gallon above ground JP-5 fuel storage tanker located
adjacent to Building 393. This tanker was placed there around
1986 to replace a nearby 15,000-gallon underground tank which
was taken out of service at that time (see Item 3 above). The
5,400-gallon tanker was later replaced by a 2,000-gallon
tanker. Building 393 is the pump house associated with the
tank. It was reported that on May 12, 1989, approximately
1,200 gallons of JP-5 were spilled as a result of a ruptured
hose in the pump house. Contaminated soil was excavated from
a drainage swale by NAES Environmental Branch personnel,
placed in 65, 55-gallon drums, and disposed of at a permitted
off-site facility. There was no direct migration of fuel to a
surface water body.
5. A 500 to 1,000-gallon underground steel tank used to store No.
2 heating fuel. The tank, which was located near Building 397,
was removed around 1982. No evidence of leakage was reported.
6. Potential spills in the area of Buildings 388 and 397. Prior
to 1980, this area was used as a storage area for drums
containing fuel, solvents and oils. Building 388 and the
surrounding area were also used for maintenance on jet sleds
and other equipment.
7. Numerous documented, and potentially undocumented, small volume
spills resulting from operations at the site. The most
probable materials spilled are jet fuels.
INITIAL INVESTIGATIONS
As part of the TOD 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. Following further review of available
data by Navy personnel, it was decided that 42 of the 44 sites
-------
should be included in the Remedial Investigation. Two potentially
contaminated sites, an ordnance site (Site 41) and an Advanced
Underground Storage Facility (Site 43), were deleted from the
Remedial Investigation because they had already been addressed
through previous investigations or standard removal procedures. In
1987 NAES was designated as a National Priorities List (NFL) or
Superfund site under the federal Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA).
EKVIROHMEKTAT- INVESTIGATIONS
Investigations at Area H were initiated from 1981 to 1984 by
NAES, with the installation of a series of groundwater monitoring
wells, which were monitored on a regular basis for the presence of
free product. Six groundwater monitoring wells were installed by
NAES. The wells were monitored for about three years for the
presence of floating fuel product. None was detected. Groundwater
samples were not collected for analysis. The locations of all
groundwater sampling locations are indicated in Figures 5 and 6.
Additional actions conducted at Area H include:
Phase I Remedial Investigation (1985-1986)
Analyses of groundwater samples collected from two monitoring
wells and one non-potable water supply well revealed contamination
with alkylbenzenes (BTEX). Other media were not investigated.
Based on the findings of the Phase I investigation, additional
investigations were recommended at the sites in Area H. Table 1
provides a summary of Phase I groundwater data in Area H.
Soil Gas and Groundvater Screening Survey (May - June 1988)
A soil gas and groundwater screening survey was conducted at
and downgradient from several sites in Area H to determine possible
source areas. The survey indicated the presence of floating
product at Site 32 in the drainage swale between Test Tracks Nos.
3 and 4. Contamination of groundwater by VOCs was also detected
and appeared to extend to a distance of at least 800 feet southeast
(downgradient) of the launching end of the test tracks. The data
suggested that more than one source of contamination may exist. On
the basis of these data, additional investigations were recom-
mended.
Phase II Remedial Investigation (1988)
Two rounds of groundwater samples were collected from Site 2.
The only compound detected in the analysis of these samples was
ethylene glycol, which was detected in the second round sample
only.
The results of sampling conducted at Site 21 indicated the
absence of any significant contamination posing a threat to human
health or the environment.
Analyses of groundwater, soil and sediment samples at Site 32
revealed contamination of all media with VOCs, SVOCs, metals, and
8
-------
PHC. Five dry wells were excavated and removed from the site. A
groundwater contamination plume appears to extend beyond the limits
of the investigation. Table 1 provides a summary of Phase II
groundwater data in Area H.
Aquifer characterization Study (1990)
A short-term pump test was conducted on two monitoring wells
(GG and GX) to evaluate hydrologic properties of the aquifer.
Analysis of samples collected from the wells during the tests
revealed volatile and semi-volatile organic contamination.
Floating product was also detected in monitoring well GX during the
pump test. Soil samples were collected from a test pit excavated
at the site for soil flushing, biological and stabilization bench-
scale treatability studies. Three additional soil samples were
collected from soil borings drilled at the site to further charac-
terize the nature of soil contamination and assess the feasibility
of a soil vapor venting remedial system. Contamination detected in
the analysis of these samples was limited to low levels of a few
VOC compounds. Table 1 provides a summary of groundwater data
collected during the aquifer characterization study in Area H.
Interim Remedial Action - Area E Pump & Treat (1990)
The Navy determined in the spring of 1990, that it had
sufficient data to perform an interim remedial action at Area H.
Although an indepth risk assessment and comprehensive feasibility
study had not been completed, a decision to halt ground water plume
migration and treat ground water contamination from Area H was
made.
A Proposed Plan, highlighting an interim remedial action to be
conducted for Area H groundwater, was issued on September 4, 1990.
A public meeting to present the proposed interim action to the
public for their approval and comments was held on October 2, 1990.
The Record of Decision (ROD) which indicates the selected interim
remedial action for Area H groundwater was issued by the Navy on
December 14, 1990 and signed by the USEPA, Regional Administrator
on February 4, 1991.
The interim alternative implemented includes groundwater
pumping, treatment and recharge of treated water back to the
aquifer. Groundwater is extracted via two wells at a combined rate
of 120 GPM. A new six inch recovery well which was installed at
the launch end of the test tracks is pumped at 40 gpm. A new six
inch recovery well which was installed downgradient of the plume is
pumped at 80 gpm. The original pumping rates when treatment was
initiated were 80 GPM for the well at the tracks and 40 GPM for the
downgradient well. The pumping rates were modified as the plume
migrated past the recovery well at the tracks toward the
downgradient recovery well.
The extracted groundwater is pretreated to remove metals, free
product and solids. To treat the Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)
in the extracted groundwater, the water is passed through air
stripping columns. Granular activated carbon polishing filters are
used for residual VOC and Semi-volatile Organic Compound removal.
-------
The effluent exiting the air stripper is treated by granular
activated air filters before being discharged to the atmosphere.
The treated water is recharged to aquifer irrigation/infiltration;
areas located upgradient of contaminated groundvater to form a>
"closed loop" treatment system.
The treatment system was designed by the Navy and awarded for
construction in April 1991. Construction of the facility was
completed and began operation in May 1992. This interim remedial
action was implemented to halt the spread of contaminated
groundwater.
The interim action cost 1.25 million dollars to construct,
approximately $325,000 per year to operate and maintain,
approximately $70,000 per year for power and approximately
$120,000 per year for project oversight.
Table 1 provides a summary of groundwater data collected
during interim treatment in Area H.
Phase ZZZ Remedial Investigation (1991-1992)
To determine the dpwngradient and vertical extent of the
groundwater contamination plume .identified in previous
investigations, 16 groundwater samples were collected, using the
Hydropunch*, at five locations downgradient of site 32. One
shallow monitoring well (II) and one well pair (IJ and IK) were
also installed downgradient of the site. Benzene was detected
above Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs)
in two samples collected from a location along the presumed axis of
the plume. Chlorinated solvents were detected at levels exceeding
ARARs/standards in two samples collected from locations at the
presumed northern fringe of the alkylbenzene groundwater plume.
Soil samples were collected from borings drilled at seven locations
where prior sampling had revealed contamination or where potential
contaminant sources once existed. Contamination consisting of
volatile and semi-volatile fuel components and petroleum
hydrocarbons extended to the saturated zone at the locations of the
former dry wells near Track 1 and between Tracks 3 and 4, at the
former UST near Building 408, and at the southwest corner of
Building 397. No significant contamination was detected in the
analysis of sediment and surface water samples collected from the
man-made ponds downgradient of the site and Manapaqua Brook, and
from a drainage swale near Track 1. Table 1 provides a summary of
Phase III groundwater data in Area H.
Site 32 Soil (1993-1994)
Investigations conducted at Site 32 identified contamination
in the surf icial soils in the drainage swales at the launching end
of the test tracks, particularly between Tracks 3 and.4. The soils
under the dry wells at Tracks 1, 2, 3, and 5 also exhibited
contamination. The analysis also confirmed the contamination
suspected when a 1,500 gallon tank was removed at the launch end of
track 1. The primary contaminant present in soil were petroleum
hydrocarbons. Some metals were detected sporadically in soil
samples, but none above NJDEP non-residential soil cleanup
10
-------
criteria.
A Proposed Plan for Site 32 soil was issued on June 4, 1993.
A public meeting concerning this Site was held on June 30, 1993 at
the Manchester Branch of the Ocean County Library. A Record of
Decision (ROD) for Site 32 soil was issued by the Navy on September
14, 1993 and signed by the USEPA on September 27, 1993. The ROD
presented the selected action to be Excavation and On-base
Recycling. Additional information concerning the decision for this
Site is available in the Administrative Record at the Ocean County
Library in Toms River, New Jersey.
The contaminated soil was excavated during August 1993. The
excavated soil was covered to await implementation of asphalt
batching for treatment. The contaminated soil was treated during
July 1994 and used as sub-base for road paving at NAES.
Confirmation Sampling for Site 32 Soil (March 1994)
Post-excavation sampling was performed by the Navy CLEAN
contract in March of 1994. Samples were collected from each of the
five former dry wells which had been removed, the drainage swale,
and the UST area near track 1. A total of 13 soil samples were
collected. These results indicated that no further action was
required for soil at Site 32.
Summary
Sampling of Area H sediment, surface water and post excavation
sampling of soil indicate that these media do not pose a risk to
human health or the environment.
Based on the results of the interim remedial action, for
groundwater, it appears that the existing system is capable of
preventing the migration of groundwater contamination. A
groundwater flow and contaminant transport model was established to
optimize the recovery system in Area H. Modifications to the
groundwater recovery system will allow the highest levels ("source
areas") of contamination to be captured for remediation.
11
-------
TABLE 1
Volatile Organic Compounds Which
Exceeded EPA MCLs and/or HJDEP PQLs
Area H Groundvater Phase I Results
CONTAMINANT
Benzene
Ethylbenzene
DETECTED
CONCENTRATIONS
(Mg/D
ND-5.91
ND-456
EPA
MCL
5.0
700.0
NJDEP
PQL
1.0
5.0
CONTAMINANT
Benzene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
Xylenes
2-Butanone (MEK)
Styrene
DETECTED EPA
CONCENTRATIONS MCL
ND-150 5.0
ND-600 1000.0
ND-1200 700.0
ND-6300 10,000.0
ND-1100 -
ND-57 -
NJDEP
PQL
1.0
5.0
5.0
2.0
300.0
5 . 0
12
-------
TABLE 1 (continued)
Area H Ground
Aquifer Characterization/Treatabilitv Study
CONTAMINANT
Benzene
Ethylbenzene
Xylenes
DETECTED
CONCENTRATIONS
ND-45
48-370
200-1300
EPA
MCL
5.0
700.0
10000.0
NJDEP
PQL
(Mg/i)
1.0
5.0
2.0
Area H
CONTAMINANT
Benzene
Gro'pT»dvater Phase III Resul
DETECTED
CONCENTRATIONS
ND-5.7
1,1, 1-Trichloroethane ND-1 . 94
Tr ichl oroethene
Tetrachloroethene
ND-2 . 02
ND-4 . 5
EPA
MCL
(Mg/D
5.0
200.0
5.0
5.0
ts
NJDEP
PQL
(Mg/D
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
13
-------
TABLE 1 (continued)
Area H Groui
Conducted Durincr
idvater Addit:
Operation of
July 199? - .Tune
CONTAMINANT
Benzene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
m+p-Xylene
o-Xylene
Chloroform
1,1, 1-Trichloroethane
cis-1 , 2-Dichloroethene
Trichloroethene
Tetrachloroethene
1,1,2,2-
Tetrachloroe thane
.onal Sam
Interim
1995
DETECTED EPA
CONCENTRATIONS MCL
(M9/1) (Mg/11
ND-57
ND-540
ND-820
ND-310
ND-2200
ND-31.95
ND-152.3
ND-125
ND-81.45
ND-6.63
ND-7
5.0
1000.0
700.0
10,000.0
10,000.0
100.0
200.0
70.0
5.0
5.0
-
pl ing
Treatment
NJDEP
PQL
1.0
5.0
5.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
NOTE:
Primary Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) are Federally enforceable contaminant levels alienable in
public drinking uater supplies. They have been established fro* health-based data by EPA's Office of
Drinking Uater Regulations (40 CFR 141) established under the authority of the Safe Drinking Uater Act.
MCLs are periodically revised as more information becomes available. Uhen Ids are not available, proposed
MCLs Mere used as the comparison criteria for some analytes.
On 13 January 1993, the revised H.J.A.C. 7:9-6 which include the Grounduater Quality Criteria was
signed. The criteria establish the grounduater classifications for the Pinelands, including Class I-PL
(Preservation Area) and Class I-PL (Protection Area). The actual grounduater criteria are the natural
quality and background Quality, respectively (N.J.A.C. 7:9-6.7).
Practical Quant i mi on Levels (POLs) 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. The PQLs will be used to determine compliance with the Grounduater Quality Criteria
for Class I-PL grounduater.
14
-------
HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
The Proposed Plan for Area H was issued to interested
parties on August 16, 1995. On August 24 and 25, 1995, a
newspaper notification inviting public comment on the Proposed
Plan appeared in The Ocean County Observer and The Asbury Park
Press. The notification was also published in the Station's
newspaper, The Air Scoop. on September 1, 1995. The comment
period was held from September 5, 1995 to October 5, 1995. The
newspaper notification also identified the Ocean County Library
as the location of the Information Repository.
A Public Meeting was held on September 6, 1995 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 Area H groundwater and
the preferred alternative. The attendance list is provided in
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.
During the public comment period from September 5, 1995
through October 5, 1995, no written comments were received
pertaining to Area H.
This decision document presents the selected alternative
(i.e., continued groundwater treatment with modifications to the
current recovery system) for Area H, chosen in accordance with
CERCLA, as amended by SARA and, to the extent practicable, the
National Contingency Plan (NCP). The decision for Area H
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 RQT.T; OF RESPONSE ACTION
Studies conducted in Area H between 1985 and 1990 showed
that the groundwater in this area had been contaminated with
various VOCs as a result of past operations dating back to the
1960s and 1970s. The Navy implemented an interim remedial action
to address the contamination prior to the implementation of a
final action which is described in this document.
Based on the levels of contamination detected in Area H
groundwater during Phase I and II of the Remedial Investigation,
an interim Focused Feasibility Study (September 5, 1990) was
prepared to evaluate alternatives for controlling contaminated
groundwater migration.
The Proposed Interim Remedial Action Plan was issued on
September 14, 1990. The Navy proposed and the regulatory
agencies (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection) concurred that a
15
-------
groundwater extraction, treatment and recharge system was the
preferred option to remediate the contaminated groundwater.
An interim Record of Decision was issued on 14 December
1990. This decision document presented the selected remedial
action for Area H groundwater. In 1992 an interim treatment
system began operation to control the downgradient migration of
groundwater contamination. Documentation supporting the interim
action conducted at Area H can be found in the Administrative
Record for the NAES, at the Ocean County Library in Toms River,
NJ.
The decision to recover and treat groundwater in Area H was
made to protect human health and the environment by preventing
the further migration of groundwater contamination. This
decision was made in accordance with CERCLA, as amended by SARA
and, to the extent practicable, the NCP.
The selected interim remedy was not a final action for
groundwater or soil. The interim action for groundwater was the
first cleanup phase of Area H. Based on data obtained from
monitoring throughout the interim treatment period, a groundwater
model has been produced to design the optimum groundwater
extraction scenario capable of controlling the downgradient
migration of contamination and also removing the higher "hot
spot" area of contamination for treatment.
This document outlines final remedial actions to remediate
Area H groundwater and meet Applicable or Relevant and
Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) for all media.
SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS
In January 1989, a preliminary health assessment for NAES
was conducted by the Office of Health Assessment, Agency for
Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). The assessment
was required by the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA). The assessment
was intended to identify potential health risks posed by NPL
sites.
Based on available information, NAES was considered to be of
potential public health concern because of the risk to human
health caused by the possibility of exposure to hazardous
substances via contaminated groundwater, soil, sediment, and
surface water.
In April 1992, an overall 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. The
specific objectives of the EA were to:
- Apply appropriate human health EA and ecological assessment
(ECA) methodologies to fulfill the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency's (EPA) requirement to conduct such assessments.
16
-------
- Identify the NAES sites that should be targeted to undergo
a remedial alternatives evaluation to control or reduce
contamination, based on the quantitative human health EA results
and the semiquantitative EGA results.
- Identify prudent target remedial objectives such as: (1)
source control and monitoring, (2) chemical and media-specific
cleanup goals, and (3) other objectives, if applicable, for those
sites estimated to require a remedial alternatives evaluation
(i.e., sites posing current or future risks or posing
unacceptable ecological impacts).
Based on available information, NAES was considered to be a
potential public health concern because of the risk to human
health caused by the possibility of exposure to hazardous
substances via contaminated groundwater, soil, sediment, and
surface water.
CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN
For Area H groundwater, contaminants of concern were
determined to be the following: lead, benzene, ethylbenzene,
toluene, xylenes, and naphthalene.
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 Area H, a light
industrial land use scenario was quantified for direct exposure
to contaminated groundwater via incidental ingestion.
Although future residential land use conditions were not
investigated as part of the risk characterization for Area H,
groundwater cleanup levels are based on residential land use
assumptions.
HUMAN HEALTH RISK AND HAZARD FINDINGS
Hazards for noncarcinogens are 0.396 which is below the
EPA's hazard index criteria value of 1.0. The hazard index
values ranged from a minimum value of 2.94 X 10"z for toluene to
a maximum of 2.18 X 10*1 for naphthalene. Carcinogenic risk
estimates for groundwater in Area H are within EPA's acceptable
risk range of 10*4 to 10*6. The overall area groundwater risk
represented by the chemical-specific risk estimate for benzene is
1.52 X 10"s.
These risk numbers are based on non-residential assumptions.
If residential assumptions are used, the risk numbers would be
higher and would fall out of the EPA acceptable risk range.
17
-------
ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
As part of the Endangerment Assessment, a Baseline
Ecological Evaluation (BEE) was conducted to obtain a description
of the ecosystems 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 .
Currently it does not appear that groundwater is having an
impact on the ecology of the Area. However, groundwater may be
hydraulically connected to downgradient surface water which does
have ecological receptors. Past sampling of downgradient surface
water and sediment has indicated that groundwater contaminants do
not appear to be impacting these possible ecological pathways.
ENDANGERMENT ASSESSMENT
In summary, the results of the EA indicate that contaminants
present in groundwater at Area H may pose a concern relative to
potential future, exposed populations. Therefore, alternatives
for the remediation of groundwater contamination in these Areas
may be warranted.
The results of the EA should not be considered a
characterization of absolute risks posed to human health or the
environment. Rather, risk and hazard index values estimated in
the EA should be used to identify potential sources of risks at
NAES, with resultant consideration of sites for remedial action.
The nine criteria used in the detailed analysis of alternatives
were used to help determine the ultimate cleanup
alternative .
SUMMARY OF REMEDIAL 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.
ALTERNATIVE 1: NO ACTION
Estimated Construction Cost: $ 52,700 (To Abandon Facility)
Estimated Net O&M Cost: $ 0
18
-------
Estimated Implementation Time Frame: N/A
The groundvater contamination present in Area H is believed
to be a result of past activities conducted at various sites.
The sources of the contamination are believed to no longer exist.
This alternative involves no action to control or remove
groundwater contamination at Area H. Under this alternative, the
existing treatment of groundwater would be discontinued.
This alternative has been included to provide a baseline for
the comparison of other alternatives.
ALTERNATIVE 2: NATURAL RE8TORATION/GROUNDWATER MONITORING -
DISCONTINUE EXISTING GROUNDWATER TREATMENT
Estimated Construction Cost: $ 210,000
Estimated Net O&M Cost: $ 300,000/yr
Estimated Implementation Time Frame: 1 year
This alternative involves no additional interim actions at
Area H other then ground water monitoring of the aquifer and
study of the natural restoration processes occurring within the
Area. The existing groundwater treatment system would be
discontinued. Extensive monitoring of the plume extent and
migration would be monitored through the existing well network
and additional monitoring wells if necessary. Contaminants would
not be treated but would be allowed to reduce naturally. The
natural reduction occurring at the site would be studied to
determine if the microorganisms at the site have the potential to
degrade the VOCs to harmless products.
Under this alternative, no further action to control the
source would be taken.
Additional costs involve the installation of up to 10
additional monitoring wells and an initial restoration study to
prove that this process will effectively remediate the Area.
Yearly operation and maintenance costs include quarterly sampling
and analysis, continued study of natural restoration and project
oversight.
ALTERNATIVE 3: CONTINUE EXISTING TREATMENT - GROUND HATER
PUMPING, TREATMENT AND RECHARGE
Construction Cost: $ 1.25 million (SUNK COST)
Estimated Additional Construction Cost: $ 0
Estimated Net O&M Cost: $ 440,000/yr
Estimated Implementation Time Frame: already implemented
This alternative involves ground water pumping'from the
existing six inch recovery well (RW-GG) located downgradient of
the plume, this well is pumped at 80 gallons per minute (gpm).
An existing six inch well (RW-GX) at the launch end of the test
tracks is pumped at 40 gpm.
At the existing treatment facility, a tank serves as an
19
-------
initial flow equalizer. A pretreatment unit is used for metals,
free products and solids removal. Air stripping columns and
granular activated carbon polishing filters are used to treat the
volatile organic contaminants in the extracted groundwater. The
effluent exiting the air stripper is treated by granular
activated carbon air filters and clean air is discharged to the
atmosphere. The treated groundwater, which meets or exceeds
Federal and State drinking water standards is recharged to the
aquifer at two irrigation/infiltration locations. Treated
groundwater which meets Safe Drinking Water Standards is spray
irrigated over soil in Area H during temperate months and is
infiltrated during winter months.
This alternative has been effective at halting the continued
migration of the contaminated plume.
The only modifications to the existing system included under
this alternative would be modifications to the sampling
frequency. Based on previous sampling results, it is appropriate
to reduce the frequency of sampling. The sampling of monitoring
wells will be reduced from quarterly to biannually for VOCs and
annually for SVOCs and metals. The sampling of deep monitoring
wells that have not detected any contamination may be
discontinued. Treatment system VOCs will continue to be
monitored on a monthly basis. However, the frequency of sampling
for semi-volatile organic compounds in the treatment process will
be reduced to annually for system influent and quarterly for
system effluent.
ALTERNATIVE 4: MODIFICATIONS TO TREATMENT/RECOVERY SYSTEM
Estimated Construction Cost: $ 1.25 million (SUNK COST)
Estimated Additional Construction Cost: $ $ 81,200
Estimated Net O&M Cost: $ 480,000/yr
Estimated Implementation Time Frame: 1 year
This alternative would utilize the existing treatment system
as indicated in alternative 3, however changes in recovery well
location and pumping intervals would be implemented.
Modifications to the existing groundwater recovery system would
be made based on the results of the interim treatment system
performance and quarterly data and additional modeling conducted
in February 1995.
The following modifications would be implemented to improve
contaminant recovery and accelerate the remediation of
groundwater:
- Pumping of recovery well GX will be reduced. Most of the
contamination in the Area has migrated to or past this recovery
well. Any groundwater contamination remaining near this well
would be captured by downgradient pumping wells.
- An additional well will be placed adjacent to existing
monitoring well BN. This well will be pumped at a rate of 60 GPM
20
-------
to capture the higher levels of contamination. Figure 5 shows
the location of the existing and proposed recovery wells.
Under this alternative modifications would be made to the
current sampling frequency. Based on previous sampling results,
it is appropriate to reduce the frequency of sampling. The
sampling of monitoring wells will be reduced from quarterly to
biannually for VOCs and annually for SVOCs and metals. The
sampling of deep monitoring wells that have not detected any
contamination may be discontinued. Treatment system VOCs will
continue to be monitored on a monthly basis. However, the
frequency of sampling for semi-volatile organic compounds in the
treatment process will be reduced to annually for system influent
and quarterly for system effluent.
Under this general alternative, three potential
modifications to the existing treatment system will be developed
individually. Costs associated with each should be considered
additional to those shown in Alternative 4.
The individual alternative development presented here is
conducted to aid any future decision making processes which
center on treatment system optimization. However, in the
analysis of alternatives, modification will be treated as a
single alternative.
The influent data from the recovery system proposed as
alternative 4 will be reviewed to determine if modifications to
the current treatment system are possible. These modifications
could include one or several of the following alternatives.
Alternative 4T1 Elimination of pH Adjustment for Treatment.
Sodium hydroxide is currently used in the Area H treatment
process for pH adjustment. The pH of the plant influent is
raised to allow metal hydroxides to precipitate out of solution.
The use of this chemical is currently increasing the sodium
content in the Area groundwater. Under this alternative the
reduction and possible elimination of pH adjustment would be
investigated. The effects of this change on treatment system
performance would be investigated to determine implementability.
Alternative 4T2 Elimination of Pretreatment.
If metals levels entering the treatment facility do not
increase above the existing levels, once the new recovery
scenario is implemented, the use of open aeration will be
investigated. The use of this type of treatment would allow the
elimination of oxidation/flocculation/precipitation. This
process is currently used in Area H to remove metals and solids
from the system influent. The elimination of this process may
cause excessive iron to buildup in air strippers and-carbon
units. The precipitated iron may also block subsurface
infiltration piping.
Alternative 4T3 Open Aeration to Treat Groundvater.
Based on the existing levels of VOCs in the treatment system
influent, controls on air emissions are not required. If the
influent levels from the new recovery system to be installed
21
-------
under alternative 4 continue to meet these requirements, the use
of alternate open aeration treatment would be investigated. The
use of this technology would require no pretreatment of
groundwater. However, the level of contaminants entering the
system would have to meet the NJDEP air pollution control
requirements. The discharge requirements would have to meet
applicable Federal and State requirements.
If the use of open aeration is implemented, the use of
surface infiltration basins may be required to return treated
water back to the aquifer. This type of discharge system would
be more capable of handling precipitated iron than subsurface
infiltration since the basins are more easily maintained.
EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
During the detailed evaluation.of remedial alternatives,
each alternative is assessed against the nine evaluation criteria
which are summarized below.
l. overall Protection of Hunan 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-Tern 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-Tern Effectiveness addresses the cleanup time frame
and any adverse impacts posed by the alternative during the
construction and implementation phase, until cleanup goals
are achieved.
6. Zmplenentability 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
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
22
-------
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 4 provides the greatest overall protection of
human health and the environment through treatment of both higher
concentration and downgradient groundwater contaminant areas and
extensive monitoring. Based on the results of the interim action
(Alternative 3) modifications will be made to the current system
to optimize the recovery of contaminated groundwater. Therefore,
alternative 4 provides advantages over Alternative 3 through more
extensive removal and treatment.
Alternative 3 provides overall protection of human health
and the environment through hydraulic control and treatment of
groundwater and extensive monitoring. However, pH adjustment and
chemical addition under this alternative may have an adverse
effect on the aquifer. Removal of these treatment steps may be
investigated under Alternative 4.
Alternative No. 2, which offers no groundwater treatment, is
the next protective alternative. However, if current land use
changes, protection of human health and the environment is
uncertain.
Alternative No. 1, which offers no groundwater treatment or
monitoring, is the least protective alternative.
Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence -
Alternative 4 provides the overall most effective and
permanent options for protection of human health and the
environment through removal and treatment of both higher
concentration and downgradient levels of contamination. Long-
term permanence is ensured since monitoring wells throughout and
downgradient of the plume are monitored until all levels within
the plume have been reduced below ARARs. The estimated time for
this alternative to meet ARARs through treatment is less than 15
years.
Alternative 3 would provide long-term protection of human
health through the removal and treatment of all contamination
migrating from the sites in Area H. The estimated time for this
alternative to capture and treat all contamination above ARARs is
16 years.
Alternative No. 2 provides no active treatment and is not
considered to be effective at remediating the aquifer. The
current levels of contamination appear to be too high for natural
reduction to effectively reduce contamination. This alternative
would be effective toward the closing stages of remediation when
pumping is no longer an effective.option.
Alternative No. 1 is not considered to be effective.
23
-------
Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility or Volume -
Alternative 4 recovers and treats the largest area of
contamination. The toxicity, mobility and volume are reduced
through capture and treatment of the plume.
Alternative 3 recovers and treats contamination as it
migrates to the recovery wells.
Alternative Nos. 1 and 2 offer no reduction of toxicity,
mobility or volume through treatment of the contaminated media.
Short-Term Effectiveness -
Remedial action Alternatives 3 and 4 in the short-term,
would halt the continued migration of contaminated groundwater
downgradient of residual source areas. The estimated cleanup
duration for alternative 4 is less than 15 years to reach ARARs.
The estimated time to reduce all contamination below ARARs for
Alternative 3 is 16 years.
. Alternative No. 2 is effective at monitoring the movement of
contamination but would not prevent the short-term migration of
contamination.
Alternative No. 1 provides no treatment of groundwater and
is not considered to be effective in the short-term because
residual risks are not reduced.
Implementability -
Alternative No. 1 offers the greatest implementability.
This alternative involves the shutdown of the existing treatment
facility and no further action.
Alternative No. 3 has already been implemented. This
alternative requires continued operation and maintenance of the
existing treatment facility.
Alternative No. 2 involves the shut-down of treatment and
continued monitoring of the aquifer. This alternative can be
implemented in several months with the initiation of a study to
determine the natural degradation occurring within the aquifer.
Alternative No. 4 would be more difficult to implement due
to the additional construction required. It is estimated that
this alternative can be implemented within 1 year.
Cost -
Alternative No. l, the no action/long term monitoring
alternative, has the lowest associated cost. Alternative No. 2,
the limited action alternative, has the second lowest cost. The
cost for Alternative No. 3 involves operation and maintenance
costs only and is therefore the lowest cost treatment option.
Alternative No. 4 involves the construction of additional
groundwater recovery systems.
compliance with ARARs -
EPA considers drinking water Maximum Contaminant Levels
(MCLs) or State Practical Quantitation Levels (PQLs), whichever
is more stringent for each contaminant of concern, to be ARARs.
Alternative No. 1 does not comply with ARARs because no
remedial action takes place. Alternative No. 2 will not reduce
contamination to meet ARARs without continued migration of the
plume. Alternatives 3 and 4 are designed to meet ARARs through
active treatment.
24
-------
Agency Acceptance - The NJDEP and the Pinelands Commission concur
with the Proposed Alternatives detailed in the Selected
Alternative section below.
Community Acceptance - Community acceptance is addressed in the
responsiveness summary included in this Record of Decision.
ALTERNATIVE
The selected alternative to address groundwater at Area H is
Alternative 4: Modifications to Existing Treatment.
Based on quarterly groundwater data collected throughout
Area H during interim treatment system operation, since July 1992
and contaminant transport modeling, Alternative 4 has been
selected as the preferred alternative to address groundwater
contamination in Area H.
The NAES proposes to modify the existing groundwater
treatment system to improve the capture of contaminated
groundwater. Modifications to recovery well locations and
pumping rates would be implemented as part of the proposed
action. Additional modifications to treatment are also included
as part of the proposed action and could be implemented based on
system influent concentrations after recovery system
modifications are implemented.
The objectives of the proposed action for groundwater are
to: 1) protect human health and the environment by reducing the
downgradient migration of contaminated groundwater; 2) remove
higher "source areas" of contamination through the location of
additional recovery wells within the plume; and 3) reduce
groundwater contamination to meet ARARs.
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 4
has been selected as the preferred alternative to address the
groundwater in Area H for the following reasons:
• The selected alternative will provide protection of human
health and the environment through active treatment of
groundwater. The remedial system will be designed to meet ARARs.
A combination of extensive monitoring and institutional controls
will be used to ensure protection of human health.
• The treatment system described in the selected alternative
has already been implemented and will continue to be operated
with modifications made to enhance system performance.
* The selected alternative is cost effective.
25
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
AREA H
NAVAL AIR ENGINEERING STATION
The purpose of this responsiveness summary is to review
public response to the Proposed Plan for Area H. 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 Area H is divided into the
following sections:
OVERVIEW - This section briefly describes the 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.
UVJSKVJ.JSW
Area H is located at the NAES in Ocean County, Lakehurst,
New Jersey. This responsiveness summary addresses public
response to the Proposed Plan, proposing continued operation of
the existing groundwater treatment system with modifications to
the recovery system to enhance system performance.
The Proposed Plan and other supporting information are
available for public review at the information repository located
at the Ocean County Library, 101 Washington Street, Toms River,
New Jersey.
BACKGROUND ON COMMUNITY
This section provides a brief history of community
participation in the investigation and interim remedial planning
activities conducted for Area H. 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
26
-------
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.
On August 24 and 25, 1995, a newspaper notification inviting
public comment on the Proposed Plan appeared in The Ocean County
Observer and The Asbury Park Press. 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
accepted from September 5, 1995 through October 5, 1995.
A Public Meeting was held on September 6, 1995, 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 Michael Murtha, Public Works
Officer; Lucy Bottomley, Supervisory Environmental Engineer;
Dorothy Peterson, Environmental Engineer; Michael Figura,
Environmental Engineer; and Carole Ancelin, Public Affairs
Officer. Mr. Bob Wing, represented the USEPA's Federal Facility
Section; Ms. Donna Gaffigan represented the NJDEP's Bureau of
Federal Case Management and Mr. Kevin Schick represented the
NJDEP's Bureau of Environmental Evaluation and Risk Assessment.
The complete attendance list is provided in Appendix A to this
Record of Decision.
SUMMARY OF MAJOR QUESTIONS MID COMMENTS
Written Comments
During the public comment period from September 5, 1995 through
October 5, 1995, no written comments were received pertaining to
Area H.
Public Meeting
The following is a summary of major questions and comments,
pertaining to Area H, received at the Public Meeting held on
September 6, 1995. A complete transcript of the Public Meeting
is provided in the Information Repository at the Ocean County
Library, Toms River NJ.
Question No. 1
It was mentioned that a large quantity of soil was excavated
and reused in roads on the base. Is there any chance in the
future as those roads disintegrate that any of the contamination
will reenter the soil?
Response
This technology has been used extensively in New York State
and other states, but NAES is the first in New Jersey to use this
technology with petroleum contaminated soils. Asphalt used to
produce roadways is basically sand mixed with a petroleum
emulsion. NAES has taken soil that already had a petroleum
27
-------
aspect to it and added more of an asphalt-based emulsion to it.
Laboratory testing performed on the asphalt produced with the
contaminated soils indicated that the emulsion binds the
contaminants so that none can leach out. The excavated material
was used as road base material, mixed to meet DOT standards. A
wearing course or a hot asphalt layer was added above the
emulsion base. This layer is a very good wearing layer and acts
as a cap to cover the base material. The materials used to
produce the roads meet all the same DOT specifications as the
roads you see normally.
%
28
-------
Appendix A
Attendance List for Public Meeting Held
September 6, 1995
-------
n
-------
-------
m
indited 9-13-95 V
APPENDIX B 1
LIST OF CONCERNED PARTIES
Naval Air Engineering Station - Lakehurst
Captain L. Farr (908) 323-2380
Commanding Officer
Naval Air Engineering Station
Lakehurst, NJ 08733-5000
Ms. Carole Ancelin, Public Affairs (908) 323-2620
Naval Air Engineering Station
Lakehurst, NJ 08733-5000
Commander Mike Murtha (908) 323-2601
Public Works Officer
Naval Air Engineering Station
Lakehurst, NJ 08733-5000
Northern Division. Naval Facilities Engineering Command
Mr. Lonnie Monaco (215) 595-0555
Northern Division
Naval Facilities Engineering Command
Code 182
10 industrial Highway
Mail Stop 82
Lester, PA 19113-2090
Federal Elected Officials
Senator William Bradley (908) 688-0960
1705 vauxhall Road
P.O. Box 1720
Union, NJ 07083
Senator Frank R. Lautenberg (609) 757-5353
208 White Horse Pike
Suite 18-19
Harrington, NJ 08007
Congressman H. James Saxton (609) 261-5800
100 High Street •
Mount Holly, NJ 08060
Congressman Christopher H. Smith (908) 350-2300
100 Lacey Road
Suite 38A
Whiting, NJ 08759
Congressman Frank Pallone, Jr. (201) 571-1140
540 Broadway
Room 118
Long Branch, NJ 07740
t
-------
State Elected Officials
Senator Leonard T. Connors, Jr. (609) 693-6700
620 West Lacey Road
Forked River, NJ 08731
Assemblyman Jefferey Koran (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 Co™"ission
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 Przyvara, 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 A
Mr. & Mrs. Blackwell Albertson
135 Beckerville Rd.
Lakehurst, NJ 08733
Heritage Minerals, Inc.
Attn: Ms. Adele Hovnanian
One Hovchild Plaza
4000 Route 66
Tinton Palls, NJ 07753
Chuck Lindstrom
526-D Crescent Ave.
Jackson, NJ 08527
Ben Epstein
Ocean County Citizens for Clean Water
2230 Agin Court Road
Toms River, NJ 08733
Media Organizations
Advance News (908) 657-8936
2048 Route 37 West
Lakehurst, NJ 08733
Alyn Ackernan 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
i
-------
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
Tons River, NJ 08753
Mr. San Christopher (908) 349-3000
Ocean County Observer
8 Robbins Street
CN 2449
Tons River, NJ 08753
RADIO
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
Tons 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
Tons River, NJ 08753
Mr. Abi Montefiore (908) 681-8222
Monnouth 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 1
26 Federal Plaza, Room 2930 '
New York, NY 10278
Ms. Donna Gaffigan, Case Manager (609) 633-1455 y
Bureau of Federal Case Management, CN 028
New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection and Energy %
401 East State Street W
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 W
Trenton, NJ 08625
Mr. Kevin Schick (609) 984-1825 Im
Bureau of Environmental Evaluation
and Risk Assessment
New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection and Energy
401 East State Street
Trenton, NJ 08625
-------
FIGURES
-------
NEW
JEHSEl
NGINEERING STATION
JiCfCRCHCl;
MAGSIROM MAC Of
OCEAN COUNTY. NCW JtHSCf '
u
APPROKIMAU SCAIE IN MIllS
NAES I.AKEHURST
I HIW AIISEV
FIGURE 1
-------
NAES Lakehurst NPL Sites
u
5
E
-------
dZIl »'•««>*»» Of WIJDGEO *Rl»*
L'OSL
NAVAL AIR ENGINEERING STAIION
LAKEHURSI. NEW JERSEY
-------
ll CUVAflON CONrouH M fICr ABOMC M
SC* UVCL lASO) (M MCASUHCyOIIS MECOnXD CM
. ran.
o areunowiroi aow DDCCKM.
SOO FEEt
»a*
H4
K*
B'»-
GRAPHIC SC
,*!£ 1
1
AREA H 1
GSOUMOKAIER CUVATIOMS AND 1
"AVAL AID ENCINECR1NC SUHON
lA«tHURSI. NEW Jt|,se,
»• - . , , "" 7900-07(1 I
M=S11— "en !-•* *tf'"-|
-------
NAVAL AIR ENGINEERING SI A1 ION
LAKEHURST. NLW JERSEY
-------
f>H!i\ om;
I Ml" :|H.!
MONHOniNG VtEll.
SUI'I'I.Y (NON-POTAI1LC) (HTM.
PUMPING WT.1.1.
mri.uEMi 10 inrAiMENf SVSIEM
tril.UI.NI IO 1I1CAIMFNI SYS1EM
IIUII.DINC
SCALE IN rtr.i
FIGURE 6
AREA 'H'
GENERAL ARRANGEMENT
NAVAL AIR ENGINEERING STATION (NAES1) LAKEHURST. NJ
------- |