United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Emergency and
Remedial Response
EPA/ROD/R02-91/132
February 1991
&EPA
Superfund
Record of Decision
Naval Air Engineering
Center (Operable Unit 1), NJ
-------
50272-101
REPORT DOCUMENTATION
PAGE
1. REPORT NO.
EPA/ROD/R02-91/132
3. Recipient's Accession No.
4. TOe and Subtitle
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION
Naval Air Engineering Center (Operable Unit 1), NJ
First Remedial Action
5. Report Date
02/04/91
7. Auttior(*)
8. Performing Organization Kept No.
». Performing Organization Name and Addrei*
10. ProjecVTuk/Work Unit No.
11. Contract(C) or Grant(G) No.
(C)
(G)
12. Sponsoring Organization Nun* and Address
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
13. Typo of Report & Period Covered
800/000
14.
15. Supplementary Note*
16. Abetract (Limit: 200 words)
The 7,400-acre Naval Air Engineering Center (NAEC) site is an active air base in
Jackson and Manchester Townships, Ocean County, New Jersey. Activities conducted
onsite include program research, engineering, development testing and evaluation, and
various warfare support services. Land use in the area includes residential, woodland,
vast wetland, and associated floodplain areas. Approximately 65,400 residents of the
I townships are serviced by several municipal supply wells located within one mile of the
^ site to the southeast and north. From 1916 to 1919, the Eddystone Chemical Company
W conducted chemical artillery testing onsite. In 1921, the U.S. Navy took control of
the site and conducted operations involving the use, handling, storage, and onsite
I disposal of hazardous substances in various onsite buildings. Site features within
Area C include a barrel storage area and fuel station (site 10) , a fire training area
with unlined lagoons and an oil/water separator (site 16), and an onsite fuel farm with
inactive dry wells that were removed in 1982 (site 17). Preliminary investigations in
1983 by the U.S. Navy identified 44 onsite areas of possible soil and ground water
contamination, and determined that the primary sources of soil and ground water
contamination in Area C (comprised of sites 10, 16, and 17) were leaky valves and
(See Attached Page)
17. Document Analysis a. Descriptors
Record of Decision - Naval Air Engineering Center (Operable Unit 1) , NJ
First Remedial Action
Contaminated Medium: gw
Key Contaminants: VOCs (benzene, TCE, xylenes), other organics (PAHs), metals
b. k^tH^opon-EndedTerm. (arsenic, lead)
c. COSATI Held/Group
18. AvsilabUty Statement
1
19. Security Class (This Report)
None
20. Security Class (This Psge)
None
21. No. of Pages
60
22. Price
(S*M ANSI.Z39.ia)
See Instructions on Reverse
OPTIONAL FORM 272 (4-77)
(Formerly NT1S-3S)
Department of Commerce
-------
EPA/ROD/R02-91/132
Naval Air Engineering Center (Operable Unit 1), NJ
First Remedial Action
stract (Continued)
pipes, dispensing pumps, the underground fuel oil tanks, overflowing dry wells, and
other accidental onsite chemical spills and releases. In 1988, NAEC removed and
replaced the onsite tanks. This Record of Decision (ROD) provides an interim remedy for
contaminated soil and ground water in Area C. The primary contaminants of concern
affecting the ground water are VOCs including benzene, TCE, and xylenes; other organics
including PAHs; and metals including arsenic and lead.
The selected remedial action for this site includes pumping and pretreating ground water
to remove metals, residual amounts of free product, and solids, followed by offsite
disposal of solids and free product, and onsite treatment using air stripping and vapor
phase carbon adsorption to remove VOCs, and polishing the effluent using granular
activated carbon; spray irrigating or infiltrating the treated ground water over the
onsite soil; regenerating the spent carbon offsite; and disposing of all solids,
residual sludge and free product offsite. The estimated capital cost for this remedial
action is $700,000, with an annual O&M cost of $100,000 for 3 years.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS: Chemical-specific cleanup goals for ground water will
be addressed in the final remedy.
-------
ROD Fact Sheet for Interim Remedial Action
at Area C
Naval Air Engineering Center (NAEC), Lakehurst, NJ
Site
Name - NAEC Lakehurst
Location - Ocean County, New Jersey
HRS score - 49.48
NPL rank - Group 4
ROD
Date Signed - by NAEC - 12/17/90, by EPA - 2/4/91
(Interim) Remedy - ground water pump and treat system
Capital Cost - $700,000
0 & M /year - $100,000
Present worth -
LEAD
Remedial/Enforcement - Federal facility
EPA/State/PRP - Navy
Primary Contact - Jeff Gratz (212) 264-6667
Secondary Contact - Robert Wing (212) 264-8670
Main PRP - Navy
PRP Contact - Ms. Lucy Bottomley (201) 323-2612
WASTE
Type - jet fuel (B,T,E,X) and solvents (TCE, DCE)
Medium - ground water
Origin - dry wells, USTs, and old fire training pit
Est. quantity - ground water plume length: 1,000 ft.
width: 500 ft.
depth: 30 ft.
highest cone.: 2,700 ppb. (total VOCs)
-------
Final
14 December 1990 DECLARATION STATEMENT
RECORD OF DECISION
AREA C - SITES 10, 16, 17
NAVAL AIR ENGINEERING CENTER
FACILITY NAME A.VD LCCATIC-K
Naval Air Engineering Center
Lakehurst, SJ 06733
STATEMENT OF BASIS ATO PURPOSE
This decision document presents the selected interim remedial action for
Area C - Sites 10, 15, and 17, located at the Naval Air Engineering Center (NAEC)
in Lakehurst, Sew Jersey. The interim remedial action was chosen in accordance
with the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act
(CERCLA) , as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA)
and, to the extent practicable, the National Oil and Hazardous Substances
Pollution Contingency Plan. Tnis decision is based on the administrative record
for Area C.
Both the United. States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) , Region II
Administrator and the Commissioner of the New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection (NJDZP) concur vith the selected interim remedy (see Appendices C and
D).
ASSESSMENT OF THE AREA
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from this site, if
not addressed by Lnpleaenting the response action selected in this Record of
Decision (ROD) , ma- present an Lnminent and substantial endangerment to public
health, welfare or ~^f environment.
DESCRIPTION OF THZ SFT7CTED
The selected interin remedial action addresses the principal threat of the
migration of a concaninated groundvater plume from Area C by pumping,, and
treating the grouncvater aad removing residual amounts of floating free product
from the grourdwater. The selected remedy for Site 10 (location of three
underground gasoline and diesel storage tanks (removed in 1988)), Site 16
(location of the farmer firefighting training area) , and Site 17 (location of
Fuel Farm 196 and cry veils (reaoved in 1982)) includes the following components:
o Groincvater extraction (200 gallon/minute) , pretreatment to
reouove netals, solid and residual amounts of free product from
rroundvater and treatment by air stripping with vapor phase
carbon adsorption to remove Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs).
-------
o Effluent vater froa the air stripper is "polished" by using
a Granulated Activated Carbon (GAG) filter to further reduce
VOCs ar.d Seal-Volatile Organic Compounds (SVOCs).
o Treated vazer meeting New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection (NJDEP) effluent limitations is spray irrigated
during teirperate weather and infiltrated during winter months
over areas of subsurface soil contamination. Irrigation and
infiltration will flush and aerate the soil, to increase
biological activity and to promote contaminant decomposition.
STATUTORY DETER.HISATIOSS
This interia action is protective of human health and the environment, and
attains action specific Federal and State applicable or relevant and appropriate
requirements directly associated with this remedy. Because the scope and role
of this action is limited, chemical specific cleanup levels will not be addressed
during the interim action, but will be addressed during the final remedy for
Sites 10, 16, ar.d 17. This action satisfies the statutory preference for
remedies that employ treatment that reduces toxicity, mobility or volume of
hazardous substances, pollutants, and contaminants as a principal element. This
action, hovever, does not constitute the final remedy and subsequent actions are
planned to fully address the problems posed by this site.
n ^
(Date)
Captain David Raffetto
Commanding Officer
Naval Air Engineering Center
Lakehurst, New Jersey
With the concurrence of:
Constantine Sidaaon-Eristoff
Regional Administrator /
U.S. Environaental Protection Agency, Region II
/ I (Date)
-------
DECISION SUMMARY
RECORD' OF DECISION
AREA C - SITES 10, 16,17
NAVAL AIR ENGINEERING CENTER
SITE DESCRIPTION
NAEC is located in Jackson and Manchester Townships, Ocean County, New
Jersey, approximately 14 miles inland from the Atlantic Ocean (Figure 1). NAEC
is approximately 7,400 acres and is bordered by Route 547 to the east, the Fort
Dix Military Reservation to the west, woodland to the north (portions of which
are within Colliers Mill Wildlife Management Area), Lakehurst Borough and
woodland, including the Manchester Wildlife Management Area, to the south. NAEC
and the surrounding areas are located within the Pinelands National Reserve, the
most extensive undeveloped land tract of the Middle Atlantic Seaboard.
NAEC is located within the Outer Coastal Plain physiographic province,
which is characterized by gently rolling terrain with minimal relief.
Surface elevations within NAEC range from a low of approximately 60 feet
above mean sea level in the east-central part of the base, to a high of
approximately 190 feet above mean sea level in the southwestern part of the base.
Maximum relief occurs in the southwestern part of the base because of its
proximity to the more rolling terrain of the Inner Coastal Plain. Surface slopes
are generally less than five percent.
NAEC is located within the Toms River Drainage Basin. The basin is
relatively small (191 square miles) and the residence time for surface drainage
waters is short. Drainage from NAEC discharges to the Ridgeway Branch to the
north and to the Black and Union Branches to the south. All three streams
discharge into the Toms River. Several headwater tributaries to these branches
originate at NAEC. Northern tributaries to the Ridgeway Branch include the
Elisha, Success, Harris and Obhanan Ridgeway Branches. The southern tributaries
to the Black and Union Branches include the North Ruckles and Middle Ruckles
Branches and Manapaqua Brook. The Ridgeway and Union Branches then feed Pine
Lake approximately 2.5 miles east of NAEC before joining Toms River. Storm
drainage from NAEC is divided between the north and south, discharging into
Ridgeway Branch and Union Branch, respectively. The Paint Branch located in the
east-central part of the base is a relatively small stream which feeds the
Manapaqua Brook.
Three small water bodies are located in the western portion of NAEC: Bass
Lake, Clubhouse Lake, and Pickerel Pond. NAEC also contains over 1,300 acres
of flood-prone areas, occurring primarily in the south-central part of the base,
and approximately 1,300 acres of prime agricultural land in the western portion
of the base.
There are 913 acres on the eastern portion of NAEC that lie within
Manchester Township and the remaining acreage is in Jackson Township. The
combined population of Lakehurst Borough, Manchester and Jackson Townships, is
approximately 65,400, for an area of approximately 185 square miles. The
-------
average population density of Manchester and Jackson Townships is 169 persons
per square aile, whereas the density of Lakehurst Borough is 3,061 persons per
square mile.
The areas surrounding NAEC are, in general, not heavily developed. The
closest conmercial area is located near the southeastern section of the Center
in the borough of Lakehurst. This is primarily a residential area with some
shops but no industry. To the north and south are State wildlife management
areas which are essentially undeveloped. Adjacent to and south of NAEC are
commercial cranberry bogs, the drainage from which crosses the southeast section
of NAEC property. NAEC is bordered to the west by Fort Dix Military Reservation.
For the combined area of Manchester and Jackson Townships, approximately
41 percent of the land is vacant (undeveloped), 57 percent is residential, one
percent is commercial and the remaining one percent is industrial or farmed.
For Lakehurst Borough, 83 percent of the land is residential, 11 percent is
vacant, and the remaining six percent commercially developed.
In the local vicinity of the NAEC, water is generally supplied to the
populace by municipal supply wells. Some private wells exist but these are used
prinarily for irrigation and not as a source of drinking water. In Lakehurst
Borough there is a well field consisting of seven 50-foot deep wells, located
approximately two-thirds of a mile south of the eastern portion of NAEC. Three
of the seven wells (four of the wells are rarely operated) are pumped at an
average rate of 70 to 90 gallons per minute and supply drinking water for a
population of approximately 3,000. Jackson Township operates one supply well
in the Legler area, approximately one-quarter mile north of the NAEC, which
supplies water to a very small population (probably less than 1,000) in the
immediate vicinity of the well.
Site 10 is located approximately 500 feet from the nearest NAEC boundary
which is adjacent to cranberry bogs. There is a shallow groundwater table at
Site 10 at a depth of approximately 6 feet. The groundwater flow at the site
is in a northeasterly direction toward the Paint Branch of the Xanapaqua Brook.
The Paint Branch is located approximately 2,000 feet east (downgradient) of the
site. See Figures 2 and 2A.
Site 16 is located approximately 500 feet from the nearest NAEC boundary.
There is a shallow groundwater table at Site 16 at a depth of approximately 6
feet. The groundwater flow direction is to the northeast. The Paint Branch is
located approximately 1,000 feet downgradient of the site. Wetlands are located
outside the facility boundary, approximately 500 feet southeast of the site.
See Figures 2 and 2B.
Site 17 is located approximately 1,000 feet from the nearest NAEC boundary.
The groundwater table at the site varies from 4.5 to 6.5 feet below ground
surface. The groundwater flow direction is to the northeast toward the Paint
Branch. The Paint Branch of the Manapaqua Brook is located approximately 1,650
feet froa the site. The Manapaqua Brook is located approximately 1,500 feet
southeast of the site. Cranberry bogs are located approximately 1,000 feet
southeast from Site 17. See Figures 2 and 2C.
-------
SITE HISTORY
The history of the site dates back to 1916, when the Eddystone Chemical
Company leased from the Manchester Land Development Company property to develop
an experimental firing range for the testing of chemical artillery shells.
Testing vas accomplished in cooperation and agreement with the Russian Imperial
Government until its fall in 1919. At that time, the U.S. Army assumed control
of chemical warfare testing by the Eddystone Chemical Company and named the area
Camp Kendrick. By the early fall of 1919, construction of Hangar No. 1 for the
Navy had commenced. Camp Kendrick was turned over to the Navy and formally
commissioned Naval Air Station (NAS), Lakehurst, New Jersey on June 28, 1921.
NAEC was moved from the Naval Base, Philadelphia to Lakehurst in December 1974.
At that time, NAEC became the host activity, thus, the new name NAEC Lakehurst.
Currently, NAEC's mission is to conduct programs of research, engineering,
development testing and evaluation, systems integration, limited production,
procurement and fleet engineering support in the following areas: aircraft
launching, recovery, and landing aid systems, ground support equipment for
aircraft and for airborne weapons systems to provide, operate and maintain test
sites, facilities, and support services for tests of the above systems and
equipment and conduct research and development of equipment and instrumentation
used in tests. NAEC supports Department of Defense (DoD) standardization and
specification programs, provides services and material, operates and maintains
aviation and other facilities in support of assigned programs.
NAEC and its tenant activities now occupy more than 300 buildings, built
between 1919 and 1979, totaling over 2,845,000 square feet. The command also
operates and maintains: two 5,000 foot long runways, a 12,000 foot long catapult
and arrest runway, one mile long jet car test track, four one and one-quarter
mile long jet car test tracks, a parachute jump circle, a 79 acre golf course,
and a 3,500 acre conservation area.
The various operations and activities at NAEC required the use, handling,
storage and occasionally the on-site disposal of hazardous substances. During
the operational period of the facility, there have been documented, reported or
suspected releases of these substances into the environment.
Initial Investigations:
As part of the DoD Installation Restoration Program, the Navy developed
the Navy Assessment and Control of Installation Pollutants (KACIP) program to
•identify, assess and control environmental contamination from past methods of
storage, handling, and disposal of hazardous substances at naval shore
facilities".
As part of the NACIP program, an Initial Assessment Study (IAS) was
completed in 1983 by the Naval Energy and Environmental Support Activity (NEESA)
at NAEC. The purpose of the IAS was to "identify and assess sites posing a
potential threat to human health or the environment due to contamination from
past hazardous materials operations".
-------
Based on information from historical records, aerial photographs, field
inspections, and personnel interviews, the IAS identified a total of 44
potentially contaminated sites, which were evaluated with regard to contamination
characteristics, migration pathways, and pollutant receptors. The IAS concluded
that "while none of the sites pose an immediate threat to human health or the
environment, 16 warrant further investigation under the NACIP program, to assess
potential impacts". A Remedial Investigation (RI) (Confirmation Study) was
recommended "to confirm or deny the existence of the suspected contamination and
to quantify the extent of any problems which may exist". Following further
review of the available data by Navy personnel, it was decided that 42 of the
44 sites should be included in the Remedial Investigation. Two potentially
contaminated sites (Site 41) and an Advanced Underground Weapons Storage Facility
(Site 43), were deleted from the RI because they had already been remediated.
KAEC was designated in 1987 as a National Priorities List (NPL) site under
CERCLA.
Environmental Investigations/Feasibility Study:
KAEC's Remedial Investigation (RI) was conducted in two phases.
Impleaentacion of the verification phase (Phase I of the RI) was initiated in
October 1984. Phase II of the RI was initiated in the summer of 1988 to (a)
confirm the results of the Phase I study (Fall 1984), specifically the presence
or absence of contamination; (b) determine where contamination is present,
characterize the extent of contamination, assess the potential for contaminant
migration and define the sources of contamination; and (c) support a feasibility
study and final actions at sites. See Table 1 for a summary of the analytical
data for Area C - Sites 10, 16, and 17.
The following investigations and removal actions were conducted at
Area C - Sites 10, 16, and 17 from 1981 to the present:
PHASE I A.VD PHASE II INVESTIGATIONS FOR AREA C - SITE 10:
Remedial Investigation - Phase I (November 1985 - January 1986), analyses
of groundvater samples verified that the groundwater was contaminated wich
volatile organics, semi-volatile organics and metals (lead and arsenic).
Chemical constituents in soils were below New Jersey soil action levels.
Additional investigations were recommended.
Soil gas and groundwater screening surveys (May-June 1988) indicated the
presence of total chlorinated hydrocarbons in the soil gas and groundwater, and
total petroleum hydrocarbons in the groundwater in the vicinity of the 424 MOGAS
Station.
Remedial Investigation - Phase II (August-December 1988), analyses of
groundvater and soil samples confirmed the results of previous investigations
indicating that a volatile organic compound (VOC) contaminant plume exists in
the groundvater in the vicinity of the 424 MOGAS Station.
-------
In 1989, the dispensing pumps and underground tanks at the 424 MOGAS
Station, vhica apparently were the primary sources of contamination, were
removed. A nev facility with above ground tanks has been constructed nearby.
The available data indicate the presence of VOCs and polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons ( PAHs - components of jet fuel, diesel and gasoline) in ground
water. The data suggest that the primary source of contamination was the
underground fuel oil tanks located at the 424 MOGAS Station.
PHASE I A.VD PHASE II INVESTIGATIONS FOR AREA C - SITE 16:
Several aonitoring wells were installed (1981-1984) at the site to monitor
the thickness of the floating product in the aquifer. On June 3, 1983, a maximum
of approximately 7 inches of free-phase product was recorded in monitoring veil
BJ.
Analyses of groundwater samples (Remedial Investigation - Phase I. November
1985 - January 1986) verified that the groundwater was contaminated with VOCs,
Lead, pecroleua hydrocarbons (PHCs), phenolics and halogenated organics.
Remedial Investigation - Phase II was conducted August-December 1988.
Analyses of the groundwater, soil, surface water and sediment samples confirmed
the results of previous investigations. Free phase floating product was detected
in monitoring veil BJ.
The available data indicate that the groundwater, soil, surface water and
sediments at the site are contaminated at levels which exceed ARARs. The primary
contaminants are VOCs, PAHs, PHCs and metals.
PHASE I AM) PHASE II INVESTIGATIONS FOR AREA C - SITE 17:
The available data indicate that the groundwater at the site is
contaminated at levels which exceed ARARs. The primary contaminants are VOCs
and PAHs, vhlch are components of jet fuel. Lead and PHCs were also detected
above Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs). Soil vas
contaminated vith PHCs.
The data confirm that the primary sources of contamination were the
releases froa the underground tanks, leaky valves and pipes, overflowing dry
wells and poor housekeeping practices.
The Marry determined in the spring of 1990, that it had sufficient data to
perfona interim remedial action at several sites even though a risk assessment
and comprehensive feasibility study was not completed.
In August 1990, the Focused Feasibility Study (FFS) for Area C - Sites 10,
16, and 17 vas distributed to the United States Environmental Protection Agency,
(USEPA) Region II and the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
(NJDEP), Bureau of Federal Case Management for their review (on September 7,
1990). The Proposed Interim Remedial Action Plan (PIRAP) was finalized by NAEC
and approved (final concurrence subject to public meeting and comments) by the
-------
above mentioned agencies on September 17, 1990, initiating a 30 day public
comment period.
HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
The Area C - Sites 10, 16, and 17, Proposed Interim Remedial Action Plan
(PIRAP) was issued to interested parties on September 14, 1990. On September
17-19, a newspaper notification inviting public comment on the FFS and PIRAP
appeared in The Asburv Park Press. The Ocean Country Observer, and The Advanced
News. The comment period was held from September 17 to October 18, 1990. The
newspaper notification also identified the Ocean County Library in Toms River,
New Jersey, as the location of the Information Repository.
A public aeeting was held on October 2, 1990. At this meeting,
representatives from the Navy, USEPA and NJDEP were available to answer questions
about Area C and the interim remedial alternatives under consideration. A list
of attendees is attached (see Appendix B).
A response to the comments received during this period is included in the
Responsiveness Summary, which is part of this Record of Decision. This decision
document presents the selected remedial action for Sites 10, 16, and 17 of NAEC
in Ocean County, New Jersey, chosen in accordance with CERCLA, as amended by SARA
and, to the extent practicable, the NCP. The decision for Area C is based on
the administrative record.
SCOPE AND ROLE OF RESPONSE ACTION
The remedial objectives consist of medium-specific or operable unit-
specific goals for protecting human health and the environment. The remedial
action objectives of this response action are removing residual amounts of free
product, restricting contaminant plume migration, and collecting data on aquifer
and contaminant response to the interim remedial action chosen.
The interim reaedy is not a final action for groundwater or soil. This action
will be the first operable unit (i.e. the first cleanup phase) of the remediation
of Area C on the KAZC facility. One or more future RODs will address the
ultimate objective which is decontamination to acceptable levels of any
contaminated medium, including final remediation of groundwater. The interim
remedy proposed, however, should be consistent with those objectives.
SUMMARY OF AREA CHARACTERISTICS
Several potential sources of soil and groundwater contamination which
existed at Sites 10, 16, and 17 (see Figure 2) are summarized below.
SITE 10:
Figure 2A is an area map of site 10. Site 10 consists of: (a) an area
located about 40 feet to the west and behind Building 306 which was used as a
barrel storage area from about 1960 to 1970, (b) Rockwell Road, a wide sand and
gravel area between KcCord Road and Taxiway No. 5, which acts as a parking lot
8
-------
for fuel trucks and provides access t.o the 424 gas station and the back side of
Fuel Farm 196; and (c) the 424 MOGAS Station. Site 10 is adjacent to Site 17
(which includes Fuel Farm 196). The potential sources of contamination at Site
10 include:
1. A barrel storage area west and behind Building 306. It was reported
that the barrels would often leak fluids (probably containing petroleum
hydrocarbons) onto the ground. No estimate of the quantities of spilled fluids
is available. No hazardous material is currently stored in this area.
2. The sand and gravel area comprising Rockwell Road. During a 17-year
period from 1960 to 1977, approximately 2,000 gallons per year of waste oils were
sprayed on Rockwell Road for dust control purposes for an estimated total of
approximately 34,000 gallons.
3. The 424 MOGAS Station. Two 5,000-gallon underground gasoline tanks
and one 1,000-gallon underground diesel tank were located here. These tanks
which were about 25-30 years old, were removed in 1988 and replaced with above-
ground tanks. Stains around the fill pipes and fuel dispensing area suggested
surficial releases from tanks overfilling and poor maintenance practices.
SITE 16:
The former Naval Air Technical Training Center (NATTC) fire fighting
training area was located east of Hangar 6 (Building 195), adjacent to the NAEC
civilian fire fighting training area, (see Figures 2 and 2B). The two separate
fire fighting training pits in the area were supplied from nearby fuel tanks.
The fuel burned during the training was collected from defueling aircraft.
In preparation of fire fighting training, a pit was flooded with about six
inches of water, after which several inches of fuel were pumped onto the surface
of the water. The water and fuel control valves were underground and controlled
by a NATTC instructor during the training. The fuel was ignited by a torch, and
the students practiced fire fighting techniques, generally by applying Aqueous
Film-Forming Foam (AFFF) from crash trucks to put out the fire.
The water, AFFF, and waste fuel flowed to a 10 ft. by 10 ft. cinder block
oil/water separator located to the east of the two fire fighting pits. Effluent
from the oil/water separator then discharged into an unlined lagoon.
Potential sources of contamination at the site include:
1. The operation of the cinder block oil/water separator and the unlined
lagoon located adjacent to it. The oil/water separator was inadequate to contain
the oil mixed with AFFF and carbon residue fron fuel burning at the training
area. The area was in use from 1970 to 1986. No estimates of quantities of oil
spilled or soaked into the soil during these fire training activities are
available.
2. The operation of an oil/water separator and the unlined lagoon
mentioned above received discharge from the former civilian fire fighting area.
-------
This area Is located about 2CO to 300 feet to the southwest of NATTC fire
fighting area. The lagoon also received fuel condensate overflow from a dry well
located in nearby Fuel Fara 196 (Site 17).
SITE - 17:
Fuel Fara No. 196 is located to the south of Hangar 6 (see Figures 2 and
2C) . There are four 50,000-gallon underground tanks at this location. The tank
farm was constructed in the nic-1940s. The tanks originally contained AVGAS
until about 1974.
Since 1974, they used to bold JP-5 (jet fuel). Each tank had a pumping
station and a dry well. As part of standard operating procedures, from about
the mid-1940s to 1980, when rhis practice was discontinued, condensate from the
fuel tanks was drained inco the dry wells. The old fuel transfer area also had
a dry well to contain fuel spills. Overflows from this dry well went to a
drainage ditch that discharged to an unlined lagoon located about 600-700 feet
southeast of the site. This fuel transfer area has been replaced with a new one.
To prevent the occurrence of spills, all piping in the fuel farm was
subsequently placed above ground and cross-connections between tanks were
eliminated. All fliters/separators , aeters, strainers, relaxation chambers , fuel
overfill controls and associated hardware were installed in a new centralized
fuel transfer area, which is virhin a spill containment structure. In addition,
the use of all dry wells was discontinued. The dry wells were removed in 1982.
There are plans to reaove the fO.COO gallon underground JP-5 tanks from service.
Potential sources of contamination at this site include:
1. Minor fuel spills associated with filling fuel trucks. No estimate
of the amount of spillage is available.
2. Draining of the condensate from the fuel tanks into a dry well, a
common practice until about 1980. About 50 gallons of water and fuel were
drained from each tank every veek into a dry well. Approximately 200 gallons
of water and fuel were drained veeicly from the four tanks for a yearly estimate
of 10,400 gallons. Since this practice had been ongoing for 40 years (about
1940-1980) approximately 4OO,COO gallons of water and fuel may have been
discharged to the four dry welLs.
3. Three fuel spills vere reported by NAEC personnel: a spill of about
2,000 gallons in 1974, a spill of about 3,000 gallons in 1978, and a third spill
in 1981 of 3,000 gallons. During a subsequent fuel recovery operation, a
drawdown pump was installed in a recovery well to create a cone of depression
on the groundvater table to facilitate the fuel recovery. Fuel spills associated
with past practices were also recovered during the cleanup operation. A total
of 11,000 gallons of fuel were recovered during this cleanup.
10
-------
SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS
A baseline risk assessment vas not conducted for Area C - Sites 10, 16,
and 17 for the interim remedial action. A comprehensive feasibility study and
risk assessment will be prepared prior to the implementation of the final
remedial action at the site. The risk assessment will consist of hazard
identification, a dose-response evaluation, exposure assessment and risk
characterization. This interim action is being implemented to stop the migration
of the contaminant plume and residual floating product (environmental risk) from
Area C towards the Faint Branch, a tributary of the Hanapaqua Brook which feeds
Pine Lake, a major recreational body of water in the county. The exposed
population consists of the natural fauna, flora along the water and the
population using Pine Lake for recreational activities.
Only some of the contaminants listed below are found at Site 10, 16, and
17. Table 1 provides the Historical Summary of Analytical Data for Site 10, 16,
and 17. The predominant Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) consist of chlorinated
solvents and components of fuel. The chlorinated solvents include, but are not
limited to: 1,1-dichloroethane
1,2-dichloroethane
1,1,2,2,-tetrachloroethane
trichloroethene
tetrachloroethene
vinyl chloride
chloroform
Fuel components include, but are not limited to:
benzene
ethylbenzene
toluene
xylenes (total)
2-butanone
2-hexanone
The primary semi-volatile organic compounds consists mainly of various
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), including but not limited to:
2-me thylnapthalene
anthracene
benzo(a)anthracene
benzo(a)pyrene
benzo(b) fluoranthene
chrysene
fluoranthene
fluorene
napthalene
phenanthrene
pyrene
11
-------
Figures 2D and 21. show the kr.ovn extent of the VCC plume in Area C - Site 10,
15, and i~.
DESCRIPTION Q? AlIZR.VAir.~S
Two remedial alternatives (and the "no action alternative") -were developed
for analvsis in the Area C - Sites 10, 16, and 17 Focused Feasibility Studv
(FFS).
ALTERNATIVE I: NO ACTICN
Estimated Construction Cost: S 0
Estimated Net Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Cost: $ 100,000/yr
Estinated Implementation Tire Frame: N/A
This alternative involves no additional interim actions at Area C (Site 10,
15 and 17) other then grour.dvater monitoring of the aquifer. No contaminants
vould be treated or contained and the existing health and environmental risks
vould regain.
Under this alternative, r.o further action to control the source vould be
taken. Lor.g-term> monitoring of the site can be implemented by using previously
installed monitoring veils.
ALTERNATIVE 2: GROUNDVATER PUMPING, RF-MOVAL OF FREE PRODUCT, TREATMENT,
RECHARGE AND IN SITU SOIL FLUSHING
Estimated Construction Cost: $ 700,000
Estimated Net G&M Cost: $ ICO,000/yr
Estimated Implementation Time Frame: 9 months
Time frame for operation of system: 3 years
This alternative involves groundwater pumping from the existing 24 inch
recover;.' veil located in Fuel Farm 196. The well will be pumped at 80 gallons
per minute .'gpm) . An existing four inch well adjacent to the old gas station
(Building ^2i-} vill be pumped at 40 gpm. A new four inch recovery veil will be
installed adjacent to the Paint Branch and pumped at SO gpra (see Figure 3). The
groundwater pumped from the recovery wells will enter a tank which will serve
as a flov equalizer.
To treat the Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) in the extracted groundwater,
a facility containing a pretreatment unit for metals, free product and solids
removal, air stripping columns (99% VCC removal), an activated carbon adsorber
for air stripper effluer.t and a granular activated carbon polishing filter for
residual TCC and Seni-Volatile Organic Compound removal (99.9% removal of VOCs)
from treated grour.dvater vill be constructed at Area C adjacent to fuel farm
196 (See Figure ^ ar.c 5} . The extracted free product vill be sent to a permitted
off-site disposal facility. The effluent exiting the air stripper will be
treated by a granular activated carbon air filter before being discharged to the
atmosphere. The treated grouncwater, which will meet NJDEP effluent limitations
12
-------
will be recharged to the aquifer at two irrigation/infiltration locations as seen
in Figure 6. Treated grourcvater will be spray irrigated over soil in Area C
during temperate months and vill be infiltrated during winter months. This
alternative will halt the continued migration of the contaminated plume, enhance
groundwater quality and flush the soil of some contaminants. Residual sludge
from the pretreatment process will be tested to determine if the waste is
hazardous and if RCRA land disposal restrictions are applicable. The waste will
be handled accordingly. Spent granular activated carbon will be sent to the
vendor for regeneration.
Figure 3, developed after aquifer characteristics were estimated using the
image well theory, is a visual representation of groundwater flow gradients in
an area where water is being pusped at 80 gallons per minute (gpm) from recovery
well RW, interceptor well ISV at 80 gpm and well BA at 40 gpm and infiltrated
at two locations at 120 and 80 gpm. The water pumped from these wells is being
treated and infiltrated/irrigated into/onto the ground surface. Irrigation is
accomplished by spraying the treated water over contaminated soil in Area C.
Infiltration is accomplished using four inch perforated PVC piping 120 feet long
for injection trench nuaber 2 (INJ2) which recharges 80 gpm of treated ground
water into the aquifer and tvo sections of 100 feet perforated PVC pipe 50 feet
apart for injection trench 1 (I^J) which recharges 120 gpm of treated water into
the aquifer.
ALTERNATIVE 3: GROUNDVATER P1XPING, TREATMENT AND DISCHARGE TO SURFACE WATER
Estimated Construction Cost: $ 700,000
Estimated Net O&M Cost: $ 100,COO/yr
Estimated Implementation Tine Frame: 9 months
Time frame for system operation: 3 years
This alternative would be siailar to Alternative 2, except treated ground
water would be discharged via piping to the Paint Branch (see Figure 5). No soil
flushing action would take place. Free product would be sent to an off-site
permitted disposal facility.
SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
The three alternatives identified above were evaluated using criteria
derived from Section 300.430(E9) of the NCP and Section 121 as amended by SARA
of 1986. The criteria are as follows:
Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment draws on the
assessments conducted under other evaluation criteria and considers how the
alternative addresses site risks through treatment, engineering, or
institutional controls.
Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs')
evaluates the ability of an alternative to meet ARARs established through Federal
and State statutes and/or provides the basis for invoking a waiver.
13
-------
Long-Term Effectiveness and Penaaner.ee evaluates the ability of an
alternative to provide long-term protection of human health and the
environment and the magnitude of residual risk posed by untreated wastes
or treatment residuals.
Reduction of Toxicitv Mobility or Volume through Treatment evaluates an
alternative's ability to reduce risks through treatment technology.
Short-term Effectiveness addresses the cleanup time frame and any
adverse impacts posed by the alternative during the construction and
implementation phase, until cleanup goals are achieved.
Inrplementabilitv is an evaluation of the technical feasibility,
administrative feasibility, and availability of services and material
required to implement the alternatives.
Cost includes an evaluation of capital costs, annual operation and
maintenance costs, and net present worth costs.
State Acceptance indicates the State's response to the alternatives in
terms of technical and administrative issues and concerns.
Community Acceptance evaluates the issues and concerns the public may
have regarding the alternatives.
A comparative discussion of the three alternatives on the basis of the
evaluation criteria presented above follows.
Overall Protection - Alternative 2, provides the greatest overall protection of
human health and the environment through treatment of groundwater and to some
degree soils. Alternative 3, is similar to Alternative 2, except treated water
is discharged to surface water, therefore, no soil flushing action occurs.
Rather than simply discharging treated groundwater into surface water,
Alternative 2 calls for the utilization of both flushing the soil of contaminants
and speeding up the groundwater cleanup process. The entire NAEC facility is
in a water supply critical area in the Englishtown Aquifer. A smaller portion
of the NAEC facility is part of a second critical area in the Raritan Aquifer.
There is a general concern for over pumpage in Coastal Plain Aquifers.
Groundwater discharge (Alternative 2) was selected over surface water discharge
(Alternative 3) to prevent over pumpage and enhance recharge. Alternative 2 is
a closed loop system in which the aquifer is recharged by the treated ground
water from Area C. Alternative 1, which offers no soil or groundwater treatment
is the least protective alternative.
Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence - Alternative 2 and 3 are interim actions
and intended to be short-term fixes, therefore; the long term effectiveness
cannot be addressed. However, if the interim remedial alternative chosen proves
to be effective it will be incorporated and/or modified to become the final
remedial action. Alternative 1 provides no treatment and is not considered to
14
-------
be effective.
Reduction of Toxicitv. Xcbilicv or Volume - Alternative 2 and 3 reduces the
mobility and toxicity of grouncvater by the reduction of volatile and semi-
volatile compounds in tbe contaminated groundwater by air stripping and carbon
treatment. The regeneration of carbon in Alternative 2 and 3 will provide for
the destruction of the orgaiu.cs. Alternative 1 offers no treatment of the
contaminated media.
Short-Tena Effectiveness - Alternatives 2 and 3 in the short-term will halt the
spread of contaminated groundvater and residual amounts of floating product from
entering ecologically sensitive areas in Area C. It will also stop the migration
of the contaminant pluae and residual amounts of floating product from entering
the Paint Branch. The Paint Branch is a tributary of the Manapaqua Brook which
feeds Pine Lake, a major recreational body of water in the county. This interim
action will in the short ten prevent degradation of the aquifer and limit
contaminant exposure risks to the population using Pine Lake. Alternative 2 has
the added benefit of flushing the soil of some contaminants (in areas where
treated water is being recharged) and increasing the hydraulic gradient, thus
speeding up the remediation process. In Alternative 3, treated groundwater is
recharged into the Paint Branch, no soil flushing action takes place.
Alternative 1 provides c.c treatment of soil or groundwater and is not considered
to be effective in the short-tera because risks are not reduced.
Inrolegentabilirv - Alternative 1 offers the greatest implementability followed
by Alternative 2, and 3 vhlch involves conventional technologies with proven
reliability.
Cost - Alternative 1, the no action alternative, has the lowest associated cost.
Alternative 2 and 3 have a cost of $ 700,000 and $100,000 for 0 & M costs.
Alternative 3 does not have a cost associated with irrigation and infiltration
system but this does not reduce the overall cost of the alternative because of
the construction of the piping and pump system from the treatment building to
the Paint Branch.
Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) -
Alternative 1, does not have to comply with action-specific ARARs because no
interim reaedial action takes place. Alternative 2 and 3 both comply with action-
specific ARARs such as Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA), Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and appropriate sections of the Clean Air
and Water Acts. State and Federal action-specific ARARs pertaining to discharge
of treated water to ground surfaces and surface waters is also addressed and will
be complied with during the interim remedial action (See Table 2). Residual
wastes from the treatment process for Alternatives 2 and 3 shall be managed in
accordance with RCRA hazardous waste regulations such as land disposal
restrictions if the vaste is found to be hazardous.
State Acceotar.ee - The preferred alternative (Alternative 2) is acceptable to
the NJDEP. (See NJDL? letter of concurrence, Appendix D.)
15
-------
Coirrrunif' Acceptance - Comrr.:r.ity acceptance of the preferred alternative
will be evaluated on the basis cf public coc^ner.ts r.r.d is described in the
Responsive Summary of this P.eccrd of Decision. The alternative appears to be
acceptable to the public.
SELECTED i:~IRIM RZMEDY
The following section describes in detail the interim remedial action plan
which the ^aval Air Engineering Center, in concurrence vith the USEPA and MJDEP,
has selected to implement at Area C - Sites 10, 15, -7 (See USEPA and NJDEP
Letters of Concurrence, Appendices " and D) . This selection is identical to that
presented in the Proposed Interim remedial Action Plan. Because of the design's
interim nature, changes could be impleaented during the final design and
construction processes. Such changes reflect codifications resulting from the
engineering desist process and vill not substantially change the intent of the
selected alternative described herein.
The selected interim remedial action is Alternative 2 - Groundwater
Pumping, Re-oval of Free Prrduct, Treatment, Recharge ar.d In Situ Soil Flushing.
This alternative will address grsundwater treatment and product extraction
simultaneouslv. This Alternative is cost effective and implements proven
technologies.
Ground water and residual az.our.ts of free product vill be extracted via
three veils at a rate of 200 gpn.. The extracted water vill be held in a flow
equalization tank and then tretreated to remove metals, free product and solids.
The extracted free product will be sent to a permitted off-site disposal
facility. ^AZC will comply vith ICJ Hazardous Waste Regulations. The pretreated
water vill be air stripped and polished to remove 99.9% of VOCs. Due to the
transfer of contaminants fro- the aqueous phase to the airstream, emissions
control units will be required on the air strippers. The treatment system,
including the emission control unit will be designed to meet the substantive
requirements of the New Jersev air pollution control regulations (NJAC 7:27-
16). The effluent from the air stripper will be treated by a granulated
activated carbon air filter, pricr to discharge to the atmosphere. Residual
sludge from the pretreatnent trccess vill be tested to determine if the waste
is hazardous and if RCRA land disposal restrictions are applicable. The waste
vill be handled accordingly. Spent granular activated carbon will be sent to
the vendor for regeneration.
Once treated, the grour.dvater. vhich vill meet NJDE? effluent limitation
standards, will be recharged to the aquifer at two irrigation and infiltration
locations. The treated water vill be spray irrigated over areas of subsurface
soil contamination. This action vill increase biological activity promoting
contaminant decomposition. The rroundvater classification for the immediate
SAIC area is Central Pine 3arrer_s ~»1. The ground-water is suitable for potable
water supply, agricultural vater supply, continual replenishment of surface
vaters to maintain the existing quality of the surface waters in the Central Pine
Barrens, and other reasonable uses. Quality criteria for these waters may be
found in S.J.A.C. 7:9-5.5.
16
-------
The reaedial action in the short-term will halt the spread of contaminated
groundvaier and residual amounts of floating product from entering ecologically
sensitive areas.
This interim reaedial action vill be implemented until the final reaedy
is selected, designed, and implemented. If the interim remedy proves to be
effective it vill be incorporated and/or modified to become the final remedial
action.
STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
U-ccer Section 121 of CERCLA and Section 300.430(F5) of the NCP, selected
remedies scust meet certain statutory and regulatory requirements. These
requirements and a description of how the selected remedy satisfies each
requirement are presented below.
Protection of Huaan Health and the Environment
The selected alternative will protect human health and the environnent
through treataent of the contaminated groundwater and in situ soil flushing.
The treated groundwater will meet NJDEP effluent limitations. Residual amounts
of floating free product will be extracted and removed to a permitted off-site
disposal facility.
The interim remedial action will stop the migration of the contaminant
pluae arxi residual amounts of floating product from entering the Paint Branch
a tributary of the Manapaqua Brook which feeds Pine Lake, a major recreational
body of vater in the county. This interim action will, in the short-rera,
prevent degradation of the aquifer and limit contaminant exposure risks to the
population using Pine Lake.
Compliar.ce with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs)
The selected remedy will comply with action specific ARARs such as
Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA), Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCSA) and appropriate sections of the Clean Air and Vater Acts. State and
Federal action specific ARARs pertaining to the discharge of treated water to
ground surfaces is also addressed and will be complied with during the interim
action. Also, treated water will meet NJDEP effluent limitations prior to spray
irrigation and infiltration. A list of ARARs specific to this action is
presented in Table 2.
Cost Effectiveness
Tee selected remedy provides groundwater treatment and removal of residual
amounts of floating product through treatment methods that have been proven
effective, cost efficient and expected to attain ARARs.
Preferer.ce for Treatment as a Principal Element
The principal threats at Area C - Sites 10, 16, and 17 include ground
17
-------
water arid soil co-raz-iTiaticr; a~d the presence of residual amounts of floating
free product associated vith chs presence of the pluae at Area C. The selected
remedy satisfies the statutory preference for treatment as a principal element
in addressing the hu^an health and environmental threats posed by the site.
Crour.dwater will b£ crested by sir stripping arid carbon adsorption to res-ove VOCs
and polished by grssulsr activated carbon to renove SVOCs ar.d further reduce VOC
levels. In situ soil £lushf.r.z viii aerate and enhance biological activity ar.d
contaminant cicco^rositior.. r.esidual amounts of floating produce will be
collected ar.d dispcsec at ar. cff-si~e permitted hazardous waste facility.
The interim remedy is not a fir.il action for grour.cwatsr or soil. The ultinste
goal of the final rerediaticr. of this area should include decontamination to
acceptable levels of az-.y ccr.tiiziir-.atec cediuz:, r.ot just ground water. The
selected interin rsscdy. hovever, should be consistent with these objectives.
Documentation of Sigr.lflCsr.t_Cr.angles
The Proposed Interim F.s=«dial Action Plan (?IRA?) for Area C - Sites 10,
16 and 17 was released for public cc=ent on September 14, 1990. The PIRA?
identified Alternative 2 as the preferred alternative. NAEC did not receive sny
written cocnents, all verbal cosaents were responded to at the public hearing on
October 2, 1990. l/pcn reviev of the comnents; • it was determined that no
significant changes to the interim remedy, as it was ori5inally identified in the
-------
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
AREA C - SITES 10, 16, 17
NAVAL AIR ENGINEERING CENTER
The purpose of this responsiveness summary is to review public response
to the Proposed Interim Remedial Action Plan (PIRAP) for Area C - Sites 10, 16
and 17. It also documents Naval Air Engineering Center's (NAEC's) consideration
of such consents during the decision making process and provides answers to any
major conments raised during the public meeting and comment period.
The responsiveness summary for Area C - Sites 10, 16, 17 is divided into
the following sections:
o OVERVIEV - This section briefly describes the Focused Feasibility Study
(FFS) process used to develop and evaluate interim remedial responses
for Area C - Sites 10, 16, and 17, the interim remedial alternative
recommended within the PIRAP and any impacts on the proposed plan due
to public comment.
o BACKGROUND ON COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT - This section describes community
relations activities conducted with respect to the area of concern.
o SUMMARY OF MAJOR QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS - This section summarizes
verbal and written comnents received during the public meeting and
public comment period.
o REMEDIAL DESIGN/REMEDIAL ACTION CONCERNS - This section describes
public concerns which are directly related to design and
implementation of the selected remedial alternative.
OVERVIEW
Area C - Sites 10, 16, and 17 are located at NAEC in Ocean County,
Lakehurst, NJ. Area C is under investigation for potential environmental
contamination. This responsiveness summary addresses remediation and public
response to the PIRAP for Area C - Sites 10, 16 and 17 only.
A sinrnary of the site background, the alternatives evaluated, and a
comparison of alternatives are presented in the Area C - Sites 10, 16 and 17
PIRAP and as nore fully described in the FFS report. Both documents, as well
as other supporting information, are available for public review ac the
information repository located at the Ocean County Library, 101 Washington
Street, Toms River, NJ.
BACKGROUND ON COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT
This section provides a brief history of community participation in the
investigation and interim reaedial planning activities conducted at Area C.
Throughout the investigation and FFS period, the United States Environmental
Protection Agency (USEPA) and New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
(NJDEP) have been directly involved through proposal and project review and
19
-------
comments. Periodic meetings have been held to maintain open lines of
communication and to keep all parties abreast of current activities.
Prior to the public release of site-specific Area C documents, NAEC's
public relations staff compiled a list of local public officials who demonstrated
or were expected to have an interest in the investigation. Local environmental
interest groups were also identified and included on this list. The list is
included in Appendix A.
On September 14, 1990, NAEC mailed Area C - Sites 10, 16 and 17 PIRAPs to
concerned parties on the list described above. On September 17 through 19 a
public notice appeared in The Asburv Park Press and The Ocean County Observer.
and in The Advance News on September 19. The public notice summarized the
feasibility study process, the remedial alternatives considered and the preferred
remedial alternative. The announcement also identified the time and location
of a public comment period, and the address to which the written comments could
be sent. Public comments were accepted from September 17 through October 18,
1990.
A public meeting was held on October 2, 1990, at 7:30 p.m. at the Lakehurst
Elementary School in Lakehurst, New Jersey. The Area C - Sites 10, 16 and 17
investigations, feasibility study process and the proposed interim remedial
alternative were discussed. NAEC representatives included: Captain David J.
Raffetto, the Commanding Officer of NAEC; Commander Thomas Breitzke, Public Works
Department head; Robert Kirkbright, Engineering Director, Lucy Bottomley, Head
Environmental Engineer; Aarti Dalai, Environmental Engineer. Jeffrey Gratz,
represented the EPA's Federal Facility Section; Ms. Christine Holstrom,
represented the NJDEP's Bureau of Federal Case Management; Mr. Kevin Schick;
represented NJDEP's Division of Hazardous Site Mitigation and Ms. Linda Uelkom
represented NJDEP's Division of the Water Resources. See Appendix B for
attendance list.
SUMMARY OF MAJOR QUESTION'S AND COMMENTS
During the public connent period September 17 through October 18, 1990 no
written public comments were received. The questions raised at the public
meeting on October 2 and MAEC's response to these comments are summarized below.
PUBLIC MEETING COMMENTS
Question: Mr. Cicalese, Councilperson Manchester Township, questioned the
Superfund Cleanup schedule. Is NAEC going to begin clean up in January 1993?
NAEC Comment: We are going to start the actual cleanup of four sites in about
five months.
Clarification: Mr. Cicalese, whose question referred to the Federal Facilities
Agreement, which was agreed upon by the EPA and Navy, assumed that January 1993
was the start of the cleanup of sites at NAZC. NAEC vill start site cleanup
prior to 1993; however, the final Records of Decision (?.ODs) for each site are
due to the EPA in January 1993.
20
-------
Question: Jir. Cicalese, Councilperson Manchester Township, questioned why a
contractor and lots of paperwork vere necessary once the problea was known and
where the problea was?
NAEC Gormen:: The naval base has 44 individual sites. Each site is at a
different stage in its remediation plan. Our plan calls for having a final
decision for each site by January 1993. If there are no significant objections
to the interim reaedial action at Area C, we then can go forward to the EPA and
the DEP and ask for approval to do it.
Clarificarlcn: itr. Cicalese questioned the need of extensive paperwork prior
a site cleanup. NAEC is mandated to follow congressional Superfund regulations
and submit Focused Feasibility Studies, Proposed Interim Remedial Action Plans
and Records of Decision prior to site cleanup. Documentation and public
involveaent are crucial parts of the process. Contractors are used because of
their expertise in the field of hazardous waste cleanups.
Question: A concerned citizen: Bow long do you expect before you are done with
the clean up of all 44 sites?
NAEC Cozener.::: A number of these sites will be "no action" Sites. 1993 is when
we will have a final decision on all the sites, and the time it takes for actual
work will depend on how complicated and involved the remediation process is.
Question: }(s Dicenso, a concerned citizen, questioned if there was any
contamination to the cranberry bogs?
NAEC Conner.:: No, there are three to four hundred monitoring wells, both
shallow and deep vhich are being aonitored on various schedules along the entire
site or Center to track the plune.
Clarification: SAEC does a monthly volatile organics analysis of a water sample
from the Manapaqua Brook taken at a point where the brook exits the facility and
flows towards the cranberry bogs. There are approximately 200 monitoring wells
on the facility. Approximately 150 vere monitored during the Phase I and II
remedial investigation. These veils are not monitored routinely.
NJDEP Ccma-ent: To find exact derailed information about the studies, the public
can actually look it up in the Public Records (Ocean County Library).
Question: Looking at the sites in general, what type of contaminants will you
be facing? Is it mainly fuel or may other things crop up, like pesticides.
NAEC Comer." There are certainly other sites which are contaminated by fuels.
Having our aviation history, that "is one of our major concerns. Other sites are
varied. Ve want to restrict the discussion to the three sites.
Question: Ms. Dicenso, a concerned citizen: What are VOCs, and PHCs, metals? Are
they related to the gasoline in groundwater?
NJDEP Ccam-er.t: VOCs are Volatile Organic Compounds (such as benzene and toluene);
they evaporate like gasoline. PHCs are petroleum hydrocarbons. Metals are
another group of compounds. Heavier fractions which are associated with gasoline
are not prevalent here.
Question: Xr. Klee, Borough of Lakehurst: How would the Public be afforded
access to this site?
NAEC Ccacrer.t: The site like any activity on the Center is not generally open
to the public. Certain responsible groups will be given an opportunity through
21
-------
our Public Affairs Office to tour the operation at our facility.
REMEDIAL DESIGy/R^
-------
A final ROD £cr the site -.-ill determine the final remedial action for clear.up of
the sire. This interim acrior. cculd becoae the fir.s" action fcr grouTidvater
clszr.up. This vill be tUt;—ir.ed by grour.dwater rccnitorir.g cf che sice after
treatment begins.
Question: Mr. Cicalese, C:ur.cil-ar. Xarichester Township: The fsticr.2.1e as cc vhy
this interim acricr. is being implemented is to step the rcig.ratioT. cf tha
ccr.ta=i-ar;r rluzie ar.d risidual flcarir.g produce - has this plu.r.6 bser. defined?
DC you knew vhere this zl—2 is?
XJDI ? />•'A EC C e—e n t: Cne cf the problems of giving ar. estimate like this is that
the co~ca.~inir.rs iri £rc-^r.d-ws.r£r cc r.ot trove as fast as "he grour.dvater because
chey are retarded by soils. >•*•= have done sampling of stdi-cnts in che brcck and
surface -water and there is really no significant a^our.ts at the area where the
pl-j^:e should be ceding cut of. Currently, there coesn't appear to be any
siET.ificar.t cischargss r= the strssa, but this is certainly & site vhere ve hsva
flcstir.g product. Ve deal vith drinking water srandarcs that are set cr. parts
per billion b£_sis; EC vr.sr. you have floating product, che potential exists for
continuing release of thase ccntasinsr.ts. Because of the floating product and
because of cbe fact ve kncv vc ha.c these contaminants already dissolved in che
grauncvater rear the boundary of KAZC that may in the future be discharged from
the Center, che Navy has initiatEc an interim remedial action.
O»-Lg5tion: Ms. Dicenso, a concerned citizen: Eow do you cleanup lead (in grour.d
vsttr)?
?vJDE? Co^-?.T'.;: A pretrestr-anr systec is used. For the entire traatzent system
Cc operate optimally ys-u have to remove as much cf the metals and otr.er
psrticulates ss you car;. The przrreacaent removes mar.y of the inorganics.
C-uesticn: >Is. Dicsr^o, a concerned cirizen: Vhst would happen ti the lead?
NJS£? Corrzer.t: The lead in the groundwater is removed by the pretreatnent
system. Basically, s. chemical can be added which binds the metals ar.d allows
thea to settle out. This sludgs can then be reaoved periodically and disposed
of properly.
Question: Ms. Diceriso, concerned citizen: What is done vith the sludge caterials
sfcer it is removed?
NJDE? Cosaenr: It will =e disposed of according to the regulatior^ for hazardous
waste.
Question: i£r. Klee, Borouzh cf Lakehurst: Who will be testing and inspecting to
naks sure everythi-ng is functioning properly?
NAIC Cciment: Tne contractor is required to construct the facility, prove It out
£nd thcs give xts split sasples so we can take then to our lab to confira the
results.
E?A CoEent: ' E?A vill also take split sasples to insure that discharge
lioications' are met.
Question: Kr. Klee, Bcrsugh of Lakehurst: Does the contractor provide tasting?
KA£C Cc--"~~- Ke pro-v^.d£E testing «r.d we do our ewr. testing. Neither, one of
these groups bwrve" their cvn labs. The contract labs are certified thrcug.h the
State of Ncv Jersey. AJ.1 this infornation is then submitted tc the EPA.
23
-------
TABLE 1-
IISTCR1CAL SIHWIT OF
AXALTTICXL DATA - SITE 10
I tenedial Irrv»st iaat loo
phase II Remedial Investlcatlon
Soil Gaa end Grocnduater Screening Survey*
Total chlorinated hydrocarbons
In soil gas sanples: >C - 0.05 ug/l
Total petroleun hydrocarbons
in groinduater: MD - 1,800 ug/l
Total chlorinated hydrocarbons
In groinduater: NO - 0.35 ug/l
Crcurduate"
Traces of floating product Volatile Cyanic Conpou-ds (ua/l)
were observed in oonltcring
well BB Bennrxs: 00 - tlO
Toloe-«: W - 33.6
Ethylberaene: HO - 96.3
Grou-duater
Volatile Organic Coipxrdi (uq/ll
Benzene: HO - 330
Toluene: NO - 81
Ethylbeniene: HO - 17
Xylenet: NO - 990
le Crcanie Cerixxrds (ug/l) Metals (IB/ I)
2, t-3 (me tV, I pherel: 16.4 Lead: NO - 135
Total Cr-jjnic Ha I ides: 92. * - 93
SoU
Ko ctntaninaticn detected
Soil
Miscellaneous
Petroleu* Hydrocarbons: ND-10,819.68 (ug/g)
-------
IISTCRICAL SumWT OF
AKAJ.TT1CAJ. DATA - SITE 16
I genediel Investigation
Phase II Renedial Investigation
Soil Gas end Grcunduater Screening Surveys
Total chlorinated hydrocarbons
In tall sas: to - 10.01 us/I
Total petroleai hydrocarbons
in loil 9»»: *C - 1,400 ug/l
Total chlorinated hydrocarbons
In groundwater: MO - 120.11 ug/l
Total petroleus hydrocarbons
In jrounduater: KO - 48,000 ug/l
Grccndwater
Several monitoring wells
were Installed at the site
under NAEC direction to
monitor the tMckness of
floating product. On
Jine 3, 1933, a naxiiui
of approximately 7 inches
of free-phase product was
recorded in ncnitaring
well BJ.
In the sunner cf t9S*,
the NJOEP p-rfcrmed •
site investigation
utilizing electrical
resistivity profiling
and sounding techniques
Croundwater
Hetals (us/I)
Le«d: 15 - 99
Mit:;l lane ous
Petnle-Ji hydrocarbcns (mg/l): 36-540
Total pr
-------
•ISTCRICM. a>wurr OF
AXAJ.TTICAL DATA - SITE 17
Phase 1 Sgnedi«i Investigation
No dati available
Eetals
Pb: 175
Petrolevn Hydrocarbcn*: J4 eg/I
Phase II aenedial Investigation
CrouTdvater
VolatUe Organic Conxujrds (ug/t)
Benzene: MO - 16
4-M«thyl-2-Pentanon«: HD • 300
2-Hejianone: ND - 87
Toluene: TO - 990
Chlocobenzene: Mt> - 14
Ethylbeniene: HD - 560
Xylenes: HO - t.SOO
5en><-VolBtUe Orgyile Catpxnda tua/V)
Naplithalene: NO - 86
2-Hethylnaphthalene: MO • 730
Hetals (ug/l)
Lead: ND - 717
mseellaneoos
Petroleum Hydrocarbons: HD - 170.26
Scil
Ho data collected
SOU
Volatile Organic Curtxxnd (ug/kg)
Toluene: HO - 7
maeeUaneous
Petroleun Hydrocarbcns: MD • 226.69 ug/g
-------
TA-
LI ST OF ARARS
Only Action-specific ARASS vhich include surface water, groundwater, and
air discharge limitations as veil as hazardous waste handling requirements,
veeland and floocplain requirements will be identified and complied with during
the interim renedial design. Contaminant specific cleanup levels will be
addressed in the final rejtedy.
The interim remediation activities at Area C (Sites 10, 16, and 17) will
primarily address grouncvater and residual floating product. Preliminary-
identification of Federal Action-Specific ARARs applicable to the interim
remedial alternatives chosen are:
Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) (29 CFR 1910, 1926, 1904): ARARs for
workers and workplace throughout the implementation of hazardous activities.
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) (40 CFR 264.10-.77): Potential
ARARs for alternatives utilizing treatment, storage or disposal actions (Note:
permits not required for onsite actions)
RCRA (40 CFR 264.90-.101): Groundwater protection. Groundwater
monitoring/corrective action requirements; dictate adherence to MCLs and
establishes points of compliance.
RCRA - Part 263 (40 CFR 263.10-.31) and Hazardous Materials Transportation Ac:
(49 CFR 170, 171): Transporter Requirements. ARARs for alternatives involving
shipment of hazardous materials or wastes.
RCRA - Part 268 (40 CFR 268): Land Disposal Restrictions. Potentially pertains
to spent carbon filters and sludge fron pretreatment process. Wastes will be
tested to deteraine if they are hazardous waste under RCRA.
Clean Air Act (40 CFR 50): ARARs for alternatives which involve treatments which
inpact ambient air.
Additional air pollution control regulations: Permits and Certificates
(X.J.A.C. 7:27:8) and Control and Prohibition of Air Pollution by Toxic
Substances (N.J.A.C. 7:27-17).
Clean Water Act (40 CFR 401): JTPDES Permit Requirements. Requirements for point
source discharge to surface vaters. Potential ARARs which will affect the
inplenentabilitv of renedial action involving effluent discharge to the Manapaqua
Brook.
Clean Water Act (40 CF2. 404): Prohibits actions that impact a wetland unless
no other alternatives are available.
24
-------
Preliminary Identification of Potential State Action-Specific ARARs are as
follows:
N.J. Hazardous Waste Regulations (XJAC 7:26 e£ seq.): Permitting, Contingency
Plans, Specification for Treatment/Disposal Units. Potential ARARs for
alternatives vhich involve the treatment, storage or disposal of hazardous
vastes.
NJ Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NJAC 7:14A-1 et seq.) : Permit
Requirements and ARARs for alternatives involving effluent discharge to ground
surfaces and groundvater.
N.J. Ground Water Quality Standards (N.J.A.C 7:9-5.1 et seq.): ARARs for ground
water quality cleanup criteria and effluent limitations.
NJ Surface Water Regulations (KJAC 7:9-5.1 et seq.): ARARs for alternatives
involving treatment which discharge toxic pollutants to area water bodies.
NJ Air Pollution Control Regulations (NJAC 7:27-16): Permits and Emission
Limitation for VOCs. ARARs for alternatives for treatments which impact ambient
air.
Water Supply Management Act (N.J.S.A. 58:lA-l et seq.): Permit requirements for
groundvater diversion during recovery operations.
Endangered Species Act (16 USC 1531): Consultation will be undertaken with the
Fish and Wildlife Service to determine if the remedial action will adversely
affect endangered species in the area.
25
-------
\ ' r~¥* COIIIMJ \Ml'lll
\ ! -31 •*."-%:-A ^
--VrvlVi MM Y^vxU
VN\ M n I t A K r * i t » • "-« f "l«
-•'/ I
=^"'-:==:7;":i^~ LAKEHURST BORO>v • NNE LAKE I'AKK i
iTf- -• -••//—• •' •v.*i^^L*^£^%^ss»ifcsi.*s r<
sJ5- ,.^ 08733 ^^g%jgAl#^f.
f/<&££$ V _>^r^^\ !
Cv/^sA"L-]^i^-^-^ J -^N^';
VICINITY MAP
NAVAL AIR ENGINEERING CENTER
LAKEHURST, NEW JERSEY
APPROXIMATE SCALE IN MILES
REFERENCE: HANGSTROM MAP
OF DCFAN CO. . N.J.
-------
fifi 1=
70'
" ARIA C -
GROUNOWATER E.i/ATiON AND FLCW CiRECTICNS
UOMlTORiNC ^^^(wi-.r. -rcunawo'.e- e:s-olic.*i
in fstt crave —ten s;i i-v-l bc:-d c-
mecsur;rr.»nts :*ccrc:: on Morcr. 22. '9£=-).
S IN -i~
A3O'.t u£=N SE= L£.-t. SASiD ON
M=:ASJSH;W£MTS -.Lczf.z-.z ON UASCH ::. 19=3
^S~.WATE:D G3C_''.DwA7t^ FLOW o.^tcT.ifi
25C 500 7:3 FT£T
=-IC SCAL;
«-«'r:iM£DiAL IN/ES" CATION - 3hAic. ll
NAVAL- A.=. ENGINEERING CENTER
NEW JE^SE'^
Da rnes & Moore
7-16-90
1(1-
-------
/ / ' '30 '•« §'/_
A-'•-•'." /SITEi ruEl- FARM i ? /-
,tA-.-.a-Mo /< ' I •£• m\* I Me
3, / / 17 • , oo1 K
-r>* •"'.=' / / ' s~ir-,^— • 4Jfcr £
BA • UCNITCnlNG 'A^XL LCCATICM (DO--?}
S'°-*A sen. ca SECANT SAMPLING LCCATICH
E ~E3T F1T LCCAuCN ., .V
(no scrtpi; ccilecled)
v >
_ 0 tCO 2GO 3CO FEET
S I l II
o R?Zj.UI 1 -*S^^3«3ira
7 GRAPHIC SCALE
SITE No.10, AREA C
FUEL TRUCK "STORAGE AREA AND 424 GAS STATION
r.c; REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION - PHASE II
NAVAL AIR ENGINEERING CENTER
LAKEHURST. NEW JERSEY
Dames & Moore
CHANFORD, NEW
SOU
AS NOTED
ow<. er
R.G.B.
& 5-8-90
?a. BY
C.I.T.
7980-013
re. NO.
-------
M
M
00
GROUND WATER DISCHARGE
FNOM l'JHa-1'JM.J KUtX
RECOVERY OPERATIONS AT ,
FUEL FARM toe (-Jire i?)!
INACTIVE : ,
NATTC FIRE FIGHTING
(op TRAINING AREA
__ LIB-.S^Q
—/= =
OIL/WATER
INACTIVE SEPARATOR
FIRE
FIGHTING
PITS
CIVILIAN FIRE FIGHTING
TRAINING AREA
INACTIVE
FIRE
FIGHTING
PITS
X..
EXPLANAHON:
SITE No. 16
MONITORING WELL LOCATION (0-0e«p)
pa-JSA SOIL OR SEDIMENT SAMPLING LOCATION
SURFACE WATER SAMPLING LOCATION
PIEZOMETER LOCATION ...
0 100 200 300 FEET
I I
mamm
GRAPHIC SCALE
r
\
SITE No.16, AREA C
NATTC FIRE FIGHTING TRAINING AREA (INACTIVE)
PROJECT REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION - PHASt 11 .,
NAVAL AIR ENGINEERING CENTER
IJM^H UJ^L.JiF; W_JF,_R S£Y
d^ Dames & ^Ic
^L.-" rilAMflHi), ni-w irWiKY
J "AS NOTED
OAIE
8-8-90
OWN. ar
R.C.G.
JOU MO.
79HO-OIj
. llY
c.i.r.
HC. NO.-
-------
M
INACTIVE FIRE
FIGHTING PITS
x __ ,-
/ :/| «»-'A 1
/ /! ,~N H*9- ,~N '
-/A! <•£,' .' ; I
--
INACTIVE NATTC
FIRE FIGHTING v
TRAINING AREA' '
/ TANKS' V^^ 195
' / V-V-^ mm I
... ./....... '- • • •
/INACTIVE CIVILIAN FUEL TANK
// ;i
FIGHTING PITS / \ •/ TRAINING AHF.A
Vl
OLD FUEL
TRANSFER
: AREA
*"\ T/
OISCHARCC PIPE FROM
FIRE FIGHTING PITS
SITE No.17
FXPL.ANATIQNr
BA» MONITORING WELL LOCATION (D=0eep)
SI°-4A SOIL OR SEDIMENT SAMPLING LOCATION
-- INACTIVE RECOVERY WELL LOCATION
0 100 200 FEET
GRAPHIC SCALE
nn.E
SITE No.17, AREA C
FUEL FARM No.196
PROJECT REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION - PHASL 11
NAVAL AIR ENGINEERING CENTER
I AKFHURST. NEW JFRSFY
Dames <& 5
CRANI-'ORO. NCW
SCALE
AS NOTED
OATC
8-8-90
OWN. ar
R.G.B.
MO.
7980-015
. ar
C.I.T. I
nc. NO.
-------
"*v//y ..
.-. '. r----
V '"
\
:^TE ?iM=-_£3. ^-. A.i=icc .ALJE is
-COlT.C^AL '.fCr.uir.CN. «£r;^ TC T^B
'O 5 =
c:v-c.-.os
AL ,N ,ii ._-
L AIR -:\c:
Dames & Moore
-------
\ '
. \. " .-
-;-A. .3L--.£ C--.-A-. : ::»•=•:.•.;: (,; )
_ . . .
Dames & Moore
-------
.»• •*• "• >e
-r "* t* \vt'O "•
i^QrA
-, ^. ,
'PROPOSED INJECTION TRENCH (INJ2)'
v ZONE OF INJECTION
PROPOSED INJECTION TRENCH (INJ)
PROPOSED INTERCEPTOR WELLS ( SW)
"" ZONE OF CAPTURE
"^f. .-qnv^,.^.
•"•^•\ \
ICCATTM " *M
KCYl
M IXI-.TIHC. ntcnvrnT WELL
» TtST ufi.L IOCATION
o rniiruuu iiiunuMiiit UMIJ
B rmirn'.rn iM.irctiuM mtucii
LOLAI KIN
Jx rnojrcito uMtK TABi.f M.tVA
•j'i COMIUIIH lintlrctl *niivr. M-.
rinu 1.1 lies
a if
II)
250 500 750 Fc£T
SCALE
tiu AREA c lorrti to.it.17) OPTION 3
PROJECTED ZONE OF CAPTURE
KECOVERY MELL 1RW) PUUPINO «O CPU PROPOaEO
INTERCEPTOR wgLLl (raw) PUMPING 10 OPU I
• EPLACEUENT WELL IBA) PUUPINQ 4O OPM P
INJECTION TNEHCH (MJ) IHJECTINQ I JO OPU PROPOSED
INJECTION TRENCH (MJI) IHJECTINO IO OPU PON 30 DAT!
LULDIAL INVciilCAilUN - PHAb>t IliA '
NAVAL AIR ENGINEERING CENTER
I AKF"URST. NFW JERS£Y
A3 NOTED
Dames&Mooro
'
A.P.D. |—— rQaU-Ot4
cir7
-------
FIGURE
H,O / FVJW \
ECUAIJIA7.CN
AJR
AIR
3!r!
UNfTS
1
Y
SLUCCc
CAC AIR
RLTI?.
H70
i \
•A
/I
TO
A7,.(CS?H
]
V/ATIH
WATER
AJP. STH1PP1NC UNIT: VOC P.D-IOVAL - 59^
nuAL VC" A/00
CAC POLJTH!MC nLTZR: rx^.DU/rL VC- AW
GAC AJR riTZ?- vcc REMOVAL FROM -XKAUST AIR
-------
FIGURE ft S*
W£!_
CC.TTAWINATZD
WATZ?.
AJR '
H^° i Pprrsr^EMT
^i UNfT
\
CA
PEIS^SMT: M-TAl. S^JCS ,
AIR STRIPPING UNIT: VOC REMOVAL - 9
CAC ?CLJ£H!.VC F.LTZH: RETIDUAL VOC .
CAC AIR ~.L7I?.: VCC RD.tCVAL =?.CM ZCH
y\'
v\
WATZ?.
TO
Siirface Water
ST AIR
-------
SITE 16
SITE 10r^
-^RECOVERY FACILITY
-TREATMENT FACILITY
-IRRIGATION/IMFILTRATIOM
-------
Appendix A
List of Contacts and Interested Parties
for the Navy Lakehurst site
Haval Air Engineering Center
Captain David J. Rs/fsfeo (908) 322-2360
Command ing Off leer
Naval Air Engineering Cerfer
Lake hurst, New Jersey 08733-5000
Lev/is Lundberg, Execuiive Drsctcr (908) 323-2290
Naval Air Engineering Carter
Lake hurst, New Jersey 08733-5000
Commander Thomas Ererzke (908) 323-2601
Public Works Officer
Naval Air Engineering Certer
Lakehurst, New Jersey OB733-5065
Frank Montareiii, Public flairs Officer (908) 3 23-2520
Naval Air Engineering Gerter
Lake hurst, New Jersey 06733-5041
Norther Divis'ionf Naval Facilities Engineering Command
Mr.Thomas G. Shedcsls (215) 897-5424
Restoration Management Section
Northern Division
Naval Facilities Engineering Corrrrand
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19112-5034
-------
Mr. to nnie Monaco
Public Aifa.'rsCfnce
Northern Divsion
Naval Faci'Fcfes Engineering Corr.rrsarxl
Bldg. ""LOW
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 1911 2-50S4
Federal Elected Officials
Senator Vrtllram Bradley
n09YaiKhallRoad
P.O. Box 17 20
Union, New Jersey 07083
Senator Frark P.. Lautenberg
20 8 Vrtwe Horse Pike
(215)897-5431
Bam'ngfcon, KJ 08007
Cx)ncressman H. James Sa.xton
11 5 High Street
Mourt Holly, KJ 08060
Congressman Christopher H. Smlh
65 5 Park Avenue
Freer»kj, NJ 07728
Concres-rnan Frank Pallone^ Jr.
540 Ero3.dY*ay
Room 11 9
Long Branch, New Jersey 07740
State Elected Officials
. Senator Leonard T. Connors, Jr.
520 West Lacey Road
Forked River, New Jersey 08731
(201) 688-0960
(609)757-5353
(509)261-5800
(908) 780-0707
(201)571-1140
(509)693-6700
-------
Senator Jchn F. Russo (908) 240-2200
917 North Main Street
Toms River, New Jersey 08753
Assemblyman Jefferey Moran (609) 693-6700
620 West Lacey Road
Forked River, New Jersey.. 08731
Assemblyman Christopher J. Connors (609) 693-6700
620 West Lacey Road
Forked River, Nev/ Jersey 08731
Assemblyman John Paul Doyle (908) 240-2200
917 North Main Street
Toms River, New Jersey 08753
Assemblywoman Marlene L Ford (908) 899-1208
2611 Spruce Street
Point Pleasant, New Jersey 08742
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Officials
JeffGratz (212) 264-6667
Project Manager
Room 2930, Division ERRD
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region II
26 Federal Plaza
New York, New York 10278
John Filipelli (212) 264-6723
Federal Facilities Coordinator
Room 500
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Reaion I! 26 Federal Plaza
New York. New York 10278
-------
Superfund Community Relations Ccor. (212) 264-2515
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region II
Office of External Programs, Room 907
26 Federal Plaza
New York, New York 10278
New Jersey State Department of Environmental Protection
Christine Holstrom, Case Manager (609) 633-1455
Hazardous Waste Management
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
401 East State Street
Trenton, New Jersey 08625
Kevin Schick (609) 984-3068
Technical Coordinator
Hazardous Site Mitigation
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
401 East State Street
Trenton, New Jersey 08625
New Jersey Department of Health
J. Richard Goldstein, M.D. (609) 292-7837
New Jersey Department of Health
CN 360
Trenton, New Jersey 08625
Ms. Laurie A. Pyrch
New Jersey Department of Health
Environmental Health Service
Room 706
CN 360
Trenton, NJ 08625
New Jersey Pinelands Commission
Alan W. Avery, Jr., Commissioner (609) 894-9342
New Jersey Pinelanc's Commission
15 Springfield Road
New Lisbon, New Jersey 08064
-------
' Teirence Moore, Executive Drectcr (609) 884-3342
New Jersey Pine fends Commission
15 Springfield Road
New Lisbon, New Jersey 080W
Ocean County Officials....
Joseph H. Vicari, Drector - (908) 244-2121
Ocean County Board of Freeholders
CN2121
Toms River, New Jersey 08154
Joseph Przywara, Coordinator (908) 341-5700
Ocean County Healh Department
Environmental Health
2191 Sunset Avenue
Toms fifter, New Jersey OS" 5 3
A.Jercrns Walnut Chairman (908) 349-1152
Ocean County Environmental
11 East 12th Street
Barnegat Light, Mew Jersey 06006
Dover Township Officiate
Hon. W. Thomas ftenkln (908) 341-1000
Mayor of Dover Township
P.O. Box 728
33 Washington Street
Terns River, New Jersey 08754
tenBorden (908)341-1000
Dover Township Environmental Commission
33 Wash! noton'Street
P.O. Box 7 28
Toms River. New Jersey 087 54
-------
Manchester Township Officials
Hon. Jane Cardo Cameron (908) 557-8121
Mayor of Manchester Township
One Colonial Drive
Lake hurst, New Jersey 08733
Wynn A. Mauer, Chairman - (908) 657-8121
Manchester Township Municipal UtilRies Authority •
One Colonial Drive
Lake hurst, New Jersey 08733
William Jamieson, Jr., Chairman (908) 657-8121
Manchester To unship Environmental Commission
One Colonial Drive
lake hurst, New Jersey 08733
Jackson Township Officials
Hon. Arthur F. Conway (908) 928-1200
Mayor of Jackson Township
R.D.4
P.O. Box 100
Jackson, New Jersey 08527
William A. Santos, Achiinbirator (908) 928-1200
Township of Jackson
R.D.4
P.O. Box 100
Jackson, New Jersey 08527
William Bangs, Chairman (908) 928-1200
Jackson Tov/nship Environmental Commission
R.D.4
P.O. Box 100
Jackson, New Jersey 08527
-------
Borough of lakehurst Officials
Hon. Nicholas Kamai ' (908)657-4141
Mayor of lake hurst Borough
5 Union Avenue
Lake hurr.'c, New Jersey 08733
Robert J. Morris ' -- (308)657-4141
Borough of Lakehurst
5 Union Avenue
Lake hurst, Hew Jersey 08733
Plumstead Township Officials
Hon. RonaldS. Dancer (609)756-2241
Mayor of Plunstead To\vnship
31 Main Street
New Egypt, New Jersey 08533
Community Groups/Organizations
Pine lake Park Association (908) 341-3653
1616 Seventh Avenue
Toms River, h4ew Jersey 08757
Media Organizations
Advanced News (908) 657-8936
204 8 Route 37 West
Lake hust,NeYf Jersey 08733
Alyn Adcenran 1-800822-9710
Asbury Park Press
3601 Highway 66
P.O. Box 1550
Neptune, blew Jersey 07754-1550
-------
Debna Coomb*
Newark Star Ledger
27 Washington Street
Terns River, Mew Jersey 08753
New Egypt Press
37 Main Street
P.O. Box 288
New Egypt, Hew Jersey 08533
Ocean County Leader
611 Laurel Avenue
Point Pleasant Beach, New Jersey 08742
Robert LaTorre
Ocean County Review
715 Boulevard
Seaside Heights, Mew Jersey 08751
Ocean County Reporter :
8 Robbins Street
P.O. Box 908
Toms River, New Jersey 08754
Theresa Holifieki
Ocean County Observer
CN 2449
8 Robbins Slreet
Toms River, New Jersey 08754
Shawn Marsh
WJLK Radio
Press Plaza
Asbury Park, New Jersey 07712
Joan Jones
WJRZ Radio
22 West Water Slreet
P.O. Box 100
Toms River, Mew Jersey 08754
(908)244-7171
(609)758-2112
(908)899-1000
(908)793-0147
(908)349-1501'
(908) 349-3000
(201) 774-7700
(908) 270-5757
-------
Doug Doyle (906) 259-0927
TOBM Radio
U.S. Highway 9
Bayville, Mew Jersey 08"? 21
Gary Myervlch (906) 341-8818
Adelphia Cable
830 Highway 37 West
Toms River, New Jersey 08153
AblMontefiore (908)681-8222
Monrnouth Cable
P.O. Box 58
Be Imar, New .Jersey 07719
Ed Rogers (609) 530-5252
WNJN-TY
1573 ParksideAreniw
Trenton, New Jersey 08538
-------
APPENDIX B
27
-------
FLEAS- SIGN IN
PUBLIC HEZ7ING TUESDAY, OCTOBER 2, 1990
PROPOSED ISTEHiH RD'.EDIAL ACTION PLANS (PIRAPS)
FC3. AP.IA C (SITS 10,16 AND 17)
A:;D
AP.IA 11 (SITE 32)
;;ATAL AIR ENGINEERING CENTER
LAi'iiauRST. :;rw JERSEY 08733
YCUR 5JAME
ADDRESS
(J/,.\.(M - VV°v VW^yr
Vftjton.lWt ,
Mftg-nHW fi-7i.^ PA
P
-------
FLEASE SIGN IN
PUBLIC MEETING TUESDAY, OCTOBER 2, 1990
PROPOSED INTERIM REMEDIAL ACTION PLANS (FIRAPS)
FOR AREA C (SITE 10.16 AND 17)
AND
AREA H (SITE 32)
NAVAL AIR ENGINEERING CENTER
LAKEHURST, HEW JERSEY 08733
YOUR NAME ADDRESS
_ _ _ -G - a
•LlW, ^^^-VJV, . 1/??fu flil^l O(^T £W., U-
JfL,LK.
Si- j;~*
A
v/g
KifcKBft.i6Hr
-------
APPENDIX C
28
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 3
"*• ^ " JACC3 K. .'AVfTS FEDERAL BULDING
KE'.V VC=.K. r.E'.V YGF.K 10278
SEF i ~i ;ggo
Mr. Richard Gillespie, Director
Environmental Division (Code 014)
Naval Facilities Engineering Coizmand
U.S. Haval Base, Building 77L
Philadelphia, PA 15112
Dear Mr. Gillespie:
This is to notify you that, after reviewing the llavy' s
Focused Feasibility Studies and associated documents for NAEC
L-akehurst, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
supports the Kavy's proposed interim remedial action plans for
Areas A and C.
As the plans^are subject to public comment, we are deferring
our final concurrence on the proposed interim remedies until we
have reviewed ccrncents from the public, the Navy's responsiveness
summaries, and the draft Records of Decision.
The proposed interin remedial a-tions consist of ground
water remediation at two areas on the facility (Areas A and C).
Specifics include:
extraction of contaminated ground water,
pre-treataent system for the removal of metals, solids,
etc. fron ground vater,
air stripper for removal of volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) from the ground water,
activated carbon absorber for air stripper effluent,
granular activated carbon polishing filter for residual
VOC and seai-volatile removal from treated ground
water, and
reinjection of treated ground water (which will meet
Federal and State drinking water standards) by spray
irrigation or infiltration trenches upgradient of
contaminated ground water.
These interin actions are meant to address the immediate
concern of contaminant migration in ground water. We understand
that final actions for these areas will include remediation of
soils and sediment as well as final actions for the cleanup of
ground water. In accordance with the Interacency Agreement
between EPA and the liavy, Proposed Plans for final actions at
Areas A and C as well as all areas of concern at NAEC Lakehurst
will be submitted to EFA no later than January, 1993.
-------
-2-
We are pleased to continue the cooperative working
relationship established with the Navy to address environmental
concerns at liAEC Lakehurst. If you have any questions regarding
the subject of this letter, please call me at (212) 264-2525, or
Jeffrey Gratz, USEPA Project*Manager at (212) 264-6667.
Sincerely,
Constantine Sidamon-Eristoff
Regional Administrator
cc: C. Holstrom, HJDEP
R. Kirkbright, P.E., KAEC Lakehurst
L. Monaco, Horth. Div., Navy
-------
APPENDIX D
29
-------
i earth
g>l2tc c-E
CEPARTMEUT CF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIOM
Div!s:c;i c= HAZARDOUS V/ASTE f.
:?nton. N.J. Ce625-0028
(K9) 633-14C8
Fs« * (609 j S33- 1454
2 6 SEP 1990
Mr. Orlando Monaco
Northern Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command
Philadelphia Kaval Shipyard
Philadelphia, FA 19112-5094
Jear
Re: Lakehurst UAEC
Proposed Interim Remedial Action Plan
for Area C and Area H
The Nev Jersey Departnent of Environmental Protection has reviewed the
Proposed Plans (PPs) and ccacurs vith the pump and treat method proposed as
an interim action. The Departnent's approval is conditional pending review
of the Draft Record of Decision (ROD) for these areas. If there are no
substantial changes in the ?.OD, HJDEP will approve the action.
If you have any questions, please contact tae at (609) 633-1455.
Sincerely,
Cd:acs
c: Jeffrey Gratz_, USEPA
^TLucy.BottcareV, NAEC
' Kevin Schick, DHSM/BZI7.A
Linda Velkoa, DWR/BG-TA
Christina Holstrom, Case Manager
Bureau of Federal Case Management
Mew Jersey/s sa Equal Opportunity Employer
Recycled Paper
------- |