United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Emergency and
Remedial Response
EPA/ROD/R02-91/133
February 1991
v°/EPA
Superfund
Record of Decision
Naval Air Engineering
Center (Operable Unit 2), NJ
-------
• 50272-101
1 REPORT DOCUMENTATION 1. REPORT NO. 2.
PAGE EPA/ROD/R02-91/133
4. THJe and Subtitle
I SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION
^ Naval Air Engineering Center (Operable Unit 2), NJ
^ Second Remedial Action
7. Authorfe)
». Performing Orgalnlzation Name and Addreaa
12. Sponeorlng Organization Name and Addreaa
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
3. Recipient^ Accewlon No.
5. Report Date
02/04/91
6.
8. Performing Organization Rept No.
10. Pro|acVTaak/Work Unit No.
11. Contract(C) or Grant(G) No.
(C)
(0)
13. Typa of Report » Period Covered
800/000
14.
IS. Supplementary Noto*
16, Abetract (Limit: 200 word*)
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
I onsite include program research, engineering, developmental testing and evaluation,
I and various warfare support services. Land use in the area includes residential,
I woodland, vast wetlands, and associated floodplain areas. Approximately 65,400
I residents of the townships are serviced by several municipal supply wells located
1^ within one mile of the site to the southeast, and north. From 1916 to 1919, the
V Eddystone Chemical Company conducted chemical artillery testing onsite. In 1921, the
I U.S. Navy took control of the site and conducted operations involving the use,
handling, storage, and onsite disposal of hazardous substances in various buildings.
Preliminary investigations by the Navy from 1983 to 1986 identified potential onsite
soil and ground water contamination in 44 site areas, including Area H, site 32,
which has been designated as operable unit 2 for remediation Site 32 consists of the
launching end of five test tracks and ancillary facilities including a drainage
system designed to receive oil and fuel runoff from each track, a series of dry
wells, and several underground storage tanks. Contamination in this area was thought
(See Attached Page)
17. Document Analyal* a. Deacriptora
Record of Decision - Naval Air Engineering Center (Operable Unit 2), NJ
Second Remedial Action
Contaminated Medium: gw
Key Contaminants: VOCs (PCE), other organics, metals (lead)
b. Uantmera/Open-EndedTerma
c. COSATI Held/Group
18. AvatlabUty Statement
ft
19. Security Claaa (Thie Report)
None
20. Security Claaa (Thla Page)
None
21. No. ofPagea
58
22. Price
(See ANSI-Z39.18)
See Instructions on Reverse
OPTIONAL FORM 272 (4-77)
(Formerly NT1S-35)
Department of Commerce
-------
EPA/ROD/R02-91/133
Naval Air Engineering Center (Operable Unit 2), NJ
Second Remedial Action
tostract (Continued)
to have been the result of improper disposal of wastes in five dry wells, various
spills, leaking valves, and other poor housekeeping practices. In 1988, the Navy
excavated and removed offsite the five dry wells, contaminated soil, and underground
storage tanks to prevent potential discharges to ground water. This Record of Decision
(ROD) provides an interim remedy for the first operable unit (OU1), the ground water
contamination in Area H, site 32. The focus of this OU is ground water, although some
treatment of soil may occur. The primary contaminants of concern affecting the ground
water are VOCs including PCE; other organics; and metals including lead.
The selected remedial action for this site includes pumping and pretreating ground water
to remove metals, soil, and residual amounts of free product, followed by offsite
disposal of solids and free product, and onsite treatment using air stripping and vapor
phase carbon adsorption to remove VOCs; polishing the effluent using granular activated
carbon; spray irrigating or infiltrating the treated ground water over the onsite soil
to promote biodegradation; regenerating the spent carbon offsite; and disposing of all
solids, residual sludge, and free product offsite. The estimated capital cost for this
interim remedial action is $550,000 (latest estimate), with an annual O&M cost of
$100,000 for 3 years.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS: Chemical-specific ground water clean-up levels will be
addressed in the final remedy.
-------
ROD Fact Sheet for Interim Remedial Action
at Area H
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 - $550,000
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 semi-volatiles) and solvents
Medium - ground water
Origin - dry wells, USTs, and spills
Est. quantity - ground water plume length: 1,000 ft. min.
width: 500 ft.
depth: 30 ft.
highest cone.: 6,800 ppb. (total VOCs)
15,350 ppb. (total SVOCs)
-------
Final
14 December 1990
DECLARATION STATEMENT
RECORD OF DECISION
AREA K - SITE 32
NAVAL AIR ENGINEERING CENTER
FACILITY NAME AN'D LOCATION..
Naval Air Engineering Center
Lakehurst, KJ 08733
STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PLTIPOSE
This decision document presents the selected interim remedial action for
Area H - Site 32, located at the Naval Air Engineering Center (NAEC) in
Lakehurst, New 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. This decision is based on the administrative record for Area
H - Site 32.
Both the United States Envircrjaental Protection Agency (USEPA), Region II
Administrator and the Cozmissioner of the New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection (NJ3E?) concur with the selected interim remedy (see Appendices C and
D).
ASSESSMENT OF TH£ AR£A
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from this site, if
not addressed bv inplenenting the response action selected in this Record of
Decision (ROD), nay present an imminent and substantial endangerment to public
health, welfare or the environment.
DESCRIPTION 0~ TH- SELECTED REMEDY
The selected interim remedial action addresses the principal threat of the
migration of a contaminated groundvater plume from Area H - Site 32 by pumping,
and treating the groundwater and removing residual amounts of floating free
product from the groundvater. The selected remedy for Area H - Site 32 (the
launching end of a series of jet tracks which contains a drainage system for oil
and fuel runoff, dry wells (removed 1988), and leaky underground fuel storage
tanks (removed 1989)) includes the following components:
o Groundwater extraction (120 gallon/minute), pretreatment to
remove metals, solid and residual amounts of free product from
groundwater and treatment by air stripping with vapor phase
carbon adsorption to remove Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) .
-------
Effluent vater from'the air stripper is "polished" by using
a Grarulated Activated Carbon (GAC) filter to further reduce
VOCs and Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds (SVOCs).
Treated vater meeting New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection (SJDEP) effluent limitations is spray irrigated
during tenperate 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 DETERMINATIOXS
This interim 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 liaited, chemical specific cleanup levels will not be addressed
during the interim action, but vill be addressed during the final remedy for Site
32. 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, however, does
not constitute the final remedy and subsequent actions are planned to fully
address the problems posed by this site.
\~l
(Date)
Captain David Raffetto
Commanding Officer
Naval Air Engineering Center
Lakehurst, New Jersey
With the concurrence of:
'A/A
(Date)
Constantine Sidamon-Erj
Regional Administrate
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region II
-------
DECISION SUMMARY
RECORD OF DECISION
AREA H - SITE 32
KA7AL 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 Kill Vildlife 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 saall (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 vater 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 mile, whereas the density of Lakehurst Borough is 3,061 persons per
square mile.
The areas surrounding KAZC are, in general, not heavily developed. The
closest commercial 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. KAEC 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 reaaining six percent commercially developed.
In the local vicinity of the NAEC, water is generally supplied to the
populace by municipal supply veils. Some private wells exist but these are used
primarily for irrigation and not as a source of drinking water. In Lakehurst
Borough there is a well field consisting of seven 50-foot deep wells, located
approximately tvo-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 saall population (probably less than 1,000) in the
immediate vicinity of the veil.
Site 32 consists of the launching end of five test tracks and ancillary
facilities. The tracks are used to launch sled-mounted aircraft or jet engines
that simulate aircraft landings on aircraft carriers. The sleds are arrested
at the other end of the tracks to test arresting cables and nets. The tracks,
which resemble railroad tracks, are about one to one and one-half miles long.
Ancillary facilities consist of several buildings used for storage and
maintenance of equipment and supplies. A plan for Area H - Site 32 is provided
in Figures 2 and 2A.
SITE HISTORY
The history of the site dates back to 1916, when the Eddystone Chemical
Company leased froa the Manchester Land Development Company property to develop
an experimental firing range for the testing of chemical artillery shells.
Testing was 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 bv 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. Caup Kendrick was turned over to the Navy and formally
commissioned Naval Air Station (HAS), Lakehurst, New Jersey on June 28, 1921.
NAEC was moved froa the Saval Base, Philadelphia to Lakehurst in December 1974.
At that time, KAEC becaae the host activity, thus, the new name NAEC Lakehurst.
-------
Currently, NAZC's aission 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 lancing aid systems, ground support equipment for
aircraft and for airborne veapons 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. XAEC 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: tvo 5,COO foot long runways, a 12,000 foot long catapult
and arrest runway, one nile 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 (NACIP) program to
"identify, assess and control environaental contamination from past methods of
storage, handling, and disposal of hazardous substances at naval shore
facilities".
As part of the XACIP 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 auaan health or the environment due to contamination from
past hazardous uaterials operations*.
Based on information frca 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 Rsoedial Investigation (RI) (Confirmation Study) was
recommended "to confira 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 froa the RI because they had already been remediated.
-------
NAEC was designated in 1987 as a National Priorities List (NPL) site under
CERCLA.
Environmental Investigations/^Feasibility Studv:
NAEC's Remedial Investigation (RI) was conducted in two phases.
•jlementation of the verification phase (Phase I of the RI) was initiated in
ober 1984. Phase II of the RI was initiated in the sunaaer 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
m'gration 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 H - Site 32.
The following investigations and removal actions were conducted at
Area H - Site 32 from 1981 to the present:
1981-1984
November 1985-
January 1986
May-June 1988
August-
December 1988
Six groundwater monitoring wells were installed
by NAEC. The wells were observed for about three
years for the presence of floating fuel product.
None was detected. Groundwater samples were not
collected for analysis.
RI - Phase I. Analyses of groundwater samples
from two monitoring wells and one non-potable
water supply well indicated contamination with
VOCs. Other media were not investigated.
Additional investigations were recommended.
Soil-gas and groundwater screening surveys
indicated the presence of floating product in the
groundwater between Test Tracks Nos. 3 and 4.
Contamination of groundwater by VOCs appeared to
extend to a distance of at least 800 feet southeast
(downgradient) of the launching end of the test
tracks. The data suggested that more than one
source of contamination may exist. On the basis
of these data, additional investigations were
recommended.
RI - Phase II. Analyses of groundwater, soil
and sediment samples revealed contamination of
all media with VOCs, SVOCs, metals, and petroleum
hydrocarbons (PHC). Five dry wells, thought to
be the main source of contamination were excavated
and removed from the site. A groundwater
contamination plume appears to extend beyond the
limits of the investigation.
-------
January 1990 RI • Phase III. A pump test was conducted on two
aonitoring wells (GG and GX) to evaluate hydrologic
properties of the aquifer. Floating product was
detected in monitoring well GX during the pump
test. Soil samples were collected from a test pit
excavated at the site for soil flushing,
biological, and stabilization bench-scale
treatability studies. Three additional soil
samples were collected from soil borings to further
characterize the nature of soil contamination and
assess the feasibility of a soil vapor venting
remedial system.
February 1990 KAEC implemented a program to monitor the amount
of floating product in well GX.
The Navy determined in the spring of 1990, that it had sufficient data to
perform 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 H - Site 32
were distributed to the USEPA, Region II and NJDEP, Bureau of Federal Case
Management for their review (on September 7, 1990). The Proposed Interim
Remedial Action Plan (PIRAP) vas 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 H - site 32 Proposed Interim Remedial Action Plan 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 Courttv Observer, and The Advanced News. The comment
period was held from Septeaber 17 to October 18, 1990. The newspaper
notification also identified the Ocean County Library as the location of the
Information Repository.
A public aeeting vas held on October 2, 1990. At this meeting,
representatives from the Navy, USEPA and NJDEP were available to answer questions
about Area H - Site 32 and the interim remedial alternatives under consideration.
A list of attendees is attached (see Appendix B).
A response to the coainents received during this period is included in the
Responsiveness Primary vhich is part of this Record of Decision. This decision
document presents the selected remedial action for Area H - Site 32 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 H - Site 32 is
based on the administrative record.
-------
STOPE AND ROLE OF RESPONSE ACTION
The remedial objectives consist of medium-specific or operable unit-
specific goals for protecting huoan health and the environment. The remedial
action objectives of this response action are removing residual amounts of free
product, restricting contaminant plus* aigration, and collecting data on aquifer
and contaminant response to the interia remedial response chosen.
The interim remedy is zot 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 H on the KA£C 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 existed
at Area H - Site 32 (See Figure 2A):
1. A drainage system located at the end of each of the five test tracks
was designed to receive oil and fuel runoff. Each system consisted of a catch
basin at the end of the track connected to a dry well located adjacent to the
track. The dry wells, which vere constructed of terracotta and/or concrete, were
about 5 to 6 feet in diameter and 12 to 15 feet deep. As part of standard
operating procedures, fuel drained from the jet engines would enter the catch
basin and drain into the dry veil. It was intended that the fuel would then be
pumped out for reuse or disposal. However, for some period between 1959 and
1979, the fuel was not pumped. Access ports to the dry wells were discovered
in 1979. Subsequently, the dry veils were pumped out by a contractor
periodically until about 1983 or 1986, when they were taken out of service and
the drains were plugged. The dry veils were excavated and removed in October
1988. During the 22-year period that the dry wells were not pumped, oily waste
may have run off into swales between tracks that lead to a swale north of the
launching area. The swale does not discharge to any of the streams that traverse
NAEC. The quantity of fuel released is not known. Currently, the fuel drained
from the jet engines is collected on a jet sled and stored in a contained area.
The fuel which is collected is then sent to a permitted hazardous waste disposal
facility.
2. A 1,500 gallon underground fuel storage steel tank is located near
Building 408, at the south launch end of test track No. 1. The tank, which
initially was used to store J?-4 and later JP-5 (JP-4 and 5 are different types
of jet fuel), was installed in 1958, was taken out of service around 1985, and
removed in April 1989. The rank was connected to a pump housed in an adjacent
shed (Building 518).
3. A 15,000 gallon underground JP-5 fuel storage tank and a 400 gallon
underground alcohol storage tank vere located adjacent to Building 393. The
tanks were connected to puips housed in an adjacent shed (Building 406). The
-------
tanks, which served as the central Recovery Systems Track Sites (RSTS) fuel
storage for jet sled operations, were installed in 1958, taken out of service
in 1986, and excavated a-ng reaoved in April 1989. The condition of the tanks
was poor when removed and the surrounding soil had a strong odor of fuel.
4. A 5,400 gallon above grade JP-5 fuel storage tanker was located
adjacent to Building 393. This ranker was placed there around 1986 to replace
a nearby 15,000 gallon underground tank which was taken out of service at that
time (see itea 3 above). The 5,400 gallon tanker was later replaced by a 2,000
gallon tanker. Building 393 is the pump house associated with the tank. It was
reported that on May 12, 1989, approximately 1,200 gallons of JP-5 were spilled
as a result of a ruptured hose in the pump house. Contaminated soil was
excavated fron a drainage swale by NAEC personnel, placed in sixty-five 55 gallon
drums, and disposed of at an approved off-site facility. There was no direct
migration of fuel to a surface vater body.
5. Potential spills in the area of Buildings 388 and 397. Prior to 1980,
this area vas used as a storage area for drums containing fuel, solvents and
oils. Building 388 and the surrounding area were also used for maintenance on
jet sleds and other equipaent.
6. Numerous documented and undocumented spills resulted from operations
at the site. The aateriais spilled are believed to be primarily jet fuels.
As illustrated above the primary sources of contamination are past releases
of jet fuel from overflowing dry wells, underground tanks, leaky valves and
pipes, unidentified spills, as veil as generally poor housekeeping practices.
The dry well and underground tanks have been removed. Actions have been taken
by NAEC to minimize or eliminate leakage from valves and pipe and to improve
employee waste management practices.
Site 32 is located approximately 4,000 feet from the nearest NAEC boundary.
The water table is relatively shallow with depths to groundwater in the range
of 8 to 12 feet below the land surface. Groundwater flow in the area of this
site is in a generally southeast direction (See Figure 2). Manapaqua Brook is
located approximately 1,200 feet southeast (downgradient with respect to the
water table aquifer) of the site. One base water supply well (SW-18) is located
at the site. This veil is not used as a source of potable water. Drainage
swales are located between each of the test tracks and generally drain to the
east, where they are connected to a culvert that drains to the north. The swales
are not connected to a streaa.
During the Phase II Investigation, groundwater samples were collected from
12 monitoring wells and one non-potable water supply well (SW-18) at Site 32.
Analytical results for these samples indicated that the groundwater is
contaminated priaarily with Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) and Semi-Volatile
Organic Coapounds (SVOCs) vhich are typical components of jet fuel. Where
detected, VOC concentrations ranged from about 43 to 6,804 ug/1 (moderate to
high). Concentrations of SVOCs ranged from about 20 to 15,350 ug/1 (minimal to
high).
-------
The highest concentrations of VOC and SVOC contaminants were detected in
wells BN and GX. Veil GX is located between Test Tracks 3 and 4, near one of
the five dry veils that was excavated and removed in 1988. The contamination
in this well, as veil as other wells near the launching end of the test tracks,
is attributable to the same sources that resulted in the soil and sediment
contamination in this area. These sources include: a) fuel spills on or near
the tracks; b) overflow of and leakage from former dry wells; and c) the former
fuel tank near Building 518. It should be noted that floating product was
detected in a groundvater sample collected in the summer of 1988 during the soil-
gas and groundvater screening surveys. The sample was collected at the present
location of well GX. The source of the high levels of contamination detected
in well BS may be the result of a "slug" of fuel that is migrating in a
downgradient direction away from the test tracks. It may also be the result of
releases froa maintenance operations near Buildings 388 and 397 or spills from
the former underground or presently existing above-ground tank and pump house
near Building 393. It has been determined that the source of fuel found in well
GX is not from maintenance operations in Buildings 388 or 397 or from existing
above grade tanks. It may be the result of possible spills from former
underground storage tanks.
The available data indicate that the groundwater contamination plume is
migrating in a southeasterly direction and has reached a dirt roadway located
approximately 600 feet southeast (downgradient) of the test tracks. However,
the downgradient limits of the plume cannot be defined based on the available
data. The vertical extent of the groundwater plume has not been established but
will be before the final remedial action is implemented.
Soil is locally contaminated with VOCs and SVOCs, petroleum hydrocarbons,
and to a lesser extent, metals and pesticides. The soil contamination appears
to occur primarily in the swales between the launching ends of the test tracks.
The degree of contamination varies, apparently as a result of the volume of
contamination released, the release method (surficial, underground), drainage
features, time of release (old or recent) and possible cleanup activities that
may have been undertaken at the time of releases. Contaminant concentrations
were generally highest in post-removal samples taken from dry well excavations,
indicating that the dry wells were apparently a significant, local contaminant
source. Additional sources may exist in the area south of Buildings 388 and
397 and at the former locations of two underground fuel storage tanks near
Buildings 518 and 393.
STMMARY OF SITE RISKS
A baseline risk assessment was not conducted for Area H - Site 32 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 H towards the Manapaqua
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
10
-------
the population using Pine T•»>" for recreational activities.
The contaainants of concern in the groundwater are:
Volatile Organic Compo'jr.ds Metals
Benzene Chromium
Ethylbenzene Lead
Xylenes Mercury
2-Butanone
2-Hexanone
Toluene
Styrene
2-Methyl-2-pentone
Semi-Volatile Organic Connounds
2 -Methylnaphthalene
Naphthalene
Miscellaneous
Petroleum Hydrocarbons
Contaminants of Concern in the soil are:
Volatile Organic Conrpounds
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
Xylenes
Semi-Volatile Organic Conrpounds
2-Methylnaphthalene
Naphthalene
4 - Chloraniliiae
Isophorone
Metals
Cadmium
Copper
Lead
Miscellaneous
Petroleum Hydrocarbons
See Table 1 for summary of analytical data for Area H - Site 32.
11
-------
Figures 23 and 2C show the known-extent of the SVOC plure in Area H - Site
32. Fig-ares 2D and 21 shcv the kr.cvr. extent of the VOC plure in Area H.
DESCRIPTION IF ALTERNATIVES
Tvc remedial alternatives (and the nr.o action alternative") were developed
for analysis ir. the Area K - Site 22, FFS. Each of these alternatives is
described ir. detail below:
ALTERNATIVE 1: SO ACT1OS
Estimated Construction lest: S 0
Estimated Set Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Cost: $ 100,000/yr
Estimated I-plerentaticr. Tire Frare: S/A
This alternative involved no additional actions at Area K - Site 32 other
than groundvater monitoring cf the aquifer. So contaminants vould be treated
or contained and the existing health and environmental risks vould remain.
Under tris alternative, r.o further action to control the source would be
taken. Lonz-tem monitoring of the site can be implemented by using previously
installed r-cr-irorir.g veils.
ALTERSATIVF 2: GROUSTVATIR FTXFING. RZMOVAL OF FREE PRODUCT, TREATMENT,
RECHARGE AST) IN SITV SOIL FLUSHING
Estirated Constructior. Cost: S 550,COO
Estimated Net O&M Cost: $ 10C,CCO/yr
Estimated Implementation Tire Frare: 9 months
Tiae Fraae for Cperaticn cf System: 3 years
This alternative involves grouncvater pumping (from tvo recovery wells GX
and GG) , treatment, ar.d discharge to the aquifer. The groundwater pumped from
the recovery wells will enter s. tank which will serve as a flow equalizer. The
effluent will be treated and dischargee to the aquifer at one irrigation location
as seen in Figure 2. The contaminated grour.dvater recovered from the wells will
be treated at the site (see Fig-are f for flow plan of this alternative) .
To treat the Volatile Zrganic Compounds (VOCs) in the extracted
groundwater. a facility consisting of a pretreatment unit for metals, free
product and solids re-oval, air stripping columns (99% VOC removal), an activated
carbon acLsrrter for air stripter effluent and a granular activated carbon
polishing filter for residual VCC and Seri-Volatile Organic Compound (SVOC)
removal (9r.?% removal of VCCs] frcr treated groundwater will be constructed at
Area H - Site 22 (see Fig-ares ^ and 5). The extracted free product will be sent
to a permitted disposal facility. The effluent exiting the air stripper will
be treated by a granular activated carbon air filter before being discharged to
the atrosthere. The treated grcuncvater, vhich will -eet NJDEP effluent
discharge limitations will be recharged to the aquifer at one
irrigation infiltration location as seen in Figure 4. Treated groundwater will
be spray irrigated ever soil in Area H during temperate months and will be
U
-------
infiltrated in soil 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 pumped at 80 gallons per minute (gpm) from well GX
and 40 gpm from well GG and infiltrated at one location at 120 gpm. The water
pumped from these wells is being treated and infiltrated/irrigated into/onto the
ground surface. Irrigation is accomplished by spraying 120 gpm of treated water
over contaminated in Area H. Infiltration is accomplished by using four inch
perforated PVC piping. Three sections of 50 feet perforated PVC pipe connected
in parallel will be used to recharge 120 gpm of treated water into the aquifer
during winter months.
ALTERNATIVE 3: GROUNDWATER PUMPING, TREATMENT, AND DISCHARGE TO SURFACE WATER
Estimated Construction Cost: $ 550,000
Estimated Net O&M Cost: $ 100,000/yr
Estimated Implementation Time Frame: 9 months
Time Frame for Operation of System: 3 years
This alternative would be similar to Alternative 2, except treated ground
water would be discharged via piping to the Manapaqua Brook. No soil flushing
action would take place. Free product would be sent to an off-site permitted
disposal facility (Figure 6).
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 ammended 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.
Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence evaluates the ability of an
alternative to provide long-term protection of human health and the
environment and the magnitude of residual risk posed by untreated wastes
or treatment residuals.
13
-------
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.
Implementabilitv 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, 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 groundwater from Area H.
Alternative 1, which offers no soil or groundwater treatment is the least
protective alternative.
Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence - Alternatives 2 and 3 are interim actions
and intended to be short-terra 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 be
effective.
Reduction of Toxicitv. Mobility or Voluae - Alternative 2 and 3 reduces the
mobility and toxicity of groundwater by the reduction of volatile and semi-
volatile compounds in the contaminated groundwater by air stripping and carbon
treatment. The regeneration of carbon in Alternative 2 and 3 will provide for
the destruction of the organics. Alternative 1 offers no treatment of the
14
-------
contaminated media.
Short-Tera Effectiveness - Interim remedial action Alternatives 2 and 3 in the
short-tera will halt the spread of contaminated groundwater and residual amounts
of floating product from entering ecologically sensitive areas in Area H. It
vill also stop the migration of the contaminant plume and residual amounts of
floating product frca entering the Manapaqua Brook which feeds Pine Lake, a major
recreational body of vater in the county. This interim action will in the short-
term prevent degradation of the aquifer and Unit 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 Manapaqua Brook,
no soil flushing action takes place. Alternative 1 provides no treatment of soil
or groundwater and is not considered to be effective in the short-term because
risks are not reduced.
Iirpleaier.tabilitv - Alternative 1 offers the greatest implementability followed
by Alternatives 2 and 3 which involve conventional technologies with proven
reliability.
Cost - Alternative 1, the no action alternative has the lowest associated cost.
Alternatives 2 and 3 have a cost of $550,000 and $100,000 for O&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 Manapaqua Brook.
Compliance vlth 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 Vater Acts. State and Federal action-specific ARARs pertaining to discharge
of treated vater 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 waste is found to be hazardous.
State Acce-atar.ce - The preferred alternative (Alternative 2) is acceptable to
the NJDEP. (See SJDEP letter of concurrence, Appendix D.)
Corn-unity Acceptance - Coomunity acceptance of the preferred alternative
will be evaluated on the basis of public comments and is described in the
Responsive Summary of this Record of Decision. The alternative appears to be
acceptable to the public.
15
-------
SELECTED INTERIM REMEDY
The following section describes in detail the interim remedial action plan
which the Naval Air Engineering Center, in concurrence with the USEPA and NJDEP,
has selected to implement at Area H - Site 32 (See USEPA and NJDEP Letters of
Concurrence, Appendices C and D). This selection is identical to that presented
in the Proposed Remedial Action Plan. Because of the design's interim nature,
changes could be implemented during the final design and construction processes.
Such changes reflect modifications resulting from the engineering design process
and will not substantially change the intent of the selected alternative
described herein.
The selected interia remedial action is Alternative 2 • Groundvater
Pumping, Removal of Free Product, Treatment, Recharge and In Situ Soil Flushing.
This alternative vill address groundwater treatment and product extraction
simultaneously. The Alternative is cost effective and implements proven
technologies.
Groundvater and residual aaounts of free product will be extracted via
two wells at a rate of 120 gpm (see Figure 3). The extracted water will be held
in a flow equalization tank and then pretreated to remove metals, free product
and solids. The extracted free product will be sent to a permitted off-site
disposal facility. NAEC vill comply with NJ Hazardous Waste Regulations. The
pretreated water will be air stripped and polished to remove VOCs (99.9%) and
SVOCs. Due to the transfer of contaminants from the aqueous phase to the
airstream, emissions control units will be required on the airstrippers. The
treatment system, including the emission control unit will be designed to meet
the substantive requirements of the New Jersey air pollution control regulations
(NJAC 7:27-16). The effluent from the air stripper will be treated by a
granulated activated carbon air filter, prior to discharge to the atmosphere.
Residual sludge from the pretreataent process vill 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.
Once treated, the groundwater, which will meet NJDEP effluent limitation
standards, will be recharged to the aquifer at two irrigation and infiltration
locations. The treated vater will be spray irrigated over areas of subsurface
soil contamination. This action will increase biological activity promoting
contaminant decomposition. The groundwater classification for the immediate
NAEC area is Central Pine Barrens GW1. The groundwater is suitable for potable
water supply, agricultural vater supply, continual replenishment of surface
waters 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 N.J.A.C. 7:9-5.6.
The remedial action in the short-term will halt the spread of contaminated
groundwater and residual aaounts of floating product from entering ecologically
sensitive areas.
16
-------
This interim remedial action will be implemented until the final remedy
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
Under Section 121 of CERCLA and Section 300.430(F5) of the NCP, selected
remedies aust aeet certain statutory and regulatory requirements. These
requirements and a description of how the selected remedy satisfies each
requirement are presented below.
Protection of Htnaan Health and the Environment
The selected alternative will protect human health and the environment
through treatment of the contaminated groundwater and in situ soil flushing.
The treated groundvater will meet NJDEP effluent limitation standards.
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
plume and residual amounts of floating product from entering the Manapaqua Brook
which feeds Pice Lake, a major recreational body of water in the county. This
interim action will in the short-term prevent degradation of the aquifer and
limit contaminant exposure risks to the population using Pine Lake.
Conrpliance vith 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 (RCRA) arid appropriate sections of the Clean Air and Water Acts. State and
Federal action specific ARARs pertaining to the discharge of treated water to
ground surfaces are 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
The 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.
Preference for Treatment as a Principal Element
The principal threats at Area H - Site 32 include groundwater and soil
contamination and the presence of residual amounts of floating free product
associated vith the presence of the plume at Area H. The selected remedy
satisfies the statutory preference for treatment as a principal element in
addressing the human health and environmental threats posed by the site.
Groundwater vill be treated by air stripping and carbon adsorption to remove VOCs
17
-------
and polished by granular activated carbon to remove SVOCs and further reduce VOC
levels. In situ soil flushing vill aerate and enhance biological activity and
contaainant decomposition. Residual amounts of floating product vill be
collected and disposed at an off-site permitted hazardous waste facility.
The interia reaedy is not a final action for groundwater or soil. The
ultimate goal of the final reaediation of this area should include
decontamination to acceptable levels of any contaminated medium, not just ground
water. The selected interim reaedy, however, should be consistent with those
obj ectives.
Documentation of Significant Changes
The Proposed Interia Remedial Action Plan (PIRAP) for Site 32 was released
for public comment on Septeaber 14, 1990. The PIRAP identified Alternative 2 as
the preferred alternative. KAZC did not receive any written comments; all verbal
comments were responded to at the public hearing on October 2, 1990. Upon review
of the comaents, it vas deterained that no significant changes to the interim
remedy, as it was originally identified in the PIRAP, were necessary.
18
-------
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
AREA H - SITE 32
NAVAL AIR ENGINEERING CENTER
The purpose of this responsiveness summary is to review public response
to the Proposed Interim Renedial Action Plan (PIRAP) for Area H - Site 32. It
also documents Naval Air Engineering Center's (NAEC's) consideration of such
comments during the decision making process and provide answers to any major
comments raised during the public meeting and comment period.
The responsiveness summary for Area H - Site 32 is divided into the
following sections:
o OVERVIEW - This section briefly describes the Focused Feasibility Study
(FFS) process used to develop and evaluate interim remedial responses
for Area H - Site 32, 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 ST.TMMARY OF MAJOR QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS - This section summarizes
verbal and written comments received during the public meeting and
public comment period.
o REMEDLAL DESIGN/REMEDIAL ACTION CONCERNS - This section describes
public concerns which are directly related to design and
implementation of the selected remedial alternative.
OVERVTFJ
Area H - Site 32 is located at NAEC in Ocean County, Lakehurst, NJ. Area
H - Site 32 is under investigation for potential environmental contamination.
This responsiveness summary addresses remediation and public response to the
PIRAP for Area H - Site 32 only.
A summary of the site background, the alternatives evaluated, and a
comparison of alternatives are presented in the Area H - Site 32 PIRAP and as
more fully described in the FFS report. Both documents, as well as other
supporting information, are available for public review at 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 remedial planning activities conducted at Area H - Site
32. Throughout the investigation and FFS period, the USEPA and NJDEP have been
directly involved through proposal and project review and comments. Periodic
meetings have been held to maintain open lines of communication and to keep all
parties abreast of current activities.
19
-------
Prior to the public release of site-specific Area H 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 on Appendix A.
On September 14, 1990, KiZC mailed Area H - Site 32 PIRAPs to concerned
parties on the list described above. On September 17 through 19 a public notice
appeared in The Asbury 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 vas held on October 2, 1990, at 7:30 p.m. at the Lakehurst
Elementary School in Lakehurst, 5ev Jersey. The Area H - Site 32 investigations,
feasibility study process and the proposed interim remedial alternative were
discussed. NAIC representatives included: Captain David J. Raffetto, the
Commanding Officer of KAEC; Cconander Thomas Breltzke, 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 Welkom represented NJDEP's Division
of the Water Resources. See Appendix B for attendance list.
SUMMARY OF MAJOR QUESTIONS A5D COMMENTS
During the public conment period September 17 through October 18, 1990 no
written public comments were received. The questions raised at the public
meeting on October 2 and KAEC's response to these comments are summarized below.
PUBLIC MEETING COMMENTS
Question: Mr. Cicalese, Courcilperson Manchester Township, questioned the
Superfund Cleanup schedule. Is KAEC going to begin cleanup in January 1993?
NAEC Conment: Ve are going to start the actual cleanup of four sites in about
five months.
Clarification: Mr. Cicalese, vbose question referred to the Federal Facilities
Agreement, which was agreed upon by the EPA and Navy, assumed that January 1993
was start of the cleanup of sites at NAEC. NAEC will start site cleanup prior
to 1993; however the final Records of Decision (RODs) for each site are due to
the EPA in January 1993.
Question: Mr. Cicalese, Councilperson Manchester Township, questioned why a
contractor and lots of paperwork were necessary once the problem was known and
where the problem was?
NAEC Comment: The naval base has 44 individual sites. Each site is at a
different stage in its reaediation plan. Our plan calls for having a final
decision for each site by January 1993. If there are no significant objections
20
-------
to the interim remedial action at Area H, we then can go forward to the EPA and
the DEP and ask for approval to do it.
Clarificatiori: Mr. 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 Remedial Action Plans and
Records of Decision prior to site cleanup. Documentation and public involvement
are crucial parts of the process. Contractors are used because of their
expertise in the field of hazardous waste cleanups.
Question: A concerned citizen: How long do you expect before you are done with
the cleanup of all 44 sites?
NAEC Comment: 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: Ms. Dicenso, a concerned citizen, questioned if there was any
contamination to the cranberry bogs?
NAEC Comment: No, there are three to four hundred monitoring wells, both
shallow and deep which are being monitored on various schedules along the entire
site or Center to track the plume.
Clarification: NAEC 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 were monitored during the Phase I and II
remedial investigation. These wells are not monitored routinely.
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 Comment: 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. We want to restrict the discussion to the three sites.
Question: Ms. Dicenso, a concerned citizen: What are VOCs, PHCs, and metals? Are
they related to the ga'soline in groundwater?
NJDEP Conment: 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: Mr. Klee, Borough of Lakehurst: How would the Public be afforded
access to this site?
NAEC Coinnient: The site like any activity on the Center is not generally open
to the public. Certain responsible groups will be given an opportunity through
our Public Affairs Office to tour the operation at our facility.
21
-------
REMEDIAL DESIGN/REMEDIAL ACTION CONCERNS
The public concerns which were directly related to design and
implementation of the interim remedial alternative are summarized below.
Question: Ms. Hodges, concerned citizen: Who's requirement is it that the water
(after remediation) be of drinking water quality? Is that an agency requirement?
Which one?
NJDEP Comment: It is a complicated issue because this is an interim remedial
measure under Superfund. When you do this interim measure, it is not necessarily
going to be the final thing that's done with the site. It is when you realize
you have a real problem, rather than study it for more years, you go out there
and you do something right away. For an interim action such as this you don't
necessarily have to meet the final cleanup standards which will be determined
by the EPA and DEP jointly, when a final action is determined for the site.
Question: Mr. Cicalese, Councilperson Manchester Township: How many gallons of
water will be processed once the treatment facility in Area H is operational?
NAEC Conment: 120 gallons per minute.
Question: Ms. Lettnan, Environmental Commission Manchester Township: Do you know
how long you will punp and treat at Area C?
N'AEC Comirent: Three years. We will analyze the groundwater coning into our
monitoring wells to determine the contaminant levels, this is how we will
determine what our final cleanup action will be.
Clarification: NAEC is estimating pumping and treating groundwater for 3 years.
A final ROD for the site will determine the final remedial action for cleanup
of the site. This interim action could become the final action for groundwater
cleanup. This will be determined by groundwater monitoring of the site after
treatment begins.
Question: Mr. Cicalese, Councilman Manchester Township: The rationale as to why
this interim action is being implemented is to stop the migration of the
contaminant plume and residual floating product - has this plume been defined?
Do you know where this plume is?
NJDEP/NAEC Comment: One of the problems of giving an estimate like this is that
the contaminants in groundwater do not move as fast as the groundwater because
they are retarded by soils. We have done sampling of sediments in the brook and
surface water and there is really no significant amounts at the area where the
plume should be coaing out of. Currently, there doesn't appear to be any
significant discharges to the stream, but this is certainly a site where we have
floating products. Ve deal with drinking water standards that are set on parts
per billion basis, so when you have floating product, the potential exists for
continuing release of these contaminants. Because of the floating product and
because of the fact we know we had these contaminants already dissolved in the
groundwater near the boundary of NAEC that may in the future be discharged from
the Center, The Navy has initiated an interim remedial action.
Question: Ms. Dicenso, concerned citizen: How do you cleanup lead (in ground
water)?
22
-------
NJDEP Cor-ner.r; A pretreatment sysz=^j is used. For the entire treatment system
Co operate optimally you have cc resovs ts much of the metals and other
psrticuistss as you car.. The pretrearnier.:. removes mcny of rhe inorganics.
Question: Ms. Dicer.sc, & ccncerr.se cicizer.: U*hat would happen to the lead?
NJDS? Coanent: The lead in the Erour.dvater is rerrcved by the pretreamsnt
sysce^. Basically, a cheaical can be added which bir.cs the Eetals ar.d allovs
thea to setwie out. This slucze car. thec be removed periodically and disposed
of properly.
Question: Ms. Diccr.so, concerr.ed citizen: Vr.st is done with the sludge c^terials
after it is removed?
KJDE? _ Cos.Tcnt: It vill be disposed of according to the regulations for hazardous
waste.
(Xzesticn: Jtr. Klee, Borough of Lslcehurst: Vho will be testing ar.d inspecting to
cake sure everythiiig if fur.cticiu.r.g properly on the pretreatment plan ?
KAEC Cormer.t: The contractor is required to construct the facility, prove it out
and then give us split samples so ve can take them to our lab to confirm the
results.
EPA Consent: EPA will also take splir samples to insure that discharge
limitations are Bet. ;
Question: Mr. Kiee, Borough of Lakehurst: Does the contractor provide testing?
r
-------
T.-3LE 1
IISTCRICAL SIHIABT OF
AJUU.TTICM. DATA - SITE 32
Pre-'rSS
No data collected
Phase I *ened;tS
Volatile CTsar.-e CJPPXTCS (vs
»0 - :.51
Xyle-ea:
Phase II Remedial Investigation
CroondHBter
VoUtile Orggnle Conpoinds (uq/l)
Benzene: NO -150
Ethylbemene: MO - 1,200
Xylenn: NO - 6,300
2-Butvxme: NO - 1,000
2-Hexsnone: NO - 120
Toluene: ND - 600
Styrene: NO - 57
2-Hethyl-2-pentBnone: NO - 180
Semi-Volatile Organic Cenpoinds (ug/l)
2-Hethylnaphthalene: NO - 2,249
Naphthalene: NO - 73
6 Additional Conpoinds - Each <2.0
Metals (ug/l)
Chroraiun: NO - 472
Lead: ND - 144
Mercury: MO - 6.0
Miscellaneous
Petroleun Hydrocarbons: NO - 3,788 tng/l
No data
Soil
VolatUe Organic Conpouxls (ug/kg)
Toluene: ND - 380
Ethylbenzer*: HO • 800
Xylenes: NO - 2,400
Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds (ug/kg)
2-Methylrwphthalene: NO -
Naphthalene: NO - 1,761
4-ChloraniUne: ND - 356
Isophorone: NO - 246
6 Additional conpounds
Metals (mgykg)
Cachiiun: NO - 81
Copper: ND - 515
Lead: ND - 357
Miscellaneous
Petroleun Hydrocarbons:
4,783
ND • 4,031 uq/8
-------
v-E 3.2-
Sediner.t
No data collected
Sediment
Volatile Organic Corpcu-ds (us/kg)
Toluene: HO - 5
Sen! -Volatile Organic Carootncfa (ug/kq)
11 Polycycllc Arcmetic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) -
Maxirrui concentrations for each ranging fren
60-880 ug/kg
Pesticides (ug/kg)
4,4' - 000: MO - 12,000
*,*' - DOE: » - 310
1,1' • DDT: MD - 2700
Metala (mg/ka)
Cedmiun: KO - 9.9
Chrcmlui: W) - 130
Copper: W - 3*0
Zinc: (C - 385
Miscellaneous
Petroleu* Hydrocarbons: HD - 221
Surface Water
No contamination detected
Surface Water
No contamination detected
-------
TABLE 2
LIST OF ARARS
Only Action-specific ARA2.S vhich include surface water, groundwater, and
air discharge limitations as veil as hazardous waste handling requirements,
etland and floodplain requirements will be identified and complied with during
.he interim remedial design. Contaminant specific cleanup levels will be
addressed in the final remedy.
The interim remediation activities at Area H (Site 32) will primarily
address ground vater 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
-cnitoring/ccrrective action requirements; dictate adherence to MCLs and
establishes points of compliance.
RCRA - Part 263 (40 CFR 263.1C-.21) and Hazardous Materials Transportation Act
(^9 CFR 170, 171): Transporter Requirements. ARARs for alternatives involving
shipment of hazardous materials or wastes.
RCSA - Part 258 (40 CFR 268): Lsnd Disposal Restrictions. Potentially pertains
to spent carbon filters and sludge from pretreatment process. Wastes will be
tested to determine if they are hazardous waste under RCRA.
Clean Air Act (40 CFR 50): ARARs for alternatives which involve treatments which
impact ambient air.
Additional air pollution control regulations: Permits and Certificates
(U.J.A.C. 7:27:8) and Control and Prohibition of Air Pollution by Toxic
Substances (S.J.A.C. 7:27-17).
Clean Vater Act (40 CFR 401): SPDES Permit Requirements. Requirements for point
source discharge to surface waters. Potential ARARs which will affect the
inplementability of remedial action involving effluent discharge to the Manapaqua
3rook.
Clean Vater Acr (40 CFR 404): Prohibits actions that impact a wetland unless
no other alternatives are available.
24
-------
Prelininarv Identification of Potential State Action-Specific ARARs are as
follovs:
N.J. Hazardous Waste Regulations 'NJAC 7:26 et seq.) : Permitting, Contingency
Plans, Specification for Treatment/Disposal Units. Potential ARARs for
alterr.atives vhich involve the treatment, storage or disposal of hazardous
wastes.
N.J. Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NJAC 7:14A-1 et seq.): Pemit
Requirements and ARARs for alternatives involving effluent discharge to ground
surfaces and groundwater.
N.J. Ground Water Quality Standards (N'.J.A.C 7:9-5.1 et sea.) : ARARs for ground
water quality cleanup criteria and effluent limitations.
N.J. Surface Water Regulations (SJAC 7:9-5.1 et seq.) : ARARs for alterr.atives
involving treatment which discharge toxic pollutants to area water bodies.
N.J. 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. 58:1A-1 et seq.) : Permit requirements for
grouncvater diversion during recovery operations.
Endangered Species Act (16 USC 1521): Consultation will be undertaken vith the
Fish and Wildlife Service to determine if the remedial action will adversely
affect endangered species in the area.
25
-------
....X 08533
•-- -
AKEIIIIKST BORO^;.... PINE^LAKE^PARK
'""08733 ^~"~
] REFERENCE: HANGSTROM MAP
• OF OCEAN CO., N.J.
VICINITY MAP
NAVAL AIR ENGINEERING CENTER
LAKEHURST, NEW JERSEY
_L
APPROXIMATL 'JCAI.E IN MILES
-------
UCNtTCRINC WELL (wit* grourdwiier devcUc.1 in
feet cbove mecn aca level based on rneasursfn
racorced on Mcrch 22. IS8S).(O)-D«»p.
SJPPLY (NON-POTABLE). YiS± .~
GSOUNDWATE? aTVADCN CCNTDUR IM FTTT
ABOVE MEAN SEA LEVEL BAEiD CM
UEASL'REMEMTS RECORDED CN MARCH 22. 1SH3
ESTIMATED CROUNDWATtH ROW DIR-CT1CN
0 100 200 3CO 400 500 FEET
TOAPKIC SCALE
AREA H
GROUNDWATER ELEVATION. AND..FLOW .DIRECTIONS
«-^REMti)lAL INVESllCAiiON - -PHA^L-iT
- NAVAL AIR ENGINEERING CENTER
LAKEHURST NFW JERSEY
Dames & Moore
ow
-------
S3I-1
~ 0
• MCN1TCRING WELL LOCATION (C=SeM)
• S^rPLY (NON-POTABLE) WELL LOCATION
w FC^MER DRY WELL LOCATION
A SC'L OR SEDIMENT SAMPLING LCCA~CN
100 150 FEET
(0
SITE No.32, AREA H
R.S.T.S. LAUNCHING END
REMEDIAL INVESllGATION - PHASE 11
NAVAL AIR ENGINEERING CENTER
LAKEHURST. NEW JERSEY
Dames & Moore
NEW
SCALE
DATE
AS NOTED
E-5-90
OWN. BY
APPR. BY
R.G.B.
C.I.T.
X9 NO.
7980-013
o. NO. 2. A
-------
\1
; »r i •*
MONITORING WE'.', SHCWNC CONClN 7=1 TtCr* >"
TOTAL SEW-VC'.ATU.- ORGANIC COUFI'jNCE >•?."
r«--« • SUPPLY
10-
N- = 3T*=L£) WELL
CONTOUR CF CONCENTRATION CF TOTi.. SEW -VO.-riLE
ORGANIC CCUFC'JNOS IN SHALLOW G«:UNC»iT£ = i-q/1)
.v» NO SEUl-vCLAT.LE ORGANIC CCMPCUNJS DE'iCTT: 3«
PRESENCE ATTS.3LiTA=LE TO LASORA—R1- *-.3/O=.
HELD CONTAMINATION OF THE SAMFLl
» PRESENCE OF CONTAMINANTS IS ATTT?iUTA=.£ "C-
(c) LASOSIA twr AND/OR FIELD CC-i TAj/r. 1T1C« :F THE
SAwPLE (i e. methytene cnlorics Ccs:;-«. D~'_ic:o;es
or (b) NATJSAL CAUSES (i.e. csrson cuife;
"QTr;
I.?CS LABORATORY D^LUriONS. REPLICATES. INC rELC
HE=LICATE SAMPLES. AN AVERAGE VALUE 3 P=.C/!OF_;
2 f OS ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. REFER TO "'=•_££
C3 AND B4.
0 100 200 300 40C 5CC -~£-
CPAPHIC SCALE
AREA h
CCNCENTRAT.CN CF TOTAL ScMI-\:iA7.:.::
COMPOUNDS IN CRCUNDWATER. FIRS
1 ri_~" , «M". . »(•.; . . •.., -^ "w^. -X z »< '^i.. :••
''"-REMEDIAL iiNVESTIGAtlCN - FrASE II
NAVAL AIR ENGINEERING C£V.TE=-
NEW Jg-Sr-'
"ROUND
Dames & Moore
;AS NOTED i""" " R.G.B.
" C I.T.
-------
•I'l
\ A
-. V j •"
WrT
K.
IJ»*
UONI70R:NC W£LL S«-O»'NG CSNCEr.TnATION Or
TOTAL S;MI-VCL»7ILE C^GAS.C CCuPOUNOS (1.9/1)
SUPPLY (NON-PCiA^Ll) »T'_1
CONTOUR 0? CCNCENTCATION OF TOTAL SEMI-VOLAILE
ORGANIC COUPOUNOS IK SHALLOW CSOUNOWA:-;S (1.7/1)
NO SruP-VOLATlLi OSG^NIC COWPCUNDS DEUCTtD 3R
PSESTNCJ ATTRSJTAE'-i 10 1.A9OSAIORT ANC/OR
flELO CONTAMINATION V TH; SAMPLE
i FOR LAaosATosr oiLuncn;. r.£=.ic*T-5; AND FIELD
REPLICATE SAMPLES. »N AV'SAGi VAL'JE IS PP.OV13EO
2.FOR AOOiTKJNAL INFORMATICN. R£r£R TO 1ABLCS
62 AND 8«.
0 100 2C2 3CO <00 500 F££T
G3A?-!C SC
* Ar.- A H
CONCENTRATION OF TOTAL SEMI-VOLATILE ORGANIC
COMPOUNDS IN GaOUNDWA-yR. SECOND SAMP'ING 3CKJND
'"»«' REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION "^~PHASE J!
NAVAL AIR ENGINEERING CENTER
LAKEHL'RS'. NEW JERSEY
Darnes & Moore
EAS NOTED 1°
K G.5
7930-015
7-16-90 !'
-------
-V
'
\
VOMTORING WELL SHC*'NG c:NCEN~3A7iC\ or
"0"A'_ VOLATILE ORGAN. C CC'U=0'J'.:s (us/I)
we SO VC.AT1LE ORGANIC CO«"JNrS D£T£C"£0 US
r3£5lNC£ ATTRI3U1A5.1 TO .ABO^ATCWr AND/OR
?:iLD CONTAMINATION C' Tri SAU.F.C
* =SES-NCt Or CONTAW.SANTS 'S i~SIBUTA3LE TO
(c) LABORATORY AN;'C^ T£LO CCNTAUINATION Of THE
SAMPLE (ie. ms:-iy*ene chior cs. crv.one. phthctctes;.
c- (3) NATURAL CAUSES (i.e ccirso- d^uirde)
'.."OS _A30RATORY DILUTIONS. RE^JCATES. AND FIELD
REP.rCATt SAMPLES. AN AVERAGE VA1L-: :S PROVIDED.
2 FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. RE-ER TO TABLES
83 *ND 8'.
0 100 2CO 2CO 'TO 500 FEET
CONCENTRATION OF T07A. VC-ATILt ORGANIC
CCrxPC-NDS IN GROUNDy.-T;-.. F =.;• SJ.MPLJNG RQUNO
REMEDIAL INVES~iGA~lON - PHASE II "
NAVAL AIR EKGINEIRING CENTER
NEW .i^SiY
Darrtes £ Moore
AS NOTED Ic
7980-012
7-15-90
BY ~ . -
-------
•-'.so? .£.
•••jop
••2.300
•ic :les)
or (b) NATURAL CAUSES (i.e. carbon disulflce)
t FOR LABORATORY DILUTIONS. REPLICATES. AND FIELD
REPLICATE SAMPLES. AN AVt^ACE VALUE IS
2 FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. REFER TO TASLiS
83 AND 84
0 100 200 300 400 SCO FEET
GRAPHIC SCALg
JAREA H
CONCENTRATION OF TOTAL VOLATILE ORGANIC
COMPQUNDS IN G^OUNQWATER SECOND SAMPL'NG SOUNC
PROJECT REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION - PHASE II
NAVAL AIR ENGINEERING CENTER.
LAKEHURST. NEW JERSEY
Dames & Moore
R.G.9. I
7960-213
I0'- 7-16-90 !'
C.I.T.
-------
ICLtCTEO CAC1ilMi)u»rCH ftOU Lint',
-------
0 JOO 200 300 400 500 FEET
I • : j
-RECOVERY WELL
-TREATMENT FACILITY
-IRRIGATION/INFILTRATION
GRAPHIC SCALE
Figure A-
-------
FIGURE S
WEI
C-»»f— « » *t« « * ——•
•**» 1 I /^Ml»i/^ i C,^
WATER
'/
I FILT?.
L
AJR
?°~£;rh
-------
FIGORS if
/
1 f*'f* '13
' vi'-'C **m
j HL:-.
l/i TO
V\ ATl.fCu'.'r
M
H;0 / 71.0V/
E2UAIJIAuCM
TA;IK
/ A /
h^° I P«£i?.a7j&fr
UHfT
H20
>
AIH
5TKIPPIM-
UNrr3
KjO1
CAC
PC'JSHIHC
CCNTAWINATZD
WATER
• pF.rTnc^rME.vr: METALS. SCUDS, F*.** PKOOUC.
AIR S7PJPP1NC UNIT: VOC REMOVAL - 92H
CAC PCL!5H!.'!C HLTZH: RESDUAL VOC .ANO
CAC AIR ."L.TIH: YCC REMOVAL FROM IXHAUS7 AIR
TO
Surface Water
-------
APPENDIX A
26
-------
Appendix A
List of Contacts and Interested Parties
fcr Ihe Navy Lakehurst site
Nav&; Air Engineering Center
Captain David ,1. Fsffsto (908) 323-2380
Con sanding Officer
Naval Air Engineering Carter
Lake hurst, New Jersey OB73o-5COO
Lev/is Lundberg, Execu'dr? Ctectcr (908) 323-2250
Naval Air Engineering Certer
Lake hurst, New Jersey 0873^-5000
CommanderThomas EreFzke (908) 323-2501
Public Works Officer
Naval Air Enoineerinc Cert*"
Lake hurst, New Jersey 03733-5055
Frank Montai'sliJ, Picifc Affiirs CiTJcer (908) 323-2620
Naval Air Engineering Cerier
Lake hurst, New Jerse'y 08T33-5M1
Norther Division. Naval Facilities Engineering Command
Mr.ThornasQ. Shecfcsls (215) 897-642-4
Restoration Management Section
Northern D'nrislcn
Na.val FaciiFaeH Encin^erirx: Cortrrand
Philadelphia, PennV/K'anfe 15112-5094
-------
Mr. Lonnie Monaco
Public Affairs Cffoe
Northern Drvsion
Naval Facilities Engineering Command
Bldg. 7"_LOW
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 1 S112-5054
Federal Elected Officials
Senator William Bradley
n09Yauxh3llRoad
P.O. Box 17 20
Union, New Jersey 07033
Senator Frank R. Lautenberg
208 White Horse Pike
5uite1S-1S
Barrington, NJ 06007 -
Congressman H. James Saxton
115 High Street
Mount Holly, NJ 08060
Congressman Christopher H. Smith
655 Park Avenue
Freehold, NJ 07723
Congressman Franic Pallone, Jr.
540BreadY*ay
Room 119
Long Branch, New Jersey 07740
State Elected Officials
.Senator Leonard T. Connors, Jr.
620 West Lacey Road
Forked River, Mew Jersey 03731
(215)697-6431
(201)668-0960
(609)757-5353
(609)261-5800
(906)780-0707
(201)571-1140
(609) 693-6700
-------
Senator John F. Russo (908) 240-2200
917 North Main Street
Toms River, New Jersey 08753
Ar"9mblyman Jefferey Moran (609) 693-6700
6,. West Lacey Road
Forked River, New Jersey .08731
Assemblyman Christopher J. Connors (609) 693-6700
620 West Lacey Road
Forked River, New 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
Region II 26 Federal Plaza
.-lew York, New York 1C278
-------
Superfund Community Relations Gccr. (212) 264-2515
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region II
Office of External Programs, Rcorn 907
26 Federal Plaza
New York, New York 10278
i ._ •-
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
""Tardous 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 Pinelands Commission
15 Springfield Road
New Lisbon, New Jersey C8064
-------
Teirence Moore, Executive Drector (609) 894-9342
New Jersey Pine fends Commission
15 Springfieid F:oa-j
New Lfe.bon, New Jersey 08064
Ocean Counly Officials.?
Joseph H. Vfeari, Drector (908) 244-2121
Ocean County Board of Freeholders
CN2121
Toms River, New Jersey 08"? 54
Joseph Przywara, Coordinator (908) 341-9100
Ocean County Heath Department
EnYronrnenfe! Heath
2191 Sunset Avenue
Terns Piter, Hew Jersey 08753
A.Jerome Wain us, Chairman (908) 349-1152
Ocean County Envirformentel
11East12lh5lre«t
Barnegat Ligrd, MS-Y Jersey Q8006
Dover Township Officials
Hon. W. TTOmas Rericin . (908) 341-1000
Mayor of Dover Township
P.O. Box 12 6
33 Washington Street
Toms River, Hew Jersey 08154
tenBorden (908)341-1000
DoverToY/nshlp Envrormenlal Commission
33WashinatonSSreet.
P.O. Box 128
icms R'rver, Hew Jersey 08154
-------
Manchester Township Officials
Hon. Jane Cardo Carraran (908) 657-8121
Mayor of Manchester Township
One Colonial Drive
Lake hurst, New Jersey 08733
Wynn A.Mauer, Chairman - " (908) 657-8121
Manchester Township Municipal Utilities Authority •
One Colonial Drive
Lake hurst, Nevf Jersey 08733
William Jamieson, Jr, Chairman (908) 6 57-8121
Manchester Township Environmental Commission
One Colonial Drive
Lake hurst, New Jersey 08733
Jackson Township Officials
Hon. Arthur F. Cororay (908) 528-1200
Mayor of Jackson Township
R.D.4
P.O. Box 100
Jackson, New Jersey 08527
William A. Santos, Administrator (908) 928-1200
Township of Jackson
R.D.4
P.O. Box 100
Jackson, New Jersey 08527
William Bangs, Chaiiman (908) 928-1200
Jackson ToY/nship Environmental Commission
R.D.4
P.O. Box 100
Jackson, New Jersey 08527
-------
Borough of Lakfehurs't Officials
Hon. Nicholas Kama! ' (908) 657-4141
' {n vcr of Lakehirsi Bore i,xj h
'iron A.vsnue
Lakeiiur-i, Her? Jersey 08733
Robert J. Morris -;-- (908)657-4141
Borough of Ukehurst
5 Union i.venue
Lake hint, Hew Jersey 08733
Phmstead Township Officials
H -\. ftonald S. Dancer (609) 758-2241
Ma-'or cf Plurnstead Township
31 Main 5 Ire" et
Ne^y Eg;pt, New Jersey 08333
Community Groups/Organizations
Pirs L3;TI Adcerman 1-800-822-97 70
Asbury F?jk Press
36D1 High-ray 66
P.O. Box 15 50
Nectuns. MewJersev 0775—1550
-------
Debra Cocrnbe
Newari: Star Ledger (908) 244-7111
27 Washington Sir-set
Toms River,H5VYJ
-------
Doug Doyle (906) 259-0927
WjBM Radio
U.S. Highway 9
Bayvilte, New Jersey 08721
Gary Myervlch -:" (906)341-8818
Acle^hia Cable
830 Highway 37 West
Terns River, Mew Jersey 08753
Abi Montefiore (908) 681-8222
Klonrnouth Cable
P.O. Box 58
Be friar, New.Jersey 07719
Ed Rogers (609)530-5252
WHJN-TY
1573 Parkside Avenue
Trenton, New Jersey 06638
-------
APPENDIX B
27
-------
;LEASE SIGN IN
FU3LIC M.EETIS3 TJESDAY. OCTOBER 2, 1990
PROPOSED INTERIM =£y.EDIAL ACTION PLANS (PIRAPS)
?~R AREA C (SITE 10.16 AND 17)
Al.'D
AREA II (SITE 32)
SAVAL AIR ENGINEERING CENTER
LAXEHURST, NEW JERSEY 08733
YOUR NAME
I^^i.•Ur
ro.^
s
)
f^
o
ADDRESS
CL-Q
2o5
f o~vA . (M - VV^ VA-wy r I
Ju lond Ae u k)
~ *
f\/0 06 P
-------
FLZASE SIC?) Itl
"IZTIMG TUESDAY, OCTOBER 2, 1990
PROPOSED UrrillM R£.".EDIAL ACTION PLANS (PIRAPS)
FCK AREA C (SITE 10.16 AND 17)
AND
AREA H (SITE 32)
NAVAL AIR ENGINEERING CENTER
lAKZSiU2.S7 . i;EW JERSEY 08733
YCuR 11 AM E ADDRESS
-<^^^
J> fcrf£*£~
J . /-?.
-------
a UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION II
JACCB K_ JAVFTS FEDERAL BULDING
KEW YCP.K. HEW YORK 10278
SEP i
Mr. Richard Gillespie, Director
Environmental Division (Code 014)
Naval Facilities Engineering Command
U.S. Naval Ease, Building 77L
Philadelphia, FA 19112
Dear Mr. Gillespie:
This is to notify you that, after reviewing the llavy's
Focused Feasibility Studies and associated documents for NAEC
Lakehurst, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
supports the llavy'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 comments frcm the public, the Navy's responsiveness
summaries, and the draft Records of Decision.
The proposed interim remedial actions consist of ground
water remediation at two areas on the facility (Areas A and C) .
Specifics include:
extraction of contaminated ground water,
pre-treatr:ent system for the removal of metals, solids,
etc. fron ground water,
air stripper for removal of volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) frcn the ground water,
activated carbon absorber for air stripper effluent,
granular activated carbon polishing filter for residual
VOC and seiai-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 interim actions are meant to address the immediate
concern cf contaminant migration in ground water. V7e understand
that final actions for these areas will include remediation of
soils and sediaent as well as final actions for the cleanup of
ground water. In accordance with the Interagency Agreement
between EPA and the Navy, Proposed Plans for final actions at
Areas A and C as well as all areas of concern at NAEC Lakehurst
will be submitted to EPA no later than January, 1993.
-------
-2-
V?e are pleased to continue the cooperative working
relationship established with the Navy to address environmental
concerns at NAEC 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,
fsi
Constantine Sidamon-Eristoff
Regional Administrator
cc: C. Holstrom, NJDEP
R. Kirkbright, P.E., NAEC Lakehurst
L. Monaco, North. Div., Navy
-------
APPENDIX D
29
-------
Iff* pruccl nur earth
frlalc o£ fteto Jersey
DEPARTMENT CF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
' DVSION C<= HAZARDOUS WASTE f.'ANAGEMENT
CNC28
T:p-;cn. N.J. C8625-0028
(509) 633-1408
_:- " Fa* f (609) 633-1454
2 6 SEP 1990
Mr. Orlando Monaco
Northern Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command
Philadelphia Naval Shipyard
Philadelphia, FA l=li;-30?4
Dear Mr. Monaco:
Re: LakehursC NAZC
Proposed Interim Remedial Action Plan
for Area C and Area E
The New Jersey Depertzeat of Environmental Protection has reviewed the
Proposed Plans (??s) and concurs with the pump and treat method proposed as
an interim action. The Department's approval is conditional pending review
of the Draft Record of Decision (ROD) for these areas. If there are no
substantial changes in the KCD, NJDEP will approve the action.
If you have any questions, please contact me at (609) 633-1455.
Sincerely,
o
Christina Holstrom, Case Manager
Bureau of Federal Case Management
CH:mcs
c: Jeffrey Grstz, "SZFA
-------
TABLE 1
HISTORICAL SUmMT Of
AKALTTICAL DATA - SITE 32
Pre-19BS
No data collected
Phase I Ryneditl Investigation
CrtUTdwater
Volatile Organic Cypounds (u3/l)
Benz'rw: NO - 5.91
Ethylb-nzen«: NO - 456
Xylenes: 1,702
Phase II Renedial Investigation
Croinduater
Volatile Organic Corpoirds (ug/l)
Benzene: HO -150
Ethylbentene: MO - 1,200
Xylerws: NO - 6,300
2-Butenone: HO - 1,000
2-Hexanone: NO - 120
Toluwv;: NO - 600
Styrene: NO - 57
2-Hethyl-2-pentsoone: NO - 180
Semi-Volatile Organic CtrrcuTds (ug/l)
2-Hethylnaphthslene: NO - 2,249
Nnphthalene: VD - 73
6 Additional Corpourds - Each <2.0
Hetals (ua/l)
Chroraiun: NO - 477
Lea
------- |