United States Off ice of
Environmental Protection Emergency and
Agency Remedial Response
EPA/ROD/R02-91/154
March 1991
x°/EPA
Superfund
Record of Decision
Waldick Aerospace Devices, NJ
-------
50272-101
REPORT DOCUMENTATION i. REPORT NO. 2.
PAGE EPA/ROD/R02- 91/154
4. TWe »nd SubtHle
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION
Waldick Aerospace Devices, NJ
Second Remedial Action
7. Author(s)
». Performing Organization Nairn and Addrew
12. Sponsoring Org»ilz«Uon Name and Address
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
3. Recipient* Accession No.
5. Report DMe
03/29/91
6.
8. Performing Organization Rept No.
10. Project/Taskwork UnH No.
11. Contmct(C) or Grant
-------
EPA/ROD/R02-91/154
Waldick Aerospace Devices, NJ
Second Remedial Action
Abstract (Continued)
excavation and offsite disposal of an area of metal-contaminated soil, and
decontamination or demolition of onsite buildings. This ROD addresses both a final
remedy for soil as a modification of the 1987 ROD, and an interim remedial action for
ground water to prevent further ground water contaminant migration. The modification
to the 1987 source remedy is a result of additional investigations, which revealed that
metals were widespread throughout the site, and that the volume of contaminated soil
was less than half of the previously estimated amount. In addition, tests during
remedial design revealed that in-situ air stripping was inappropriate for the site. A
future ROD will address a final remedy for the ground water contamination. The primary
contaminants of concern affecting the soil and ground water are VOCs including PCE,
TCE, and toluene; other organics; and metals including chromium and lead.
The selected modified remedy for the source contamination at this site includes
excavating 8,000 cubic yards of contaminated soil; using onsite thermal treatment to
remove organics; treating inorganic contaminated soil using
solidification/stabilization; and backfilling or offsite disposal, of the treated soil.
The selected interim remedial action for ground water includes installing four ground
water extraction wells in the zone of highest contaminant concentration; using chemical
precipitation to remove inorganics, and disposing of the resultant sludge offsite;
using air stripping to remove organics; reinjecting or infiltrating treated ground
water into the aquifer, or discharging it to wetland areas to help offset any
dewatering effects caused by ground water extraction, if appropriate; and ground water
monitoring. The estimated cost of the soil remediation is $3,420,000 to $5,913,569
depending on whether treated material is disposed of onsite or offsite, respectively.
The estimated present worth cost for the ground water remedial action is $5,923,372,
which includes an annual O&M cost of $705,625.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS: Ground water will be treated to achieve MCLs and
non-zero MCLGs as part of the final remedial action. Chemical-specific clean-up
levels, therefore, were not established.
-------
ROD FACT SHEET
SITE
Name:
Location:
EPA Region:
HRS Score:
NPL Rank:
Waldick Aerospace Devices
Wall Township, Middlesex County, New Jersey
II
44.85
308
ROD
Date Signed:
Selected Remedy
Source Control:
Ground Water:
Capital Cost:
0 & M:
Present Worth:
LEAD
Agency:
Primary Contact:
State Contact:
WASTE
Type:
Medium:
Origin:
March 29, 1991
Modification of 1987 ROD Remedy - excavation
of contaminated soil with on-site thermal
treatment to remove organic contaminants,
off-site solidification/stabilization of
inorganic contaminated soil prior to off-site
disposal.
Extraction of contaminated ground water from
the zone of highest contaminant concentra-
tions, on-site treatment and reinjection of
the treated ground water, with additional
ground water monitoring and investigation to
further characterize the overal contaminant
plume and to evaluate the effectiveness of
the remedial measures.
Source Control
$ 5,913,569
$ 5,913,569
Ground Water
$ 1,381,152
$ 705,625
$ 5,923,372
Federal Remedial Lead
Mr. John Prince (212) 264-1213
Mr. Frank Richardson (609) 292-4070
VOCs, PAHs, heavy metals
Soil, ground water
Waldick Aerospace Devices, Inc., operated a
manufacturing and electroplating operation at
the site from 1979 to 1984.
-------
DECLARATION STATEMENT
RECORD OF DECISION
WALDICK AEROSPACE DEVICES
Site Name and Location
Waldick Aerospace Devices
Wall Township, Monmouth County, New Jersey
Statement of Basis and Purpose
This decision document presents the selected interim remedial
action for groundwater at the Waldick Aerospace Devices site,
which was chosen in accordance with the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980,
as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of
1986 and, to the extent practicable, the National Oil and
Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan. This document
also modifies the September 29, 1987 Record of Decision developed
for the first remedial action at the Waldick Aerospace Devices
site. This decision is based on the administrative record for
the site.
The State of New Jersey concurs with the selected remedy and the
modifications to the 1987 Record of Decision.
Assessment of the Site
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from the
site, if not addressed by implementing the response action
selected in this Record of Decision, may present an imminent and
substantial endangerment to public health, welfare, or the
environment.
Description of the Selected Remedy
The remedy described in this document addresses the threats to
human health and the environment associated with the contaminated
groundwater resulting from the Waldick Aerospace Devices site. A
previous Record of Decision, signed on September 29, 1987,
selected a remedy for the source of this groundwater
contamination. This decision document addresses both the
contaminated groundwater and modifications to the 1987 Record of
Decision. The goals of this groundwater remedial action are: to
prevent further migration of the highly contaminated portion of
the groundwater; to reduce contaminant concentrations in the
groundwater; and to evaluate the response of the aquifer system
to the remedial measures.
-------
-2-
The major components of the selected interim groundwater remedy
include:
Extraction of contaminated groundwater from the zone of
highest contaminant concentrations;
On-site treatment of the extracted groundwater;
Reinjection of the treated groundwater; and
Additional groundwater monitoring and investigation to
further characterize the overall contaminant plume and
to evaluate the effectiveness of the above remedial
measures.
As modified by this decision, the major components of the source
control remedy (originally selected in the 1987 Record of
Decision) include:
- Excavation of contaminated soil;
- On-site thermal treatment to remove organic
contaminants;
Solidification/stabilization treatment for inorganic-
contaminated soil; and
Backfilling or off-site disposal of the treated soil,
as appropriate.
Statutory Determinations
This selected interim groundwater remedy is protective of human
health and the environment, complies with Federal and State
requirements that are legally applicable or relevant and
appropriate to the remedial action, and is cost-effective. This
remedy utilizes permanent solutions and alternative treatment
technologies to the maximum extent practicable, given the limited
scope of the action. Although this action does not constitute
the final remedy for the operable unit, the remedy satisfies the
statutory preference for remedies that employ treatment that
reduces toxicity, mobility, or volume as a principal element.
Subsequent actions are planned to fully address the non-
principal threats posed by the contaminated groundwater.
-------
-3-
The selected modifications to the 1987 Record of Decision are
protective of human health and the environment, comply with
Federal and State requirements that are legally applicable or
relevant and appropriate to the remedial action, and are cost-
effective. These modifications utilize permanent solutions and
alternative treatment (or resource recovery) technologies to the
maximum extent practicable and satisfy the statutory preference
for remedies that employ treatment that reduce toxicity,
mobility, or volume as a principal element.
stantlne Sidamon-Eristoff,
Regional Administrator
-------
03. 28. 9 1 04=35 PM ~DEPT. OF ENV. PROT.
P O 1
STATE OF NEW JERSEY
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
SCOTT A. WBNER, COMMISSIONER
CN402
TRENTON, N.I. OSttS-0402
(609) 292-2M5
Fix; (609) 9B4.3942
Post'lt1" brand fax transmittal memo7671 ««p§j»»
Co,
Co.
NX*
March 28, 1991
Mr. Constantine Sidimon-Eristoff
Regional Administrator, USEPA - Region XI
Jacob x. Javits Federal Building
New York, NY 10278
Dear Mr. Eristoff:
The Department of Environmental Protection has evaluated and
concurs with the selected interim remedy for the WaldicX Aerospace
Devices superfund Site in Wall Township, Monmouth County, New
Jersey. The selected interim remedy is as follows:
"The remedy described in this document addresses the threats
to human health and the environment associated with the
contaminated groundwater resulting from the WaldicX Aerospace
Devices Site. A previous Record of Decision, signed on
September 29, 1987, selected a remedy for the source of this
groundwater contamination. This decision document addresses
both the contaminated groundwater and modifications to the
1987 Record of Decision. The goals of this groundwater
remedial action are: to prevent further migration of the
highly contaminated portion of the groundwater; to reduce
contaminant concentrations in the groundwater; and to evaluate
the response of the aquifer system to the remedial measures.
The major components of the selected interim groundwater
remedy include:
Extraction of contaminated groundwater from the
zone of highest contaminant concentrations;
On-site treatment of the extracted groundwater;
Reinjection of the treated groundwater; and
Additional groundwater monitoring and investigation
to further characterize the overall contaminant
plume and to evaluate the effectiveness of the
above remedial measures.
Nt*> Itruy it an Equal Opportunity Employer
Rtcytltd I'aptr
-------
The major components of the selected modifications to the 1987
Record of Decision include:
Excavation of contaminated soil;
On-site thermal treatment to remove organic
contaminants;
Solidification/Stabilization treatment for
inorganic contaminated soil; end
Backfilling or off-site disposal of the treated
soil, es appropriate."
in accordance with the NCP regulations 300.5l5(e)(2)(i) and
300.515 (h) (3), this serves as the NJDEP's letter of concurrence for
the selected interim remedy of this EPA lead project.
Very Truly Yours,
•„» *
x
Scott A. Weiner
Commissioner
-------
DECISION SUMMARY
RECORD OF DECISION
WALDICK AEROSPACE DEVICES
SITE NAME, LOCATION, AND DESCRIPTION
The Waldick Aerospace Devices site is located at 2121 State Route
35, in the Sea Girt section of Wall Township, Monmouth County,
New Jersey. The 1.72-acre site is bordered to the east by Route
35, to the south by commercial property, and to the north and
west by undeveloped woodland.
Three buildings are located near the northern, western, and
southern borders of the site. Most- of the industrial operations
occurred in the main (southern) building. The northern building,
which was not used by the Waldick Company, was operated as a
separate storefront, and has been used for several different
retail businesses. It is isolated from the main building by a
stockade fence. The western building was used by the Waldick
Company for the storage of chemicals. The site location is shown
on Figure 1. • .
East of Route 35, most properties are residential. The nearest
residence to the site is approximately one-quarter mile away.
The geology beneath the site is segregated into lower
(characterized as .a sandy silt) and upper (characterized as
medium-fine sand) portions, both of which are saturated and part
of the Kirkwood-Cohansey Aquifer System. The nearest drinking
water well is on a residential property approximately three-
eighths of a mile hydraulically upgradient, or north of the site.
Groundwater generally flows in a southerly direction in the
vicinity of the site. A public system supplies potable water to
residents living downgradient of the Waldick site. This system
draws water from a well located approximately two miles to the
west-southwest. No current exposures to contaminated groundwater
resulting from the Waldick site are known to exist. Groundwater
in the area of the site is Class II, indicating that it is a
current or potential source of drinking water.
Hannabrand Brook flows approximately 900 feet south of the site.
It merges with a smaller stream northeast of the site and flows
eastward into Wreck Pond, which drains into the Atlantic Ocean.
SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
The Waldick site was originally purchased and developed in the
mid-1950s. For approximately 25 years, the site's main and.
auxiliary buildings were used primarily for storage and handling
of plumbing supplies, as well as for office space. In 1979, the
property was leased to Waldick Aerospace Devices, Inc., a company
-------
.that manufactured and electroplated quick-release pins for the
aerospace industry. For at least the first three years of
operation, wastewater containing heavy metals.and organic
solvents was discharged directly onto the ground on either side
of the southern corner of the main building. In addition, used
machine oil was allowed to drain out of perforated drums onto the
ground at the rear (western side) of the main building.
Periodic inspections and sampling efforts, conducted from June
1982 through October 1984, by the Monmouth County Division of
Criminal Justice, the Monmouth County Board of Health and the New
Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) documented
groundwater and soil contamination at the site. On March 9,
1983, Waldick Aerospace Devices petitioned for bankruptcy under
Chapter 11 of the United states Bankruptcy Code. In 1984 the
case was converted to a liquidation under Chapter 7 of the Code.
The company vacated the property in Late 1984. The site was
proposed for inclusion on the Environmental Protection Agency's
(EPA's) National Priorities List (NPL) of Superfund sites in ,
October 1984, and was finalized on the NPL in June 1986.
EPA began a remedial investigation and feasibility study (RI/FS)
in April 1985 to determine the nature and extent of contamination
at the site. The results of the RI revealed that, although all
contaminated media (e.g., soil, surface water, groundwater,
buildings) were studied, only soils and buildings had been
characterized sufficiently enough to proceed with an FS to
develop and evaluate remedial alternatives. Accordingly, EPA
decided to address these defined contaminated media first, and
more fully characterize potential groundwater, surface water, and
stream sediment contamination in a supplemental RI/FS. The RI/FS
determined that the contaminated soil was divided into two
discrete areas according to the presence or absence of metals.
Both areas contained volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and
petroleum hydrocarbons (PHCs); however, the soils in one area
also had high- levels of cadmium and chromium. The two areas were
estimated to have a total volume of 8,000 cubic yards of
contaminated soil.
EPA's investigation of the on-site buildings revealed a container
of cyanide in the western building, as well as a range of
chemicals in poorly sealed or unsealed containers. Some of these
chemicals were incompatible compounds stored in close proximity
to one another. EPA inventoried all materials present in and
around the main and western buildings, tested these materials for
composition and compatibility, separated or bulked the materials
as appropriate, and repacked them or overpacked the original
containers. All materials were disposed of off-site at an
appropriately permitted facility as part of a removal action.
-------
Following a public meeting and a 30-day public comment period,
EPA issued a Record of Decision (ROD) on September 29, 1987,
which selected a source control remedy. This remedy included the
reduction of VOC and PHC levels in the soil by in-situ air
stripping. The in-situ air stripping was to be followed by
selective excavation and off-site disposal of the one area
containing metals-contaminated soil, along with any residually
contaminated soil. The remedy also included appropriate
remediation of on-site buildings by decontamination or
demolition, depending on the volume of soils beneath the main
building requiring excavation; installation of additional
groundwater monitoring wells; establishment of an environmental
monitoring program; complete fencing of the site to restrict
access; and well restrictions.
Additionally, the ROD called for the preparation of a
supplemental RI/FS to more fully characterize the nature and
extent of contamination in the groundwater, surface water, and
stream sediments.
The potentially responsible parties (PRPs) identified for the
site include Waldick Aerospace Devices, Inc.; the former owners
and officers of Waldick; and the site owner, KDD Realty
Corporation (KDD). EPA sent Notice Letters to all of these.
parties giving them the opportunity to perform the initial RI/FS
under EPA supervision. However, none of the parties offered to
participate. Notice Letters were sent again to these PRPs in
September 1987 to provide an update on the site and give the PRPs
the opportunity to perform the source control remedial design and
implementation. Again, none of the parties offered to
participate.
A financial assessment/private investigation indicated that
Waldick Aerospace Devices, Inc. apparently has no assets left.
KDD's only significant asset is the former Waldick property
itself. EPA is continuing its investigation into the financial
assets and business relationships of other PRPs.
At the request of EPA, on September 28, 1990, the U.S. Department
of Justice sued KDD in the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey to recover costs incurred.
HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
A Community Relations Plan was developed to ensure the public
opportunities for^involvement in site-related decisions,
including site analysis and characterization, alternatives
analysis,, and remedy selection; to determine, based on community
interviews, activities to ensure public involvement; and to
provide opportunities for the community to learn about the site.
-------
EPA held a meeting in December 19«5 to explain the initial RI/FS
to the public and to report on progress being made at the site.
The results of the RI/FS were presented in a public meeting held
on July 23, 1987. A ROD, which selected a source control remedy,
was signed on September 29, 1987.
In August 1988, EPA issued a document to provide residents and
local officials with an update on past activities conducted by
EPA, to describe the soil remediation planned for the near
future, and to discuss the upcoming supplemental RI/FS to examine
the groundwater contamination.
The supplemental RI and FS reports, which addressed the
groundwater contamination, were released to the public on
February 15, 1991. A Proposed Plan, that identified EPA's
preferred groundwater remedial alternative, and discussed
modifications to the source control remedy selected in September
1987, was released on February 15, 1991. The documents were
made available to the public at information repositories
maintained at the Wall Township Municipal Building and the Wall
Township Public Library. A public comment period was held from
February 15 through March 17, 1991. A public meeting was held on
February 28, 1991, to present the findings of all previous
studies and the Proposed Plan, and to solicit public input. The
issues raised at the public meeting and during the public comment
period are addressed in the Responsiveness Summary, which is part
of this Record of Decision. This decision document presents the
selected remedial action for the Waldick Aerospace Devices site,
chosen in accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), as amended by
the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) and, to
the extent practicable, the National Oil and Hazardous Substances
Pollution.Contingency Plan (NCP). The decision for this site is
based on the administrative record.
SCOPE AND'ROLE OF ACTION
As discussed above, the 1987 ROD selected a remedy to address the
source of the contamination found at the Waldick site. After the
ROD was signed, a supplemental RI/FS was conducted to more fully
characterize the presence and extent of contamination in
groundwater, surface water, and stream sediments. The
remediation of the groundwater contamination is complicated by a
complex hydrogeology. Consequently, the feasibility of complete
restoration of the contaminated groundwater cannot be fully
assessed at this time, based on the hydrogeologic information
presently available and the known extent of groundwater
contamination. Therefore, this operable unit selects an interim
remedy intended to prevent further groundwater contaminant
migration and to initiate the first phase of groundwater
restoration. Specifically, the highly contaminated portion of
the overall groundwater contaminant plume will be pumped through
-------
several groundwater extraction wells, treated on the site, and
reinjected into the groundwater system. The treated groundwater
would be reinjected into the groundwater system in locations
which would not increase the vertical or horizontal spread of
contamination. This interim action is intended to prevent
further migration of the highly contaminated portion of the
groundwater while evaluating the effectiveness of groundwater
extraction and treatment measures for this aquifer system. A
final remedy for the groundwater contamination will be determined
after collecting additional groundwater sampling information and
evaluating the effectiveness of the interim remedy.
This ROD also documents modifications to the source control
remedy selected in September 1987.
MODIFICATIONS TO REMEDY SELECTED IN THE SEPTEMBER 29, 1987 ROD
EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers are currently performing
the design of the source control remedy. The scope of the design
has been modified as a result of the following:
Federal land disposal restrictions, which were promulgated
after the 1987 ROD was signed, require that all contaminated
soil will be treated prior to disposal.
- Although the original RI/FS indicated that the VOC- and PHC-
contaminated soil was divided into two discrete areas
according to the presence or absence of metals, sampling
performed during the remedial design found that both areas
contained metals contamination. .Further, the design
determined that the volume of contaminated soil at the site
is actually less than half of the volume estimated-in the
ROD. Finally,- tests conducted during the remedial design
determine^ th'at remediation of PHC-contaminated soil through
inrplace air stripping is not appropriate for .this site.
As a result, the source control design has been restructured such
that contaminated soil will be excavated and thermally treated to
remove organic contaminants. , Treatment technologies for the
removal of metals contamination, evaluated during the source
control FS, were' found to be inappropriate for site conditions.
Therefore, the thermally treated soil will be further treated to
stabilize metals contamination prior to disposal. If it is
determined during the remedial design that the thermally treated
soil will be stabilized on-site, and if it is determined that the
stabilized material conforms with New Jersey Solid Waste
Regulations and other applicable or relevant and appropriate
requirements (ARARs), then the stabilized material would be
replaced on the site. Otherwise, the stabilized material would
be disposed of off-site at an appropriately permitted landfill.
-------
SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS
The results of the supplemental RI/FS, which addressed
groundwater, surface water, and sediments, are discussed below.
Groundwater
To characterize the groundwater contamination, 11 additional
groundwater monitoring wells were installed. Groundwater samples
were collected from the 11 new wells, in addition to the nine
wells that were installed"during the first RI/FS. The results of
groundwater sampling of the shallow, intermediate, and deep
portions of the Kirkwood-Cohansey Aquifer System demonstrated
that the groundwater is contaminated with VOCs and metals in a
plume emanating from the area formerly occupied by Waldick
Aerospace Devices. The groundwater sampling also revealed that
the contaminant plume contains a distinct portion that is much
more highly contaminated than the remainder of the plume.
Contaminants of potential concern detected in the groundwater
include bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, 2-butanone, chloroform,
trichloroethene, tetrachloroethene, toluene, cadmium, chromium,
copper, lead, nickel and zinc. Concentrations of many of the
contaminants exceeded the Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) which
have been devised to protect drinking water. [MCLs are
enforceable standards based on health risks associated with an
individual's consumption of two liters of .water per day over a
70-year period.]
As noted above, a highly contaminated portion of the plume, with
concentrations of total VOCs exceeding 400 ppb, was also
identified. For example, trichloroethene was detected at
concentrations as high as 33 parts per billion (ppb) in
intermediate depth groundwater monitoring wells, and
tetrachloroethene was detected at concentrations up to 470 ppb in
shallow wells. The New Jersey Safe Drinking Water Act MCL for
both of these contaminants is 1 ppb. Similarly, concentrations
of cadmium were found as high as 144 ppb. The MCL for cadmium is
10 ppb. This portion of the plume was found to have
concentrations of contaminants present from the water table down
to a depth of approximately 70 feet, and an area! extent
approximately 600 feet long by 200 feet wide.
It is assumed that contaminants may be present in the overall
plume down to a depth of 120 feet, and that the area! extent of
the overall plume is approximately 1,140 feet long by 600 feet
wide. Because the site is complicated by a complex hydrogeology,
the actual horizontal and vertical boundaries of the overall
contaminant plume have not yet been fully defined. VOCs in the
groundwater at shallow and intermediate depths are believed to .,
discharge into Hannabrand Brook; however, downgradient VOC
contamination may extend beyond the brook, especially in the
-------
deeper portions of the aquifer system. The highest levels of
metals contamination were detected in the intermediate depth
monitoring wells; it is believed that the migration of metals is
slowed in that zone. Metals may migrate farther in the upper,
more permeable zone.
Figures 2 and 3 show the locations of the monitoring wells and
the extent of groundwater contamination. Tables 1 through 3 show
the concentrations of each of the major contaminants found in the
groundwater during the supplemental RI.
Surface Water and Sediments
Surface water and sediment sampling investigations were also
conducted to determine the presence and extent of contamination.
Seven stream sampling locations were selected in Hannabrand
Brook. These locations ranged from approximately 450 feet west
of Route 35 to 2,300 feet east of Route 35, as shown on Figure 4.
Volatile organic compounds, bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, and
metals, including aluminum, copper, and zinc, were detected in
surface water and sediment samples. Volatile organic compounds
were detected in surface water samples taken at the two farthest
downstream sampling locations. Toluene, the only volatile
organic compound detected in sediment samples, was found at two
different sampling locations. Metals were found at all surface
water and sediment sampling locations. Background levels were
determined from concentrations detected at the farthest upstream
sampling location. Aluminum, copper and zinc were detected in
the surface water samples at concentrations slightly above the
background range. Most of the metals detected in the sediment
samples were within the background range. All organic
contaminants detected in downstream sediment samples, except for
toluene, were detected at similar concentrations in the
background samples.
Tables 4 and 5 summarize the results of the surface water and
sediment sampling.
SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS
Human Health Risks
EPA conducted a Public Health Evaluation (PHE) of the "no action"
alternative to evaluate the potential risks to human health and
the environment associated with the Waldick site in its current
state. It focused on the contaminants which are likely to pose
the most significant risks to human health and the environment
(chemicals of potential concern). These "chemicals of potential
concern" in site media are shown in Table 6. Because the remedy
selected in the 1987 ROD included remediation of the source of
contamination at the site, the potential impacts associated with
-------
contaminants in the source of contamination were not assessed in
the PHE.
Contaminants of potential concern were identified in the
groundwater, subsurface soil, surface water, and sediments.
Volatile organic contaminants (primarily tetrachloroethene) were
identified as contaminants of potential concern in groundwater,
surface water and subsurface soil. Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate,
a semi-volatile contaminant, was identified as a contaminant of
potential concern in subsurface soil, surface water and
groundwater. Organic chemicals in sediment may represent
background levels. In addition, metals were identified as
chemicals of potential concern in all media.
The PHE evaluated the exposure pathways believed to be associated
with the greatest potential exposures. These exposure pathways
are:
1. Future use of groundwater with the following routes of
exposure:
(a) ingestion;
(b) inhalation of volatile compounds released while
showering;
(c) inhalation of volatile compounds while lawn
watering;
(d) dermal exposure while swimming; and
(e) ingestion of vegetables that have taken up
inorganic compounds from irrigation with
groundwater.
2. Dermal absorption by children while wading in
Hannabrand Brook.
3. Potential exposure to aquatic life in Hannabrand Brook.
Because the irrigation wells identified during the RI are outside
the known area of groundwater contamination, and no current
groundwater exposures are known to exist, the PHE did not
consider current use of groundwater as a complete exposure
pathway.
Under current EPA guidelines, the likelihood of carcinogenic
(cancer causing) and noncarcinogenic effects due to exposure to
site chemicals are considered separately. It was assumed that
the toxic effects of the site-related chemicals would be
additive. Thus, carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic risks
associated with exposures to individual indicator compounds were
8
-------
summed to indicate the potential risks associated with mixtures
of potential carcinogens and noncarcinogens, respectively. The
Health Effects Criteria for the chemicals of potential concern
are presented in Table 7.
Noncarcinogenic risks were assessed using a hazard index (HI)
approach, based on a comparison of expected contaminant intakes
and safe levels of intake (Reference Doses). Reference doses
(RfDs) have been developed by EPA for indicating the potential
for adverse health effects. RfDs, which are expressed in units
of milligrams per kilogram per day (mg/kg-day), are estimates of
daily exposure levels for humans which are thought to be safe
over a lifetime (including sensitive individuals). Estimated
intakes of chemicals from environmental media (e.g., the amount
of a chemical ingested from contaminated drinking water) are
compared with the RfD to derive the hazard quotient for the
contaminant in the particular media. The hazard index is
obtained by adding the hazard quotients for all compounds across
all media. A hazard index greater than 1 indicates that the
potential exists for noncarcinogenic health effects to occur as a
result of site-related exposures. The HI provides a useful
reference point for gauging the potential significance of
multiple contaminant exposures within a single medium or across
media.
Potential carcinogenic risks were evaluated using the cancer
potency factors developed by EPA for the indicator compounds.
Cancer potency factors (CPFs) have been developed by EPA's
Carcinogenic Risk Assessment Verification Endeavor for estimating
excess lifetime cancer risks associated with exposure to
potentially carcinogenic chemicals. CPFs, which are expressed in
units of (mg/kg-day)'1, are multiplied by the estimated intake of
a potential carcinogen, in mg/kg-day, to generate an upper-bound
estimate of the excess lifetime cancer risk associated with
exposure to the compound at that intake level. The term "upper
bound" reflects the conservative estimate of the risks calculated
from the CPF. Use of this approach makes the underestimation of
the risk highly unlikely.
For known or suspected carcinogens, EPA considers excess upper-
bound individual lifetime cancer risks of between 1 X ID'* to
1 X 10"6 to be acceptable. This level indicates that an
individual has no greater than a one in ten thousand to one in a
million chance of developing cancer as a result of exposure to
site conditions.
The hazard indices and cancer risks associated with the potential
exposure pathways at the Waldick site are presented in Tables 8
through 17. Inhalation of VOCs released while showering, and
ingestion of contaminated groundwater, evaluated under a
hypothetical future use scenario, were the only pathways of
exposure considered potentially hazardous to humans in the PHE.
-------
If contaminated groundwater were ingested, and VOCs were inhaled
while showering, under the scenario evaluated in the PHE, the
maximum estimation for carcinogenic risk would be 2 x 10", and
the Hazard Index would be 34.9. While the maximum estimation for
carcinogenic risk is close to the range of acceptable exposure
levels, the Hazard Index exceeds one. To EPA's knowledge, no one
is currently utilizing the contaminated aquifers as a source of
potable water or for showering. However, cleanup is warranted
because, as discussed earlier, groundwater contaminants are
present at concentrations exceeding MCLs, and because of the
desire to restore the groundwater to its beneficial use as a
potential drinking water source in the future.
Environmental Risks
Potential impacts associated with the contaminants of concern
were also assessed for nonhuman exposures for the Waldick site.
The concentrations of many of the contaminants found in
Hannabrand Brook significantly decrease downstream due to
dilution; therefore, aquatic organisms in these areas would not
be significantly impacted. In addition, modeled future surface
water concentrations of chemicals of potential concern currently
present in the shallow aquifer did not appear to present a
significant threat to the wetland ecosystem. Further, none of
the chemicals of potential concern are likely to significantly
bioaccumulate in an aquatic ecosystem. Therefore, aquatic life
may not be at significantly increased risk (currently or in the
future) from exposure to wetland areas near the site relative to
areas upstream of the site.
Uncertainties in the PHE
As in any risk assessment, the estimates of risk for the Waldick
site have some uncertainties. As a result of these
uncertainties, the'risk assessment should not be construed as
presenting an absolute estimate of risks to human or
environmental populations. Rather, it is a conservative analysis
intended to indicate the potential for adverse impacts to occur.
Conclusion
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from this
site, if not addressed by implementing the response action
selected in this ROD, may present an imminent and substantial
endangerment to public health, welfare, or the environment.
REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVES
The goals of this interim groundwater remedy are: to prevent
further migration of the highly contaminated portion of the
groundwater contaminant plume; to reduce the contaminant
concentrations; and to evaluate the aquifer's response to the
10
-------
extraction and treatment measures. If the evaluation of the
interim remedy shows it to be potentially feasible, the goal of a
final remedial action for the cleanup of the groundwater
contamination at the Waldick site would be to restore the
groundwater to the Maximum Contaminant Level Goals (MCLGu),
established under the Safe Drinking Water Act, that are set at
levels above zero. Where the MCLG for a contaminant has been set
at a level of zero, the more stringent of the Federal or State
MCLs for that contaminant would be used.
Although the goal of this interim remedy is not to restore the
groundwater to drinkable levels, the extracted groundwater will
be treated to achieve MCLG concentrations, or the more stringent
of the Federal or State MCL concentrations where the MCLG has
been set at zero, prior to its reinjection into the groundwater
system.
DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act of 1980, as amended by SARA, requires that each
selected site remedy be protective of human health and the
environment, comply with applicable or relevant and appropriate
requirements, utilize permanent solutions and alternative
treatment technologies or resource recovery technologies to the
maximum extent practicable, and be cost effective.
The supplemental RI identified the groundwater itself as the
principal environmental medium affected by contamination. The
source of the groundwater contamination is addressed by the 1987
ROD.
The supplemental FS evaluated, in detail, four alternatives for
remediating the groundwater. Alternatives 3 and 4 have been
further separated into three components.' ' A brief description of
the alternatives, as well as an estimate of their costs and
implementation timeframes, follows.
Alternative 1: No Further Action
Implementation Period: None
Capital Cost: 0
Operation & Maintenance
(O&M) Costs: $30,250
Present Worth: $18,782
The "no action" alternative is developed and evaluated to
establish a baseline for comparison of alternatives. Under this
alternative, EPA would plan to take no further remedial action to
address the groundwater contamination. However, a review would
be conducted after five years to determine whether or not the
11
-------
contamination has spread. If necessary, appropriate action would
be considered at that time.
Alternative 2: Limited Action
Implementation Period: 30 years
Capital Cost: $114,840
Annual O&M Costs: $ 63,800
Present Worth: $716,276
Under this alternative, no further active remedial measures would
be taken. However, existing and new monitoring wells at the site
would be used to conduct a long-term groundwater monitoring
program which would track the migration and the concentrations of
contaminants. Periodic monitoring of surface water and sediments
would also be performed. The implementation period for this
alternative was based on a 30-year monitoring program.
Alternative 3:-Remediation of the Zone of Highest Contaminant
Concentration
3(a) Groundwater Extraction/Precipitation/Air
Stripping/Reinj ection
Implementation Period: 10 years
Capital Cost: $1,381,152
Annual O&M Costs: $ 705,625
Present Worth: $5,923,372
3(b) Groundwater Extraction/Precipitation/Chemical
Oxidation enhanced with Ultraviolet (UV)
Photolysis/Reinjection
Implementation Period: 10 years
Capital Cost: $1,482,131
Annual O&M Costs: $ 707,500
Present Worth: $6,035,872
3(c) Groundwater Extraction/Precipitation/Carbon
Adsorption/Reinjection
Implementation Period: 10 years
Capital Cost: $1,318,408
Annual O&M Costs: $ 703,250
Present Worth: $5,846,035
Under this alternative, an interim action would be pursued in
conjunction with additional investigation. The major features of
the interim action include groundwater extraction, collection,
treatment, discharge of treated groundwater via reinjection into
the aquifer, and a performance monitoring program.
12
-------
As evaluated in the FS, this alternative involves the use of four
groundwater extraction wells, placed in the zone of highest
groundwater contaminant concentration, pumping at a rate of
approximately 120 gallons per minute (gpm). The approximate
pumping rate to achieve the desired capture of contaminants for
this alternative was determined by considering several factors,
including the number and locations of extraction wells, aquifer
system hydrogeology, and possible impact to wetland areas. The
exact location and number of extraction wells would be determined
during the remedial design of the remedy. Based on the
concentrations of contaminants found in the groundwater, and the
known hydrogeologic characteristics, the FS determined that the
removal of 12 pore volumes (for this concentrated zone, a pore
volume is approximately 47 million gallons) of groundwater would
be required to extract the highly contaminated portion of the
contaminant plume. It was estimated that this would take 10
years to accomplish; however, actual aquifer conditions
encountered during remediation may affect this duration.
Treatment of the extracted groundwater would consist of chemical
precipitation to remove inorganic compounds. The resultant
sludge would be disposed of off-site in compliance with ARARs.
Chemical precipitation would be followed by either air stripping
(Alternative 3[a]), chemical oxidation enhanced by ultraviolet
photolysis (Alternative 3[b]), or carbon adsorption (Alternative
3[c]) to remove organic contaminants from the groundwater. The
treated groundwater would be reinjected into the aquifer using an
estimated three injection wells. The exact location and number
of injection wells would also be determined during the remedial
design phase. An option of utilizing infiltration galleries
would also be evaluated. Although the FS evaluated the'option of
discharging treated groundwater to Hannabrand Brook, because
Hannabrand Brook is a fairly small stream, and discharging a
large amount of water into it could significantly alter its flow,
this option was eliminated from consideration as a remedial
technology.
An assessment would be made during the" design of the remedy to
ensure that any adverse impacts to wetland areas would be
mitigated. If appropriate, some of the treated groundwater could
be discharged to wetland areas to help offset any dewatering
effects created by the groundwater extraction.
Additional groundwater monitoring would be performed under this
alternative to evaluate the aquifer system's response to
extraction measures, and to further characterize the contaminant
plume.
13
-------
Alternative 4 Remediation of the Assumed Plume
4(a) Groundwater Extraction/Precipitation/Air
Stripping/Reinj ection
Implementation Period: 30 years
Capital Cost: $1,618,403
Annual O&M Costs: $ 734,375
Present Worth: $8,541,283
4(b) Groundwater Extraction/Precipitation/Chemical
Oxidation enhanced with UV Photolysis/Reinjection
Implementation Period: 30 years
Capital Cost: $1,719,382
Annual O&M Costs: $ 736,250
Present Worth: $8,659,937
4(c) Groundwater Extraction/Precipitation/Carbon
Adsorption/Reinjection
Implementation Period: 30 years
Capital Cost: $1,555,659
Annual O&M Costs: $ 732,000
Present Worth: $8,456,150
Because the actual horizontal and vertical boundaries of the
overall contaminant plume were not fully defined by the RI,
Alternative 4 was developed in the FS by using various
assumptions regarding the extent of the groundwater
contamination. These assumptions were based on the known extent
of contamination and the hydrogeologic characteristics of the
aquifer system.
The components and subalternatives of Alternative 4 are the same
as those described in Alternative 3. However, the configuration
of components for Alternative 4 were developed to extract, treat,
and discharge a greater volume of contaminated groundwater. For
instance, extraction and reinjection wells would be placed
outside of the zone of highest groundwater contaminant
concentration. Six extraction wells, pumping at a rate of
approximately 120 gpm, would be required. It is estimated that
approximately 1.67 billion gallons of groundwater would need to
be removed for groundwater restoration. Consequently, because of
the greater volume of contaminated groundwater associated with ,
the assumed plume, an estimated 30 years would be required for
aquifer restoration.
14
-------
SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
Evaluation criteria
Three of the four alternatives noted above were evaluated using
criteria derived from 'the NCP and SARA. These criteria relate
directly to factors mandated by SARA in Section 121, including
Section 121(b)(1)(A-G). The criteria are as follows:
Overall protection of human health and the environment
Compliance with ARARs
• Long-term effectiveness"and permanence
• Reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume via treatment
• Short-term effectiveness
• Implementability
Cost
• State acceptance
• Community acceptance
Comparisons
As previously noted, the remediation of the groundwater
contamination is difficult due to the complex hydrogeology of
this site. Furthermore, the feasibility of complete restoration
cf the contaminated groundwater cannot be fully assessed at this
time, based on the hydrogeologic information presently available
and the known extent of groundwater contamination. Therefore,
Alternative 4 was not considered as an option for the site at
this time.
A comparative discussion of the major components of the remaining
groundwater alternatives, and the modifications to the source
control remedy selected in September 1987, using the evaluation
criteria, follows.
Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
Overall protection of human health and the environment is the
central mandate of CERCLA, as amended by SARA. Protection is
achieved by reducing health and environmental threats and by
taking appropriate action to ensure that, in the future, there
would be no unacceptable risks to human health and the
environment through any exposure pathway.
15
-------
Groundwater Remedial Alternatives
Alternative 1 would not provide any additional protection of
human health and the environment than that which will be provided
through the implementation of the remedy selected in the 1987'
ROD. No treatment would be provided, and only natural processes
would attenuate the groundwater contamination. Alternative 2
would provide only minimally more protection than Alternative 1
through the monitoring of contamination and the potential for
providing a warning against the use of contaminated groundwater.
Alternative 3(a), as well as 3(b) and 3(c) provide a significant
degree of protection of human health and the environment by
preventing the further migration of the most highly contaminated
portion of the groundwater contaminant plume and by reducing the
overall contaminant concentrations. Because Alternatives 1 and 2
are not considered protective, they are not considered further in
this analysis as options for the site. As previously noted,
Alternative 4 was not considered as an option for the site at
this time.
Source Control Remedy Modifications
The modifications to the source control remedy selected in the
1987 ROD provide protection of human health and the environment
by eliminating, reducing and controlling risk through treatment
and engineering controls. Organic contaminants would be removed
from the soil through treatment, thereby eliminating long-term
risks due to dermal contact, ingestion, and inhalation. The
remaining contaminants would be stabilized to minimize their
potential release into the environment.
Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate
Requirements
Section 121(d) of CERCLA, as amended by SARA, requires that
remedies for Superfund sites comply with Federal and State laws
that are directly applicable and, therefore, legally enforceable.
Remedies must also comply with the requirements of laws and
regulations that are not applicable, but are relevant and
appropriate; in other words, requirements that pertain to
situations sufficiently similar to those encountered at a
Superfund site such that their use is well suited to the site.
Combined, these are referred to as "applicable or relevant and
appropriate requirements".
Groundwater Remedial Alternatives
Alternative 3(a), as well as 3(b) and 3(c), are interim remedies
to prevent further migration of the most highly contaminated
portion of the contaminant plume, and are not intended to restore
the quality of the groundwater to drinkable conditions.
Therefore, although the MCLGs and MCLs are ARARs, they need not
16
-------
be achieved in groundwater at this time. However, the MCLGs, or
the more stringent of the Federal or State MCLs, where the MCLG
has been set at zero, will be used if a final remedial action
intended to restore the groundwater to beneficial use as a
dri.iking water source is implemented.
Although the goal of this interim remedy is not to restore the
groundwater to drinkable levels, the extracted groundwater will
be treated to achieve MCLG concentrations, or the more stringent
of the Federal or State MCL concentrations where the MCLG has
been set at zero, prior to its reinjection into the groundwater
system.
Residuals generated as a result of groundwater treatment will be
disposed of off-site in compliance with ARARs.
To ensure compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act,
a cultural resources survey will be prepared during remedial
design.
The Waldick site lies within the coastal zone as designated by
the State of New Jersey under the Coastal Zone Management Act.
Accordingly, a review was performed and the remedial alternatives
were determined to be consistent with the New Jersey State
Coastal Management Program.
Source Control Remedy Modifications
The source control remedy would meet ARARs. Any residuals
generated as a result of controlling emissions from the on-site
thermal treatment unit will be disposed of off-site in compliance
with ARARs. If it is determined during the remedial design that
the thermally treated soil will be stabilized on-site, and if it
is determined that the stabilized material conforms with New
Jersey Solid Waste Regulations and other ARARs, then the
stabilized material would be replaced on the site. Otherwise,
the stabilized material would be disposed of off-site at an
appropriately permitted landfill.
No waiver from ARARs is necessary to implement the modifications
to the source control remedy.
Reduction of Toxicitv. Mobility, or Volume via Treatment
This evaluation criteria relates to the performance of a
technology or remedial alternative in terms of eliminating or
controlling risks, posed by the toxicity, mobility, or volume of
hazardous substances.
17
-------
Groundwater Remedial Alternatives
Alternatives 3(a), 3(b) and 3(c) would reduce the toxicity,
mobility, and volume of the contaminants present in the
groundwater through the use of extraction and treatment methods.
Sludge resulting from treatment for metals removal would be
disposed of off-site, and spent carbon from the removal of VOCs
(under Alternative 3[c]) would be regenerated or disposed of off-
site. The treatment provided under Alternatives 3(a), 3(b), and
3(c) would be irreversible.
Source Control Remedy Modifications
The remedy utilizes thermal treatment and solidification/
stabilization to remediate the contaminated soil at the site.
The toxicity, mobility, and volume of soil contaminants would be
reduced. The process would be irreversible for organic
contaminants, and expected to be irreversible for inorganic
contaminants. Immobilized inorganic contaminants, at
concentrations above the previously established soil cleanup
objectives, would remain in the soil if the solidified material
is replaced on the site.
Short-term Effectiveness
Short-term effectiveness measures how well an alternative is
expected to perform, the time to achieve performance, and the
potential adverse impacts of its implementation.
Groundwater Remedial Alternatives
It is expected that each of the three subalternatives of
Alternative 3 would be effective at containing the spread of the
highly contaminated portion of the contaminant plume in the
short-term. A monitoring program would be implemented on a
regular basis throughout the duration of the interim remedy to
assess its effectiveness and determine the need for
modifications.
An assessment would be made during the design of the remedy to
ensure that any adverse impacts to wetland areas would be
mitigated.. If appropriate, some of the treated groundwater could
be discharged to wetland areas to help offset any dewatering
effects created by the groundwater extraction.
None of the three subalternatives of Alternative 3 would create
any significant short-term, health-related concerns for the
public beyond those posed by normal construction activities. A
relatively minor increase in traffic during construction and
transportation of treatment residuals is expected.
18
-------
Source Control Remedy Modifications
It is estimated that the source control remedy would take six
months to complete once excavation has begun.
The potential for erosion and transport of contaminated soil into
surface water or off-site areas would be minimized by standard
erosion control methods. Dust suppression techniques would be
used to minimize or eliminate fugitive emissions. Appropriate
personnel protection equipment would be used to minimize risks to
workers.
The source control remedy does present a slight risk increase
resulting from emissions; these, however, can be minimized
through careful management of the thermal treatment unit. The
actual thermal treatment should take about three months. If it
is determined that the solidified material'will be disposed of
off-site, there is also a risk associated with the transport of
the solidified material to the appropriately permitted landfill.
Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence
Long-term effectiveness and permanence address the long-term
protection and reliability that an alternative affords.
Groundwater Remedial Alternatives
The potential for residual risk remaining at the site after
completion, of a remedial action cannot be fully assessed at this
time. The implementation of an interim extraction and treatment
remedy, along with additional field investigation, provides the
best opportunity for assessing final groundwater remedies at the
site.
Source Control Remedy Modifications
Implementation of the remedy would result in the reduction of
risks to within an acceptable range. Most of the organic
contaminants would be removed by the thermal treatment process.
The solidified material would be disposed of either on-site or
off-site. If the solidified material were disposed of on-site,
the risk of future groundwater contamination would be minimal
because the inorganic contaminants would be immobilized and a
vegetative cover would be placed over them.
Implementabilitv
Implementability considerations address how easy or difficult,
feasible or infeasible, it would be to carry out a given
alternative from design through construction and operation and
maintenance.
19
-------
Groundwater Remedial Alternatives
Each of the three subalternatives of Alternative 3 is technically
feasible to implement. Alternatives 3(a) and 3(c) employ
conventional treatment technologies and are commonly use.d to
treat contaminated water. Alternative 3(c) might require a
bench-scale treatability study to determine optimum operating
parameters. For 3(b), a pilot-scale treatability study would be
required to establish operating parameters for chemical oxidation
enhanced with UV photolysis. Technological improvements in the
extraction/treatment/discharge system for each of the three
alternatives could be implemented during the interim remedy, as
information on the progress of the operation becomes available.
Source Control Remedy Modifications
The source control remedy has few associated administrative
difficulties which could delay implementation. The technologies
have been used successfully to address similar contaminants at
other Superfund sites, and the skilled workers needed to
implement the remedies are readily available in the area. The
on-site thermal treatment unit will meet substantial permit
equivalent requirements.
Cost
Costs are evaluated in terms of remedial action capital costs,
operation and maintenance costs, and present worth.
Groundwater Remedial Alternatives
The estimated present worth of Alternative 3(a) is $5,923,372.
The lowest cost alternative is 3(c), at $5,846,035. The highest
cost alternative is 3(b), at $6,035,872.
Source Control Remedy Modifications
The estimated cost of the soil remediation is $5,913,569. This
cost estimate assumes that the solidified material will be
disposed of off-site. If the solidified material is disposed of
on-site, .the estimated cost of the soil remediation is
$3,420,000..
State Acceptance
The State Acceptance factor addresses whether the State of New
Jersey supports, opposes, or has no comment on the preferred
alternative.
20
-------
Groundwater Remedial Alternatives
The State of New Jersey supports the remedial action called.for
by the selected remedy.
Source Control Remedy Modifications
The State of New Jersey supports the modifications to the source
control remedy.
Community Acceptance
This evaluation factor addresses public reaction to the remedial
alternatives which were considered, and the preferred
alternative.
Issues raised during the public comment period and at the public
meeting held on February 28, 1991, are addressed in the
Responsiveness Summary Section of this ROD.
SELECTED REMEDY
Section 121(b) of CERCLA, as amended, requires EPA to select
remedial actions which utilize permanent solutions and
alternative treatment technologies or resource recovery options
to the maximum extent practicable. In addition, EPA prefers
remedial actions that permanently and significantly reduce the
mobility, toxicity, or volume of site wastes.
After careful review and evaluation of the alternatives evaluated
in detail in the supplemental feasibility study, and
consideration of all evaluation criteria, EPA presented
Alternative 3(a), Groundwater Extraction from the Zone of Highest
Contaminant Concentration/Precipitation/Air Stripping/
Reinjection, to the public as the preferred remedy for the
groundwater contamination at the Waldick Aerospace Devices site.
Additionally, EPA presented modifications to the remedy selected
in the September 29, 1987 ROD. The modified source control
remedy included excavation of all contaminated soil, on-site
thermal treatment, and solidification/stabilization of the
thermally treated soil prior to disposal.
The input received during the public comment period, consisting
primarily of questions and statements submitted at the public
meeting held on February 28, 1991, is presented in the attached
Responsiveness Summary. Public comments did not necessitate any
changes to the preferred alternative or the 1987 ROD
modifications for the site. Accordingly, the preferred
alternative and the modifications to the 1987 ROD have been
selected by EPA as the remedial solutions for the site.
21
-------
The goals of this interim groundwater remedy are to prevent
further migration of the highly contaminated portion of the
groundwater contaminant plume and to evaluate the aquifer's
response to extraction and treatment measures. If the evaluation
of the interim remedy shows it to be potentially feasible, the
goal of a final remedial action for the cleanup of the
groundwater contamination at the Waldick site would be to restore
the groundwater to the MCLGs that are set at levels above zero.
Where the MCLG for a contaminant has been set at a level of zero,
the more stringent of the Federal or State MCLs for that
contaminant would be used. A final remedy for groundwater will
be determined after collecting additional information on the
extent of groundwater contamination, and evaluating the
effectiveness of the interim remedy.
Some additional activities will be performed during the remedial
design and remedial action phases for the two operable units.
These activities are described below.
The aquifer system will be periodically monitored during the
remedial design and remedial action phases, as well as
following the completion of the interim remedial action.
During the remedial design, studies will be undertaken to
further delineate the extent of contamination and
groundwater flow patterns, and to determine if remediation
of the groundwater contamination can be accelerated by
optimizing the extraction system.
An assessment will be made during the design of the interim
remedy to ensure that any adverse impacts to wetland areas
would be mitigated. If appropriate, some of the treated
groundwater could be discharged to wetland areas to help
offset any dewatering effects created by the groundwater
extraction.
A cultural resources survey will be prepared to ensure '
compliance of the interim groundwater remedy with the >•
National Historic Preservation Act.
STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
Superfund remedy selection is based on the Superfund Amendments
and Reauthorization Act of 1986 and the regulations contained in
the NCP. EPA's primary responsibility at Superfund sites is to
undertake remedial actions that achieve adequate protection of
human health and the environment. Additionally, several other
statutory requirements and preferences have been established.
These specify that, when complete, the selected remedy must
comply with ARARs, unless a statutory waiver is justified. The
remedy must also be cost-effective and utilize permanent
solutions and alternative treatment or resource recovery
technologies to the maximum extent practicable. Finally, there
22
-------
is a preference for remedies which employ treatment that
permanently and significantly reduce the toxicity, mobility, or
volume of hazardous wastes as their principal element. The
following sections discuss how the selected interim groundwater
remedy and the modifications to the previously selected source
control remedy for the Waldick Aerospace Devices site meet these
requirements and preferences.
Protection of Human Health and the Environment
The selected groundwater remedy protects human health and the
environment through the extraction and treatment of contaminated
groundwater. The modifications made to the previously selected
source control remedy protect human health and the environment
through the excavation, on-site thermal treatment, and
solidification/stabilization of the treated soil.
The extraction and treatment of the contaminated groundwater will
significantly reduce the threat of potential exposure to
•contaminated groundwater. The potential carcinogenic risk
estimated under a future use scenario in the PHE, is 2 x 10"* and
the Hazard Index is 34.9. In addition, groundwater at the site
is contaminated at levels exceeding MCLs. The goals of the
interim remedy are to prevent further migration of the highly
contaminated portion of the groundwater contaminant plume, to
reduce contaminant concentrations, and to evaluate the aquifer
system's response to extraction and treatment measures. If the
evaluation of the interim remedy shows it to be potentially
feasible, the goal of a final remedial action for the cleanup of
groundwater contamination at the Waldick site would be to restore
the groundwater to the MCLGs that are set at levels above zero.
Where the MCLG for a contaminant has been set at a level of zero,
the more stringent of the Federal or State MCLs for that
contaminant would be used.
The source control remedy will eliminate the threat of exposure
from direct contact to contaminants, and effectively eliminate
the potential for migration of contaminants from the source to
the aquifer system at the site.
There are no short-term adverse impacts associated with either
the interim groundwater remedy or the source control remedy which
cannot be readily controlled. In addition, no cross-media
impacts are expected from either the interim groundwater remedy
or the source control remedy.
23
-------
Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate
Requirements
The selected groundwater remedy will attain ARARs directly
associated with the action. The modifications to the source
control remedy will comply with all ARARs. The ARARs are
presented below.
Action-Specific
Although the goal of the interim groundwater remedy is not to
restore the groundwater to drinkable levels, the extracted
groundwater will be treated to achieve non-zero MCLG or MCL
concentrations prior to its reinjection into the groundwater
system.
The modifications to the source control remedy will comply with
action-specific ARARs. Soil with contaminant concentrations
above the soil cleanup objectives (COs) established in the first
ROD will be excavated. These COs are: 1 part per million (ppm)
for VOCs; 100 ppm for PHCs; 3 ppm for cadmium; and 100 ppm for
total chromium. Organic contaminants will be removed by thermal
treatment. The treated soil will be solidified and stabilized.
Although the solidified mass may contain inorganic contaminants
at concentrations above the soil cleanup objectives, it will be
tested for leachability prior to disposal.
RCRA action-specific ARARs are triggered by the source control
remedy, since the soil contains electroplating/F007 listed waste.
Therefore, the RCRA Land Disposal Restrictions which call for
concentration-based treatment standards for Second Third wastes,
in effect since July 8, 1989, apply.
Emissions from the thermal treatment unit would conform with the
provisions of the Clean Air Act. This will be accomplished
through the installation of appropriate air.pollution control
equipment. Occupational Safety and Health Administration
requirements would be complied with during implementation of the
source control remedy.
With respect to State action-specific ARARs, the thermal
treatment unit, solidification units, air stripper, and any other
regulated equipment will be designed, constructed, and operated
to meet the Air Pollution Control and the Noise Pollution Control
Act requirements and regulations.
Contaminant-Specific
The extracted groundwater will be treated to achieve non-zero
MCLG or MCL concentrations prior to its reinjection into the
groundwater system. However, the goal of the interim action is
not to restore the groundwater to the non-zero MCLGs or MCLs.
24
-------
The soil cleanup objectives established in the first ROD will, be
used.
Location-Specific
The groundwater at the site is within.the coastal zone as defined
by the State of New Jersey. A review was performed and the
selected groundwater remedy was determined to be consistent with
the New Jersey State Coastal Management Program. Additionally,
there are no Federally designated wild and scenic rivers and
there are no significant agricultural lands in the vicinity of
the site. The project area may be sensitive for the discovery of
cultural resources. Therefore, as discussed earlier, a cultural
resources survey will be prepared during remedial design.
Additionally, a wetlands assessment will be performed at that
time to determine the presence of and potential impacts on
wetland areas, as well as to allow a determination of mitigative
measures.
Utilization of Permanent Solutions and Alternative Treatment or
Resource Recovery Technologies to the Maximum Extent Practicable
EPA and the State of New Jersey have determined that the interim
groundwater remedy utilizes permanent solutions and alternative
treatment technologies to the maximum extent practicable, given
the limited scope of the action.
EPA and the State of New Jersey have determined that the
modifications which have been made to the source control remedy
represent the maximum extent to which permanent solutions and
treatment technologies can be utilized in a cost-effective manner
for the Ualdick Aerospace Devices site.
The modifications to the source control remedy present a slight
short-term risk increase resulting from emissions during remedial
action; however, these will be minimized through careful
management of the thermal treatment unit and air monitoring
throughout remediation.
Cost Effectiveness
The selected alternative is determined to be cost-effective
because it provides the highest degree of protectiveness among
the alternatives evaluated at reasonable cost. Also, the
modifications to the source control remedy provide a high degree
of protectiveness at reasonable cost.
25
-------
Preference for Treatment as a Principal Element
By extracting and treating the contaminated groundwater, the
seDected remedy addresses the threats posed by the site through
the use of treatment technologies. However, the statutory
preference for treatment will be addressed in the final ROD
addressing groundwater at the site.
By thermally treating the contaminated soil, and solidifying the
treated soil prior to disposal, the modifications to the source
control remedy address the threats posed by the source of
contamination through the use of treatment technologies.
Therefore, the statutory preference for remedies that employ
treatment as a principal element is satisfied.
26
-------
11
Watdick Aerospace Devices Site
AU«II. tidg.
Main Building
r
D
a
®
,
!, ) \ __
| J
MJ
•L:—"
P~^.
ii
Legend
— — — Property Line
POORQUAUTY
ORIGINAL
//»
/ •'
-------
c e
\
EPA REM II Monitor Wtlls
MW REM III Monitor Wtlls
O Shallow Well*
Mtdlurn Wells
• Solid Wtlls
Waldlek Atrospact Otvlet* Sltt
MW ClusttrWtll
105 Location
•• \- r* /, * .-. •• ••.* '
"* J TC^"*™^'' . i'-c- ^3i- .j a.j^'-' ~ i. ^
i '• '1 i-'/' - \
e'uniiojM • -.v
1CF TECHNOLOGY
INCORPORATED
Figure 2-4
Location ol Existing REM II and REM III Wells
Wtidick Acroiptct Ocictt Sin. Will Tewnthip. Monmoutn County N*w J*r»*r
T\
f
POOR QUALITY
ORIGINAL
-------
Legend V
EPA — REM II Monitoring Wells
MW — REM III Monitoring Wells'
O Shallow Wells " /
6 Intermediate Wells
• Deep Wells
NO Not Detected
'•••Concentrated Zone
.Waldlcfc Aerospace Devices Sit*
EPA 2
•. I •=•
\
. Intermediate , ..
Walla
"""
rr^fc^ ;fe;
2-1
Plan View of Concentrated
ICF TECHNOLOGY
QUALITY f
ORIGINAL. ,.t
-------
\
O Mil
•;
.k Aerotpaet D«viot( $Ht -
n.(-"T •>'•;-:"""
: • < *•! . • '?.
G HIS
1
k.
1
- i
-'
e
CT'HBZ
Liigend
O Sampling Locations
1CF TECHNOLOGY
Figure 2-5 .
REM III Surface Water and Sediment
Sample Locations
ORIGINAL §
* M»w Jgnf
V:
-------
I ABIE 43
ANALYMr*'ifl il!S SUHHARY OF CONTAMINANTS IDENTIFIED IN CROONDUAIER COLLECTED
FROM DEEP MONITOR WELLS
UAIOICK AEROSPACE,DEVICES. WALL TOWNSHIP. HONMOUIH COUNTY. NEW JERSEY
Compound CPA- 12
Carbon dlsulfide 0.8
Tried toroethytene
Toluene
Ethyl Beniene
TOTAL 0.8
Carbon dlsulfide
Toluene 2.0
O 1°T*«- 2-0
OO
OO
Jr? |— None HO
3 '
Bis <2-ethylhexyl) phthalate 31.0
Phenol
TOTAL 31.0
Volatile Organic Compounds
Round 1
Monitor Uefl Locations and Concentrations (PPB)
101-0
EPA-4 EPA- 11 101-0 DUP 102-D 104-0
0.6 0.6 0.2
0.6
0.2 0.2
1.2 HO 0.8 0.2 0.2 NO
Round 2
0.8
5.0 2.0
NO HO NO NO 5.0 2.8
•ase Neutral and Acid fMractable Compounds
Round 1
NO HO NO NO NO NO
•Round?
31.0
2.0
'.t> 33.0 NO HO NO NO
105-0
1.5
0.3
0.3
2.1
NO
NO
NO
NO/elank Spaces - Not Detected
PPB - Parts Per Billion
OUP - Duplicate Sample
-------
TABLE 4-3 (Continued)
ANALYTICAL-RESULTS SUMMARY Of CONTAMINANTS lOfMllflfD IN GROUNDUAim COLLECTED
FROM DrtP, WIN I KM WELLS
WAIDICK AfROSPACE DEVICES. UAll TOWNSHIP. HONMOUIH COUNTY. NEW JERSEY
Priority Pollutant Metals
Round 1
Monitor Well locations and Concentrations (PP8)
"D
O
CO
~t3 TJ
•>^<^ t^AjJ
j§£>
j^-'-*3*
r~ i^
I<
Metal
Arsenic
Beryllium .
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
DISSOLVED
TOTAL
\
DISSOLVED
TOTAL
DISSOLVED
TOTAL
DISSOLVED
TOTAL
DISSOLVED
TOTAL
DISSOLVED
TOTAL
DISSOLVED
TOTAL
DISSOLVED
TOTAL
EPA 12 EPA 4 EPA- 11 1010
« S
1.'
5.5
5.2 7.2
7.2 78.6 168.0
R R R R
R 4.8 R 72.1
R R R
R R R 117.0
13.7
12.6 83.6
R R R R
R 315.0 R 159.0
101 D
HIP 102-0
7.7 1.7
1.6 1.1
4.7
158.0 38.5
R
R 22.9
R R
120.0 11.2
25.2 8.1
79.6 24.9
R R
R 45.1
104 -D
4 >
3.V
7.2
604.0
4.2
56.7
2.0
22.6
21.2
454.0
225.0
295.0
105-0
1.1
12.6
503.0
31.2
32.7
3.2
3.5
R
346.0
96.8
158.0
PPB - Parts Per Billion
R - Rejected
DUP - Duplicate Sample
Blank Spaces - Not Detected
-------
j"r», o | ^ I &->./».4i r K
**" *T>
1 L— . Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Zinc
DISSOLVED
TOTAL
DISSOLVED
TOTAL
DISSOLVED
TOTAL '
DISSOLVED
TOTAL
DISSOLVED
TOTAL
DISSOLVED
TOTAL
DISSOLVED
TOTAL
DISSOLVED
TOTAL
DISSOLVED
TOTAL
DISSOLVED
TOTAL
DISSOLVED
TOTAL
Priority Pollutant Met alt -
- Round 2
Monitor Well locations and Concentrations (PPB)
EPA-12 EPA 4 EPA 11 101 D 102-D 104-0 105 D
1.0
13.6 69.5 15.1 3.4
1.5 11.2 3.1
5.2 7 29.5 7.1
-fO.'. 31.0 49.2 329.0 137^0 323.0
k . R R R R R
20.0 R 14.9 R 62.6 22.6 -51.5 -
R R R
4.6 2.4 18.2, 59.6 40.3 7.7
0.9
31.7
35.7 193.0 95.6 254.0
2.0 0.8
0.8 8.7 11.7 1.8
9.4
R R R R R R R
52.? R 46.5 146.0 565.0 212.0 120.0
PPB - Parts Per Billion
fl - Rejected
Blnnk Spaces -„.Not Detected
-------
TABIE 4-4
ANAIYMCAI Rf SIM IS SUMMARY Of tnNtAMINANIS lOfNIIFttD IN (.ROUND VAirR mtirCTED
IRON INlERHfDIAir MONITOR UEU.S
WAI DICK AiROSPArr ntvicrs. UAH TOWNSHIP. HONMOIITH cniNir, NEU JERSEY
"O
O
p
«*-uw>
oo
***"" ?Js»
^>" jd—
r •— ~
.. -<
Conpound EPA-2
Trans 1,2-dichloroethylene
Chloroform
Trichloroethylene
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
TOTAl NO
Trans. 1.2-dichloroethylene
2-Butanone 11.0
Trichloroethylene
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene 2.0
TOTAl i.O
Volatile Organic Caqpuunds
Rntni 1
Monitor Well lorntions and Conccntrnt ions (PP8)
104-M 105 M
EPA 6 EPA 8 EPA- 10 102 M 103 M 104 M OUP 105 M DUP
14.0
0.3 1.4 1.4
0.9 0.9 33.0
97.0 120.0 160.0 150.0 18.0
0.4
97.0 ND ND 120.3 0.4 162.3 192.3 65.0 NO
r™d2
3.0 3.0
0.4 "5.0 4.0
'.0 190.0 320.0 9.0 7.0
3.0 4.0 4.0
./.O J.O ND 194.4 .NO 324.0 NO 17.0 14.0
PPB • Parts Per Billion
ND/B'nnk Spaces • fcot Detected,
OUP - Duplicate
-------
MBit «-* (Continued)
ANAlYtlCAt -RESIII IS SUMMARY Or COMIAMINANIS infMTIMfO IN GRO»JNOUAItR COI IECTED
(ROM INIFRHLDIAU MOM MOO UEllS
K AfROSPACt DEVICES, UAU TOUMSHIP, HONMOIIIH CDUNtY. NEW JERSEY
Conpound
tPA-2
Ruse Neutral «nd Acid Exlractable Coofioundb:
Rmnd 1
EPA-6
Monitor Well locations nnd Concentrations (PPB)
EPA fl EPA-10 10? M 10J-H
PPB - Parts Per Billion
NO - Not Detected
104 M
105 -M
Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate NO
Bis (2-ethylheMyl> pfithalate 42.0
NO NO NO ND
Round 2
38. 0 ND 36.0 ND
NO NO ND
31.0 NO ND
"P
oo
d
-------
TABU 4-4 (Continued)
ANALYTICAL-RESIII IS SUMMARY OF CON!AHINAMIS IFIENTIFItO IN nROUMDWAIFR COLLECTED
FROM INURMIDIAIF MOM 11 OR WELLS
UAIOICK AFROSPACF DEVICfS, UAH IOUNSHIP. MONMOWH COUNIY. NfU JERSEY
Metal
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
lead
Nickel
Zinc
EPA-2
DISSOLVED
TOTAL
DISSOLVED
TOTAL
DISSOLVED
TOTAL 12.6
DISSOLVED R
TOTAL R
DISSOLVED R
TOTAL R
DISSOLVED
TOTAL
DISSOLVED R
'TOTAL R
Priority Pollutant (totals
Round 1
Monitor Well locations and Concentrations (PPB)
EPA-6' EPA-8 EPA- 10 102-M 103-H
2.3
4.1
'5.2 3.9
159.0 382.0
R R
R 9.0
R R
R
26.3
93.7 18.5
R R
R 18.7
12.4
11.7
14.9
105.0 77.5
47.4 R
R R
6.3 R
8.2 R
20.1
8.1 52.5
R R
20.3 R
6.1
172.0
1330.0
75.1
84.4
R
R
146.0
817.0
47.0
43.7
104 -N
7.9
9.2
7.2
1320.0
16.4
59.0
3.0
2.0
12.2
879.0
44.1
46. 5
104 -M
OUP
9.0
8.6
10.6
1210.0
R
R
5.0
2.5
13.0
808.0
R
R
105 -M
5.2
92.7
R
R
4.2
2.4
49.2
R
R
PPB - Parts Per Billion
R • Rejected
Blank Spaces • Hot Detected
OUP - Duplicate Sample
-------
TABIE 44 (Continued)
ANALYTICAL-RESIII TS SUMMARY OF CONTAMINANTS IDENTIFIED IN GROUNDUAIER'COLLECTED
FROM INTERMEDIATE MONITOR WEILS
UAIOICK AFROSPArj DEVICES. UAIL TOWNSHIP, MONMOUIH COUNTY, NEW JERSEY
Metal
Arsenic
.Beryl dun
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Zinc
EPA -2
DISSOLVED
TOTAL
DISSOLVED
TOTAL
DISSOLVED
TOTAL
DISSOLVED 7.5
-TOTAL 25.8
DISSOLVED X
TOTAL .84.7
DISSOLVED
TOTAL *.4
DISSOLVED
TOTAL
DISSOLVED
TOTAL 17.2
DISSOLVED
TOTAL
DISSOLVED
TOTAL
DISSOLVED R
TOTAL 77.0
Priority Pollutant Metal*
Round 2
Monitor Well locations and Concentrations (PPB)
EPA 6 EPA R EPA 10 102-M 103 M
1.6
1.1
4.7 9.1
9:1 4.S 12.2 8.3
9.7
50.7 250.0 27.8 78.0 464.0
R R R R R
It. 3 8.5 11.7 181.0
R
3.4 1.5 6.6 15.2
0.3
21.5 22.2 25.5
41.9 32.4 64.8 318.0
3.0 1.7
1.8 3.6
6.8 '.3
R R R R R
R R R R 68.4
105-H
104-N 105 N DUP
8.8
13.1
8.5
86.3 126.0 85.0
M R R
"17.9 18.7 13.8
5.0
6.0 3.0
60.4 ' 70.8 48.3
1.8
8.1
R R R
R R R
PPB - Parts Per Billion
R - Rejected
Blank Spaces • Mot Detected
Duplicate Sanple
-------
1 '
TABIE 44 (Continued)
ANAlYTICAl-RESUl IS SUMMARY Of CONIAMIMAMtS IDENIIHEO IN GROUNDWAItR COLIECTEO
fROH IMURHrDIAU HOMI I(M UEUS
UAIOICK AFROSPAft DEVIffS. UAtl IOOHSHIP, MONMOIIIH COUNTY. NEW JERSEY
Insecticides
Round 1
Monitor Well locations and Concentrations (PPB)
Compound EPA-2 EPA 6 EPA 8 EPA-10 102 M 10J-M 104-M 105-N
TJ
00
?J :;o
Endosulfan II 0.03
Endosulfen Sulfate 0.04
Round 2
None
PPB - Parts Per Billion Blank Spaces • Not Detected
-------
I ABU 45
ANAiriiCAi-Rrsui is SUMMARY or CONIAMIHAHIS IDEMWUO IN GROUNDUAIEII come if D
SMAIIOU MOMHOR urns
UAIDICK AIROSPACE DEVICES. UAll fOUHSHIP. HONHOUTH COUNIY, NEW JERSEY
•TOW*
TJ
o
00
2TJ "O
oo
->•' c^
*& '&*
g~ r~
"Tj
-<
Compound fPA-t
Trans 1.2-dJchloroethylene
Chloroform
Trichloroethylen*
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
TOTAL NO
Tran* 1.2-dichloroethylene
2-But«none
Irlchtoroethylene
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
TOTAL NO
None NO
Bis <2-ethylhexyt) phthalate NO
Volatile Organic CoMpounrls
•otnd 1 '
Monitor Well location!: and Concentrations (PPB)
fPA-5
EPA-S PUP 102 S 104 S
1.4 1.0
2.6
51.0 140.0 140.0
53.0 NO 144.0 H1.0
Round 2
0.9
19.0 14.0 470.0 2SO.O
4.0 2.0
19.0 14.0 m.O 2S2.9
•ase Heutral and Acid Extractabte Coapountb
Round t
NO NO NO NO
Round 2
ND NO 9.0 NO
105 S
1.0
6.0
16.0
23.0
1.0
7.0
6.0
29.0
0.5
4J.5
NO
1.0
Nn/Blnnk Spncrs - Hot Detected
PPB - P.irts Per Billion
DUP - Duplicate Sample
-------
TABLE 45 (Continued)
ANALYTICAL-RE Sill IS SUMMARY OF CONTAMINANTS tnFHMFIED IN GROHNDWATFR COLLECTED
TROM SHADOW MONITOR wms
WALDICK AEROSPACE DEVICES. WAI I TOWNSHIP, HONMOUTH COUNTY, NEW JERSET
Priority Pollutant Netals
Rand 1
Monitor Writ locntions and Concentrations (PPB)
T3
o
Op
1?.Q
fij^ 'j^
r™ £"•-
""'
Metal
Arsenic
Beryl 1 iun
Cndmitm
Chromiim
Copper
lead
Nickel
line
EPA-1
DISSOLVED
TOTAL
DISSOLVED
TOTAL
DISSOLVED
TOTAL
DISSOLVED
TOTAL 8.6
DISSOLVED R
TOTAL 14.6
DISSOLVED
TOTAL 2.3
DISSOLVED
TOTAL
DISSOLVED 35.1
TOTAL 40.0
EPA-5 102-S
1.3
*
2.0
13.8 77.8
15.9 79.9
25.5
8.4 220.0
R R
21.1 R
R 19.3
3.3 14.0
45.8
R R
R R
104 -S
1.4
1.2
81.2
85.7
9.2
181.0
38.2
76.4
2.4
14.7
14.1
103.0
41.4
55.8
105-S
1.7
1.0
249.0
R
R
R
R
133.0
R
R
PPB = Parts Per •Illion
R - Rejected
Blank Spaces • Not Detected
-------
. ..-4 .
TAB E 4 S /Continued)
ANALYTICAL «l 'IMS StMHMT OF LONTANMAM" mEHIIFIED Ik •"»! lit COLLECTED
FROM SHAUfA/ MONITOR CUiS
UAtOICK A. 10SPAU Of VICCS, UAll TOWNSHIP, MONMOUIH COUNIT, NFU
• '
' )
CO
H^.'C.. *""" *
CD O
•a. •*> £ ~ ~"
tt£- .'.':"""
r~ L,..
-<
Metal
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
EPA-1
DISSOLVED
TOTAL
DISSOLVED
TOTAL
DISSOLVED
TOTAL 4.1
DISSOLVED
TOTAL 35.7
DISSOLVED R
TOTAL 18.7
DISSOLVED R
TOTAL 2.4
DISSOLVED
TOTAL
DISSOLVED
TOU..
DISSOLVED
TOTAL
Priority Pollutant Metals
Round 2
Monitor Well locutions and Concentrations (PPB)
EPA 5
EPA 5 DUP 102 -S 104 -S
t.O 1.6
5.2
10.6 12.9 43.2 83.1
13.4 13.1 144.0 89.2
18.7 19.7
13.1 10.0 466.0 64.0
R . R R R
R R 148.0 28.3
R-
3.8 3.8 79.9 5.9
0.3
201.0 33.3
1.4
105-S
2.7
4.9
115.0
R
16.6
7.2
58.5
3.3
PPB = Parts Per Billion
Blank Spaces - Not Defected R • Rejected
OUP - Duplicate Sample
-------
TABLE 4-5 (Cc.it Inued)
ANAIYIICAI-RI !'tS SUMNAK" r>r CONTAMINANTS IDENTIFIED IH GftOUNOUAtER COLLECTED
FR(M SHAUOU MONITOR HELLS
UALDICr *CROSPACE DEVICES. WAll TOWNSHIP, NONNOUTH COO»"
J(»SET
fi ilrf-'Hutant Het»U
no.oid 2 (Cmtliucd)
Hoot tor Well locations and Concentrations (PPB)
Cov^MNjnd EPA* 1
Silver DISSOLVED
TOTAL
Zinc DISSOLVED R
TOTAL R
T?
o
oo
—«( ia,U Cyanide
=--'•' ';s2 lindane
•^ «..-—
^> -^ Endosulfan Sulfate
Bl IMAt*
EPA -5
EPA-5 OUP 102 -S 104-S . 105 -S
7.3
R R R R R
R R 154.0 R R
Cyanide and Insecticides
Romd 1
9.5
0.01 O.Oo
- 0.19
Rnrnd 2
None
PPB « Parts Per Billion
Blank Spaces - Not Detected
R • Rejected
OUP - Duplicate Saapte
-------
i« M-
TABLE 4-6
ANALYTICAL-RESULTS SUMMARY OF CONTAMINANTS IDENTIFIED IN SURFACE UATER COLLECTED
FROM HANNABRANO BROOK phthalett
Volatile Ortanic Compounds
Sample Locations and Concentrations (PP8)
HB-01 HB-06
HB-01A HB-01 COL MB -02 HB-03 HB-04 MB -05 HB-06 OUP
1.0
1.0 2.0 2.0
37.0*
NO NO NO NO NO NO 1.0 40.0 2.0
Base Neutral and Acid EMtractable Compounds
2.0 3.0 2.0
4.0 11.0 79.0
TOTAL
8.0
11.0 NO
3.0
2.0
NO
79.0
NO NO
•Postlblc/'robabU lab/Ft eld Contamination
COL • Collocate Sample
ND/Blank Spaces - Not Detected
OOP - Duplicate Sample
PPB - Parts Per III I Ion
-------
TABLE 4-6 (Continued)
ANALYTICAL-RESULTS SUMMARY Of CONTAMINANTS IDENTIFIED IN SURFACE HATER COLLECTED
FROM HANNABRAMD BROOK (REM III)
• UALDICK AEROSPACE DEVICES, WALL TOWNSHIP, MONMOUTN COUNTY. NEW JERSEY
Compound
Arsenic
Beryllium
Chromium
oo
-y ;:o i««i
£§o
P'1 C- Selenium
r" L-
Priority Pollutant Netala
Sample Locations and Concentrations (PPB)
HB-01 HB-06
HB-01A HB-01 COL HB-02 MB -03 HB-04 KB -05 NB-06 DUP
DISSOLVED
TOTAL 2.4
DISSOLVED 1.8
TOTAL
DISSOLVED
TOTAL 8.8 10.0 10.0
DISSOLVED 73.8 20.8 221.0 89.2 73.0 10.8
TOTAL 7.3
DISSOLVED 11.2 24.2 10.8 8.2 R
TOTAL 2.1 6.9 8.6 18.5 R
DISSOLVED
TOTAL 3.5
DISSOLVED 33.2 191.0 66.4 384.0 R 147.0 30.0 R
TOTAL 25.6 36.9 28.7 R R 56.1 17.4 R 17.4
R • Rejected Blar* Spaces • Hot Detected
DUP - Duplicate Sample
PPB - Parts Per Billion
COL • Collocate Sample
-------
,
o o
-y'j '""Q
o o
S^S
^"5
••-<.
Compound
Toluene
Phenol
2-Chlorophenol
1.4-DlcMorobemene
N-nltrosodl-n-propylamlrw
1,2.4-Trlchlorobentene
Napthalene
4-Chloro-3-Methylphenol
2-Methylnapthalene
Acenaphthene
4-Nltropnenol
Dibeniofuran
Fluorene
Pentachlorophenol
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
Dl-n-butylpnthatate
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Bento (a) anthracene
Ctiryaene
•enio (b) fluoranthene
•enio
-------
-a
O
9^
v.-<«*
Q<*"*1
„. '•::-
Sir 2>
r" ~r.
Compound
Indeno (1.2.3-cd) pyrene
Dlbenzo (a.h) anthracene
Benzo (g.h.l) perylene
Bl» (2-chloroisopropyl) ether
Methyl phenol
TOTAL
TIC (Count) Concentration
ANALYTICAL
UALOICK
HB-01A N8-01
1000.0
360.0
1000.0
5300.0
1700.0
141.176.0 NO
(7) 14,960.0
To,!,!^ 5 f-^J-.^-J '
TABLE 4-7 (Continued)
-RESULTS SUMMARY Of CONTAMINANTS IDENTIHED IN SEDIMENT COLLECTED
' rROM HANNABRAND BROOK (REM III)
AEROSPACE DEVICES, WALL TOIMSHIP, HONNOUTH COUNTY. NEU JERSEY
•as* Neutral and Acid Extractable Coapound* (Continued)
Sanple Locations and Concentrations (PPB)
HB-01
COL NB-02 HB-03 HB-04 MB -05 HB-06
320.0 86.0
360.0
NO 1.515,0 2.630.0 1,610.0 7.190.0 3.566.0
(10) 6.080.0 (3) 2.490.0 (8) 13.180.0 (5) 2,750.0 (16) 22,790.0 (3) 1.150.0
HB-06
OOP
480.0
130.0
580.0
11.480.0
(IS) 31.910.0
PPf • Part* Per Billion COL - Collocate Sample
TIC • Tentatively Identified Coapound
OOP - Duplicate Sample
NO/Blanfc Spaces - Not Detected
-------
5 (<-v*-f,
PPi - Part* Per III I Ion
flank Spaces - Not Detected
TABLE 4-7 (Continued)
ANALYTICAL-RESULTS SUMMARY Or CONTAMINANTS IDENTIFIED IN SEDIMENT COLLECTED
FROM HANNABRANO BROOK (REN III)
WALDICK AEROSPACE DEVICES. UALL TOWNSHIP, MONMOUTH COUNTY. NEU JERSEY
Priority Pollutant Metals
Metal
Arsenic
.CtiroMlu*
Copper
lead
SelenliM
Zinc
Sanple
MB -01
Mfl-OIA HB-01 ' COL HB-02
1.0 0.6 0.5 0.7
12.0 2.3
3.8
6.4 3.7 23.3 8.7
0.9 R 1.1 R
7.1 R
locations and Concentrations (PPB)
KB -03
0.5
2.6
4.9
12.7
0.6
R
NB-04
0.4
2.2
2.0
9.6
1.0
5.2
HB-05 Nt-06
1.1 0.8
8.9 3.5
10.0 R
29.1 R
1.1 0.5
18.1 7.2
HB-06
OOP
0.7
2.4
R
R
5.4
COl • Collocate Sample
OUP • Duplicate Sa*t>le
R - Rejected
oo
-------
4
TABLE 1-8
CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN IT MEDIUM
UALDICK AEROSPACE DEVICES SITE
CHEMICAL
Siteurface
Soil
Surface
Water
Sedfl
Crouiduater
ShalloM
Int •mediate
Deep
Organies
Acetone
2>lutanone
•i«(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Carbon disulfid*
Chloroform
Tetraehloroethylene
Triehloroethylene
Tren<-1,2-Dichloroethylene
Toluene
Carcinogenic PAX*
Pentachlorophenol
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Inorganics
Aluninun
•ariun
CadTiium
Chreniun
Copper
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Nickel
Vanadiun
X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
POOR QUAL1T
ORIGINAL -
-------
TA8LC 6-13
SUHKARY OF HEALTH EFFECTS CRITERIA FOR CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN
VALOICK AEROSPACE DEVICES SITE
ORAL CRIURIA
IHHALAIIOH CRITERIA
Noncarelnogenlc Effects
Carcinogenic Effects
Noncarelnogenlc Effects
Carcinogenic Effects
CHEMICAL
2-BUTANOHE
CARBON OISULFIDE
CHLOROFORM
TRANS- 1 . 2-DICHLOROETHYLENE
TETRACHIOROETHYLENE
TRICHLOROETHYLENE
TOLUENE
B 1 S( 2-ETHYLHEXYl )PHTHALATE
ACETONE
ALUMINUM
BARIUM
CADMIUM
CHROMIUM (f)
COPPER (g)
IRON
LEAD (h)
MANGANESE
NICKEL
VANADIUM
ZINC
Reference
Dose Safety
(RfO) Factor (a)
(mg/kg/d)
5. OOE-02
I.OOE-01
1. OOE-02
2 OOE-02
l.OOE-02
7.40E-03 *
3.00E-01
2. OOE-02
l.OOE-Ot
--
5. OOE-02
5.00E-04 (e)
.OOE+03
.OOE+02
.OOE+03
.OOE+03
.OOE+03
.OOE+03
.OOE+02
.OOE+03
.OOE+03
--
.OOE+02
.OOE+01
l.OOE-03 (e)
S.OOE-03 5.00E+OI
3.70E-02
--
2.00E-01 l.OOE+02
2. OOE-02 3. OOE+02
7.00E-03 l.OOE+02
2.00E-01 l.OOE+01
Source (b)
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
HA
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
--
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
HEA
--
HEA
IRIS
HEA
HEA
EPA/CAG
Cancer
Potency
Factor
(mg/kg/d)-l
--
—
6.IOE-03
- (d)
5. IOE-02
I. IOE-02
--
1.40E-02
--
—
—
-—
--
—
—
—
— —
Weight
of
Evidence (c)
--
—
B2
--
82
62
—
B2
-
'
—
..
--
B2
—
—
—
**"
Reference
Dose
(RfO)
(mg/kg/d)
9. OOE-02
—
--
—
--
—
S.70E-OI
3.00E+00
--
l.OOE-04
—
"•*
--
3.00E-04
--
--
-~
Safety
Factor (a)
I. OOE+03
--
--
--
--
--
l.OOE+02
_.
..
I. OOE+03
--
"••
—
l.OOE+02
--
--
••
Source (b)
IRIS
--
--
..
..
--
HEA
EPA 1986a
--
HEA
--
••
-*
HEA
..
--
••
EPA/CAG
Cancer
Potency
Factor
(mg/kg/d) -1
..
..
6. IOE-02
3.30E-03
4.60E-03
..
— ^
...
..
6.10E+00
4.10E+01
--
..
..
..
•-
Weight
Evidence (c)
-_
..
82
82
82
^^
..
81
A
--
..
.„
--
(a) Safety factors used to develop reference doses consist or multiples or iu; eacn factor representing a specuic area of uncertainty inherent
In the data available. The standard uncertainty factors Include:
o A ten-fold factor to account for the variation In sensitivity among the members of the human population;
o A ten-fold factor to account for the uncetalnty In extrapolating animal data to the case of humans;
o A ten-fold factor to account for the uncertainty In extrapolating from less than chronic No Observed Adverse Effects Level* (NOAELs) to
chronic NOAELs; and
o A ten-fold factor to account for the uncertainty In extrapolating from Lowest Observed Adverse Effect levels (LOAELs) to NOAELs.
(b) Sources of Reference Doses: IRIS •.chemical files of the Integrated Risk Information System; HEA '.Health
Effects Assessments; HA • Health Advisory.
(c) Weight of evidence classification scheme for carcinogens:
A -- Human Carcinogen, sufficient evidence from human epldemlologlcal studies;
Bl -- Probable Human Carcinogen, limited evidence from epldemlologlcal studies and adequate evidence from animal studies;
B2 — Probable Human Carcinogen. Inadequate evidence from epldemlologlcal studies and-adequate evidence from animal studies;
C — Possible Human Carcinogen, limited evidence In animals In the absence of human studies;
0 -- Not Classified as to human carclnogenlclty; and
E -- Evidence of NoncarelnogenlcIty.
d — Indicates that no criteria have been established In IRIS. HEA. or HA for this chemical via this route of exposure.
e 5E-04 mg/kg/d for drinking tuter exposure. IE-03 mg/kn/d for nonaqueou* oral exposure.
'f Criteria are for CrVI.
g This dose Is equivalent to the reported drinking water standard of 1.3 tog/liter, assuming a 70 kg person Ingests 2 liters of water per day.
The Drinking Water Criteria Document concluded that toxlclty data were Inadequate for calculation of an RfO for copper.
(h) EPA (1989) has Indicated a preference for estimating blood lead levels rather than using a mg/kg/d approach.
* Review pending.
-------
T?
TABU 6-13
SUMMARY OF HEALTH EFFECTS CRITERIA FOR CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN
WALDICK AEROSPACE DEVICES SITE
ORAL CRITERIA
Noncarctnogenlc Effects
CHEMICAL
Reference
Dose Safety
(RfO) Factor (a)
Source (b)
Carcinogenic
EPA/CAG
Cancer
Potency
Effects
Weight
of
(•g/kg/d) Factor Evidence (c)
Z-BU7ANONE
CARBON DISULFIDE
CHLOROFORM
TRANS- 1 .Z-OICHLOROETHYLENE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE
TRICHLOROETHYLENE
TOLUENE
BIS(Z-ETHYLHEXYL)PHTHALATE
ACETONE
ALUMINUM
BARIUM
CADMIUM
CHROMIUM If)
COPPER (g)
IRON
LEAD (h)
MANGANESE
NICKEL
VANADIUM
ZINC
5. OOE-OZ
1. OOE-OI
1. OOE-OZ
2. OOE-OZ
1. OOE-02
7.40E-03 *
3. OOE-OI
2. OOE-02
1. OOE-OI
--
S. OOE-02
S. OOE-04 (e)
.OOE»03
.OOE+OZ
.OOE»03
.OOE+03
.OOE403
.OOE»03
.OOE+02
.OOE403
.OOE403
--
.OOE*OZ
.OOE+OI
1. OOE-03 (e)
5. OOE-03 S.OOE+01
3.70E-02
*.
2. OOE-OI i.OOE+02
2. OOE-02 3.00E40Z
7. OOE-03 1.00E40Z
2. OOE-OI I.OOE+OI
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
HA
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
--
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
HEA
..
HEA
IRIS
HEA
HEA
(ng/kg/d)-l
._
6.10E-03
" (d)
5.10E-OZ
I.IOE-OZ
--
I.40E-OZ
—
—
--
--
--
--
--
--
— —
..
62
--
BZ
BZ
-. -
BZ
—
—
—
—
-—
--
B2
—
—
—
"
INHALATION CRITERIA
Noncarclnogenlc Effects
Reference
Dose
(RfO)
(mg/kg/d)
9. OOE-OZ
-.
--
--
--
5.70E-OI
--
3.00E400
--
1. OOE-04
--
--
--
3. OOE-04
—
—
— —
Safety
Factor (a)
i.oot+oi
--
--
--
--
1.00E40Z
—
--
I.OOE403
--
__
••
1.00E40Z
«
--
"*
Source (b)
IRIS
..
--
. .
-.
HEA
EPA 19B6a
-.
HEA
--
__
--
HEA
--
--
**
Carcinogenic Effects
EPA/CAG
Cancer
Potency
Factor
(ng/kg/d)-l
..
a.ioE-oz
.-
3.30E-03
4.60E-03
..
—
--
—
--
6.10E400
4.IOE40I
--
.
--
—
— •
Welaht
of
Evidence (c)
;:
BZ
-.
BZ
BZ
..
—
—
--
Bl
A
—
—
-.-
—
— —
lal Safety factors used to deveTop reference doses consist of multiples of 10; each factor representing a specific area of uncertainty Inherent
• ' -ncertalnty factr
ir the varlatin
-------
oo
3CJ -ja
O Q
v; d
£?- •<»
-»r--
r- !~_
TAfllt 6-17
POTENTIAL EXPOSURES AND RISKS FROM DERMAL CONTACT WHILE WADING
FUTURE-USE SCENARIO
WALOICK AEROSPACE DEVICES SITE
<>.r *'-.¥. EXHIBITING
PO.iiUiAL CARCINOGENIC
EFFECTS ,
Chle^fon.
Te:. icV.c.-oethy1en«
•VIcMoroe'hylene
CHEMICAL EXHIBITING
POTENTIAL NONCMCIN06ENIC
EFFECTS
2-fiutanone
Chloroform
Tetrechloroethylene
Trlchloroethytene
trans-l,2-Dlcn!oroethy1ene
Toluene
SURFACE WATER
Average
Case
(mg/ liter)
,wt.o;
i.OBE-04
1.07E-06
SURFACE WATER
Average
Case
(mg/Wer)
9.I4E-07
6.09E-07
I.OBE-04
I.07E-06
6.09E-07
7.62E-07
CONCENTRATION
Plausible
• Maximum
Case
(mg/llter)
2.29F-06
4.C?--04
4.00E-06
CONCENTRATION
Plausible
Maximum
Case
(mg/llter)
3.43E-06
2.29E-06
4.03E-04
4.00E-06
2.29E-06
2.86E-06
CHRONIC DAILY INTAKE
Average
Case
(mg/kg/d)
7.77E-H
I.3BE-11
1.37E-I3
Plausible
Maximum
Case
(mg/kg/d)
1.53E-12
2.69E-10
2.67E-I2
CANCER
Dnirurv
rllltnLl
CACTOR
(.,/k,/d)-l
6.IOE-03
1.40E-02
S.10E-02
TOTAL:
UPPER BOUND EXCESS LIFETIME
f*AHrrn ate*
\Mn\A
Average
r'M
4.ME-IG
1 93E-13
6.96E-I5
2E-13
.n ni^K
Plausible
Maximum
Case
9.33E-IS
3. 771-12
1.36E-:-,
-*•"
CHRONIC DAILY INTAKE
Average
Case
(mg/kg/d)
9.72E-I3
6.4BE-I3
I.1SE-10
1.I4E-I2
6.48E-I3
8.10E-13
Plausible
Maximum
. Case
(mg/kg/d)
1.15E-1I
7.65E-I2
1.35E-09
I.34E-1I
7.65E-12
9.5SE-I2
REFERENCE
DOSE
*
(mg/kg/d)
S.OOE-02
I.OOE-02
2.00E-02
I.OOE-02
l.OOE-OI
3.00E-01
COhHft RATIO
Average
Cise
I.94E-I1
6.48E-I1
S.74E-09
1.14E-IO
6.4BE-12
2.70E-I2
Plausible
Naxlmw.
Case
2.29E-IO
7.6SE-IO
B.73E-08
I.34E-09
7.6SE-11
3.I8E-I1
HAZARD INDEX:
5.95E-09
6.97E-08
-------
-O
08
;a 33
So
TABLE 6-17
POTENTIAL EXPOSURES AND RISKS FROH DERMAL CONTACT WHILE WADING
FUTURE-USE SCENARIO
WALDICK AEROSPACE DEVICES SITE
-------
"O
o
oo
\o
oo
TABLE 6-19 (Continued)
POTENTIAL EXPOSURES AND RISKS FROM INGEST ION OF GROUNDVATER AND INHALATION OF VOLATILCS WHILE SHOWERIKG
BASED ON CONTAHINANTS IN THE SHALLOW AND INTERHEOIAIE MONITORING WELLS
WALOICK AEROSPACES DEVICES SITE
G
CHEMICALS EXHIBITING
POTENTIAL NONCARCINOGCNIC
vccrrf^ flit
trrtvla |Df
2-Butanone
Chloroform
trans- 1 . 2-Olchloroethylene
Tetrachloroethylene
Trlchloroethyleiw
Toluene
Bls(2-ethy1hexy1)phthalate
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Manganese
Nickel
Vanadium
line
ROUNDVATER CONCENTRATION
(DISSOLVED)
Geometric
Mann
ncan
("9/D
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
3.51E-02
6.70E-03
8.IOE-03
3.86E-02
3.00E-03
6.09E-02
2.26E-02
ND
4.14E-02
Maximum
f
(mg/1)
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
6.63E-02
8.22E-02
2.93E-02
7.5IE-02
8.90E-03
4.73E-01
6.10E-02
ND
4.70E-02
CHRONIC DAILY INTAKE
FROM INGEST ION
i
IwffrAn* TAW P 1
\
•ii« iiti*
ORAL
REFERENCE
DOSE
mg/kg/dM ~
Au
WCiaifc W9C • IDWJ •»» »« r^v
Maximum Case
(mg/kg/d) (mg/kg/d)
--
I.46E-03
2.79E-04
3.37E-04
I.6IE-03
1.25E-04 (c)
2.54E-03
--
—
I.72E-03
__
5.16E-03
6.39E-03
2.28E-03
5.84E-03
5.37E-04 (c)
3.68E-02
--
--
3.66E-03
2.00E-02
l.OOE-02
7.35E-03
5.00E-02
S.OOE-04
S.OOE-03
3.70E-02
2.00E-01
2.00E-02
7.00E-03
2.00E-OI
CHRONIC DAILY INTAKE
ronn cunurDiHR
• nun jrn/WLninu
'prjiMi Cn+tt
Cl OlfQ VO3Q
(mg/kg/d)
-.
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
PI *lb1
INHALATION
REFERENCE
DOSE
(mg7kg7d| I
COMBINED COI:NfO RATIO
Maximum Case Average Case Plausible
(mg/kg/d) Maximum Case
..
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
9.00E-02
**
»»•
**
5.70C-01
*•
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
HAZARD INDEX:
"*
--
2.92E-02
5.58E-01
6.75E-02
4.35E-02
1.27E-02
--
..
8.62E-03
7.20E-OI
—
..
I.03E-OI
1 .28E*OI
4.S6E-OI
I.S8E-OI
1.84E-OI
--
--
1.83E-02
1.3.'E«01
!a) Based on total (unflUercd) sample* for Inorganics.
bl Based on dissolved (filtered)'samples for Inorganics.
c) Reference dose not available for lead. See text for lead exposure.
NR • Not reported. Organic concentrations determined 'or total samples only.
NA • Not applicable. Showering exposure not ippllcabl* for Inorganics.
*" • No Inhalation reference dose or potency factor available for this chtmlcal.
— • Not calculated.
-------
•"h -33
t^xi.* foP-trf
SQ
T?> C—
TABLE 6-19 (Continued)
POTENTIAL EXPOSURES AND RISKS FROH INGESTION OF GROUNDWATER AND INHALATION OF VOIATILES WHILE SHOWERING
BASED ON CONTAHINANTS IN THE SHALLOW AND INTERMEDIATE MONITORING WELLS
WALD1CK AEROSPACES DEVICES SITE
GROUNOWATER CONCENTRATION CHRONIC DAILY INTAKE
(DISSOLVED) FROM INGESTION
EFFECTS (b) Hean ' Average Case Plausible
(mg/1) (mg/1) Maximum Case
(mg/kg/d) (mg/kg/d)
2-Butanone NR NR
Chloroform NR NR
trans-1.2-01chloroethy1en« NR NR *--
Tetrachloroethylene NR NR
Trtchloroethylene NR NR
Toluene' NR NR
Bts(2-ethy1hexyT)phthaTate NR NR
Barium 3.51E-02 6.63E-02 1.46E-03 S.I6E-03
Cadmium 6.70E-03 B.22E-02 2.79E-04 6.39E-03
Chromium 8.IOE-03 2.93E-02 3.37E-04 2.28E-03
Copper 3.86E-02 7.5IE-02 1.6IE-03 5.84E-03
Lead 3.00E-03 6.90E-03 1.2SE-04 (c) S.37E-04 (c)
Manganese 6.09E-02 4.73E-OI 2.54E-03 3.68E-02
Nickel 2.26E-02 6.10E-02
Vanadium ND ND
Zinc 4.14E-02 4.70E-02 1.72E-03 3.66E-03
.
!a) Based on total (unflltered) samples for Inorganics.
b) Based on dissolved (filtered) samples for Inorganics.
c) Reference dose not available for lead. See text for lead exposure.
NR • Not reported. Organic concentrations determined 'nr total samples only.
NA • Not applicable. Showering exposure not ippltcabl? for Inorganics.
** • No Inhalation reference dose or potency factor available for this chimlcal.
-- • Not calculated.
ORAL
REFERENCE
IMKF
IAJJU
mg/kg/d)-l -
A
2.00E-02
l.OOE-02
7.35E-03
5.00E-02
5.00E-04
5.00E-03
3.70E-02
2.00E-01
2.00E-02
7.00E-03
2.00E-01
CHRONIC DAILVJNJAKE
'
C »•
(mg/kg/d)
..
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
nvwininu
Plauslbt
INHALATION
REFERENCE
COMBINED CDI
:RfD RATIO
MaxImuM Cast Average Case Plausible
(mg/kg/d) Maxluwa Case
._
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
'NA
NA
NA
NA
9.00E-02
•*
*•
5.70E-01
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
HAZARD INDEX:
—
—
2~92E-02
S.58E-01
6.75E-02
4.35E-02
1.27C-02
-.
—
8.62E-03
7.ZOE-OI
"™
--
L03E-OI
I.28E«OI
4.56E-01
1.S8E-01
I.84E-01
—
--
1.83E-02
1.3/E+01
No Inhalation reference dose available for this chemical.
Not calculated.
-------
•-11.
•n
OO
OO
TABLE 6-21
POTENTIAL EXPOSURES AND RISKS FROM INHALATION OF VOtATUES RELEASED WILE LAVN WATERING
FUTURE-USE SCENARIO - BASED ON CONTAMINANTS IN THE SHALLOW AND INTERMEDIATE VEILS
VALDICK AEROSPACE DEVICES SITE
AIR CONCENTRATION
CHEMICAL EXHIBITING
POTENTIAL CARCINOGENIC
EFFECTS
Chloroform
Tetrachloroethylene
Trlchloroethylene
Bts(2-ethylhexy1)phtha1ate
Average
Case
(mg/*d)
4.83E-06
2.I1E-04
9.72E-06
1.39E-07
Plausible
Maximum
• Case
(mg/m3)
1.25E-OS
3.65E-03
I.34E-04
2.96E-07
AIR CONCENTRATION
CHEMICAL EXHIBITING
POTENTIAL NONCARCINOGENIC
EFFECTS
2-Butanone
Chloroform
Tetrachloroethylene
Trlchloroethylene
trans-1.2-0tch1oroethy1ene
Toluene
Bls(2-ethylhexy1)phtha1ate
Average
Case
to/m3)
I.42E-06
4.83E-06
2.11E-04
9.72E-06
6.40E-06
7.60E-06
1.39E-07
Plausible
Maximum
Case
-------
13
Co
r-'
TABLE 6-Z2
POTENTIAL EXPOSURES AND RISKS FROM INHALATION OF VOLATILE* RELEASED WHILE LAWN WATERING
FUTURE-USE SCENARIO - BASED ON CONTAMINANTS IN THE DEEP WELLS
WALD1CK AEROSPACE DEVICES SITE
AIR CONCENTRATION
Average
CHEMICAL EXHIBITING Case
POTENTIAL NONCARCIN06ENIC
EFFECTS ' (wig/fa)
Carbon dlsulf Ide 9.29E-07
Toluene 7.22E-OS
Plausible
Max 1mm
Case
tmg/m3)
I.86E-06
1.99E-05
CHRONIC DAILY INTAKE
Average
Case
(wg/m3)
3.05E-IO
2.37E-09
Plausible
Maximum
Case
I"*/*)
2.45E-09
2.62E-08
orrromrr rnt*Dfn a AT in
Average Plausible
Case MaMlMOT
(mg/kg/d) Case
..
5.70C-01 4.16C-09 4.59E-08
HAZARD INDEX: 4.16E-09 4.59E-08
Risk not calculated. No reference dose available for the Inhalation route.
-------
TABLE 6-24
POTENTIAL EXPOSURES AND RISKS FROM DERMAL CONTACT WHILE SWIMMING
FUTURE-USE SCENARIO - BASED ON CONTAMINANTS IN THE SHALLOW AND INTERMEDIATE WELLS
W-LCJCK AIROSPACE DEVICES SITE
GROUNDVAtiR CONCENTRATION
CHEMICAL EXHIBITING .
POTENTIAL CARCiNOGflllC
EFFECTS
Chloroform
Tetrachloroethylene
Trlchloroethylene
Bls(2-ethylhexy1)phthalate
Am
-------
15
08
TABLE 6-Z5
POTENTIAL EXPOSURES AND RISKS FROM OCRNAL CONTACT WHILE SVIHMING
FUTURE-USE SCENARIO - BASED ON CONTAMINANTS IN THE DEEP WELLS
VALDICK AEROSPACE DEVICES SITE
GROUNDWATER CONCENTRATION
CHEMICAL EXHIBITING
POTENTIAL NONCARCINOGENIC
EFFECTS (a)
Carbon dlsulf Ide
Toluene
Average
Cast
(mg/'i»er)
3.00E-04
4.00E-04
Plausible
Maximum
Case
(mg/ liter)
6.00E-04
1 . IOE-03
CHRONIC DAILY INTAKE
Average
Case
mg/kg/d)
2. 08E -08
2.77E-08
. . . .... urttotHct
Plausible DOSE
Maximum
Case
(mg/kv/r >*«/d)
8.70E-OB I.OOE-OI
1.23E-07 3.00E-01
HAZARD INDEX:
rnt-orn DAT in
Average
Cas«
Z.08E-07
9.23E-08
3.00C-07
Plausible
Maximum
Case
6.70E-07
4.10E-07
l.OBE-06
(a) No chemicals of potential concern In the deep Metis exhibit carcinogenic effects.
-------
\c
TABLE 6-27
POTENTIAL EXPOSURES AND RISKS FROM INGESTION OF GARDEN VEGETABLES
TRANSLOCATING CONTAMINANTS FROH GflOUNDUATCR USED FOR GARDEN WATERING
FUTURE-USE SCENARIO - BASED ON CONCENTRATIONS IN SHALLOW AND INTERMEDIATE GROUNDWATER
WALOICK AEROSPACE DEVICES SITE
CO
zo ;T3
O.p
GROUNDWATER CONCENTRATION
CHEMICAL EXHIBITING
POTENTIAL NOKCARCINOGENIC
EFFECTS (•)
Average
Case
(mg/llter)
Plaustote
Maximum
Case
(mg/llter)
CHRONIC DAILY
Average
Case
(mg/llter)
INTAKE
Plausible
Maximum
Case
(mg/llter)
REFERENCE
DOSE
(mg/kg/d)
CDIrRfD
Average
Case
RATIO
Plausible
Maximum
Case
TOTAL CONCENTRATIONS
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Manganese
Vanadium
2lnc
S.61E-02
8.20E-03
I.27E-OI
2.90E-02
6.00E-03
4.8DE-02
I.75E-OI
3.74E-02
1.96E-02
1.3SE-OI
I.07E-OI
7.86E-OI
I.24E-OI
3.34E-02
5.10E-OI
B.41E-OI
8.3BE-02
I.S4E-01
4.99E-06
6.73E-07
3.55E-06
2.68E-05
6.50E-06 (b)
I.78E-05
5.63E-05
I.22E-05
5.72E-05
3.2IE-05
2.46E-05
5.66E-05
3.IIE-04
8.74E-05
S.OOE-04
7.41E-04
7.47E-05
1.21E-03
S.OOE-02
l.OOE-03
S.OOE-03
3.70E-02
(b)
2.00E-02
2.00E-01
7.00E-03
2.00E-01
HAZARD INDEX:
9.98E-05
6.73E-04
7.10E-04
7.24E-04
B.92E-04
2.B2E-04
1.74E-03
2.86E-04
S.41E-03
6.42C-04
2.46E-02
I.13E-02
8.40C-03
2.50E-02
3.7IE-03
1.07E-02
6.04E-03
9.04E-02
DISSOLVED CONCENTRATIONS
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Manganese
.Vanadium
Ztnc
3.51E-02
6.70E-03
B.IOE-03 .
3.86E-02
?.%r-03
2.2f- 02
6.0W-02
NO
4.41E-02
6.63E-03
8.22E-02
2.93E-02
7.5IE-02
6.90E-03
6.10E-02
4.73E-01
NO
4.70E-02
3.I2E-06
5.50E-07
2.27E-07
3.56E-05
3 2SE-06 (b)
t 40E-06
! 96E-05
1.29E-C4
l.SBE-06
1.88E-OS
2.IIE-06
l.fSE-04
J.ttlE-05
5.99E-OS
4.I7E-04
?.«8E-04
S.OOE-02
l.OOE-03
5.00E-03
1 3.70E-02
(b)
2.00E-0?
2.00C-OI
7.00E-03
2.00E-01
HAZARD INDEX:
•.2SC-OS
5.50E-04
4.S3E-OS
9.63E-04
4.20E-04
9.80E-OS
•.44E-04
2.78E-03
3. IK-OS
1.B8E-02
4.22E-04
S.09E-03
2.99E-03
2.0BE-03
1 .D4E-03
3.I3E-02
I a I None of the Inorganic chemicals of potential concern exhibit carcinogenic effects via the ingestion route.
b) Reference dose not available for lead.
See text for discussion of lead exposure.
NO • Chemical not detected.
-- • Not calculated. Chemical not detected.
-------
n
TABLE 6-28
POTENTIAL EXPOSURES AND RISKS FROH INTiESTION OF GARDEN VEGETABLES
TRANSLOCATING CONTAMINANTS FROM GROUNDWATER USED FOR GARDEN WATERING
FUTURE-USE SCENARIO - BASED ON CONCENTRATIONS IN DEEP GROUNDWATER
UAL01CIC ACROSPACE DEVICES SITE
"P
Pa
zu -33
GROUHOWATER CONCENTRATION
Average
CHEMICAL EXHIBITING Case
POTENTIAL NONCARCINOGEN1C
EFFECTS (•) (mg/ liter)
Plausible
Maximum
Case
(mg/ liter)
CHRONIC DAILY INTAKE
Average
Case
(imj/kg/d)
Plausible
Maximum
Case
(mg/kg/d)
REFERENCE
DOSE
(mg/kg/d)
CDI:RfD RATIO
Average
Case
Plausible
Maximum
Case
TOTAL CONCENTRATIONS
Barium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Manganese
Vanadium
Zinc
i.23E-oi
8.41E-02
2.57E-02
1.08E-02
9.IIE-02
2.13E-02
1.52E-OI
2.68E-OI
4.03E-OI
7.2IE-02
6.3SE-02
2. BSE -01
4.B9E-02
3.1SE-01
1.09E-05
2.35E-06
2.37E-05
I.I7E-05 (b)
2.93E-05
6.9SE-06
4.44E-04
6.37E-OS
2.90E-05
1.81E-04
1.66E-04 (b)
2.54E-04
4.36E-OS
2.47E-03
5.00E-02
5.00E-03
3.70E-02
2.00E-01
7.00E-03
2.00E-OI
HAZARD INDEX:
2.19E'04
4.70E-04
6.4IE-04
1.47C-04
9.93E-04
2.22E-03
4.69E-03
I.27E-03
5.BOE-03
4.B9E-03
1.27E-03
6.23E-03
I.23E-02
3.1BE-02
DISSOLVED CONCENTRATIONS
Barium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Manganese
Vanadium
Zinc
7.33E-02
NO
1.I8E-02
NO
3.92C-02
NO
I.48C-01
I.76E-OI
ND
3.12E-02
ND
4.92E-02
NO
2.2SE-01
6.52E-06
1.09E-05
1.Z6E-05
4.3IE-04
4.19E-05
7.B2E-05
4.34E-05
I.76E-03
5.00C-02
5.00E-03
3.70E-02
2.00E-OI
7.00E-03
2.00E-01
HAZARD INDEX:
I.30E-04
1.95E-04
8.31E-OS
J.15C-03
2.64E-03
8.39E-04
2.11E-03
2.I7E-04
fl"82E-03
1.20E-02
I aI None of the Inorganic chemicals of potential concern exhibit carcinogenic effects via the Ingest Ion route.
b) Reference dose not available for lead. See text for discussion of lead exposure.
ND - Chemical not detected.
-- * Not calculated. Chemical not detected.
------- |