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

-------