United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Off ice of
Emergency and
Remedial Response
EPA/ROD/R02-91/157
Seotember 1991
<&EPA Superfund
Record of Decision:
Naval Air Engineering
Center (Operable Unit 4), NJ
-------
50272-101
REPORT DOCUMENTATION i. REPORT NO. 2.
PAGE EPA/ROD/R02-91/157
4. TMtMdSubM*
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION
Naval Air Engineering Center (Operable Unit 4), NJ
Third Remedial Action - Final
7. Aufwrt..)
I- fc mfm^ fta ^y • II JJUl AtfM^M
12. SpanerinQ Orgirtattan Nvm and AI»HI
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
X R«c»lonro AceoMlen No.
i. RopoctDMt
09/30/91
«.
8. l^rtoimlno Orgmiaton Ropt No.
10. Pro|Kl/T*«k/Wi>fk IMt No.
11. Commcl(OorGrm(G)Na.
(C)
(G)
13* Typo of Report • PonOd Covoraol
800/000
14.
IS. Supctefmnury NOIM
IS. AMmct(LMt:2DO«aic)()
The 7,400-acre Naval Air Engineering Center (NAEC) site, which contains many
subsites, is a naval research design and testing facility near the Jackson and
Manchester Townships, Ocean County, New Jersey. The site lies within the Toms River
Drainage Basin and contains 1,300 acres of flood-prone areas. Land use in the area
is part residential and part undeveloped. The estimated 65,400 people who reside
within the Jackson and Manchester Townships receive their water from municipal wells.
This Record of Decision (ROD) focuses on remediation of Area E (Site 28) within the
NAEC site. Currently, Area E features include a former oil storage shed, former
paint locker, and five fuel storage containers. From 1957 to 1980, unknown
quantities of waste oil, hydraulic fluids, and solvents were discharged in Area E.
In 1988, the RI identified elevated VOC levels and floating product, most likely
gasoline, in the ground water. Subsequent investigations in 1990 discovered a
gasoline leak in an underground pipe, which apparently was the source of ground water
contamination. Onsite actions have included repairing the leak and excavating and
disposing of 65 cubic yards of visually-contaminated soil. This ROD provides an
interim remedy for ground water contamination. Future RODs will address the
(See Attached Page)
17. Document Amlytio a. DMcriptora
Record of Decision - Naval Air Engineering Center (Operable Unit 4), NJ
Third Remedial Action - Final
Contaminated Medium: gw
Key Contaminants: VOCs (benzene, toluene, xylenes), other organics (PAHs)
c. COSATl FMdfGrote
19. Security Ctaoofnitelfcpon)
None
20. Security OaMOMoPigt)
None
21. No.ofP«goo
64
22. Mo*
(8MANSUM.U)
St» JhMuMtam on flnwra*
OPTIONAL FORM 272 (4-77)
(Fonmrty NTB4S)
«OIC
-------
EPA/ROD/R02-91/157
Naval Air Engineering Center (Operable Unit 4), NJ
Third Remedial Action - Final
Abstract (Continued)
remaining contaminated media including a final decision for ground water. The primary
contaminants of concern affecting the ground water are VOCs including benzene, toluene,
and xylenes; and other organics including PAHs.
The selected remedial action for this interim remedy includes onsite pumping and
pretreating ground water using precipitation and filtration to remove metals, solids and
residual amounts of free product, and air stripping to remove VOCs; filtering the
effluent from the treatment process water using a granular activated carbon polishing
filter, and discharging the treated water onsite in a spray irrigation and infiltration
system depending on the season; treating air emissions using granular activated carbon;
regenerating and disposing of any spent carbon offsite; and disposing of the resultant
sludge from the treatment process offsite. The estimated capital cost for this remedial
action is $1,000,000, with an annual O&M cost of $100,000 for 3 years.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS: Chemical-specific ground water clean-up goals are based
on State and Federal MCLS.
-------
ROD FACT SHEET
SITE
Name:
Location/State:
EPA Region:
HRS Score:
NPL Rank:
ROD
Date Signed:
(Interim) Remedy
Capital Cost:
O & M:
Present Worth:
LEAD
Enforcement: Federal Facility lead, EPA oversight
NAEC Primary Contact: Lucy Bottomley (908)-323-2612
EPA Primary Contact: Jeffrey Gratz (212)-264-6667
Naval Air Engineering Center (NAEC),
Lakehurst (OU-4)
Lakehurst, Ocean Co., New Jersey
II
49.48
Group 4
NAEC - Sept. 17, 1991; EPA - Sept. 30, 1991
Ground water pump and treat system
$ 1,000,000
$ 100,000
$
WASTE
Type:
Medium:
Origin:
Gasoline and fuel components (primarily
B,T,E,X).
Ground water.
Pipe leak from above ground tank.
-------
Final
16 September 1991 DECLARATION STATEMENT
RECORD OF DECISION
AREA E - SITE 28
NAVAL AIR ENGINEERING CENTER
FACILITY NAME AND LOCATION
Naval Air Engineering Center
Lakehurst, NJ 08733
STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE
This decision document presents the selected interim remedial action for
Area E - Site 28, 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 E.
Both the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), Region II
Administrator and the Commissioner of the New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection and Energy (NJDEPE) concur with the selected interim remedy.
ASSESSMENT OF THE AREA
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from this site, if
not addressed by implementing the response action selected in this Record of
Decision (ROD), may present an imminent and substantial endangerment to public
health, welfare or the environment.
DESCRIPTION OF THE REMEDY
The selected interim remedial action addresses the principal threat of the
migration of a contaminated groundwater plume from Area E by pumping, and
treating the groundwater and removing residual amounts of floating free product
from the groundwater. The selected remedy for Site 28 (contamination was caused
by leakage of gasoline from lines leading from an above ground 300-gallon
gasoline tank located near Building 308) includes the following components:
o Groundwater extraction (100 gallon/minute), pretreatment to
remove metals, solid and residual amounts of free product from
groundwater and treatment by air stripping and carbon
adsorption to remove Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs).
o Effluent water from the air stripper is "polished" by using
a Granulated Activated Carbon (GAC) filter to further reduce
VOCs and Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds (SVOCs). A GAC air
filter is used to treat the emissions from the air stripper.
-------
o Treated water meeting New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection and Energy (NJDEPE) Discharge Effluent Limitations
is spray irrigated during temperate 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 DETERMINATIONS
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 scrope and role
of this action is limited, chemical specific cleanup levels for groundwater will
not be addressed during the interim action, but will be addressed during the
final remedy for Site 28. 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.
. 9/
f (Date)
Captain David Raffetto
Commanding Officer
Naval Air Engineering Center
Lakehurst, New Jersey
With the concurrence of:
(Date)
Constantine Sidamon-Eristol
Regional Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region II
-------
DECISION SUMMARY
RECORD OF DECISION
AREA E • SITE 28
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 area are located within the Finelands National Reserve, the
most extensive undeveloped land tract of the Middle Atlantic Seaboard.
NAEC lies 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 lies within the Toms River Drainage Basin. The basin is relatively
small (191 square miles) and the residence time for surface drainage waters is
short. Drainage from NAEC discharges to the Ridgeway Branch to the north and
to the Black and Union Branches to the south. All three stream 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 the Ridgeway
Branch and Union Branch, respectively. The Paint Branch located in the east-
central part of the base is a relatively small stream which feeds the 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
mile, 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 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. 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
primarily for irrigation and not as a source of drinking water. In Lakehurst
Borough there is a well field consisting of seven 50-foot deep wells, located
approximately two-thirds of a mile south of the eastern portion of 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 very small population (probably less than 1,000) in the
immediate vicinity of the NAEC.
Site 28 (Figure lA and 2) is approximately 2,800 feet from the southern
boundary of NAEC. Three non-potable water supply wells (SW-13, SW-14, and SW-
15) are present at the site. There is a shallow ground water table at Site 28
at a depth of approximately 7 to 9 feet. Groundwater at the site flows in an
easterly direction toward Paint Branch. The Paint Branch, which flows in a
southeasterly direction, is located approximately 300 feet northeast of the site.
Most of the groundwater flows under Paint Branch in an easterly direction.
According to available information (wetland and floodplain delineations by the
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers respectively)
Site 28 is located in an upland area. There are no wetland areas immediately
down gradient of the site.
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 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 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 che Naval Base, Philadelphia to Lakehurst in December 1974.
AC chat time, NAEC became che hose activity, thus, Che new name NAEC Lakehurst.
Currently, NAEC's mission is to conduce 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 Co provide, operace and maintain test
sices, facilicies, and support services for tests of che above systems and
equipmenc and conduce research and development of equipmenc and instrumentation
used in tests. NAEC supports Department of Defense (DoD) standardization and
specificacion programs, provides services and material, operates and maintains
aviacion and ocher facilicies in supporc 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 fooc long catapult
and arrest runway, one mile long jec car cesc crack, four one and one-quarter
mile long jec car cesc cracks, a parachute jump circle, a 79 acre golf course,
and a 3,500 acre conservation area.
The various operations and activities at NAEC required che use, handling,
storage and occasionally che on-site disposal of hazardous substances. During
che operational period of the facility, there have been documented, reported or
suspected releases of these substances into che environment.
Inicial Investigations:
As part of che DoD Installation Restoration Program, che Navy developed
che Navy Assessment and Control of Installation Pollutants (NACIP) 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 Inicial Assessment Study (IAS) was
completed in 1983 by the Naval Energy and Environmental Support Activity (NEESA)
at NAEC. The purpose of che IAS was Co "identify and assess sices posing a
potential threat to human health or the environment due Co contamination from
past hazardous materials operations".
Based on information from hiscorical records, aerial photographs, field
inspections, and personnel interviews, che IAS identified a total of 44
potentially contaminated sices, which were evaluated wich regard Co contamination
characteristics, migration pathways, anr '.lucanc receptors. The IAS concluded
that "while none of Che sices pose an - -liate threat co human health or che
environmenc, 16 warranc further investigation under the NACIP program, Co assess
potential impacts". A Remedial Invescigacion (RI) (Confirmation Study) was
recommended "co confirm or deny che exiscence of Che suspected contamination and
to quantify che extent of any problems which may exist". Following further
review of available data by Navy personnel, ic was decided that 42 of the 44
-------
sites should be included in Che Remedial Investigation. Two potentially
contaminated sites - an ordnance site (Site 41) and an Advanced Underground
Storage Facility (Site 43), were deleted from the Remedial Investigation because
they had already been remediated.
NAEC was designated in 1987 as a National Priorities List (NPL) site under
CERCLA.
Environmental Investigations/Feasibility Study:
NAEC's Remedial Investigation (RI) was conducted in two phases.
Implementation 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 E - Site 28.
The following investigations and removal actions were conducted at
Area E - Site 28 from 1981 to the present:
PHASE I AND PHASE II INVESTIGATIONS FOR AREA E - SITE 28:
In the early 1980s, two monitoring wells (AN and BU) were installed by NAEC
and monitored on a regular basis for the presence of free-floating product. A
trace of product was detected in well AN on July 20, 1984. No product was
detected in well BU.
During Phase I Remedial Investigation (Fall 84), no contamination was
detected in the groundwater samples collected from well BU and well DT, installed
downgradient from the site. Low levels of toluene were detected in a groundwater
sample collected from supply well SU-15.
During the Phase II Investigation (fall-winter 1988), two rounds of samples
were collected from monitoring wells AN, BU and DT, and supply well SU-15.
Elevated levels of alkylbenzenes (Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene and Xylenes),
typical components of gasoline, were detected in well BU. In addition, low
levels of naphthalene and 2-methylnaphthalene were detected in the same well.
Total petroleum hydrocarbons (PHC) were detected in the first round sample from
well BU at a concentration of 3.54 mg/1. Elevated levels of various tentatively
identified compounds (TICs), primarily benzene substitutes, were also detected
in well BU. Furthermore, floating product, probably gasoline, was detected in
this well. It was suspected that a possible source of the contamination was
overflow from and/or spills during the filling of the nearby 300-gallon gasoline
tank.
The free product levels in well BU was monitored in January 1990. Readings
indicated "trace of product" to 0.34 feet. A soil gas groundwater survey (Figure
3) was conducted on August 6-8, 1990 in the vicinity of well BU to assess the
-------
horizontal extent of VOC contamination, and identify the source of the floating
product that was observed in well BU. The results of the soil gas/groundwater
survey (summarized in Tables 2 and 3 and depicted in Figure 3 through 12), showed
that the soil and groundwater contamination by gasoline components appeared to
extend at least 150 feet downgradient (in an easterly direction) from well BU.
On August, 1990, NAEC conducted a preliminary investigation to verify the
source of the gasoline that was detected in well BU. A small area of soil was
excavated to a depth of about 2 feet along the northwestern side of Building 308
to expose a copper gasoline pipe running from the above ground gasoline tank into
the building. A gasoline leak was observed at one of the pipe couplings which
apparently was the source of floating product and dissolved contaminants detected
in well BU. The leak was repaired and approximately four drums of visually
contaminated soil were removed.
During the period August 9 through August 13, and following the completion
of the soil gas/groundwater investigation, a series of eight test pits were dug
in the area northeast of Building 308 to verify the presence of soil gas
contaminants. Based on observations made in these pits, soil was excavated from
an area measuring approximately 60 feet long, 20 to 40 feet wide, and 7 to 8 feet
deep. During the excavation, about 65 cubic yards of visually contaminated soil
were segregated and transferred to a nearby on-site hazardous waste storage area
for ultimate disposal at an approved facility. The visually clean soil was
stockpiled at the perimeter of the excavation.
In April 1991, the Focused Feasibility Study (FFS) for Area E - Site 28
was distributed to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEFA),
Region II and the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and Energy
(NJDEPE), Bureau of Federal Case Management for their review. The Proposed
Interim Remedial Action Plan (PIRAP) was finalized by NAEC and approved (final
concurrence subject to public meeting and comments) by the EPA on June 14 and
the NJDEPE on 21 June 1991. The finalization of the PIRAP and public
notification initiated a 30 day public comment period (June 19 to July 19, 1991).
HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
The Area E - Site 28, Proposed Interim Remedial Action Plan was issued to
interested parties on June 17, 1991. On June 17-19, a newspaper notification
inviting public comment on the FFS and PIRAP appeared in The Asburv Park Press.
The Ocean County Observer, and The Advanced News. The comment period was held
from June 19 to July 19, 1991. The newspaper notification also identified the
Ocean County Library as the location of the Information Repository.
A public hearing was held on June 26, 1991. At this meeting,
representatives from the Navy, USEPA and NJDEPE were available to answer
questions about Area E 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 Site 28 of NAEC in Ocean
-------
County, New Jersey, chosen in accordance with CERCLA, as amended by SARA and,
Co Che extent praccicable, Che NCP. The decision for Area E is based on Che
adminiscracive record.
SCOPE AND ROLE OF RESPONSE ACTION
The remedial objectives consist of medium-specific or operable unic-
specific goals for proceccing human health and che environmenc. The remedial
accion objeccives of chis response accion are removing residual amounts of free
produce, rescriccing concaminanc plume migracion, and colleccing daca on aquifer
and concaminanc response Co Che interim remedial response chosen.
The incerim remedy is noc a final accion for groundwacer or soil. This
accion will be the first operable unic (i.e. the first clean up phase) of the
remediation of Area E (Sice 28) on che NAEC facilicy. One or more fucure RODs
will address the ulcimace objeccive which is deconcamination Co accepcable levels
of any concaminaced medium, including final remediacion of ground wacer. The
incerim remedy proposed, however, should be consiscenc with those objectives.
SUMMARY OF AREA CHARACTERISTICS
Site 28 includes a former disposal area to che northeast side of West Field
Hangar 7 (Building 307), a former oil storage shed (Building 536), and a former
paint locker (Building 538). Solvencs may have also been scored in chese cwo
building (Figure 2). The scorage shed and painc locker were dismancled and
removed in che mid-1980s.
The disposal area has been covered with sand and graded. The original sice
was about 20 x 20 feet and discolored with lube oil and solvents Co a depth of
2 co 3 inches. Similar condicions exisced Co che north of Hangar 7, by che edge
of che blackcop. Unknown quancicies of waste oils, hydraulic fluids, and
solvents were discharged in this area from about 1957 when the Westfield Hangar
was conscrucced Co about 1980. There are currently five above-ground steel
scorage tanks at the site: (1) a 300-gallon gasoline tank for a standby
generator near Building 308; (2) a 200-gallon diesel tank for a scandby generator
near Building 282; (3) one 300-gallon tank and one 50-gallon diesel tank for
standby generators near Building 307; and (4) a 20,000-gallon No. 2 fuel oil tank
located near Building 308. All tanks are within secondary containments.
SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS
A baseline risk assessment was noc conducted for Area E - Sice 28 for che
incerim remedial accion. However, because federal maximum concaminanc levels
(MCLs), which are generally risked based numbers, have been exceeded for several
concaminancs, remedial accion is necessary. A comprehensive feasibilicy scudy
and risk assessment will be prepared prior co che initialization of the final
remedial action at the site. The risk assessment will consist of hazard
idencificacion, a dose-response evaluaCion, exposure assessment and risk
characterization. This interim action is being implemenced Co scop che migracion
of che concaminanc plume and residual floacing produce (environmencal risk) from
Area E cowards che PainC Branch, a cribucary of che Manapaqua Brook which feeds
8
-------
Pine Lake, a major recreational body of water in the county. This action will
limit exposure risks to natural fauna along the Paint Branch, the Manapaqua Brook
and the population using Pine Lake for recreational activities.
Table 1 provides the Historical Summary of Analytical Data for Site 28.
The predominant Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) found at site 28 consist of
the following components of fuel:
benzene
ethylbenzene
toluene
xylenes (total)
The primary semi-volatile organic compounds include:
2-methylnaphthalene
napthalene
Total petroleum hydrocarbons and tentatively identified compounds (TICs),
primarily benzene substitutes were also detected in the groundwacer at Site 28.
Figures 3 through 12 shows the known extent of the contaminant plume at Site
28.
DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES
ALTERNATIVE 1: NO ACTION
Estimated Construction Cost: $40.000 (for monitoring well network)
Estimated Net O&M Cost: $50,000/yr
Estimated Implementation Time Frame: N/A
This alternative involves no additional interim actions at Site 28 other
then groundwater monitoring of the aquifer. No contaminants would be treated
or contained and the existing health and environmental risks would remain.
Under this alternative, no further action to control groundwater
contamination would be taken. Long-term monitoring of the site can be
implemented by using existing monitoring wells, which must be supplemented by
additional monitoring wells to create an effective monitoring well network.
ALTERNATIVE 2: GROUND WATER PUMPING, REMOVAL OF FREE PRODUCT. TREATMENT,
RECHARGE AND IN SITU SOIL FLUSHING
Estimated Construction Cost: $1,000,000
Estimated Net O&M Cost: $ 100,000/yr
Estimated Implementation Time Frame: 9 months
Time frame for operation of system: 3 years - after which a final action
for groundwater remediation will be
initiated
This alternative involves pumping groundwater from two recovery wells (50
9
-------
GFH each), treatment and discharge to che aquifer. During the temperate months,
the treated effluent, which will meet NJDEPE Groundwater Discharge Effluent
Limitations, will be discharged to the aquifer via a spray irrigation system.
During the winter months discharge of the treated effluent will occur via an
infiltration system. This is necessary since the discharge option will be
seasonally dependent upon climatic conditions. It is a design criteria of the
recovery system that the infiltrated/irrigated treated water be contained as part
of a closed loop groundwater system.
To treat the volatile organic and other contaminants present in the extracted
groundwater, a treatment system will be constructed at Site 28. The contaminated
groundwater pumped from the recovery wells will enter a tank which will serve
as a flow equalizer. The system will consist of: (1) a pretreatment unit for
metals, free product and solids removal; (2) air stripping column(s) (99% VOC
removal); (3) granular activated carbon air filter for air stripper emissions;
and (4) a granular activated carbon polishing filter for residual VOC and semi-
volatile removal (99.9% removal of VOCs) from treated groundwater. The extracted
free product will be sent to a permitted disposal facility. A schematic
representation of Alternative 2 is shown in Figure 2A.
The effluent limitations for the Interim Remedial Action will be
established in accordance with the New Jersey Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NJPDES) Regulations (N.J.A.C. 7:14A-1 et seq.) and the New Jersey
Groundwater Quality Standards (N.J.A.C. 7:9-6 et sea.). The effluent limitations
(Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) and Safe Drinking Water Act Criteria ) will
be issued to NAEC in the form of NJPDES Discharge to Groundwater (DGW) Permit
Equivalence.
ALTERNATIVE 3: GROUND WATER PUMPING, TREATMENT AND DISCHARGE TO SURFACE WATER
Estimated Construction Cost: $ 950,000
Estimated Net O&M Cost: $ 100,000/yr
Estimated Implementation Time Frame: 9 months
Time frame for system operation: 3 years - after which a final action
for groundwater will be initiated
This alternative would be similar to Alternative 2, except treated groundwater
would be discharged via piping to the Paint Branch instead of being recharged
back into the aquifer. 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 a 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.
10
-------
Compliance wich 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.
Reduction of Toxicity 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.
Implementability 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.
ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
Overall Protection - Alternative 2, provides the greatest overall protection of
human health and the environment through treatment of groundwater and to some
degree soil. Alternative 3, is similar to Alternative 2, except treated ground
water is discharged to surface water as opposed to the aquifer. By implementing
Alternative 3, water is extracted from the aquifer and disposed of to surface
waters, the current overpumpage of the coastal aquifer is exacerbated.
Alternative 2 is a closed loop system in which the aquifer is recharged by the
treated groundwater. Alternative 1, which offers no soil or ground water
treatment is the least protective alternative.
Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence - Alternatives 2 and 3 are interim actions
and intended to be short-term responses. 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.
11
-------
Reduction of Toxicicv. Mobility or Volume - In Alternatives 2 and 3, the vapor
and aqueous phase carbon systems will capture by adsorption volatile and semi-
volatile compounds, hence the mobility and toxicity of groundwater contaminants
will be reduced by the removal of these compounds. Destruction of contaminants
will occur during the regeneration of carbon at an off-site facility.
Alternative 1 offers no treatment of the contaminated media.
Short-Term Effectiveness - Interim remedial action Alternatives 2 and 3 in the
short-term will halt the spread of contaminated ground water and residual amounts
of floating product. They will also stop the migration of the contaminant plume
and residual amounts of floating product from entering the Paint Branch.
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
ground water is recharged into the Paint Branch, 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 residual risks are not
reduced.
Implementabilitv - Alternative 1 offers the greatest implementability followed
by Alternative 2, and 3 which involves conventional technologies with proven
reliability.
Cost - Alternative 1, the no action alternative, has the lowest associated cost.
Alternatives 2 and 3 have a capital cost of about $1,000,000 and 0 & M costs of
$100,000/year. Alternative 3 has a slightly lower capital cost of approximately
$950,000 since there is no cost associated with the infiltration system.
Instead, there is construction of a piping and pump system from the treatment
building to the Paint Branch. 0 & M cost is the same.
Compliance with ARARs - Action specific ARARs are not applicable to Alternative
1, as the "No Action" Alternative. Alternatives 2 and 3 will comply with action-
specific ARARs such as OSHA, RCRA, Endangered Species, Clean Air and Water Acts.
State and Federal action and contaminant specific ARARs which include surface
water, groundwater and air discharge limitations, as well as hazardous waste
handling requirements, will be complied with during the interim remedial action.
Because of the limited focus of this proposed interim action, contaminant-
specific clean-up levels for groundwater have not been identified for
Alternatives 2 and 3. These levels will be identified and met when a final
remedial action is chosen for Site 28. Treatment residuals will be tested to
determine whether RCRA Land Disposal Restrictions apply for Alternatives 2 and
3. Location-specific ARARs which will include aquifer and facility groundwater
remediation issues will be addressed in the final remedy. The New Jersey
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NJPDES) Discharge to Groundwater (DGW)
permit equivalence will be applied for to irrigate and infiltrate the treated
groundwater. The treated water will meet the NJDEPE Groundwater Discharge
Effluent Limitations as set forth in the permit equivalence.
State Acceptance - The preferred alternative (Alternative 2) is acceptable to
the NJDEPE.
12
-------
Community Acceptance - Community acceptance of the preferred alternative has been
evaluated on the basis of public comments and is described in the Responsiveness
Summary of this Record of Decision.
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 NJDEPE,
has selected to implement at Area E - Site 28. This selection is identical to
that presented in the Proposed Interim Remedial Action Plan. Because this is
an interim action, 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 interim remedial action is Alternative 2 - Groundwater
Pumping, Removal of Free Product, Treatment, Recharge and In Situ Soil Flushing.
This alternative will address groundwater treatment and product extraction
simultaneously. The Alternative is cost effective and implements proven
technologies.
Groundwater and residual amounts of free product will be extracted via two
wells at a rate of 100 gpm. The extracted water will be held in a flow
equalization tank and then pretreated to remove metals, free product and solids.
The pretreatment system will consist of using a caustic solution and a flocculent
to precipitate and settle solids and metals from the contaminated groundwater.
The extracted free product will be sent to a permitted off-site disposal
facility. NAEC will comply with NJ Hazardous Waste Regulations. The pretreated
water will be air stripped to remove 99.0% of VOCs. Due to the transfer of
contaminants from 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 Jersey air pollution control regulations (NJAC 7:27-16). The air and
liquid effluent streams from the air stripper will be treated by granulated
activated carbon filters prior to discharge. 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.
Once treated, the groundwater will meet Federal and State Drinking Water
Standards (NJAC 7:14A-1.1 et seq.) including MCLs and Safe Drinking Water Act
Criteria which are the discharge effluent criteria for this limited action.
Recharge to the aquifer will occur through an irrigation and infiltration system.
The treated water 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 water supply, continual replenishment of surface waters to maintain
13
-------
Che existing quantity 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 amounts of floating product from entering ecologically
sensitive areas.
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 will be incorporated and/or modified to become the final remedial
action. The final remedy for the site will address the location specific ARARs
for the Pinelands as set forth in N.J.A.C. 7:9-5.6. to the extent that these
ARARs are recognized by the USEPA and the NJDEPE.
STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
Under Section 121 of CERCLA and Section 300.430(F5) of the NCP, selected
remedies must meet certain statutory and regulatory requirements. These
requirements and a description of how the selected remedy satisfies each
requirement are presented below.
Protection of Human 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 groundwater will meet New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection and Energy Discharge 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
plume and 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 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.
Compliance with ARARs
The selected remedy will comply with action specific ARARs such as OSHA,
RCRA, Endangered Species, Clean Air and Water Acts. State and Federal action
specific ARARs pertaining to the discharge of treated water to ground surfaces
and groundwater is also addressed and will be complied with during the interim
action. Also, treated water will meet Safe Drinking Water Standards prior to
spray irrigation and infiltration. A list of ARARs specific to this action is
presented in Table 4.
14
-------
Cost Effectiveness
The selected remedy provides groundwater treatment and removal of residual
amounts of floating product through treatment methods chat have been proven
effective, cost efficient and expected to attain ARARs.
Preference for Treatment as a Principal Element
The principal threats at Area E - Site 28 include ground water and soil
contamination and the presence of residual amounts of floating free product
associated with the presence of the plume at Area E. 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 will be treated by air stripping to remove VOCs and polished by
granular activated carbon to remove SVOCs and further reduce VOC levels. In situ
soil flushing will aerate and enhance biological activity and contaminant
decomposition. Residual amour.ts of floating product will be collected and
disposed at an off-site permittee hazardous waste facility. The interim remedy
is not a final action for groundvazer or soil. The ultimate goal of the final
remediation of this area should include decontamination to acceptable levels of
any contaminated medium, not just ground water. The selected interim remedy,
however, should be consistent with those objectives.
Documentation of Significant Changes
The Proposed Interim Remedial Action Plan for Area E - Site 28 was released
for public comment on June 17, 1991. The PIRAP identified Alternative 2 as the
preferred alternative. NAEC received one written comment; all verbal comments
were responded to at the public hearing on June 26, 1991. Upon review of the
comments, it was determined that no significant changes to the interim remedy,
as it was originally identified in the PIRAP, were necessary.
15
-------
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
AREA E - SITE 28
NAVAL AIR ENGINEERING CENTER
The purpose of this responsiveness summary is to review public response
to the Proposed Interim Remedial Action Plan for Area E - Site 28. It also
documents NAEC's consideration of such comments during the decision making
process and provided answers to any major comments raised during the public
comment period.
The responsiveness summary for Area E - Site 28 is divided into the
following sections:
o OVERVIEW - This section briefly describes the FFS process used to
develop and evaluate interim remedial responses for Area E - Site
28, 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 comments 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 E - Site 28 is located at NAEC in Ocean County, Lakehurst, NJ. Area
E is under investigation for potential environmental contamination. This
responsiveness summary addresses remediation and public response to the PIRAP
for Area E - Site 28 only.
A summary of the site background, the alternatives evaluated, and a
comparison of alternatives are presented in the Area E - Site 28 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 E.
Throughout the investigation and FFS period, the USEPA and NJDEPE 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.
16
-------
Prior Co the public release of sice-specific Area E documents, NAEC's
public relations staff compiled a list of local public officials who demonstrated
or were expected to have an inceresc in the investigation. Local environmental
interest groups were also identified and included on this list. The list is
included on Appendix A.
On June 17, 1991, NAEC mailed Area E - Site 28 PIRAPs to concerned parties
on Che list described above. On June 19 a public nocice appeared in The Asburv
Park Press. The Ocean County Observer, and in The Advance News. The public
nocice summarized che feasibilicy study process, che remedial alternatives
considered and che preferred remedial alternative. The announcement also
identified che time and locacion of a public comment period, and che address Co
which che written comments could be sent. Public comments were accepced from
June 19 chrough July 19, 1991.
A public meecing was held on June 26, 1991, at 7:30 p.m. ac che Lakehurst
Elementary School in Lakehurst, New Jersey. The Area E - Site 28
investigations, feasibilicy study process and che proposed interim remedial
alternative were discussed. NAEC representatives included: Captain David J.
Raffecto, the Commanding Officer of NAEC; Charles Mink, Deputy Public Works
Department head; Robert Kirkbright, engineering director, Lucy Bottomley, head
environmental engineer; Aarti Dalai Reddy, environmental engineer. Jeffrey
Gratz, represented che EPA's Federal Facilicy Section; Ms. Christine Holscrom,
represented che NJDEPE's Bureau of Federal Case Management; Mr. Kevin Schick;
represented NJDEPE's Division of Hazardous Sice Mitigation and Ms. Linda Welkom
represented NJDEPE's Division of the Water Resources. See Appendix B for
attendance list.
SUMMARY OF MAJOR QUESTION AND COMMENT
During the public comment period June 19 chrough July 19, 1991 one written
comment was received. The questions raised at the public meecing (June 26, 1991)
and in Che written comment and NAEC's response to these comments are summarized
below.
PUBLIC MEETING COMMENTS
Question: Mr. Jados, Environmental Officer, Manchescer Township quescioned the
depth of che groundwater and monitoring well (BU) at Sice 28.
NAEC Comment: The water table at the site is approximately 8 feec and che
monitoring well was about 15 feet deep, with 10 feet of screen below the water
table.
Question: Mr. Bishop, WQMB FM News, questioned if Site 28 was the last site to
be remediated on Che base.
NAEC Conunenc: No, Sice 28 is noc che lasC sice Co be cleaned up. There are
approximacely 20 sites lefc Co be addressed, some of which will be addressed ac
a public hearing to be held chis fall (Fall 1991) and anocher one in January of
1992. All of the sites will be addressed on 13 January 1993 in the Final Record
of Decision.
17
-------
Question: Mr. Colby, The Observer, questioned if Site 28 is the worse one on
base and the threat that Site 28 possessed.
NAEC Comment: Site 28 is similar to the Sites discussed at the last public
hearing (October 2, 1990 - Sites 10,16,17 and 32). Site 28 will be undergoing
an interim remedial action to hale the spread of contaminant migration. Whether
or not this action will be the final cleanup will be determined in the Final
Record of Decision.
WRITTEN COMMENTS
Comments from The Pinelands Commission: The Commission has concluded that the
preferred alternative, alternative 2, appears to be the most consistent of the
three alternatives with the goals and regulations of the Pineland Comprehensive
Management Plan (N.J.A.C. 7:50-1.1 et al).
Pineland Comment:
Although it is clearly stated in the PIRAP that the cleanup levels proposed
during this action are not the final cleanup levels, the final remediation must
propose to achieve a treatment level of non-detectable if you are going to
propose aquifer recharge through infiltration or irrigation.
NAEC Comment: NAEC agrees with the Pinelands Commissions goal of non degradation
and specifically section 6-803 subpart C of the New Jersey Pinelands
Comprehensive Management Plan, which permits water quality that meets Potable
Water Standards of the State of New Jersey. It is NAEC's intent to strive and
use the Best Available Technology to treat water to meet non detectable levels
during the final treatment.
Pinelands Comment: Pinelands Protection Act (N.J.S.A. 18A-1 et al) and the
Pinelands Comprehensive Management Plan (N.J.A.C. 7:50-1.1 et al) should be
addressed as location specific ARARs.
NAEC Comment: These will be addressed in the final action for the site (and
they are incorporated here in Table 4) to the extent that they are recognized
by the EPA and the NJDEPE.
Pinelands Comment: Prior to the construction and implementation of the remedial
measure an application must be filed with the Commission so as to obtain either
a Certificate of Filing or a Public Development approval which are required to
the issuance of all other necessary permits. In addition to the application
form, a site plan (specific to Area A should be prepared showing all existing
developments and any wetlands that are within 300 feet of the proposed
development.
NAEC Comment: NAEC does not have to obtain permits for remediation of Superfund
Sites according to CERCLA. A lengthy permitting process is not in the best
interest of the public since the goal of any interim remediation process is to
stop an immediate threat of contaminant plume migration. A wetlands delineation
of the whole Naval Base is in the process. NAEC will submit the delineation to
the Pinelands Commission. No wetlands are within 300 feet of the proposed
treatment building in Site 28.
18
-------
TABLE 1
HISTORICAL SUMMT OF
ANALYTICAL DATA - SITE 28
Pre-1985
No data collected
Phase I Remedial Investigation
Greunduater
Volatile Organic Caroeunds (ua/l)
Toluene: NO -'10.2
Phase fl Remedial Investigation
Crounobater
Volatile Organic Cenpounds (uq/l)
Toluene: 590 - 5,100
Benzene: 100 - 330
Ethylbenzene: 130 - 1,100
Xylenes: 990 - 12,000
Seai-VolatHe Organic Compounds (uo/1)
Naphthalene: 67 - 120
2-Hethylnaphthalene: 29 - 1,300
Miscellaneous (ma/1)
Petroleua Hydrocarbons: ND - 3.54
No data collected
Sail
Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds (uo/ka)
Phenanthrene: ND - 90
Fluoranthene: 40-110
Pyrene: NO - 80
Benzo(a)anthracene: ND -0 40
Chryiene: ND - 50
Metals (ma/kg)
Beryl 11 in: 40
Caotaiua: 10
M<»cellaneou»
Petroleua Hydrocarbon*: NO - 226.73 ug/g
Sediment
No data collected
Sediment
Metals (ma/kg)
Cadaiua: 50.9
-------
TABLE 2
CONTAMINANT CCNCEMTUTIOHS IN SOIL CAS
SITE 28 (UESTFIELO XAMGM)
UAVAL AIR ENGINEERING CENTER
UKEHURST, MEU JERSEY
Smelt
Locition
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
tuple Depth
ill!
5
6
6.5
6
6.5
6
6
6.5
6.5
6.5
6
6
6.5
10
6.5
6
. 6.5
6
6.5
6.5
6
6
6
6.5
6.5
6
6
6
6
6.5
6
6.5
6.5
6
6
6.5
6.5
6
6.5
Screen*
0.02
O.06
0.02
0.2
0.02
0.02
O.01
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.06
0.01
16,000
O.01
O.01
O.02
0.02
O.02
0.01
0.01
O.01
0.01
O.01
3,700
8,000
O.01
400
<2
O.01
230
«2
0.02
0.01
O.01
310
0.01
O.01
0.01
0.01
Toluene
500
O.07
0.03
14
O.03
O.03
O.01
0.01
O.01
O.03
0.6
0.01
9,100
0.01
O.01
O.02
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
O.01
0.01
1,700
2,700
O.01
180
24
O.01
100
56
O.02
0.01
0.01
220
O.01
0.01
0.01
O.01
Ethvlben^erw
0.3
O.08
O.03
0.3
0.03
O.03
O.02
O.02
O.02
0.03
0.08
0.02
<5
0.02
0.02
O.02
O.02
0.02
0.02
O.02
O.02
0.02
0.02
<3
<3
O.02
<3
-------
TABLE 3
CONTAMINANT COMCSmUTtONS IH OIOUNDUATER
SITE 28 (UESmELD HANGAB)
NAVAL AM ENCIHEEIIMC COTTER
LUCEMMSr, NEW JERSEY
Concentration (ua/H
SMDle
L option
1
2
10
10
11
13
24
25
26
26
28
31
32
35
36
40>
41*
42»
Staple Oepttl
iiu
8
7
10
8
7"
6.5
7
8
10
a
7
7
9
7.5
6.5
6.5
7
9
Scnieng
570
8,100
. 0.1
0.1
8,800
76,000
47,000
14.000
O.I
OJ
37
30
<.3
350
OJ
38,000
OJ
0.2
Toluene)
180
9,500
0.1
0.6
5,600
37,000
35,000
10,000
<,0.1
1
60
42
2
260
0.6
29.000
2
0.6
Ethyl bentent
-------
TABLE 4
LIST OF ARARS
Only Action-specific ARARS which include surface water, ground water, and
air discharge limitations as well as hazardous waste handling requirements,
wetland and floodplain requirements will be complied with during the interim
remedial design. Contaminant specific clean up levels will be addressed in the
final remedy.
The interim remediation activities at Area E (Site 28) will primarily
address ground water and residual floating product. 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 on site 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 Act
(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 from pretreatment process. Wastes will be
tested to determine if they are hazardous waste under RCRA.
Clean Air Act (40 CFR 50): ARARs for alternative which involve treatments which
impact ambient air.
Clean Water Act (40 CFR 401): NPDES Permit Requirements. Requirements for point
source discharge to surface waters. Potential ARARs which will affect the
implementability of remedial action involving effluent discharge to the Manapaqua
Brook.
Clean Water Act (40 CFR 404): Prohibits actions that impact a wetland unless
no other alternatives are available.
Identification of State Action-Specific ARARs are as follows:
NJ Hazardous Waste Regulations (NJAC 7:26): Permitting. Contingency Plans,
Specification for Treatment/Disposal Units. Potential ARARs for alternatives
which involve the treatment, storage or disposal of hazardous wastes.
NJ Clean Water Act (NJAC 7:14A-1.1 et seq.): NJPDES Water Quality Toxic Effluent
Limitations. ARAR for alternative involving treatments which discharge effluents
to surface water.
NJ Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NJAC 7:14A-1 et seq.): Permit
Requirements. ARAR for alternatives involving treatments which discharge
-------
effluent Co ground surfaces.
NJ Surface Water Regulations (NJAC 7:9-5.1): 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.
Endangered Species Action (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.
The Pinelands Protection Act (N.J.S.A. 1SA-1 et al) and the Pinelands
Comprehensive Management Plan (N.J.A.C. 7:50-1.1 et al).
-------
NEERING CENTER
LAKEHUKST BORO
"' 08733
VICINITY MAP
NAVAL AIR ENGINEERING CENTER
LAKEHURST, NEW JERSEY
APPROXIMATE SCALE IN MILES
REFERENCE: HANCSTROM MAP
• OF OCEAN CO., N.J.
-------
V
V
t I APPROIIMATE Slit LOCATION AND
IDENTIFICATION NUnBtA
NOTE: REFER TO FIGURES ) THROUGH IS
FOR DETAILED AREA HAPS
2000 1000 6500 8000
I I I I
APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION -"PHASE II
NAVAL AIR ENGINEERING CENTER
LAKEHURST, NEW JERSEY
LOCATION MAP
AREAS A-L
DAMES & MOORE | FIGURE
-------
SITE No.28
SUSPECTED AREA OF
LIQUID WASTE DISPOSAL
OIL STORAGE SHED
PAINT LOCKER
FUEL. OIL TANK
GASOLINE TANK
EXPLANATION:
w9 MONITORING WELL LOCATION
S28-«A SOIL OR SEDIMENT SAMPLING LOCATION
sw-uB SUPPLY (NON-POTABLE) WELL LOCATION
N
0 50 100 150 200 FEET
GRAPHIC SCALE
TITLE
SITE No.28, AREA E
WEST FIELD HANGAR AREA
PROJECT REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION - PHASE 11
NAVAL AIR ENGINEERING CENTER
LAKEHURST. NEW JERSEY
Dames & Moore
CRANrORO. NEW JERSEY
SCALE
DATE
AS NOTED
8-8-90
ovm. BY
APPR. BY
R.G.B.
C.I.T.
JOB NO.
F1C. NO.
7980-013
-------
1 „
01 ^ 1 CO
Ul | O f- 5
• * I ^ Is £ Is £
? * K\\\\J <*• ^ £ <•• «o
o Q- 5 kxxxxi . t >
jj to y
1 S
-«
L ^
Dx\vk\\^
F - ,:
0+ fp O *
5 **
3-
c
"
Q- I
(I
<
^^1 • "• ~"
5 • . . • .
a}
5 ft;
I ^
i
»
^ t
L. ^
*
f- -
5
^g ^1
II — ^§
Q£ O !//? STRIPPING UNIT:VOC REM
Z GAC POLISHING FILTER:RESIDUAL
5-GAC AIR FILTER:VOC'< REMOVAL FRO
o
00
0)
rv
/
~|\ |
li )
*• ^ / <*>
-/ ;
^^rT/
55 S
00 co 3 ?
00 s _ 5 «*
^ gl i5
8
;i K£MOYAL NAVAL AIR ENGINEERING CENTER
OVAL - 99% LAKEHURST. NEW JERSEY
VOC REMOVAL
M EXHAUST AIR ALTERNATIVE §2
i Dames & Moore F'C"RE
CRAHFOTO. MEW JERSEY Z/K
-------
17
94
APPROXIMATE LOCATION
OF POWIR LINE
CEMENT PAD (FORMER
OIL STORAGE SHED)
99
18 20
-------
APPROXIMATE LOCATION
OF POWER UNC
CEMENT PAD (rORMER
OIL STORAGE SHCO)
99
N
ESTIUAIEO LOCATION
OF FORMER PAINT LOCKER
•42
io0.
• 3
KEY:
• MONITORING WELL BU (DESTROYED)
*•>.. SOIL GAS SAMPLE LOCATION WITH
CONCENTRATION Or TOTAL PETROLEUM
HYDROCARBONS IN SOIL CAS (o«/0
« SOIL CAS AND GROUNOWAIER SAMPLE
LOCATION
• CROUNOWATER SAMPLE LOCATION
ISOCONCENTRATION CONTOUR IN ug/l
NO NOT DETECTED
LOCATIONS DISPLAYING NO RESULTS
WERE NOT SAMPLED
SO
SCALE IN FEET
100
ZO.OOO CAU ABOVE GROUND
DIESEL rUEL STORAGE TANK
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION - PHASE III U
HAVAL AIR ENGINEERING CENTER
LAKEHURST. NEW JERSEY
CONCENTRATION OF TOTAL
PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS IN SOU. U.V.S
SOIL GAS AND CROUNDHATEK SURVEY
SITE 28 (WESTFIELD HANGAR) - AKKA t
: 9/27/90
J
JOB «0.07950-OIS
Dames & Moore
-------
APPROXIMATE LOCATION
OF POWER LINE
CEMENT PAD (FORMER
OIL STORAGE SHED)
*9
ESTIMATED LOCATION
OF FORMER PAINT LOCKER
•42
'00,
N
• MONITORING WELL 8U (DESTROYED)
:V-. SOIL CAS SAMPLE LOCATION WITH
CONCENTRATION OF BENZENE IN SOIL
CAS (ug/l)
• SOIL CAS AND GROUNDWATCR SAMPLE
LOCATION
• GROUNOWATER SAMPLE LOCATION
ISOCONCENTRATION CONTOUR IN ufl/l
NO NOT DETECTED
LOCATIONS DISPLAYING NO RESULTS
WERE NOT SAMPLED
50
SCALE IN FEET
100
20.000 CAL. ABOVE GROUND
DIESEL FUEL STORAGE TANK
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION - PHASE III B
NAVAL AIR ENGINEERING CENTER
LAKEHURST. NEW JERSEY
CONCENTRATION OF BEN2ENK
IN SOIL GAS
SOIL GAS AND CROUNDWATER SUKVKY
SITE 28 (KESTFIELD HANGAR) - AREA K
out: 9/27/90
HO: 07980-013
Dames & Moore
. new
-------
.APPROXIMATE LOCATION
/ S OF POWER UNE
CCUCNT PAD (FORMER
OIL STORAGE SHED)
t'7
18 20^-~*?j
4J» """-^ "A22
~~/i«
•36 £5
ESTIMATED LOCATION
Of rORMER PAINT LOCKER
•42
20.000 GAL. ABOVE GROUND
DIESEL FUEL STORAGE TANK
KEY:
• MONITORING WELL 8U (DESTROYED)
4e,, SOIL GAS SAMPLE LOCATION WITH
CONCENTRATION OF TOLUENE IN SOIL
GAS (u9/l)
• SOIL GAS AND CROUNOWATEM SAMPLE
LOCATION
• GROUNDWATER SAMPLE LOCATION
'00 ISOCONCENTRAIION CONTOUR IN ug/l
NO NOT DETECTED
LOCATIONS DISPUTING NO RESULTS
WERE NOT SAMPLED
SCALE IN FEET
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION - PHASE
NAVAL AIR ENGINEERING CENTER
LAKEHURST. NEW JERSEY
CONCENTRATION OF TOLUENE
IN SOIL GAS
SOIL GAS AND CROUNDWATER SURVEY
SITE 28 (VESTF1ELD HANGAR) - AREA E
cult 9/J7/90
1
jo* Nft 07980-01)
Dames & Moore
-------
APPROXIMATE LOCATION
or POWER UNC
CEMENT PAD (FORMER
OIL STORAGE SHEO)
8UILOIHO 307
(WESTHELO HANGAR)
N
ESTIMATCO LOCATION
or roRuER PAINT LOCKER
KEY:
24.
'Ofl.
• MONITORING WELL BU (DESTROYED)
SOIL CAS SAMPLE LOCATION WITH
CONCENTRATION Of XYLENES|IN SOIL
CAS . (uj/l)
SOIL GAS AND CROUNOWATER SAMPLE
LOCATION
CROUNDWAicR SAMPLE LOCATION
ISOCONCENTRATION CONTOUR IN ufl/l
ND NOT DETECTED
LOCATIONS DISPLAYING NO RESULTS
WERE NOT SAMPLED
SCALE IN FEET
20.000 GAL. ABOVE GROUND
DIESEL CUEL STORAGE TANK
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION - PHASE III B
NAVAL AIR ENGINEERING CENTER
LAKEHURST. NEW JERSEY
CONCENTRATION OP XY1ENE3
. IN SOIL CAS
SOIL GAS AND GROUNDWATER SURVEY
SITE 26 (TESTFIELD HANGAR) - AREA E
0»IT: 9/27/90
I J0« MO: 07980-01 i
Dames & Moore
dUMfOMO NO JCHSfY
-------
APPROXIMATE LOCATION
Of. POWER LINE
CEMENT PAD (FORUCR
OIL STORAGE SHED)
BUILOINO 307
(WESTFIELO HANGAR)
ABOVE GROUND
CASOUNE TANK
ESIIUATEO LOCATION
Of rORUER PAINT LOCKER
KIT:
• . MONITORING Wfll BU (DESTROYED)
e SOIL CAS SAMPLE LOCATION
SOIL CAS AND GROUNOWATCR SAMPLE
LOCATION WITH CONCENTRATION Of
TOTAL PCTROLCUU HYDROCARBONS
IN CROUNDWATER (ug/l)
• CROUNOWAICR SAMPLE LOCATION
ISOCONCCNIRAIION CONTOUR IN ug/l
NO NOT DCICCTCO
LOCATIONS DISPLAYING NO RESULTS
WERE NOT SAMPLED
SCALE IN
20.000 CAL. ABOVE GROUND
DIESEL FUEL STORAGE TANK
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION - PHASE 1118
NAVAL AIR ENGINEERING CENTER
LAKEHURST. NEW JERSEY
CONCENTRATIpN OP TOTAL PETROI.KUU
HYDROCARBONS IN CROUNDHATEK
SOIL GAS AND CKOUNOWATER SUKVEY
SITE 20 (WESTPIELO HANGAR) - A HE A f
0*rt: 1/27/90
IXM MO. 07J80-OIJ
Dames tt Moore
ClU/irOIIU Mff
-------
I
.APPROXIMATE LOCATION
' S^ Of POWER LINE
BUILDING J07
(WESTFIELO HANGAR)
ESTIMATED LOCATION
OF FORMER PAINT LOCKER
20.000 GAL. ABOVE GROUND
DIESEL FUEL STORAGE TANK
N
KEY:
• MONITORING WELL BU (DESTROYED)
0 SOIL GAS SAMPLE LOCATION
36«. SOIL CAS AND CROUNOWATER SAMPLE
LOCATION WITH CONCENTRATION Of
BENZENE IN CROUNOWATER (ug/l)
• CROUNOWAiER SAMPLE LOCATION
'00 ISOCONCENTRATION CONTOUR IN ug/l
NO NOT DETECTED
LOCATIONS DISPLAYING NO RESULTS
WERE NOT SAMPLED
SCALE IN FEET
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION - PHASE III B
NAVAL AIR. ENGINEERING CENTER
LAKEHURST. NEW JERSEY
CONCENTRATION OF BENZENE
IN CROUNDVATER
SOIL CAS AND GROUND1TATER SUIIVKY
SITE 28 (HESTF1ELD HANGAR) - AREA t
0*11: J/J7/90
\a» NO; 07980-01J
Dan>es & Moore
CJUMfOAO HfW JitKll
-------
APPROXIMATE LOCATION
Of POWER LINE
CEMENT PAD (FORMER
OIL STORAGE SHED)
•UIUMHO 107
(WESTfULO HANGAR)
ABOVE GROUND
GASOLINE TANK
ESTIMATED LOCATION
OF rORMER PAINT LOCKER
20.000 CAL ABOVE GROUND
DIESEL fUEL STORAGE TANK
N
KEY:
• MONITORING WELL IU (DESTROYED)
• SOIL CAS SAMPLE LOCATION
42«. SOIL CAS AND GROUNOWATCR SAMPLE
LOCATION WITH CONCENTRATION or
TOLUENE IN CROUNOWATER (ug/l)
• CROUNOWATER SAMPLE LOCATION
'Ofl ISOCONCENTRATION CONTOUR IH ug/l
NO NOT DETECTED
LOCATIONS DISPLAYING NO RESULTS
WERE NOT SAMPLED
SCALE IN FEET
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION - PHASE III 8
NAVAL AIR ENGINEERING CENTER
UKEHURST. NEW JERSEY
CONCENTRATION OF TOLUENE
IN CROUNOWATER
SOIL CAS AND CROUNOfATER SURVEY
SITE 28 (WTSTTIELD HANGAR) - AREA E
out: 9/27/90
IXX (0.07960-011
Dames & Moore
. MO»
1C
-------
APPROXIMATE LOCATION
or POWER UNC
CEMENT PAD (FORMER
OIL STORAGE SHED)
BUILDING 307
(WCSTFIELD HANGAR)
ABOVE GROUND
GASOLINE TANK
ESTIMATED LOCATION
Of rORMCR PAINT LOCKER
20.000 GAL. ABOVE GROUND
DIESEL FUEL STORAGE TANK
N
35.
»00.
KEY:
• MONITORING WELL BU (DESTROYED)
9 SOIL CAS SAMPLE LOCATION
SOIL CAS AND CROUNOWATER SAMPLE
" LOCATION WITH CONCENTRATION Of
XYLENES IN CROUNOWATER (ug/l)
« CROUNDWAIER SAUPU LOCATION
ISOCONCENTRATION CONTOUR IN ug/l
NO NOT DETECTED
LOCATIONS DISPLAYING NO RESULTS
WERE NOT SAMPLED
SO
SCALE IN FEET
100
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION - PHASE III B
NAVAL AIR ENGINEERING CENTER
UKEHURST. NEW JERSEY
CONCENTRATION OP XYLENES
IN GROUNDTfATER
SOIL GAS AND GROUNDWATEK SUKVEY
SITE 28 (WESTFIELD HANGAR) - AREA t
OMfc 9/27/90
I JO* M* 07980-013
Dames & Moore
CKAMTOmi, HTH JCKUY
-------
APPROXIUATC LOCATION
Of POWER UHC
CCUCNT PAD (rORUER
OIL STORAGE SHED)
8UILOING 307
(WESTTICLO HANGAR)
ABOVE GROUND
GASOUHC TANK
N
K'E Y:
ESTIMATED LOCATION
OF rORMER PAINT LOCKER
10-
OW-t
RECOVERY WELL LOCATION
MSERVATION WELL LOCATION
' > WHERE CONCENTRATION OF TOTAL
ftlnJLEUU HYDROCARBONS IN
CROUNOWATER IS GREATER THAN
10 yg/l
UONirORINC WELL BU (DESTROYED)
LOCATION Or CASH, CAK
AREAS Or SOU i ION
BACKFILLED PORTION Of SOIL
EXCAVATION
NOTE: EXTENT Of EXCAVATION BASED ON
OBSERVATIONS RECORDED SEPTEUBER 12. 1990.
SCALE IN FEET
20.000 GAL. ABOVE GROUND
DIESEL FUEL STORAGE TANK
NAVAL AIR ENGINEERING CENTER
LAKEHURST. NEW JERSEY
SITE 11AP SHOWING LOCATION
OF GASOLINE LEAK. AREAS OP
SOIL REMOVAL AND WELLS
SITE 28 (WESTFIELD HANGAR) - AltEA K
ant 1/30/91
I jo* NO: 07910-01S
Dames & Moore
ClUMfOllp. Mrt JCtSIT
!Z
-------
OPOSED
IHFILTRATIO
TRENCHES
N
K t »l
t»-l© tllSTINO ItCOVtlf WtU
riOPOStD UCOVMT WfU LOCATION
OHKVAIION WtU. LOCATION
Morosto UONIIOHIHO wtu. LOCATION
All* Or SOIL IXCAVAIION
(rAJUIAUT HCKflUIO)
MOJCCUO uuii or CATIURC IONI
^ ». MouHowAni aow DUKcnoH
10-^ IS1IUATIO UU WNtlt CONCINIIUnOH
— or TOTAL vouiiu rniouuu
KTOMCAIIIOM IN OmUNOWAni «
MfAIIR THAN 10 u(/l
HOIll
mt rioJtcTio IONI or CAMUIU UPMUNIS oo«
CVALUADOM Or MOlAtLI COKOnWNS tAStO UfOH
mt iNTuntnAnoM or rutUMTiT AVA&AIU DATA.
tout VAMAnoHS uun it txNcno.
NAVAL AIR ENGINEERING CENTER
LAKEHURST. NEW JERSEY
ARIA i - arm u
PROJKCTID 20HI OF CAPTURE
TfO R1COTIHY RLLS PUUPIMO AT 100 CPU
UCU. TUMCH RBCttARGINa AT 100 CPU
out l/ll/ll
71*0-011
Dames ie Moore
noun
B
-------
APPENDIX A
-------
Appendix A
List of Contacts and Interested Parties
for the Navy Lake-hurst site
Naval Air Engineering Center
Captain David J. Raffeito ... (908) 323-2380
Commanding Officer
Naval Air Engineering Center
Lake hurst, New Jersey 08733-5000
Lev/is Lundberg, Executive Director ,(908) 323-2290
Naval Air Engineering Center
Lake hurst, New Jersey 0&733-5000
Commander Thomas Breitzke (908) 323-2601
Public Works Officer
Naval Air Engineering Center
Lakehurst, New Jersey 08733-5065
Frank Montarelli, Public Affairs Officer (908) 323-2620
Naval Air Engineering Center
Lake hurst, New Jersey 06733-5041
Norther Division. Naval Facilities Engineering Command
Mr. Thomas G. Shedcels (215)897-6424
Restoration Management Section
Northern Division
Naval Facilities Engineering Command
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19112-5094
-------
Mr. Lonni* Monaco (215) 897-6431
Public Affairs Office
Northern Division
Naval Facilities Engineering Command
Bldg.77l.OW
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania t9112-5034
Federal Elected Officials
Senator William Bradley (201) 688-0960
noSYauxhallfioad
P.O. Box 1720
Union, New Jersey 07083
*»
Senator Frank R. Lautenberg (609) 757-5353
208 White Horse Pike
Suite18-19
Barrington, NJ 08007 •
Congressman H. James Sax.ton (509) 26I-5800
115 High Street
Mount Holly, NJ 08060
Congressman Christopher H. Smith (908) 780-0707
655 Park Avenue
Freehold, NJ 07728
Congressman Frank Pallone, Jr. (201) 571-1140
540 Broadway
Room 119
Long Branch, New Jersey 07740
State Elected Officials
-Senator Leonard!. Connors,Jr. (609) 693-6700
620 West Lacey Road
Forked River, New Jersey 08731
-------
Senator John 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, New Jersey '08731
Assemblyman John Patil 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
i
U.S. Environmental Protection Adencv 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 Fiiipelli (212) 264-6723
Federal Facilities Coordinator
Room 500
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region II 26 Federal Plaza
New York, New York 10278
-------
Superfund Community Relations Coor. (212) 264-2515
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region II
Office of External Programs, Room 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 0*8625
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 Pinelands Commission
15 Springfield Road
New Lisbon, New Jersey 08064
-------
' Teirence Moore, Executive Director (609) 8 94-934 2
New Jersey Pine lands Cornmissio n
15 Springfield Road
. New Lisbon, New Jersey 060C4
Ocean County Officials.-.-
Joseph H.Vicari, Director • (908)244-2121
Ocean County Board of Freeholders
CN2121
Toms River, New Jersey 08754
Joseph Przyvvara, Coordinator (908) 341-9700
Ocean County Health Department
Environmental Health
2191 Sunset Avenue
Toms River, New Jersey 08753
A. Jerome Walnut, Chairman (908) 349-1152
Ocean County Environmental
11 East 12lh Street
Barnegat Light, New Jersey 08006
Dover Township OTficiais
Hon. W. Thomas Renkin (908) 341-1000
Mayor of Dover Township
P.O. Box 728
33 Washington Street
Toms River, New Jersey 08754
lanBorden (908)341-1000
Dover Township Environmental Commission
33 Washington Street
P.O. Box 728
Toms River, New Jersey 08754
-------
Manchester Township Officials
Hon. Jane Carclo Cameron . (908) 657-6121
Mayor of Manchester Township
One Colonial Drive
Lake hurst, Nev* Jersey 06133...
Wynn A. Mauer, Chairman •• " (906) 657-6121
Manchester Township Municipal Utililies Authority •
One Colonial Drive
Lake hurst, New Jersey 06733
William Jamieson, Jr., Chairman (908) 657-6121
Manchester Township 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, Administrator (908) 928-1200
Township of Jackson
R.D.4
P.O. Box 100
Jackson, New Jersey 06527
William Bangs, Chairman (908) 928-1200
Jackson Township Environmental Commission
R.D.4
P.O. Box 100
Jackson, New Jersey 08527
-------
Borough of Lakehurst Officials
Hon. Nicholas Kama!' " (908)657-4141
Mayor or' lakehurst Borough
5 Union Avenue
Lake hurst, New Jersey 0873 3
Robert J. Morris ' ••" (908)057-4141
Borough of Lakehurst
5 Union Avenue
Lake hurst, New Jersey 08733
Plumstead Township Officials
Hon. Ronald S. Dancer- (609) 758-2241
Mayor of Plumstead Township
31 Main Street
New Egypt, New Jersey 08533
Community Gro upsf Organizations
Pine Lake Park Association (908) 341-3553
1616 Seventh Avenue' •
Toms River, New Jersey 08757
Media Organizations
Advanced New? •- (908) 657-8936
2048 Route 37 West
Lake hurst, New Jersey 08733
AlynAckerrrain 1-800-822-9770
Asbury Park Press
3601 Highway 66
P.O. Box 1550
Neptune, New Jersey 07754-1550
-------
Debra Coornbe
Newaifc 5bar Ledger (908) 244-71 "71
27 Washington Slirset
Terns River, Mew Jersey 06753
New Egypt Press (509) 758-2112
37 Main Street '
P.O. Box 286
New Egypt, New Jersey 08533
Ocean County Leader (908) 699-1000
611 Laure I Avenue
Point Pleasant Beach, New Jersey 08742
Robert LaTorre (908) .7 93-014 7
Ocean County Rev lev/1
715 Boulevard
Seaside Heights, Mew Jersey 08751
Ocean County Reporter • (908) 349-1501*
8 Robbins Slreet
P.O. Box 90S
Toms River, Mew Jersey 08754
Theresa Holifleld (908) 349-3000
Ocean County Observer
CM 2443
8 Robbins Slreet
Toms River, New Jersey 08754
Shawn Marsh (201)774-7700
WJLK Radio
Press Plaza
Asbury Park, New Jersey 07712
Joan Jones (908) 270-5757
WJRZ Radio
22 West Water Slreet
P.O. Box 100
Toms River, New Jersey 08754
-------
Doug Doyle (908) 259-0927
WD6M Radio
U.S. Highway 9
Bayville. New Jersey 08721
QaryMyervlch ' -" (906)341-8818
Adelphia Cable
830 Highway 37 West
Toms River, New Jersey 08753
Abl Montefiore (908) 681-8222
Ivlonrnouth Cable
P.O. Box 58
Be Irnar, New Jersey 07719
Ed Rogers (609) 530-5252
WNJNTY1
1573 Parkside Avenue
Trenton, New Jersey 08638
-------
APPENDIX B
-------
PUBUCHEARINa
JUNE 26,1991
NAVAL AIR ENGINEERING CENTER
LAKEHURST, NEW JERSEY
•NO ACTION" SITES AND STTB 28 INTERIM REMEDIAL ACTION
Name Address/Affiliation Telephone No.
X
-J
e.'-ri*-,!
U.OO. A\
f BFCM
-l 72-P106
-------
SIGN-IN SHEET
PUBLIC HEARING
JUNE 26,1991 •
NAVAL AIR ENGINEERING CENTER
LAKEHURST, NEW JERSEY
•NO ACTON" SITES AND SITE 28 INTERIM REMEDIAL ACTION
Name
Address/Affiliation
A/ JAa* /
Telephone No.
323-
-------
SIGN-IN SHEET
PUBLIC HEARING
JUNE 26,1991
NAVAL AIR ENGINEERING CENTER
LAKEHURST, NEW JERSEY
"NO ACTION" SITES AND SITE 28 INTERIM REMEDIAL ACTION
ame
Address/Affiliation
} Aa
'jJtis^t*^
Telephone No.
310 ~S1S"7
-------
SIGN-IN SHEET
PUBLIC HEARING
JUNE26.1991 !
NAVAL AIR ENGINEERING CENTER
LAKEHURST, NEW JERSEY
"NO ACTION" SITES AND SITE 28 INTERIM REMEDIAL ACTION
Name Address/Affiliation Telephone No.
tfvos
-------
APPENDIX C
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION a
JACOB K. JAVfTS FEDERAL BULGING
NEW YORK. NEW YORK 10278
JUN 1 * 1991
Captain David Raffetto
Commanding Officer
Naval Air Engineering Center
Lakehurst, New Jersey 08733-5000
Re: NAEC Lakehurst Site 28 Proposed Plan
Dear Captain Raffetto:
This is to notify you that, after reviewing NAEC Lakehurst's
Remedial Investigation and associated documents, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) supports NAEC Lakehurst's
Proposed Plan for an Interim Remedial Action at Site 28. As the
Plan is subject to public comment, we are deferring our final
concurrence on the proposed action until we have reviewed
comments from the public, the Navy's responsiveness summary, and
the draft Record of Decision.
The purpose of this interim remedial action is to contain
and treat a plume of contaminated ground water (primarily
petroleum hydrocarbons which leaked from a fuel pipeline)
emanating from Site 28. The Proposed Plan for Site 28 consists
of the following:
• extraction of contaminated ground water
pre-treatment system for the removal of metals, solids,
etc., from ground water
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 semi-volatile removal from treated ground water
* 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.
This interim action is meant to address the immediate
concern of contaminant migration in ground water at Site 28.
Ground water contamination concerns at Areas C (Sites 10, 16, and
17) and H (Site 32) are being addressed by ongoing interim
actions. Additional areas of concern, as well as residual soil
contamination and final ground water cleanup determinations at
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
-2-
Site 28, will be addressed in future actions. In accordance with
the Interagency Agreement between EPA and the Navy, draft Records
of Decision for final actions at Site 28 as well as all other
areas of concern at NAEC Lakehurst shall be submitted to EPA no
later than January, 1993.
We are pleased to continue the cooperative working
relationship established with NAEC Lakehurst to address
environmental concerns, iIf 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/sidamOT-Efisroff
Regional Aominisrcrator V
cc: I. Curtis, NJDEP
R. Kirkbright, P.E., NAEC Lakehurst
0. Monaco, North, Div., Navy
-------
APPENDIX D
-------
Uft
2 1 JUN 1991
State of fttto
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
DIVISION OF HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT
. LANCE R. MILLER, DIRECTOR
CM 028
... Trenton. N.J. 08625-0028
(609)633-1408
Fax* (609) 633-1454
Mr. Robert Kirkbright, P.E.
Director of Engineering
Department of Navy
Lakehurst NAEC
Lakehurst. NJ 08733-5000
Dear Mr. Kirkbright: **
Re: Proposed Interim Remedial Action Plan (PIRAP)
Lakehurst Naval Air Engineering Center (NAEC)
Lakehurst Township, Ocean County
The Department has reviewed the second Draft of the PIRAP and accept
it as submitted with the incorporation of the following minor modifications:
1. In the Scope and Role of Interim Remedial Action Section of page
4, in the first sentence of the first paragraph, the word "is"
following "...is being implemented..." should be removed.
2. The columns in Table I should be properly aligned.
If you should have any questions, please feel free to contact me at
(609) 633-1455.
Ian Curtis, Case Manager
Bureau of Federal Case Management
c: Bob~Hayton. Section Chief, BFCM
Kevin Schick, BEERA
Linda Uelkom, BGWPA
Sandy Krietzman, DWR
New Jersey is an Equal Opportunity Employer
Recycled Paper
------- |