Superfund Record of Decision Camp Lejeune Military Reservation Us Navy Operable Unit 7 Sites 1 28 and 30 Onslow County NC


                                    EPA/ROD/R04-97/017
                                    1997
EPA Superfund
     Record of Decision:
     CAMP LEJEUNE MILITARY RES. (USNAVY)
     EPA ID: NC6170022580
     OU07
     ONSLOW COUNTY, NC
     10/09/1996

-------
EPA/541/R-97/017

          UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                                                REGION 4
                                         ATLANTA FEDERAL CENTER
                                         100 ALABAMA STREET, S.W.
                                        ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303-3104
CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED

4WD-FFB

Commanding General
Building 1
Marine Corps Base
Camp Lejeune, North Carolina 28542

SUBJ: Record of Decision
      Operable Unit 7, Sites 1, 28 & 30
      MCB Camp Lejeune NPL Site
      Jacksonville, North Carolina

Dear Sir:

    The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency  (EPA) Region 4 has reviewed the above subject
decision document and concurs with the selected remedy for the Remedial Action at Sites 1, 28 &
30. This remedy is supported by the previously completed Remedial Investigation, Feasibility
Study and Baseline Risk Assessment Reports.

    The selected remedy consists of institutional controls designed to prevent future potential
exposure. The controls include restricting potable well installation, restrictions for future
land use and a groundwater monitoring plan. This remedial action is protective of human health
and the environment, complies with Federal and State reguirements that are legally applicable or
relevant and appropriate to the remedial action and is cost effective.

-------
CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED

4WD-FFB
Commanding General
Building 1
Marine Corps Base
Camp Lejeune, North Carolina 28542

SUBJ: Record of Decision
Operable Unit 7, Sites 1, 28 30
MCB Camp Lejeune NPL Site
Jacksonville, North Carolina

Dear Sir:

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region IV has reviewed the above subject
decision document and concurs with the selected remedy for the Remedial Action at Site 1, 28 &
30. This remedy is supported by the previously completed Remedial Investigation, Feasibility
Study and Baseline Risk Assessment Reports.

The selected remedy consists of institutional controls designed to prevent future potential
exposure. The controls include restricting potable well installation, restrictions for future
land use and a groundwater monitoring plan. This remedial action is protective of human health
and the environment, complies with Federal and State reguirements that are legally applicable or
relevant and appropriate to the remedial action and is cost effective.

Sincerely,
Richard D. Green
Acting Director
Waste Management Division

cc: Elsie Munsell, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy
Neal Paul, Camp Lejeune
Kate Landman, LANTDIV
Dave Lown, NCDEHNR

bcc: Frank Redmon, Federal Facilities Coordinator
Beau Mills, HQ

-------
FINAL

RECORD OF DECISION
OPERABLE UNIT NO. 7
SITES 1, 28, AND 30

MARINE CORPS BASE,
CAMP LEJEUNE, NORTH CAROLINA

CONTRACT TASK ORDER 0231

DECEMBER 14, 1995

Prepared For:

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
ATLANTIC DIVISION
NAVAL FACILITIES
ENGINEERING COMMAND
Norfolk; Virginia

Under the:

LANTDIV CLEAN Program
Contract N62470-89-D-4814

Prepared By

BAKER ENVIRONMENTAL, INC.
Coraopolis, Pennsylvania
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS V

DECLARATION vii

1.0 SITE NAME, LOCATION, AND DESCRIPTION 1
1.1 Site 1 1
1.2 Site 28 3
1.3 Site 30 4

2.0 SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES 4
2 .1 Site History 4
2.1.1 Site 1 4
2.1.2 Site 28 5
2.1.3 Site 30 5
2.2 Previous Investigations/Enforcement Activities 5
2.2.1 Initial Assessment Study 5
2.2.2 Confirmation Study 6
2.2.3 Soil Assessment at Site 1 7
2.2.4 Aerial Photographic Investigation 7
2.2.5 Surface Water and Sediment Investigation 8
2.2.6 Additional Groundwater Investigation 8
2.2.7 Remedial Investigation 8

3.0 HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION 13

4 . 0 SCOPE AND ROLE OF THE RESPONSE ACTION 14

5 . 0 SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS 15
5 .1 Site 1 15
5.2 Site 28 17
5.3 Site 30 20

6.0 SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS 21
6.1 Site 1 - Human Health Risk Assessment 22
6.2 Site 1 - Ecological Risk Assessment 23
6.3 Site 28 - Human Health Risk Assessment 23
6.4 Site 28 - Ecological Risk Assessment 24
6.5 Site 30 - Human Health Risk Assessment 25
6.6 Site 30 - Ecological Risk Assessment 26

7.0 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES 26
7 .1 Site 1 Alternatives 27
7 . 2 Site 28 Alternatives 31
7 . 3 Site 30 Alternatives 32

8 . 0 SUMMARY OF THE COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES 32
8 .1 Site 1 32
8.1.1 Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment 32
8.1.2 Compliance with ARARs 33
8.1.3 Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence 33
8.1.4 Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume Through Treatment 33
8.1.5 Short-Term Effectiveness 34
8.1.6 Implementability 34
8.1.7 Cost 34
8.1.8 USEPA/State Acceptance 34
8.1.9 Community Acceptance 34
8.2 Site 28 35
8.2.1 Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment 35
8.2.2 Compliance with ARARs 35
8.2.3 Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence 35
-------
8.2.4 Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume Through Treatment 36
8.2.5 Short-Term Effectiveness 36
8.2.6 Implementability 36
8.2.7 Cost 36
8.2.8 USEPA/State Acceptance 36
8.2.9 Community Acceptance 36

9.0 SELECTED REMEDY 37
9.1 Remedy Description 37
9.1.1 Site 1 Remedy - Institutional Controls (RAA No. 2) 37
9.1.2 Site 28 Remedy - Institutional Controls (RAA No. 2) 37
9.1.3 Site 30 Remedy - No Action 37
9.2 Estimated Costs 38
9.3 Remediation Levels 38
9.3.1 Site 1 38
9.3.2 Site 28 38

10.0 STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS 39
10.1 Protection of Human Health and the Environment 39
10.2 Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements 39
10.3 Cost-Effectiveness 40
10.4 Utilization of Permanent Solutions and Alternative Treatment Technologies.40
10.5 Preference for Treatment as a Principal Element 41

11.0 RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY 41
11.1 Overview 41
11.2 Background on Community Involvement 41
11.3 Summary of Comments Received During the Public Comment Period and
Agency Responses 42
-------
LIST OF TABLES

1 Summary of RI Results - Site 1, French Creek Liquids Disposal Area
2 Summary of RI Results - Site 28, Hadnot Point Burn Dump
3 Summary of RI Results - Site 30, Sneads Ferry Road Fuel Tank Sludge Area
4 COPCs Evaluated During the Human Health Risk Assessment - Site 1, French Creek
Liquids Disposal Area
5 Summary of Potential Human Health Risks - Site 1, French Creek Liquids Disposal Area
6 COPCs Evaluated During the Human Health Risk Assessment - Site 28, Hadnot Point
Burn Dump
7 Summary of Exposure Pathways - Site 28, Hadnot Point Burn Dump Area
8 Summary of Potential Human Health Risks for the Child Receptor - Site 28, Hadnot
Point Burn Dump Area
9 Summary of Potential Human Health Risks for the Adult Receptor - Site 28, Hadnot
Point Burn Dump
10 Summary of Potential Human Health Risks for the Military, Fisherman, and
Construction Worker Receptors - Site 28, Hadnot Point Burn Dump
11 COPCS Evaluated During the Ecological Risk Assessment - Site 28, Hadnot Point Burn
Dump
12 COPCs Evaluated During the Human Health Risk Assessment - Site 30, Sneads Ferry
Road Fuel Tank Sludge Area
13 Summary of Exposure Dose Input Parameters - Site 30, Sneads Ferry Road Fuel Tank
Sludge Area
14 Summary of Potential Human Health Risks - Site 30, Sneads Ferry Road Fuel Tank
Sludge Area
15 Glossary of Evaluation Criteria
16 Summary of the Comparative Analysis of Alternatives - Site 1, French Creek Liquids
Disposal Area
17 Summary of the Comparative Analysis of Alternatives - Site 28, Hadnot Point Burn
Dump

LIST OF FIGURES

1 Operable Unit No. 7 - Sites 1, 28, and 30
2 Site 1 - French Creek Liquids Disposal Area
3 Site 28 - Hadnot Point Burn Dump
4 Site 30 - Sneads Ferry Road Fuel Tank Sludge Area
5 Groundwater Area of Concern, Site 1 - French Creek Liquids Disposal Area
6 Groundwater Areas of Concern, Site 28 - Hadnot Point Burn Dump
7 The Selected Remedy for Site 1: Institutional Controls - Monitoring Plan
8 The Selected Remedy for Site 28: Institutional Controls - Monitoring Plan
-------
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
ADL
AOC
ARAR
AST

BEHP

CERCLA
COPC

DoN

EPIC

GW
Administrative Deadline Lot
area of concern
applicable and relevant or appropriate requirements
Aboveground Storage Tank

bis(2-ethyl hexyl)phthalate

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act
contaminant of potential concern

Department of the Navy

Environmental Photographic Interpretation Center

Feasibility Study

groundwater
HI
HP IA
hazard index
Hadnot Point Industrial Area
IAS
ICR
IR
Initial Assessment Study
incremental cancer risk
Installation Restoration
MCB
Ig/kg
Ig/L
Marine Corps Base
micrograms per kilogram
micrograms per liter
NC DEHNR
NCP
NPL
NPW

O&G
O&M
OU
NC Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan
National Priorities List
net present worth

oil and grease
operation and maintenance
Operable Unit
PAHs
PCBs
PCE
POL
PRAP
QI
polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons
polychlorinated biphenyls
tetrachloroethene
petroleum, oil, and lubricants
Proposed Remedial Action Plan
quotient index
RA
RAA
RCRA
RI
RI/FS
RL
ROD
Risk Assessment
remedial action alternative
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
Remedial Investigation
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
remediation level
Record of Decision
STP
SVOCs
sewage treatment plant
semivolatile organic compounds
TCE
US EPA
UST
trichloroethene
United States Environmental Protection Agency
underground storage tank
VOCs
volatile organic compounds
-------
DECLARATION

Site Name and Location

Operable Unit No. 7 (Site 1 - French Creek Liquids Disposal Area, Site 28 - Hadnot Point Burn
Dump, Site 30 - Sneads Ferry Road Fuel Tank Sludge Area)
Marine Corps Base
Camp Lejeune, North Carolina

Statement of Basis and Purpose

This decision document presents the selected remedy for Operable Unit (OU) No. 7 at Marine Corps
Base (MCB), Camp Lejeune, North Carolina. The remedy was chosen in accordance with the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) , as
amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA), and, to the extent
practicable, the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). This
decision is based on the administrative record file for OU No. 7.

The Department of the Navy (DoN) and the Marine Corps have obtained concurrence from the State
of North Carolina Department of Environment Health and Natural Resources (NC DEHNR) and the
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Region IV on the selected remedy.

Assessment of the Site

Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from this operable unit, if not addressed
by implementing the response action selected in this Record of Decision (ROD), may present a
potential threat to public health, welfare, or the environment.

Description of Selected Remedy

The selected remedy for OU No. 7 is a combination of three separate remedies that were developed
for Sites 1, 28, and 30, respectively. The main components of the selected remedy are described
below.

Site 1 Remedy: Institutional Controls

• A long-term groundwater monitoring plan in which groundwater samples are
collected semiannually and analyzed for volatile organic compounds (VOCS).

• Aguifer use restrictions that will prohibit the future use of the aguifer under the
site as a potable water source. The restrictions will be implemented via the Base
Master Plan.

• Deed restrictions that will limit the future use of land at the site, including
placement of wells. The restrictions will be implemented via the Base Master Plan.

Site 28 Remedy: Institutional Controls

• A long-term groundwater monitoring plan in which groundwater samples are
collected semiannually and analyzed for volatiles, lead and manganese.

• Aguifer use restrictions that will prohibit the future use of the aguifer under the
site as a potable water source. The restrictions will be implemented via the Base
Master Plan.

• Deed restrictions that will limit the future use of land at the site, including
placement of wells. The restrictions will be implemented via the Base Master Plan.

Site 30 Remedy: No Action

• No Action. The "no action" plan involves taking no further remedial actions (this
includes conducting no further environmental investigations or sampling) at the
site. The site and all of the environmental media located within the site will
-------
remain as they currently are.

The selected remedy addresses the principal threats at OU No. 7. These threats include VOC
contaminated groundwater in the shallow aquifer at Site 1, and inorganics contaminated
groundwater in the shallow aquifer at Site 28. Because there were no principal threats
identified at Site 30, no action is the selected remedy.

Statutory Determinations

The selected remedy is protective of human health and the environment, complies with federal and
state applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs) and criteria to be considered
(TBCs) directly associated with this action, and is cost-effective. The statutory preference for
treatment is not satisfied because no active treatment is necessary at Sites 1, 28, and 30 in
order to maintain adequate protection of human health and the environment. Under the selected
remedy, five-year reviews the lead agency will be required for Sites 1 and 28.

-------
1.0 SITE NAME, LOCATION, AND DESCRIPTION

Marine Corps Base (MCB), Camp Lejeune is a training base for the United States Marine Corps,
located in Onslow County, North Carolina. The Base covers approximately 236 square miles and
includes 14 miles of coastline.

Figure 1 presents a map of MCB, Camp Lejeune. As shown, the Base is bounded to the southeast
by the Atlantic Ocean, to the northeast by State Route 24, and to the west by U. S. Route 17.
The town of Jacksonville, North Carolina is located north of the Base.

OU No. 7 is one of 14 operable units located within MCB, Camp Lejeune. An "operable unit", as
defined for the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), is a
discrete action that comprises an incremental step toward comprehensively addressing site
problems. With respect to MCB, Camp Lejeune, operable units were developed to combine one or
more individual sites where Installation Restoration (IR) Program activities are or will be
implemented. The sites which are combined into an operable unit share a common element. Operable
Unit (OU) No. 7, the subject of this ROD, consists of three sites:

• Site 1, the French Creek Liquids Disposal Area
Site 28, the Hadnot Point Burn Dump
Site 30, the Sneads Ferry Road Fuel Tank Sludge Area

Sites 1, 28, and 30 were grouped together because of the similar nature of the wastes that were
reportedly disposed of at the sites and the geographic proximity of the sites.

As shown on Figure 1, OU No. 7 is located on the eastern portion of the Base, situated between
the New River and Sneads Ferry Road, south of the Hadnot Point Industrial Area (HPIA) . The
following paragraphs present brief descriptions of each of the three sites that constitute OU
No. 7.

1.1 Site 1

Site 1, the French Creek Liquids Disposal Area, is the northernmost site located within OU No.
7. As shown on Figure 1, the site is located approximately one mile east of the New River and
one mile southeast of the HPIA. Site 1 is situated along both the north and south sides of Main
Service Road near the western edge of the Gun Park Area and Force Troops Complex.

Figure 2 presents a map of Site 1 that identifies the approximate boundaries of two suspected
disposal areas at the site: the northern disposal area and the southern disposal area. The site
boundaries coincide with the boundaries of these disposal areas. The following subsections
describe the northern and southern portions of Site 1 and the surrounding areas.

Northern Portion of Site 1

As shown on Figure 2, the northern portion of Site 1 is surrounded by a treeline and a
motor-cross training area to the north, a vehicle storage area associated with Building FC-100
to the east, Main Service Road to the south, and a treeline to the west. Most of the area within
this portion of the site contains fenced-in buildings and parking areas. The former northern
disposal area is located in this portion of Site 1. The majority of the former northern disposal
area now contains two fenced-in areas that are associated with Buildings FC-120 and FC-134.

Building FC-120 serves as a motor transport maintenance facility for the Second Landing Support
Battalion. It is a two story brick structure with offices and several vehicle maintenance bays.
Building FC-134, located to the north of Building FC-120, provides offices and communication
equipment storage also for the Second Battalion. It is a brick structure with offices and one
garage bay.

A number of covered material storage areas are located to the north and west of Building FC-120.
These smaller covered structures are used for temporary storage of paint, compressed gasses,
vehicle maintenance fluids, spent or contaminated materials, and batteries. In addition to these
covered storage structures, an above ground storage tank (AST) area, located adjacent to the
northern side of Building FC-120, is utilized to store spent motor oil and ethylene glycol
(i.e., anti-freeze). Also, a gasoline service island is located to the west of Building FC-120.
-------
The two pumps at the service island provide fuel for vehicles undergoing maintenance at Building
FC-120. An underground storage tank (UST) of unknown capacity is associated with this active
service island.

Two eguipment wash areas are located adjacent to the northern disposal area. The first wash area
is located approximately 250 feet west of Building FC-120 and the second lies approximately 100
feet east of Building FC-134. Both equipment wash areas are concrete-lined and employ an oil and
water separator collection basin. A third oil and water separator is located to the northwest of
Building FC-120.

There are two surface water features (a sediment retention pond and a swampy area) that
influence drainage near the northern portion of the site. The retention pond, located north of
Building FC-134, receives surface water runoff via a gravel drainage ditch from the parking lot,
the three oil and water separators, and the surrounding areas. Surface water runoff north of
Building FC-134 drains into the swampy area toward a topographic low area.

As shown on Figure 2, the approximate direction of shallow groundwater flow is northwest.

Southern Portion of Site 1

As shown on Figure 2, the southern portion of Site 1 is surrounded by Main Service Road to the
north, Daly Road to the east, H.M. Smith boulevard to the south, and Gonzales Boulevard and a
wooded area to the west. The area of the former southern disposal area now contains Buildings
739 and 816, a fenced-in vehicle and eguipment Administrative Deadline Lot (ADL), and a
fenced-in hazardous materials storage area.

The hazardous materials storage area, which is concrete-lined and bermed, is located north of
Building 816. This storage area is used for the temporary storage of vehicle maintenance fluids,
spent or contaminated materials, fuel, and batteries. In addition, a number of storage lockers
are located throughout the southern portion of Site 1. These lockers are used to store paints
and other flammable materials used by maintenance and machine shop personnel.

Several small buildings are located adjacent to the suspected southern disposal area. These
buildings house a number of support offices, recreation facilities, machine shops, light-duty
vehicle and eguipment maintenance bays, and eguipment storage areas. Heat is provided to the
majority of these buildings by kerosene-fired stoves. Kerosene fuel is stored in ASTs located
beside each building.

Two vehicle maintenance ramps are also located near the southern portion of Site 1. The first
ramp is located immediately to the south of Building 739 and the second lies to the north of
Building GP-19. Both maintenance ramps are constructed of concrete and are used for the upkeep
of vehicles and eguipment.

In addition, three oil and water separator collection basins are located near the southern
portion of Site 1. One separator is located adjacent to the Building 739 vehicle maintenance
ramp, one separator is located southeast of Building GP-19, and one separator is located
approximately 100 feet south of Building 816, adjacent to an eguipment wash area. Discharge from
the separators and wash areas flows into a stormwater sewer and then into the drainage ditch
adjacent to H.M. Smith Boulevard.

Besides receiving discharge from the separators, the drainage ditch also receives surface water
runoff from the southernmost portions of the site and nearby parking lots. Although it is a
site-related surface water feature, the ditch is mainly dry year round. The ditch starts within
the site boundaries, flows west toward the HPIA Sewage Treatment Plant (adjacent to Site 28),
then empties into Cogdels Creek. Cogdels Creek eventually discharges into the New River which is
located approximately one mile west of Site 1.

1.2 Site 28

Site 28, the Hadnot Point Burn Dump, is the westernmost site located within OU No. 7 (refer to
Figure 1). The site is located along the eastern bank of the New River and is approximately one
mile south of the HPIA on the Mainside portion of MCB, Camp Lejeune.
-------
Figure 3 presents a map of Site 28. As shown, the site is surrounded by the Hadnot Point Sewage
Treatment Plant (STP) to the north, wooded and marshy areas to the east and south, and the New
River to the west. Cogdels Creek flows into the New River at Site 28 and forms a natural divide
between the eastern and western portions of the site. Vehicle access to the site is via Julian
C. Smith Boulevard near its intersection with 0 Street. The eastern and western portions of the
site are served by an improved gravel road.

A majority of the estimated 23 acres that constitute Site 28 are used for recreation and
physical training exercises. The site is predominantly comprised of two lawn and recreation
areas, known collectively as the Orde Pond Recreation Area, that are separated by Cogdels Creek.
Picnic pavilions, playground eguipment, and a stocked fish pond (Orde Pond) are located within
this recreation area. They are regularly used by Base personnel and their families. In addition,
field exercises and physical training activities frequently take place at the recreation area.

The Hadnot Point STP is located on and adjacent to Site 28. A portion of the STP facility (the
equalization lagoon) extends across Cogdels Creek, from west to east. The STP operates a number
of clarifying, settling, and aeration ponds that are located on either side of Cogdels Creek.
Both operational areas of the STP are fenced with six-foot chain link. The treated water from
the STP discharges into the New River approximately 400 feet from the shoreline via an outfall
pipe.

As shown on Figure 3, the shallow groundwater appears to be flowing toward Cogdels Creek from
all points on the site.

1.3 Site 30

Site 30, the Sneads Ferry Road Fuel Tank Sludge Area, is the southernmost site located within
OU No. 7 (refer to Figure 1). The site is situated along a tank trail which intersects Sneads
Ferry Road from the west, approximately 1 mile south of the intersection with Marines Road, and
roughly 4-1/2 miles south of the HPIA. The site is located adjacent to the Combat Town Training
Area. The surrounding training areas and adjacent artillery ranges are used to prepare
specialized personnel for various tactical operations and to simulate amphibious assault
conditions.

Figure 4 presents a map of Site 30. The site boundary depicted on Figure 4 coincides with the
approximate extent of a suspected sludge disposal area. The majority of the Site 30 area is
wooded containing trees of less than three inches in diameter and dense understory. Unimproved
paths are found within and around the site. The tank trail that leads to the suspected disposal
area is occasionally used as part of field training exercises. As shown on Figure 4, one of two
streams which comprise the headwaters of Frenchs Creek lies approximately 1,500 feet west of
Site 28. Surface water runoff and groundwater flow directions are generally to the west and
north toward Frenchs Creek.

2.0 SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES

MCB, Camp Lejeune was placed on the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act (CERCLA) National Priorities List (NPL) on October 4, 1989 (54 Federal
Register 41015, October 4, 1989). The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)
Region IV; the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
(NC DEHNR); and the United States Department of the Navy (DoN) then entered into a Federal
Facilities Agreement for MCB, Camp Lejeune in February 1991. The primary purpose of the
Federal Facilities Agreement was to ensure that environmental impacts associated with past and
present activities at MCB, Camp Lejeune were thoroughly investigated and appropriate CERCLA
response/Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) corrective action alternatives were
developed and implemented as necessary to protect public health and the environment.

The following subsections describe the history (i.e., the past land usages and waste disposal
practices) of Sites 1, 28, and 30, and a summary of previous site investigations/enforcement
activities.

2.1 Site History

2.1.1 Site 1
-------
Site 1 had been used by several different mechanized, armored, and artillery units since the
1940s. Reportedly, liquid wastes generated from vehicle maintenance were routinely poured onto
the ground surface. During motor oil changes, vehicles were driven to a disposal point and
drained of used oil. In addition, acid from dead batteries was reportedly hand carried from
maintenance buildings to disposal points. At times, holes were reportedly dug for waste acid
disposal and then immediately backfilled. Thus, the disposal areas at Site 1 are suspected to
contain petroleum, oil, and lubricants (POL) and battery acid.

The total extent of both the northern and southern disposal areas is estimated to be between
seven and eight acres. The quantity of POL waste disposed at the areas is estimated to be
between 5,000 and 20,000 gallons; the quantity of battery acid waste is estimated to be between
1,000 and 10,000 gallons.

Site 1 continues to serve as a vehicle and equipment maintenance/staging area.

2.1.2 Site 28

Site 28 operated from 1946 to 1971 as a burn area for a variety of solid wastes generated on the
Base. Reportedly, industrial waste, trash, oil-based paint, and construction debris were burned
then covered with soil. In 1971, the burn dump ceased operations, and was graded and seeded with
grass.

The total volume of fill within the dump is estimated to be between 185,000 and 375,000 cubic
yards. This estimate was based upon a surface area of 23 acres and a depth ranging from five to
ten feet.

2.1.3 Site 30

Site 30 was reportedly used by a private contractor as a cleaning area for emptied fuel storage
tanks from other locations. The tanks were used to store leaded gasoline that contained
tetraethyl lead and related compounds. Since fuel residuals remaining in the emptied tanks were
reportedly washed out at Site 30, the disposal area is suspected to contain fuel sludge and
wastewater from the washout of the tanks.

The suspected disposal area measures approximately 7,500 square yards. It is estimated that, at
a minimum, 600 gallons of sludge were removed from tanks and drained onto the ground surface
during the cleaning process. This estimate was based on the projected volume of material
remaining in two 12,000 gallon tanks and the amount of material below their outflow ports.
Supplemental information suggests that the site may have been used for the disposal of similar
wastes from other tanks. The quantity and composition of the waste is unknown. However, it is
suspected to have contained tetraethyl lead and cleansing compounds.

2.2 Previous Investigations/Enforcement Activities

Previous investigations conducted at OU No. 7 include an Initial Assessment Study (IAS), a
Confirmation Study, a soil assessment at Site 1, an aerial photographic investigation, and
various
surface water, sediment, and groundwater investigations. A comprehensive description of each
investigation is included in the RI/FS reports; brief descriptions are presented below.

2.2.1 Initial Assessment Study

In 1983, an IAS was conducted at MCB, Camp Lejeune to evaluate potential hazards at various
sites throughout the Base. The IAS was based upon a review of historical records and aerial
photographs, field inspections, and personnel interviews. Conclusions from the IAS indicated
that a number of sites, including Sites 1, 28, and 30, contained potential source areas of
contamination and warranted further investigations.

2.2.2 Confirmation Study

As a result of the IAS, a Confirmation Study was conducted at MCB, Camp Lejeune between 1984
and 1987. The study consisted of two steps: a Verification Step, performed in 1984, and a
Confirmation Step, performed in 1986 and 1987. The purpose of the study was to investigate
-------
potential contaminant source areas identified during the IAS. The following paragraphs summarize
the results of the Confirmation Study at Sites 1, 28, and 30, and the final recommendations that
were made based on these results.

2.2.2.1 Site 1 Results

At Site 1, the Confirmation Study focused on the presence of potential contaminants in
groundwater, surface water, and sediment. Organic and inorganic contaminants were identified in
the groundwater samples collected at the site The volatile organic compounds (VOCS)
tetrachloroethene (PCE) and trichloroethene (TCE) were identified at levels exceeding present
standards in a number of groundwater samples. In addition, oil and grease (O&G) was detected in
groundwater, surface water, and sediment samples. The presence of the O&G was most likely due to
the POL that had reportedly been disposed of at Site 1.

2.2.2.2 Site 28 Results

At Site 28, the Confirmation Study focused on the presence of potential contaminants in
groundwater, surface water, sediment, and fish tissue. Overall, inorganics were the most
prevalent contaminant group detected throughout both rounds of the Confirmation Study.
Groundwater, surface water, and sediment samples suggested that the inorganics, with the
exception of mercury in surface water, originated from the disposal area at the site.

Concentrations of inorganics in groundwater generally decreased from one sampling round to the
next, during 1984 and 1986. Inorganic concentrations in sediment, however, increased from the
first to the second sampling round. Surface water samples obtained from Cogdels Creek identified
cadmium and mercury at concentrations that, in certain cases, exceeded state surface water
standards. Lead was detected at concentrations exceeding federal screening values in sediment
samples collected from Cogdels Creek and shallow groundwater samples collected during both the
1984 and 1986 investigations. In addition, mercury was detected in surface water and shallow
groundwater samples. The distribution of mercury throughout the site suggested that the
contaminant was not only present at the site, but may also have migrated from an upstream
location.

In addition to the inorganics detected in the groundwater, VOCS were detected in samples
collected from one monitoring well at the site. The detected concentrations exceeded regulatory
limits for TCE and vinyl chloride. VOCS were not detected in groundwater samples from any of the
other three existing wells.

The pesticide Alpha-BHC and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) were detected in fish tissue
obtained from Orde Pond in 1984. However, Alpha-BHC was detected at low concentrations and
the PCBs were suspected to have bioaccumulated in the food chain. Also, PCBs were not detected
elsewhere during the Confirmation Study at Site 28. Thus, neither the pesticide nor the PCBs
appeared to be site related.

2.2.2.3 Site 30 Results

At Site 30, the Confirmation Study focused on the presence of potential contaminants in
groundwater, surface water, and sediment. For the groundwater investigation, two monitoring
wells were installed at the site. Lead was detected in the samples collected from these wells at
levels exceeding state and federal drinking water standards. In the surface water, no detectable
levels of target compounds were identified. During the sediment investigation, data collected
suggested that O&G was present in both the suspected disposal area and stream bed sediments at
Site 30. However, it was not clear whether the presence of O&G could be attributed to heavy
vehicular traffic or emergency vehicle maintenance in the Combat Town Training Area.

2.2.2.4 Recommendations of the Confirmation Study

The Confirmation Study recommended further characterization of Sites 1, 28, and 30 and a risk
assessment to complete the RI/FS process. The Confirmation Study also recommended that
additional surface water and sediment investigations of Cogdels Creek, between Site 28 and the
HPIA, be conducted to determine possible upstream sources of contamination.

2.2.3 Soil Assessment at Site 1
-------
In 1991, a soil assessment was conducted at Site 1. The purpose of this assessment was to
evaluate the soil quality at the site prior to initiating a proposed construction project near
the southern disposal area. Analytical results from the soil investigation identified the
presence of several inorganics. Concentrations of detected inorganics, including cadmium,
chromium, lead, and manganese, were, in general, consistent throughout the site. Contaminants
were also detected in soil samples collected from upgradient locations. The distribution and
comparable nature of detected inorganics in the soil and environmental media sampled during
other investigations suggested that these inorganics are found throughout adjoining areas.

2.2.4 Aerial Photographic Investigation

In 1992, an aerial photographic investigation was completed by the USEPA's Environmental
Photographic Interpretation Center (EPIC) for several areas within MCB, Camp Lejeune. The
investigation employed photographs to locate and assess potential sources of contamination, and
to
delineate the extent of disposal activities within the study area.

At Site 1, black-and-white aerial photographs dating from 1944, 1949, 1952, 1956, 1960, 1964,
1984, 1988, and 1990 were made available for the examination of surface conditions. The
photographs indicated that over time, significant clearing and construction had occurred within
the suspected disposal areas. Operations including the staging of equipment and vehicles also
appeared to increase over time.

At Site 28, black-and-white aerial photographs dating from 1949, 1952, 1956, 1960, and 1964 were
used for the visual analysis of surface conditions. Additional photographs from 1938 and 1943
were employed to establish a basis of comparison, prior to development of the Camp Lejeune
Military Reservation. The aerial photographs contained visual evidence of past waste disposal
activities and assisted in defining areas of concern at the site.

At Site 30, a black-and-white aerial photograph taken in 1964 was made available for examination
of surface conditions. Although the photograph was taken prior to the reported disposal event,
1970, information from the photograph was employed to evaluate potential source areas of
contamination.

2.2.5 Surface Water and Sediment Investigation

In 1993, an additional surface water and sediment investigation of Cogdels Creek and the New
River was conducted to support RI scoping activities. The most prevalent contaminants detected
in the surface water and sediment samples were polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) compounds,
pesticides, and inorganics. PAH compounds were detected in sediment samples from both Cogdels
Creek and the New River. Some of the highest PAH concentrations were detected in a sediment
sample from the New River, downstream of Site 28. PAH compounds were also detected upstream
of the site, in sediments collected from Cogdels Creek.

2.2.6 Additional Groundwater Investigation

In 1993, an additional groundwater investigation was conducted at Sites 1, 28, and 30 to support
RI scoping activities. This study included one round of groundwater sampling from five wells at
Site 1, four wells at Site 28, and two wells at Site 30.

At Site 1, analytical results from the groundwater investigation identified the presence of
inorganics. Concentrations of detected inorganics, including cadmium, chromium, lead, and
manganese, were, in general, consistent throughout the site. Potential contaminants were also
detected in groundwater samples obtained from upgradient locations. The distribution and
comparable nature of detected inorganics in the groundwater and environmental media sampled
during other investigations suggests that these inorganics are found throughout adjoining areas.

At Site 28, the most prevalent contaminants detected in the groundwater samples collected under
this investigation were PAHs and inorganics. Inorganics were frequently detected at
concentrations in excess of state and federal groundwater standards.

At Site 30, groundwater samples were collected from the two existing monitoring wells.
Inorganics were detected in both wells with the detections at the easternmost well being
-------
generally greater than the detections at the westernmost well. Cadmium, chromium, and lead were
all detected at levels exceeding federal and state standards at the easternmost well.

2.2.7 Remedial Investigation

In 1994, Baker Environmental, Inc. (Baker) conducted an RI for OU No. 7. The following
investigations were conducted at each site:

Site 1
• Soil Investigation (128 samples)
• Groundwater Investigation (19 samples; two rounds of samples)

Site 28
• Soil Investigation (94 samples)
• Groundwater Investigation (13 samples; two rounds of samples)
• Surface Water and Sediment Investigations (14 surface water and 27
sediment samples)
• Benthic and Aguatic Investigations (6 benthic and 19 aguatic samples)

Site 30
• Soil Investigation (25 samples)
• Groundwater Investigation (3 samples; two rounds of samples)
• Surface Water and Sediment Investigations (3 surface water and 6 sediment
samples)

Note that surface water and sediment samples were initially proposed at the drainage ditch
located along the southern portion of Site 1. However, due to a lack of surface water, the ditch
did not represent a classifiable surface water body used for human consumption or recreation,
nor did it represent an ecological habitat.

Based on the analytical results from the sampling of environmental media, contaminants of
potential concern (COPCs) were identified. A human health risk assessment (RA) and an ecological
RA were conducted to evaluate the potential risks associated with these COPCs. The results of
the RAs are summarized in a later section of this ROD.

The following sections briefly summarize the results of the RI conducted at each site.

2.2.7.1 Site 1 Results

Table 1 presents a summary of the RI analytical results for Site 1. This summary includes a
range of detected concentrations and comparison criteria. Please note that because of asphalt
and gravel overburden material, a number of surface soil samples were not retained for
laboratory analysis.

Soil: VOCS were not found in surface soils, but were detected in four out of 110 subsurface soil
samples. TCE and toluene were detected at very low concentrations in samples from the northern
central portion of the study area.

Semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCS) were not encountered in surface soils, but were detected
in a number of subsurface soil samples. Most notable among the SVOCS detected were three PAH
compounds, di-n-butylphthalate, and BEHP.

The pesticides dieldrin, 4,4'-DDE, 4,4'-ODD, 4,4'-DDT, endrin aldehyde, alpha-chlordane, and
gamma-chlordane were detected in the soil at Site 1. Each of these pesticides was detected, at
low concentrations, in at least two of the 124 soil samples. The pesticide 4,4'-DDT was the most
prevalent, with 10 positive detections ranging from 1.6 to 18 micrograms per kilogram (Ig/Kg),
and the highest pesticide concentration was that of 4,4'-DDE at 120 Ig/Kg.

The PCBs Aroclor 1254 and Aroclor 1260 were each detected once within the subsurface soil.
Aroclor 1254 was detected on the southern portion of the site at a concentration of 18 Ig/Kg.
Aroclor 1260 was detected near the center of the northern disposal area at a concentration of
1,300 Ig/Kg.
-------
Several inorganics were also detected in the surface and subsurface soil at Site 1. However, the
detected concentrations of these inorganics did not significantly differ from Base-specific
background concentrations. Therefore, the positive detections of inorganics in soil did not
appear to be the result of past disposal practices.

Groundwater: Positive detections of VOCs in groundwater were limited to the northern portion of
the study area. TCE was detected in three samples obtained from the shallow aguifer. The
maximum TCE concentration, 27 micrograms per liter (Ig/L), was detected in the north central
portion of the study area. This detected concentration slightly exceeds the federal standard for
TCE, 2.8 Ig/L. Figure 5 shows a possible plume of TCE that was delineated based on positive
detections of this compound and the direction of groundwater flow, northwest. Two other VOCs
1,2-dichloroethene and 1,1 -dichloroethene, were observed at maximum concentrations of 21 Ig/L
and 2 Ig/L, respectively. Neither level exceeded federal or state standards. The maximum
1,2-dichloroethene and 1,1,dichloroethene concentrations were detected at monitoring well
1-GW10, located to the west of the suspected northern disposal area. Vinyl chloride was also
detected at a maximum concentration of 4 Ig/L, which exceeds the state and federal drinking
water standards, at monitoring well 1-GW10.

Like VOCs, the positive detections of SVOCs were limited to the northern portion of the study
area. Phenol and diethylphthalate were detected during the first sampling round only in the deep
aguifer at concentrations of 6 Ig/L and 1 Ig/L, respectively.

Inorganics were the most prevalent among contaminants detected in the groundwater at Site 1.
However, the positive detections of inorganics were distributed sporadically throughout the
site. As a result, most of the inorganics did not appear to be site related. Iron and manganese,
in particular, were detected at maximum concentrations of 29,200 Ig/L and 1,200 Ig/L. These
levels exceeded state drinking water standards. However, positive detections of iron and
manganese were distributed sporadically throughout the site, indicative of natural site
conditions rather than disposal activities. In addition, iron and manganese concentrations in
groundwater throughout MCB, Camp Lejeune often exceed state and federal standards. During past
studies, manganese concentrations at a nearby potable water supply well and at several Site 1
wells exceeded the standards, but fell within the range of concentrations for samples collected
elsewhere at MCB, Camp Lejeune.

2.2.7.2 Site 28 Results

Table 2 presents a summary of the RI analytical results for Site 28. This summary includes a
range of detected concentrations and comparison criteria.

Soil: VOCs were found in one surface soil sample and two subsurface soil samples at very low
concentrations. The VOCs benzene, PCE, and 1,1,1-trichloroethane were each detected once within
the 72 soil samples collected at Site 28. Based upon their wide dispersion, infreguent
detection, and low concentration, the occurrence of VOCs in soils at Site 28 did not appear to
be a significant problem resulting from previous disposal practices.

SVOCs, among the other organic compounds within soil at Site 28, appeared to be the most
directly linked to past disposal practices. Several SVOCs were identified in both surface and
subsurface soil samples, primarily from the western disposal area. A majority of SVOCs detected
in soil samples were PAH compounds, most probably resulting from past burning of waste material
or refuse.

The pesticides dieldrin, 4,4'-DDE, 4,4'-ODD, 4,4'-DDT, alpha-chlordane, and gamma-chlordane
appeared to be the most widely scattered compounds within surface and subsurface soils at Site
28. Each of the five pesticides was detected in at least 15 of the 72 soil samples. The
pesticide 4,4'-DDE was the most prevalent, with 44 positive detections ranging from 3.1 Ig/Kg in
subsurface soil to 1,600 Ig/Kg in surface soil. The highest pesticide concentration was that of
4,4'-DDT at 7,300 Ig/Kg in the subsurface soil. In general, higher concentrations of those
pesticides more freguently detected were limited to the western portion of the site around the
picnic area.

Three PCBs, Aroclor 1242, Aroclor 1254, and Aroclor 1260, were detected in subsurface soil
samples. The maximum PCB concentration was 140 Ig/Kg from a location in the center of the site
on the northern side of the fence surrounding the treatment plant.
-------
Inorganics were detected in both surface and subsurface soil samples from the western portion of
the study area at concentrations greater than one order of magnitude above Base-specific
background levels. In general, elevated inorganics concentrations were limited to soils obtained
from the western portion of the study area. The inorganics copper, lead, manganese, and zinc
were observed at maximum concentrations greater than two orders of magnitude above Base-specific
background levels. The same three inorganics had several positive detections in excess of the
one order of magnitude level.

Groundwater: Positive detections of VOCs in groundwater were limited to the central western
portion of the study area. Chloroform, ethylbenzene, and xylene were detected in a single
shallow groundwater sample obtained from a temporary well located there.

SVOCs were detected in five of ten shallow groundwater samples obtained during the first
sampling round from the western portion of the study area. These SVOCs included fluorene,
phenanthrene, fluoranthene, pyrene, and chrysene. The maximum SVOC concentration, 99 Ig/L of
naphthalene, was detected within the sample from a temporary monitoring well located in the
central western portion of the study area. SVOC analyses of groundwater samples were not
performed as part of the second sampling round.

The pesticides 4,4'-DDE, 4,4'-ODD, 4,4'-DDT, and gamma-chlordane were each detected at least
once within samples obtained from six shallow monitoring wells located on the western portion of
Site 28, during the first sampling round. The pesticides 4,4'-DDE and 4,4'-ODD were detected
within five and six shallow groundwater samples, respectively. The highest pesticide
concentration detected was 9 Ig/L of 4,4'-ODD, within the sample obtained from a monitoring well
in the center of the site. A second round of groundwater samples was obtained from those
monitoring wells that presented evidence of pesticide contamination during the first sampling
round. However, groundwater samples obtained during the second sampling round did not contain
pesticides. This was most likely the result of a low-flow sampling technigue used during the
second round.

Inorganics were the most prevalent and widely distributed contaminants in groundwater at Site 28
and were found distributed throughout the site. Concentrations of inorganics, in samples
obtained during both sampling rounds, were generally higher in shallow groundwater samples than
in samples collected from the deeper aguifer. Lead was detected, and confirmed by the second
sampling round in only 1 of the 12 shallow and deep groundwater samples. Lead levels (at a
maximum concentration of 126 Ig/L) exceeded the state and federal drinking water standard from a
well located in the north-central portion of the site. Iron and manganese were the most
prevalent inorganic elements detected during both sampling rounds. Concentrations of iron and
manganese were confirmed by the second sampling round to have exceeded either federal or state
standards within 7 groundwater samples.

Surface Water: In New River surface water, copper exceeded federal screening values but at
levels that were indicative of a low potential for risk. Lead and zinc exceeded screening values
slightly at a single station. Aluminum exceeded its screening value slightly in Orde Pond.

Sediment: In the sediments, lead exceeded screening values only once in Cogdels Creek at a low
level but exceeded screening values significantly in the New River at one station. Antimony
exceeded its screening value moderately at the same station in the New River. This station may
be associated with runoff from an active firing range located approximately 3 miles southwest of
the site. Pesticides exceeded screening values throughout Cogdels Creek with the highest
exceedances in the lower reach of the creek near the confluence with the New River. However,
these exceedances represent only a moderate potential for risk to aguatic receptors. The levels
of pesticides detected in the sediments may be a result of routine application in the vicinity
of Site 28, especially near the sewage treatment plant and recreation area.

Benthic and Aguatic: Results of the analysis of benthic macroinvertebrates and fish populations
indicated that Cogdels Creek and the New River support an aguatic community that is
representative of a tidally-influenced freshwater and estuarine ecosystem with both freshwater
and marine species. The absence of pathologies observed in fish indicated that the surface water
and sediment guality does not adversely impact the fish community. The benthic community
demonstrated the typical tidal/freshwater species trend of primarily chironomids and
oligochaetes in the upper reaches of Cogdels Creek and polychaetes and amphipods in the lower
reaches of Cogdels Creek and the New River. Species representative of both tolerant and
-------
intolerant taxa were present and the overall community composition did not indicate a benthic
community adversely impacted by surface water and sediment quality.

2.2.7.3 Site 30 Results

Table 3 presents a summary of the RI analytical results for Site 30. This summary includes a
range of detected concentrations and comparison criteria.

Soil: The VOC 1,1,1-trichloroethane was the only organic compound detected in surface soil
samples at Site 30. 1,1,1-trichloroethane was detected at concentrations of 2 and 3 Ig/Kg from
two sampling locations situated along the tank trail on the northeastern edge of the site
boundary. No other positive detections of VOCs or SVOCs were observed among surface soil
samples.

Inorganics were detected in the surface soil samples retained from Site 30. However, none of the
positive detections of priority pollutant inorganics exceeded Base-specific background levels
for surface soil.

The VOC 1,1,1 -trichloroethane was the only organic compound detected in subsurface soil samples
at Site 30. It was detected at a concentration of 2 Ig/Kg in a sample located near the center of
the suspected disposal area. No other positive detections of VOCs or SVOCs were observed among
subsurface soil samples.

Chromium was the only inorganic detected in subsurface soil at concentrations greater than
Base-specific background levels. The maximum chromium concentration among subsurface soil
samples was 13.2 Ig/Kg. Four of the 12 chromium detections slightly exceeded the maximum Base-
specific background concentration. The four detections were scattered throughout the study area.

Groundwater: Chloroform, a VOC, was the only organic compound detected in the shallow
groundwater during the first sampling round. Chloroform was detected at a concentration of 9
Ig/L in monitoring well 30-GW01. During the second sampling round, chloroform was once again
detected (at 3 Ig/L) in a groundwater sample obtained from monitoring well 30-GW01. No other
VOCs were detected.

Inorganics, both total and dissolved fractions, were detected in samples obtained from each of
the three monitoring wells at Site 30. Chromium, iron, lead, and manganese were each detected
among the three groundwater samples at concentrations which exceeded either federal or state
drinking water standards for total inorganics. Chromium, iron, lead, and manganese were detected
at maximum concentrations of 111, 41,400,59.1, and 181 Ig/L, respectively. With the exception of
iron, none of these positive detections, in excess of either federal or state standards,
exceeded Base-specific background levels. During the second sampling round, iron was detected at
a concentration of 692 Ig/L (based on total inorganics analyses) in a sample from monitoring
well 30-GW03. This detected concentration exceeded the state standard of 300 Ig/L.

Surface Water: Three surface water samples from Frenchs Creek were submitted for laboratory
analysis. Lead and mercury were the only inorganics identified at concentrations in excess of
EPA Region IV screening values. Both lead and mercury detections were observed in a sample
located upgradient of the study area. Lead and mercury were detected at concentrations of 2.3
and 0.15 Ig/L, respectively. No other total inorganics concentrations were in excess of
screening values. Further, VOCs and SVOCs were not detected in any of the three surface water
samples.

Sediment: VOCs were not detected among the six sediment samples retained for analysis from
Frenchs Creek. The SVOC BEHP was detected in two Frenchs Creek sediment samples. The
concentrations of BEHP at the upstream and downstream locations were 3,900 and 2,600 Ig/Kg,
respectively. No inorganics concentrations among the six sediment samples exceeded screening
values.

3.0 HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION

The RI/FS and PRAP documents for OU No. 7 were released to the public in July 1995. These
documents were made available in an administrative record file at information repositories
maintained at the Onslow County Public Library and at the Installation Restoration Division
-------
Office (Building 67, Room 238, MCB, Camp Lejeune). Also, all addresses on the OU No. 7 mailing
list were sent a copy of the Final PRAP and Fact Sheet. The notice of availability of the PRAP
and RI/FS documents was published in the "Jacksonville Daily News" in July, 1995. A public
comment period was held from October 5, 1995 to November 3, 1995. In addition, a public meeting
was held on October 5, 1995, to respond to guestions and to accept public comments on the final
PRAP for Site 1. The public meeting minutes were transcribed and a copy of the transcript was
made available to the public at the aforementioned locations. A Responsiveness Summary, included
as part of the final ROD, was prepared to respond to the significant comments, criticisms and
new relevant information received during the comment period.

4.0 SCOPE AND ROLE OF THE RESPONSE ACTION

Because the potential contaminants identified at Sites 1, 28, and 30 appear to be unrelated,
separate response actions were developed for each site. The response action, or selected remedy,
for OU No. 7 is a combination of the three separate response actions that were developed for
Sites 1, 28, and 30.

The response action for Site 1 was developed to address the groundwater area of concern (AOC)
identified on Figure 5. This AOC is a plume in the shallow aguifer that contains low levels of
TCE. The extent of this AOC was approximated based on monitoring well locations where TCE
exceeded its remediation level, 5 Ig/L. (Remediation levels are concentrations to which
contaminated material must be remediated. They are based on federal, state, and local standards
and risk-based criteria; they are developed for COPCs that contributed to unacceptable risk
levels.)

In some shallow groundwater samples collected at Site 1, manganese and mercury exceeded their
remediation levels - 50 and 1.1 Ig/L, respectively. However, manganese and mercury were not
included in the scope of the response action because they did not appear to be site related
contaminants. The following statements support the theory that manganese and mercury are not
site related contaminants.

• Manganese concentrations (i.e., both total and filtered) in groundwater at MCB,
Camp Lejeune often exceed the state and federal standard of 50 Ig/L (Baker, 1994).
Elevated manganese levels, at concentrations above the standard, were reported in
samples collected from a number of Base potable water supply wells. Manganese
concentrations at several Site 1 wells exceeded the standard, but fell within the
range of concentrations for samples collected elsewhere at MCB, Camp Lejeune. As a
result, manganese does not appear to be a site related contaminant. Instead,
manganese appears to naturally occur at concentrations exceeding its remediation
level in groundwater throughout the Base.

• Mercury exceeded its remediation level at only one well by 0.1 Ig/L, which is a
relatively minor exceedance. In addition, mercury was not detected in any of the
dissolved inorganics samples. Conseguently, it is likely that suspended solids in
the total inorganics sample created the high detection of mercury. Thus, mercury
does not appear to be a site related contaminant.

• There is no record of any historical use, either industrial or disposal, of
manganese or mercury at Site 1. This information further supports the theory that
manganese and mercury are not site related contaminants.

The response action for Site 28 was developed to address the groundwater AOCs identified on
Figure 6. These AOCs include monitoring well locations where manganese and lead exceeded their
remediation levels - 50 and 15 Ig/L, respectively.

The response action for Site 30 was developed to address site conditions that already appear to
protective of human health and the environment.

5.0 SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS

This section contains a brief summary of the site characteristics at OU No. 7, as determined
during the RI.
-------
5.1 Site 1
The soils underlying Site 1 are generally consistent throughout the shallow and
deep subsurface. The soils consist of mostly silty sands with thinly interbedded
layers of clay and silty clay which are discontinuous. One to two feet of fill
material is present throughout the site, especially in areas where construction or
regrading activities have occurred. The top of the deep aguifer was encountered at
approximately 25 to 27 feet bgs.

Groundwater flow within the surficial aguifer was determined to be to the
west-northwest with a relatively low gradient of 0.0027. The groundwater flow
direction within the deep aguifer was not determined due to a limited number of
wells; however, it is expected to be to the west in the direction of the New River.
Sightly different groundwater elevations (i.e., head differentials) were noted
between the surficial and deep aguifer monitoring wells. In general, there is a
downward movement (head) of groundwater at the site. Groundwater flow velocity
within the surficial aguifer was estimated at 2.9 x 10 -# feet/day.

Two water supply wells were identified within a one-mile radius of Site 1. Both
wells, however, were put out of service by Base personnel due to VOCs in the
groundwater.

The most prevalent pesticides detected were dieldrin, 4,4'-DDE, 4,4'-ODD,
4,4'-DDT, endrin aldehyde, and alpha-chlordane. They were detected, at low
concentrations, in at least two of the 124 soil samples. The pesticide 4,4'-DDT was
the most prevalent, and the highest pesticide concentration was that of 4,4'-DDE.

The PCBs Aroclor 1254 and 1260 were each detected once within the subsurface
sample set.

VOCs were not found in surface soils and were detected in only four subsurface
samples scattered throughout the site. In particular, TCE and toluene were detected
at very low concentrations.

SVOCs were not encountered in surface soils, but were detected in a number of
subsurface samples. Most notable among the SVOCs detected were three PAH
compounds and di-n-butylphthalate.

Based on a comparison of Base-specific background levels, positive detections of
inorganics at Site 1 do not appear to be the result of past disposal practices.

Inorganics were the most prevalent among potential contaminants in groundwater
at Site 1 and were found distributed throughout the site. Iron and manganese were
detected at concentrations which exceeded the state drinking water standards and
barium, calcium, magnesium, potassium, and sodium were also detected in each of
the shallow and deep groundwater samples.

In general, VOC analytical results from the first and second sampling events
correlated. TCE was detected in samples obtained from three shallow monitoring
wells. The maximum TCE concentration was detected within a sample from monitoring
well 1-GW17. The VOCs 1,2-dichloroethene, 1,1-dichloroethene, vinyl chloride, and
xylenes were also observed in the shallow aguifer. The SVOCs phenol and
diethylphthalate were detected during the first sampling round only in a sample from
deep well 1-GW17DW.

The potential noncarcinogenic or carcinogenic risks from exposure to the surface
soil and subsurface soil at Site 1 were within acceptable levels for the current
military receptor and the future construction worker receptor, respectively.

There were potential noncarcinogenic and carcinogenic risks to the future
residential child and adult receptors upon exposure to groundwater. The potential
noncarcinogenic risks from groundwater are 17.8 and 7.6 for the child and adult
receptor, respectively. These values exceed the acceptable level of 1.0. The
-------
potential carcinogenic risk from groundwater was 1.8x10 -4 for the adult receptor.
This risk exceeds the acceptable risk range of 1x10 -4 to 1x10 -6. Arsenic and
manganese were the primary COPCs contributing to the risks.

On comparison of arsenic and manganese levels in the groundwater to federal and
state standards, only manganese exceeds the criteria. The concentration of arsenic
that was used to determine potential risk was exceeded at five wells. Three of these
wells are located off site (i.e., wells 1-GW10, 1-GW11, and 1-GW12). The
concentration of manganese used to determine potential risk was the maximum level
(1,200 Ig/L) found at off-site well 1-GW10. This level was found only once among the
shallow and deep wells, excluding another off-site well, 1-GW11, which had a
concentration of 1,070 Ig/L. The remaining detects of manganese were at least a
magnitude less than the maximum level. Although these two metals contributed to the
site risks from groundwater exposure, the levels used to calculate risk were
primarily from off-site wells. Consequently, it is reasonable to assume that the
risks from groundwater due to the presence of arsenic and manganese may be
overestimates of risk and are highly conservative values.

Inorganics appear to be the only site related COPCs that may have the potential to
affect the integrity of terrestrial receptors at Site 1. There were no aguatic
receptors identified that would be exposed to site related COPCs. In addition, there
were no threatened or endangered species or critical habitats identified at Site 1.
Therefore, there is no ecological risk expected to these receptors.

Surface soil guality indicated a slight potential for cadmium and chromium
concentrations to decrease the integrity of terrestrial invertebrates or plants at
the site. However, because the site concentrations only just exceeded the literature
values, it is not expected that these contaminants would present a significant
ecological risk to these terrestrial receptors.

Other terrestrial receptors may be exposed to the contaminants in the surface Soils
by ingestion. For the deer, rabbit, fox, and guail receptors used in this ERA, there
does appear to be a slight ecological risk to terrestrial vertebrate receptors.
However, this risk is expected to be low because of the low level of the exceedances
of the terrestrial reference values.
5.2 Site 28
The soils underlying Site 28 are generally consistent throughout the shallow and
deep subsurface. The soils consist of mostly silty sands with thinly interbedded
layers of clay and silty clay which are discontinuous. A large quantity of fill
material and debris (e.g., glass, metal, brick, and wire), varying in thickness from
3 to 22 feet, underlies the western portion of the site. The location and thickness
of the fill and debris appear to coincide with existing information and results of
previous investigations. The top of the deep aquifer was encountered at
approximately 40 feet bgs.

Groundwater within the surficial aquifer discharges into Cogdels Creek. The water
table gradient is relatively low (0.004). Flow velocity within the surficial aquifer
was estimated at 4.1 x 10 -# feet/day. Groundwater flow within the deep aquifer was
determined to be to the west-southwest with a relatively low gradient of 0.0013.
Sightly different groundwater elevations (i.e., head differentials) were noted
between the surficial and deep aquifer monitoring wells. In general, there is a
downward movement (head) of groundwater at the site.

There are no water supply wells within a one-mile radius of Site 28.

Among organic compounds, SVOCs within soil samples at Site 28 appear to be the most
directly linked to past disposal practices. Several SVOCs were identified in both
surface and subsurface soil samples, primarily from the western disposal area. A
majority of SVOCs detected in soil samples were PAH compounds, most probably
resulting from combustion of waste material or refuse.
-------
Inorganic elements were detected in both surface and subsurface soil samples from
the western portion of the study area at concentrations greater than one order of
magnitude above Base-specific background levels. The inorganics copper, lead,
manganese, and zinc were observed at maximum concentrations greater than two
orders of magnitude above Base-specific background levels. The same three metals
also had several positive detections in excess of the one order of magnitude level.

The pesticides dieldrin, 4,4'-DDE, 4,4'-ODD, 4,4'-DDT, alpha-chlordane, and
gamma-chlordane were detected in at least 15 of the 72 soil samples. In general,
higher concentrations of those pesticides more freguently detected, were limited to
the western portion of the site.

Three PCBs (Aroclor 1242, 1254, and 1260) were detected in soil samples obtained
from borings at Site 28.

The VOCs benzene, PCE, and 1,1,1 -trichloroethane were each detected once within
the soil samples collected at Site 28. Based upon their wide dispersion, infreguent
detection, and low concentration, the occurrence of VOCs in soils does not appear
to be the result of past disposal practices.

Inorganic elements were the most prevalent and widely distributed contaminants in
groundwater at Site 28 and were found distributed throughout the site. Lead was
detected, and confirmed by the second sampling round, within only 1 of the 12
shallow and deep groundwater samples at a concentration which exceeded the state and
federal standards. Iron and manganese were the most prevalent inorganic elements
detected during both sampling rounds. Concentrations of iron and manganese were
confirmed by the second sampling round to have exceeded either federal or state
standards within 7 groundwater samples.

SVOCs were detected in five of ten shallow groundwater samples obtained during the
first sampling round. SVOC analyses of groundwater samples were not performed as
part of the second sampling round.

The pesticides 4,4'-DDE, 4,4'-ODD, 4,4'-DDT, and gamma-chlordane were each detected
at least once within samples obtained from six shallow monitoring wells during the
first sampling round. A second round of groundwater samples was obtained from those
monitoring wells that presented evidence of pesticide contamination during the first
sampling round. However, groundwater samples obtained during the second sampling
round did not exhibit pesticides.

The VOCs chloroform, ethylbenzene, and xylene were detected in a single shallow
groundwater sample obtained from a temporary well.

In the current case, potential noncarcinogenic and carcinogenic risks to the
military personnel, recreational adult, and fisherman were within acceptable risk
levels. For the current recreational child receptor, there was a potential
noncarcinogenic risk from New River sediment. The noncarcinogenic risk from the
ingestion pathway was 1.2, which is slightly greater than the acceptable risk level
of 1.0. The COPC driving this noncarcinogenic risk was antimony.

In the future case, the total potential noncarcinogenic risk to the child receptor
(i.e., total noncancer risk is 23) exceeds the acceptable risk level of one. This
risk is attributed to exposure to groundwater, subsurface soil, and sediment from
the New River. For the adult receptor, there were noncarcinogenic and carcinogenic
risks from exposure to groundwater. The risks to the construction worker were
within acceptable risk levels.

The results indicate that inorganics in groundwater, subsurface soil and sediment
are driving the potential noncarcinogenic and carcinogenic risks at the site. These
inorganics are antimony, arsenic, copper and zinc in the subsurface soil; manganese
in groundwater; and antimony in the sediment of the New River. It is important to
note that upon the segregation of the soil noncarcinogenic risks based on the
effects on different target organs, the soil noncarcinogenic risk may be an
-------
overestimate.

In terms of lead health impacts, use of the lead uptake biokinetic model indicates
that exposure to surface soil, subsurface soil and groundwater at this site
generates blood lead levels in children that are within acceptable levels.

It is important to note that the future exposure scenario is based on potential
residential development of Site 28. At present the site is a recreational/picnic
area, and is used for training military personnel. It is highly unlikely that the
site will become a residential area in the foreseeable future. Consequently,
exposure to subsurface soil and groundwater under a residential scenario is highly
conservative and unlikely, given the present site conditions. It follows that the
potential risks associated with this exposure scenario are conservative and may be
overestimated values.

Inorganics and pesticides appear to be the most significant site related COPCs that
have potential to affect the integrity of the aguatic receptors at Site 28. For the
terrestrial receptors at Site 28, inorganics appear to be the most significant site-
related COPC that have the potential to affect the integrity of the ecosystem.

In New River surface water, copper exceeded aguatic reference values but at levels
that were indicative of a low potential risk. Lead and zinc only exceeded 1.0
slightly at a single station. Copper exceeded the surface water reference values in
Cogdels Creek, and aluminum exceeded 1.0 in Orde Pond. However, the exceedance was
only slightly above 1.0.

In the sediments, lead exceeded aguatic reference values only once in Cogdels
Creek at a low level but exceeded aguatic reference values significantly in the New
River at one station. Antimony exceeded its sediment aguatic reference values
moderately at the same station in the New River. This station may be associated
with runoff from the active firing range. Pesticides exceeded the sediment aguatic
reference values throughout Cogdels Creek with the highest exceedances in the lower
reach of the creek near the confluence with the New River. These exceedances
represent a moderate potential for risk to aguatic receptors. The levels of
pesticides detected in the sediments may be a result of routine application in the
vicinity of Site 28, especially near the STP and recreation area.

Results of the analysis of benthic macroinvertebrates and fish populations indicate
that Cogdels Creek and this reach of the New River support an aguatic community
that is representative of a tidally-influenced freshwater and estuarine ecosystem
with both freshwater and marine species. The absence of pathologies observed in
the fish sampled from Cogdels Creek and the New River indicates that the surface
water and sediment guality does not adversely impact the fish community relative.
The benthic community demonstrated the typical tidal/freshwater species trend of
primarily chironomids and oligochaetes in the upper reaches of Cogdels Creek and
polychaetes and amphipods in the lower reaches of Cogdels Creek and in the New
River. Species representative of both tolerant and intolerant taxa were present and
the overall community composition did not indicate a benthic community adversely
impacted by surface water and sediment guality.

During the habitat evaluation, no areas of vegetation stress or gross impacts from
site contaminants were noted. Based on the soil toxicity data for cadmium, chromium,
copper, manganese, nickel, and zinc, these inorganics at Site 28 may decrease the
integrity of terrestrial invertebrates or plants at the site. Based on the
evaluation of the deer, rabbit, fox, raccoon, and guail receptors, there does appear
to be an ecological risk to terrestrial vertebrate receptors. This risk is expected
to be significant if greater exposure to those contaminants results.
5.3 Site 30
The soils underlying Site 30 are generally consistent throughout the shallow and
subsurface. The soils consist of mostly silty sands.
-------
Groundwater flow within the surficial aquifer was determined to be to the west-
northwest with a moderate gradient of 0.015. Groundwater flow velocity within the
surficial aquifer was estimated at 0.15 feet/day.

Two operating water supply wells were identified within a one-mile radius of Site
30. Both wells are located hydraulically upgradient from the site and are not
expected to be impacted by disposal of washwater from the tank cleaning
operations at the site.

The VOC 1,1,1-trichloroethane was detected in two surface soil samples retained
from Site 30. No other positive detections of VOCs or SVOCs were observed among
surface soil samples.

Fourteen inorganics were detected in the surface soil samples retained from Site 30.
None of the positive detections of priority pollutant metals exceeded Base-specific
(i.e., MCB, Camp Lejeune) background levels for surface soil.

1,1,1-trichloroethane was detected in the subsurface soil sample at 30-SB09, located
near the center of the suspected disposal area. No other positive detections of
VOCs or SVOCs were observed among subsurface soil samples.

Seventeen inorganics were detected in subsurface soils at Site 30. Chromium was
the only inorganic detected in subsurface soil at concentrations exceeding
Base-specific inorganic background levels.

Chloroform was the only VOC or SVOC identified during the first groundwater
sampling round.

During the first sampling round, 17 total inorganics were detected within at least
one groundwater sample at Site 30. Eleven dissolved inorganics were also detected
within at least one of the three groundwater samples. Chromium, iron, lead, and
manganese were each detected among the three groundwater samples from Site 30 at
concentrations which exceeded either federal or state standards for total
inorganics. None of these positive detections, in excess of either federal or state
standards, were above Base-specific background levels.

During the second sampling round, chloroform was once again detected in a
groundwater sample obtained from 30-GW01. No other VOCs were detected.

During the second sampling round, ten total inorganics were detected in at least one
shallow groundwater sample from Site 30. Eight dissolved inorganics were also
detected within at least one of the nine groundwater samples. Iron was detected
during the second sampling round at a concentration in excess of the state standard,
based on total inorganics analyses.

Eleven total inorganics were positively identified in the surface water samples
submitted for laboratory analysis from Frenchs Creek. Lead and mercury were the
only inorganics identified at concentrations in excess of either chronic screening
values or state standards. Further, VOCs and SVOCs were not detected in any of
the surface water samples.

VOCs were not detected among the six sediment samples retained for analysis from
Frenchs Creek. The SVOC BEHP was detected in two Frenchs Creek sediment samples.
Both detections were in excess of the 1,200 Ig/Kg laboratory contaminant level.
Sixteen inorganics were detected in at least one of the six sediment samples
from Frenchs Creek. No inorganics concentrations among the six sediment samples
exceeded screening values.

The potential noncarcinogenic and carcinogenic risks associated with exposure to
subsurface soil, surface water, and sediment for the receptors evaluated at this
site were within acceptable levels.

The red-cockaded woodpecker is known to inhabit Site 30. However, the potential
-------
adverse impacts to these protected species are expected to be low since the
terrestrial food chain model did not show an adverse risk to the bird.

• Three inorganics were detected in the surface water at concentrations that may
decrease the integrity of the aguatic community. However, because the concentrations
of these inorganics were higher in the upstream station than in the downstream
stations, they do not appear to be site related. No COPCs detected in the sediments
exceeded any of the sediment aguatic reference values. Therefore, there does not
appear to be a significant risk to aguatic receptors from site-related COPCs.

• No contaminants detected in the surface soils were retained as COPCs. In addition,
the guotient index (QI) for the terrestrial food chain model was greater than the
acceptable QI limit of 1.0 for only one species. The QI for the raccoon, 1.72, was
slightly greater than 1.0. Therefore, there does not appear to be a significant risk
to the terrestrial receptors from site-related COPCs.

6.0 SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS

As part of the RI, a human health RA and an ecological RA were conducted for Sites 1, 28, and
30. These RAs were conducted to evaluate the potential risks associated with COPCs detected at
each site. The following subsections briefly describe the results of the RAs. The RI report
contains more extensive information pertaining to the RAs.

6.1 Site 1 - Human Health Risk Assessment

The human health RA investigated three environmental media at Site 1: surface soil, subsurface
soils, and groundwater. Table 4 lists the COPCs that were evaluated for each of these media.
(Surface water and sediment samples were collected from a drainage ditch at Site 1. However,
this ditch did not represent a classifiable surface water body used for human consumption or
recreation nor did it represent an ecological habitat. Conseguently, the surface water and
sediment samples were removed from the risk evaluation.)

Under the current exposure scenario, on-site military personnel were assumed to be the potential
receptors. Under the future exposure scenario, future residents (both children and adults) and
future construction workers were assumed to be the potential receptors. Exposure to soil via
ingestion, dermal contact, and inhalation was analyzed for military personnel; exposure to soil
via ingestion, dermal contact, and inhalation was analyzed for future construction workers; and
exposure to soil and groundwater via ingestion, dermal contact, and inhalation was analyzed for
future residents.

Table 5 presents the incremental cancer risk (ICR) values and the hazard index (HI) values that
were generated for each COPC during the RA. ICR values indicate carcinogenic risk and HI values
indicate noncarcinogenic risk. USEPA considers ICR values between or less than a 1x10 -4 to 1x10
-6 range, and HI values less than 1.0, to be generally acceptable and protective of human health
and the environment. On Table 5, ICR and HI values that exceeded these acceptable limits are
shaded.

As shown on Table 5, the potential risks (carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic) associated with
exposure to the surface soil and subsurface soil COPCs were within acceptable limits. Therefore,
soil was not determined to be a medium of concern at Site 1. However, there were some potential
future risks associated with ingestion of the groundwater COPCs that exceeded acceptable limits.
The potential noncarcinogenic risks from groundwater were calculated to be 17.3 and 7.6 for the
child and adult receptors, respectively. These values exceeded the acceptable level of 1.0. In
addition, the potential carcinogenic risk from groundwater was calculated to be 1.7x10 -4 for
the adult receptor. This risk exceeded the acceptable range of 1x10 -4 to 1x10 -6. Arsenic and
manganese were the primary COPCs contributing to these risks. As a result, groundwater was
considered a medium of concern at the site.

Although arsenic and manganese in the groundwater created some potential risk if ingested by
future residents, it is important to keep in perspective the way in which this risk was
determined. The approach used was highly conservative. At Site 1, it was the future residential
scenario that created risk. However, this scenario is unlikely to occur in the foreseeable
future because Site 1 is actively being used as vehicle maintenance and eguipment storage area.
-------
In addition, ingestion of groundwater by future residents is unlikely to occur because shallow
groundwater at Site 1 is not used as a potable water source.

In addition, upon comparison of arsenic and manganese levels in the groundwater to state and
federal regulatory standards, only manganese exceeded its standard. Thus, although both arsenic
and manganese contributed to the site risks, arsenic did not exceed regulatory standards. This
indicates the highly conservative nature of the human health RA.

Another factor to consider is that the levels of arsenic and manganese used to calculate
groundwater exposure risks were primarily taken from off-site wells. Also, concentrations at
these off-site wells either did not exceed regulatory standards or exceeded the standards
infreguently. Conseguently, it is reasonable to assume that the risks associated with arsenic
and manganese are over-estimations of the risk that actually exists.

6.2 Site 1 - Ecological Risk Assessment

In addition to the human health RA, an ecological RA was conducted for Site 1 during the RI. The
purpose of the ecological RA was to determine if COPCs were adversely impacting the ecological
integrity of aguatic and terrestrial communities on or adjacent to the site. The ecological RA
also evaluated the potential effects of COPCs on sensitive environments including wetlands,
protected species, and fish nursery areas. The following paragraphs describe the state of
aguatic and terrestrial communities at Site 1 as determined in the ecological RA.

Within the boundaries of Site 1, there were no aguatic communities identified that would be
exposed to site related COPCs. The only surface water feature in which aguatic communities could
exist is the southern drainage ditch, but this ditch is dry most of the time. As a result, the
assessment concluded that there is no ecological risk associated with aguatic communities.

Surface soil was the only environmental medium analyzed for terrestrial receptors. The surface
soil COPCs evaluated are the same as the surface soil COPCs listed on Table 4, excluding
4,4'-DDE.

The only site related COPCs that could potentially affect terrestrial communities were
inorganics. In particular, the presence of cadmium and chromium in surface soil indicated a
slight potential for affecting terrestrial invertebrates and plants at the site. However,
because the concentrations of these inorganics only slightly exceeded the literature values used
to determine risk, cadmium and chromium were not expected to present a significant ecological
risk. (Cadmium concentrations ranged from 0.62 to 2.0 mg/Kg which only slightly exceeds the
literature value of 0.5 mg/Kg; chromium concentrations ranged from 1.5 to 13.1 mg/Kg which only
slightly exceeds the literature value of 10 mg/Kg.)

Based on the terrestrial food chain model, there appeared to be a slight risk for deer, rabbit,
fox, and guail receptors. However, this risk was expected to be insignificant because of the low
levels by which terrestrial reference values were exceeded. The QI, a value which must be less
than 1.0 for site conditions to be considered ecologically protective, was calculated to be less
than 1.0 for all COPCs except manganese. The QI for manganese was 1.32 for the rabbit and 1.57
for the guail. However, because these QIs were less than 2.0, and because the site is located
within a heavy industrial/commercial area where rabbits, guail, deer, etc. do not normally live,
there is most likely only a small potential that the animals are being adversely affected by
site conditions. Thus, the risk appears to be insignificant.

6.3 Site 29 - Human Health Risk Assessment

The human health RA investigated five environmental media at Site 28: surface soil, subsurface
soil, groundwater, surface water, and sediment. Table 6 lists the COPCs that were evaluated for
each of these media.

Under the current exposure scenario, on-site military personnel and residents (both children and
adults) were assumed to be the potential receptors. Under the future exposure scenario, future
residents (both children and adults) and future construction workers were assumed to be the
potential receptors. Table 7 summarizes the exposure pathways that were analyzed for each
potential receptor.
-------
Tables 8, 9, and 10 present the ICR and HI values that were generated for the child receptor,
the adult receptor, and the military/fisherman/construction worker receptors, respectively.
USEPA considers ICR values between or less than the 1x10 -4 to 1x10 -6 range, and HI values less
than 1.0, to be generally acceptable and protective of human health and the environment. On
Tables 8, 9, and 10, ICR and HI values that exceeded these acceptable limits are shaded.

In the current case, potential noncarcinogenic and carcinogenic risks to the military personnel,
recreational adult, and fisherman were within acceptable risk levels. For the current
recreational child receptor, there was a potential noncarcinogenic risk from New River sediment.
The noncarcinogenic risk from the ingestion pathway was 1.2, which is slightly greater than the
acceptable risk level of 1.0. The COPC driving this noncarcinogenic risk was antimony.

In the future case, the total potential noncarcinogenic risk to the child receptor, 23, exceeded
the acceptable risk level of 1.0. This risk was attributed to exposure to groundwater, surface
soil, subsurface soil, and sediment from the New River. Antimony in the groundwater; antimony,
arsenic, copper, and zinc in the subsurface soil; and antimony in the sediment were the COPCs
driving this risk. Carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic risks to the potential adult residential
receptor exceeded the USEPA acceptable risk range due to the exposure of contaminated
groundwater. Risks to construction workers were within acceptable risk levels.

It is important to note that because the soil noncarcinogenic risks are segregated based on the
effects on different target organs, the soil noncarcinogenic risk may be an overestimate. It
also is important to note that the future exposure scenario was based on potential residential
development of Site 28. At present, the site is a recreational/picnic area located within
training areas on the base. It is highly unlikely that the site will become a residential area
in the foreseeable future. Conseguently, exposure to subsurface soil and groundwater under a
residential scenario is highly conservative and unlikely given the present site conditions. It
follows that the potential risks associated with this exposure scenario are conservative and may
be overestimated values.

With respect to lead health impacts, use of the lead uptake biokinetic model indicated that
exposure to surface soil, subsurface soil, and groundwater at this site generated blood lead
levels in children that were within acceptable levels.

6.4 Site 28 - Ecological Risk Assessment

In addition to the human health RA, an ecological RA was conducted for Site 28 to assess
potential ecological impacts associated with COPCs. The environmental media evaluated during the
ecological RA included surface soil; surface water in the New River, Cogdels Creek, and Orde
Pond; sediment in the New River, Cogdets Creek, and Orde Pond; and fish tissue, both fillet and
whole body, in the New River and Orde Pond. Table 11 lists the COPCs evaluated for each of these
environmental media.

Inorganics and pesticides appeared to be the most significant site related COPCs that could have
the potential to affect the integrity of the aguatic receptors at Site 28. For the terrestrial
receptors at Site 28, inorganics appeared to be the most significant site related COPC that
could have the potential to affect their integrity. Although the American Alligator had been
observed at Site 28, potential adverse impacts to this threatened or endangered specie were low
due to the low levels of most contaminants in its critical habitat.

In the New River surface water, copper exceeded aguatic reference values but at levels that were
indicative of a low potential for risk. In addition, the QIs for lead and zinc (2.8 and 4.2,
respectively) only slightly exceeded the acceptable limit of 1.0 at a single station. Copper
exceeded the surface water reference values in Cogdels Creek, and aluminum exceeded the surface
water reference values in Orde Pond. However, these exceedences were only slightly above the
reference values. As a result, the risk associated with surface water appears to be
insignificant.

In the sediment, lead exceeded the sediment aguatic reference values only once in Cogdels Creek
at a low level but exceeded its sediment aguatic reference values significantly in the New River
at one station. Antimony exceeded its sediment aguatic reference values moderately at the same
station in the New River. This station may be associated with runoff from the nearby active
firing range. Therefore, the risk does not appear to be from site related sources. Pesticides
-------
exceeded the sediment aquatic reference values throughout Cogdels Creek with the highest
exceedences in the lower reach of the creek near the confluence with the New River. These
exceedences represented a moderate potential for risk to aguatic receptors. However, Cogdels
Creek receives runoff from several other sites at MCB, Camp Lejeune so the risk does not appear
to be entirely related to a source at Site 28. Also, pesticide levels detected in the sediment
may be a result of routine pesticide application in the general vicinity of Site 28, especially
near the STP and recreational area.

Results of the analysis of benthic macroinvertebrates and fish populations indicated that
Cogdels Creek and the New River support an aguatic community that is representative of a
tidally-influenced freshwater and estuarine ecosystem with both freshwater and marine species.
The absence of pathologies in the fish indicated that the surface water and sediment guality did
not adversely impact the fish community. The benthic community demonstrated the typical
tidal/freshwater species trend of primarily chironomids and oligochaetes in the upper reaches of
Cogdels Creek and polychaetes and amphipods in the lower reaches of Cogdels Creek and in the New
River. Species representative of both tolerant and intolerant taxa were present, and the overall
community composition did not indicate a benthic community adversely impacted by surface water
and sediment guality.

During the habitat evaluation, no areas of vegetation stress or gross impacts from site
contaminants were noted. Based on the soil toxicity data for several inorganics (cadmium,
chromium, copper, manganese, nickel, and zinc) these constituents at Site 28 may decrease the
integrity of terrestrial invertebrates or plants at the site. Based on the evaluation of the
rabbit, raccoon, and guail receptors, there did appear to be an ecological risk to terrestrial
vertebrate receptors. However, the QIs for the rabbit, raccoon, and guail were 58.1, 1.46, and
65.9, respectively, which only slightly exceeded the acceptable limit of 1.0. Thus, the risk
appears to be insignificant.

6.5 Site 30 - Human Health Risk Assessment

For the human health RA at Site 30, the environmental media of concern were surface soil,
subsurface soil, groundwater, surface water, and sediment. No COPCs were identified for surface
soil or groundwater. However, COPCs for subsurface soil, surface water, and sediment were
identified and evaluated. Table 12 lists these COPCs. In addition, Table 13 summarizes the
exposure dose input parameters used during the human health RA.

Table 14 presents the ICR and HI values generated for Site 30. The noncarcinogenic risk values
did not exceed the acceptable level of 1.0; the carcinogenic risk values did not exceed the
acceptable level of 1x10-4. As a result, unacceptable carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic risks did
not appear to exist at Site 30, and the site conditions appear to be protective of human health
and the environment. When carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic values do not exceed the acceptable
levels, a "no action" plan (i.e., leaving the site as is; taking no further remedial actions)
may be justifiable. Based on the carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic risk values for Site 30, no
remedial actions are reguired.

6.6 Site 30 - Ecological Risk Assessment

The media of concern that were evaluated during the ecological RA include surface water,
sediment, and surface soil. The COPCs evaluated for these media are the same as the human health
COPCs listed on Table 12, with the addition of iron in the surface water and copper and iron in
the sediment.

At Site 30, inorganics in surface water appeared to be the only site related COPCs that had the
potential to impact aguatic communities. These inorganics included aluminum, lead, and mercury.
However, the concentrations of these surface water inorganics were higher in the upstream
sampling locations than in the downstream sampling locations. As a result, these inorganics did
not appear to be site related and did not warrant a remedial action at Site 30. In sediment,
COPCs were not detected at concentrations that could potentially impact aguatic communities.

COPCs in surface soil were not retained for the ecological RA evaluation, so surface soil did
not appear to impact terrestrial communities. Based on the terrestrial food chain model, one
COPC, manganese, had a very small potential to affect raccoons. The QI for the raccoon was 1.72
which only slightly exceeds the acceptable limit of 1.0. However, the model indicated that no
-------
other terrestrial species were being adversely impacted by COPCs at the site. Therefore, there
did not appear to be a significant risk to terrestrial communities from site related COPCs.
Furthermore, remedial actions did not appear to be necessary in order to protect the integrity
of terrestrial communities.

Several threatened and/or endangered species are known to inhabit MCB, Camp Lejeune. The
red-cockaded woodpecker, in particular, is known to inhabit the area of Site 30. However, the
ecological RA conducted for terrestrial communities did not identify any significant risks
within the habitats that these protected species are likely to exist. Therefore, the "no action"
plan may be justifiable with respect to ecological concerns.

7.0 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES

In the process of selecting a response action for OU No. 7, remedial action alternatives (RAAs)
were developed for the contaminated media at each site. Five RAAs were developed for groundwater
at Site 1:

RAA No. 1 - No Action
RAA No. 2 - Institutional Controls
RAA No. 3 - Extraction and On-Site Treatment
RAA No. 4 - In-Well Aeration and Off-Gas Carbon Adsorption
RAA No. 5 - Extraction and Off-Site Treatment

Two RAAs were developed for groundwater at Site 28:

RAA No. 1 - No Action
RAA No. 2 - Institutional Controls

Alternatives employing active treatment of the groundwater COPCs were not developed for Site 28
due to the nature of the COPCs, manganese and lead. Manganese appears to naturally occur at high
levels in the region, and lead was only detected at concentrations above state and federal
standards in one of nine samples (in the unfiltered sample, not the filtered sample). This is
strong evidence that manganese and lead are not site related contaminants. Based on this
evidence, the decision was made not to develop active treatment alternatives. However, because
Site 28 is used as a recreational area, a no action alternative and an institutional controls
alternative were developed to ensure adeguate protection of human health.

For Site 30, one RAA, the no action alternative, was developed.

The following subsections briefly describe the RAAs developed for each site. The FS report
contains more detailed information pertaining to the RAAs.

7.1 Site 1 Alternatives

Site 1: RAA No.l - No Action

Capital Cost: $0
Annual Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Costs: $0
Net Present Worth (NPW) : $0
Time to Implement: None

Under the no action RAA, no additional remedial actions will be performed to reduce the
toxicity, mobility, or volume of the groundwater AOC. The no action alternative is reguired by
the NCP to provide a baseline for comparison with other remedial action alternatives that
provide a greater level of response.

Although this RAA does not involve active remediation, passive remediation of the groundwater
may occur over time via natural attenuation processes. These processes include naturally
occurring biodegradation, volatilization, dilution, photolysis, leaching, adsorption, and
chemical reactions between subsurface materials.

Since COPCs will remain at the site under this RAA, the NCP reguires the lead agency to review
the effects of this alternative no less often than once every five years.
-------
Site 1: RAA No. 2 - Institutional Controls

Capital Cost: $0
Annual O&M Costs: $40,000
NPW: $600,000
Time to Implement: 6 months

Under RAA No. 2, no remedial actions will be performed to reduce the toxicity, mobility, or
volume of the groundwater AOC at Site 1. Instead, the following institutional controls will be
implemented: a long-term groundwater monitoring plan, aguifer-use restrictions, and deed
restrictions. Under the groundwater monitoring plan, samples will be collected semiannually from
eight existing shallow monitoring wells, one existing deep monitoring well, and water supply
well HP-638, and analyzed for VOCs. Thirty years of monitoring was assumed for cost estimating
purposes.

The continued groundwater monitoring will detect any improvement or deterioration in groundwater
guality at the site, and will monitor the movement of the plume. The aguifer-use restrictions
will prohibit the groundwater from being used as a potable water source, and the deed
restrictions will limit the future use of land at Site 1, including placement of wells.

Because COPCs will remain on site under RAA No. 2, the NCP reguires the lead agency to review
the effects of this alternative no less often than once every five years.

Site 1: RAA No. 3 - Extraction and On-Site Treatment

Capital Cost: $990,000
Annual O&M Costs: $70,000
NPW: $2,100,000
Time to Implement: 18 months

RAA No. 3 is a source collection and treatment alternative. Under RAA No. 3, three extraction
wells will be installed to pump groundwater from the surficial aguifer to the ground surface.
The collection system will be designed so that the radii of influence of these wells will
intercept the AOC and provide a hydraulic barrier if the AOC migrates in the direction of
groundwater flow (northwest). After being extracted, the groundwater will receive treatment at
an on-site treatment plant. Treatment will include air stripping for VOC (i.e., TCE) removal,
and precipitation, flocculation, sedimentation, and filtration for suspended solids/inorganics
removal. The treated groundwater will be discharged off site to Cogdels Creek.

The exact time reguired for this pump and treat alternative to remediate the aguifer is unknown
given the overall complexity and uncertainty associated with groundwater remediation. However,
30 years of system operation was assumed for cost estimating purposes.

In addition to extraction, treatment, and discharge, RAA No. 3 incorporates a long-term
groundwater monitoring plan to measure the effects of the remedial action alternative. Wells
included under this plan will be monitored semiannually for VOCs. Also, deed restrictions and
aguifer-use restrictions will be implemented under this RAA.

Until the remediation levels are met, the NCP reguires the lead agency to review the effects of
this alternative no less often than once every five years.

Site 1: RAA No. 4 - In Well Aeration an d Off-Gas Carbon Adsorption

Capital Cost: $640,000
Annual Groundwater Monitoring O&M Costs: $40,000
Annual System O&M Costs: $20,000
NPW: $1,300,000
Time to Implement: 12 months
-------
In-well aeration is a type of air sparging in which air is injected into a well creating an
in-well air-lift pump effect. This pump effect causes the groundwater to flow in a circulation
pattern: into the bottom of the well and out of the top of the well. As the groundwater
circulates through the well, the injected air stream strips volatiles. (As a result, in-well
aeration is often referred to as in-well air stripping.) The volatiles are captured at the top
of the well and treated via a carbon adsorption unit.

Under RAA No. 4, four in-well aeration wells will be installed along the lengthwise extent of
the plume. The radius of influence of each well is expected to be approximately 120 to 160 feet.
Thus, the wells will intercept the contaminated plume as it travels in the direction of
groundwater flow.

A separate vacuum pump, knockout tank, and carbon adsorption unit will be located near the
opening of each aeration well. The knockout tank will remove any liguids that have traveled up
the well and the carbon adsorption unit will treat off-gases that were stripped within the well.
Treated vapors from the carbon adsorption unit will be discharged to the atmosphere.

Because in-well aeration is a relatively new and innovative technology, a field pilot test is
recommended prior to initiating the system design. The pilot test will determine the loss of
efficiency over time as a result of inorganics precipitation and oxidation on the well screen,
the radius of influence of the aeration wells under various heads of injection air pressure, the
rate of off-gas organic contaminant removal via carbon adsorption, and carbon breakthrough
times.

The exact time reguired for the in-well aeration system to remediate the aguifer is unknown
given the overall complexity and uncertainty associated with groundwater remediation. However, 3
years of system operation was assumed for cost estimating purposes.

In addition to the in-well aeration system, RAA No. 4 incorporates a long-term groundwater
monitoring plan to measure the effects of the remedial action alternative. Wells included under
this plan will be monitored semiannually for VOCs. Also, deed restrictions and aguifer-use
restrictions will be implemented under this RAA.

Until the remediation levels are met, the NCP reguires the lead agency to review the effects of
this alternative no less often than once every five years.

Site 1: RAA No. 5 - Extraction and Off-Site Treatment

Capital Cost: $500,000
Annual Groundwater Monitoring O&M Costs: $40,000
Annual System O&M Costs: $130,000
NPW: $1,400,000
Time to Implement: 18 months

RAA No. 5 is another source collection and treatment alternative. Under RAA No. 5, three
extraction wells will be installed to pump groundwater from the surficial aguifer to the ground
surface. The radii of influence of these wells will intercept the AOC and provide a hydraulic
barrier if the AOC migrates in the direction of groundwater flow. Once groundwater is extracted,
it will be transported to the HPIA Treatment System, an existing treatment system that is
located within Site 78 (the HPIA operable unit) at MCB, Camp Lejeune. Although the system is
currently treating VOC contaminated groundwater from Site 78, it has the capacity to accept
more. The groundwater will be transported to the system by tanker trucks. At the HPIA Treatment
System, the groundwater will receive VOC and inorganics treatment via air stripping, carbon
absorption, and suspended solids/metals pretreatment.

The exact time for the pump and treat system to remediate the aguifer is unknown given the
overall complexity and uncertainty associated with groundwater remediation. However, 30 years of
system operation was assumed for cost estimating purposes.

In addition, RAA No. 5 will incorporate a long-term groundwater monitoring plan to measure the
effects of the remedial action alternative. Wells included under this plan will be monitored
semiannually for VOCs. Also, deed restrictions and aguifer-use restrictions will be implemented
under this RAA.
-------
Until the remediation levels are met, the NCP requires the lead agency to review the effects of
this alternative no less often than once every five years.

7.2 Site 28 Alternatives

Site 28: RAA No. 1 - No Action

Capital Cost: $0
Annual O&M Costs: $0
NPW: $0
Time to Implement: None

Under the no action RAA, no additional remedial actions will be performed to reduce the
toxicity, mobility, or volume of the groundwater VOCs. The no action alternative is required by
the NCP to provide a baseline for comparison with other remedial action alternatives that
provide a greater level of response.

Since COPCs will remain at the site under this RAA, the NCP requires the lead agency to review
the effects of this alternative no less often than once every five years.

Site 28: RAA No. 2 - Institutional Controls

Capital Cost: $0
Annual O&M Costs: $50,000
NPW: $800,000
Time to Implement: 6 months

Under RAA No. 2, no additional remedial actions will be performed to reduce the toxicity,
mobility, or volume of the groundwater VOCs. Instead, the following institutional controls will
be implemented: a long-term groundwater monitoring program, aquifer-use restrictions preventing
the use of the aquifer as a potable water source, and deed restrictions prohibiting the future
construction of potable water supply wells. Under the groundwater monitoring program, samples
will be collected semiannually (at five existing shallow wells and two existing deep wells) and
analyzed for semivolatiles and metals. Thirty years of monitoring was assumed for cost
estimating purposes.

Since COPCs will remain at the site under this RAA, the NCP requires the lead agency to review
the effects of this alternative no less often than once every five years.

7.3 Site 30 Alternatives

Site 30: No Action Alternative

Capital Cost: $0
Annual O&M Costs: $0
NPW: $0
Time to Implement: None

Under the no action RAA, no additional remedial actions will be performed at Site 30. Conditions
at the site appear to be protective of human health and the environment so the lead agency will
not be required to review the effects of this alternative every five years.

8.0 SUMMARY OF THE COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES

In the process of selecting a response action for OU No. 7, the RAAs for Sites 1 and 28 were
comparatively analyzed. (A comparative analysis was not conducted for Site 30 since only one
alternative was developed.) This section summarizes the comparative analysis which was based on
nine evaluation criteria: overall protectiveness of human health and the environment; compliance
with applicable and relevant or appropriate requirements (ARARs); long-term
effectiveness/permanence; reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume through treatment;
short-term effectiveness; implementability; cost; USEPA/state acceptance; and community
acceptance. Table 15 provides definitions of these evaluation criteria, Table 16 summarizes the
Site 1 RAA analysis, and Table 17 summarizes the Site 28 RAA analysis.
-------
8.1 Site 1

8.1.1 Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment

RAA No. 1, the no action alternative, does not reduce potential risks to human health and the
environment except possibly through natural attenuation of the groundwater AOC. On the other
hand, RAA Nos. 2, 3, 4, and 5 all provide some means, other than natural attenuation, for
reducing potential risks. RAA Nos. 2, 3, 4, and 5 involve institutional controls which will
reduce risks. In addition, RAA Nos. 3, 4, and 5 involve active remediation systems (groundwater
extraction/on-site treatment, in-well aeration, and groundwater extraction/off-site treatment)
which provide additional protection to human health and the environment. However, the additional
protection that RAA Nos. 3, 4, and 5 provide through active remediation systems may not be
necessary considering the minimal risks associated with the groundwater AOC.

If the contaminated plume is left alone to passively remediate via natural attenuation, the
residual risk that remains will be minimal for the following reasons:

• TCE was detected at low concentrations, 8 Ig/L and 27 Ig/L, that only slightly
exceed the remediation level of 5 Ig/L. These low groundwater concentrations, in
addition to non-detectable levels in the soil, indicate that there is no significant
source of TCE at the site. Instead, the TCE is most likely the result of random,
isolated spills.

• Based on the results of an analytical model for solute transport in groundwater,
VOCs at Site 1 do not currently impact the nearest receptor, a former water supply
well that is currently inactive.

• Vinyl chloride was detected at a low concentration, 4 Ig/L, which only slightly
exceeds the state standard of 0.015 Ig/L and the federal standard of 2 Ig/L. Based
on this low concentration, and the fact that vinyl chloride was detected at only one
well, it does not appear that there is a significant source of vinyl chloride at the
site.

Considering the minimal risks associated with the contaminated groundwater, institutional
controls (RAA No. 2) will be adeguate for protecting human health and the environment.
Groundwater extraction and treatment (RAA Nos. 3 and 5) and in-well aeration (RAA No. 4) will be
unnecessary to provide adeguate protection. No action, however, provides no protection.
Therefore, RAA No.l may be inferior to the other four alternatives, and RAA Nos. 3, 4, and 5 may
overcompensate for the minor risks that exist at the site.

8.1.2 Compliance with ARARs

Under all five RAAs, the groundwater AOC is expected to eventually meet federal and state
chemical-specific ARARs. Under RAA Nos. 1 and 2, contaminants are expected to meet ARARs
via passive remediation (or natural attenuation). Under RAA Nos. 3, 4, and 5, contaminants are
expected to meet ARARs via active remediation (extraction/treatment or in-well aeration).

RAA Nos. 3, 4, and 5 can be designed to meet all of the location- and action-specific ARARs that
apply to them. No location- or action-specific ARARs apply to RAA Nos. 1 and 2.

8.1.3 Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence

Because all five RAAs involve some form of remediation, whether it is active or passive, they
are all expected to be effective at decreasing COPC levels in the long run. In addition, the
results of all RAAs are expected to be permanent.

Although residual risks associated with untreated COPCs will be minimal, RAA No. 1 is the only
alternative that will allow residual risk to remain uncontrolled at the site. RAA Nos. 2, 3, 4,
and 5 involve long-term groundwater monitoring plans, aguifer-use restrictions, and deed
restrictions, which are all adeguate and reliable controls; RAA No. 1 involves no controls. As a
result, RAA Nos. 2, 3, 4, and 5 can mitigate the potential for human health exposure through the
use of institutional controls, but RAA No. 1 cannot. However, the adeguacy and reliability of
institutional controls depends on their continued implementation and enforcement.
-------
Under all five RAAs, untreated contaminants will remain at the site indefinitely. As a result,
all five RAAs require 5-year reviews to ensure that adequate protection of human health and the
environment is maintained. Under RAA Nos. 3, 4, and 5, however, this review will not be
necessary once the remediation levels are achieved.

8.1.4 Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume Throuqh Treatment

RAA. Nos. 1 and 2 do not involve active treatment processes so these alternatives will only
reduce toxicity, mobility, or volume of the AOC via passive remediation. RAA Nos. 3, 4, and 5,
however, involve extraction/treatment and in-well aeration so they will reduce the toxicity,
mobility, and volume of the AOC via active remediation. (RAA Nos. 3, 4, and 5 satisfy the
statutory preference for treatment.)

There are no treatment residuals associated with RAA Nos. 1 and 2. Under RAA Nos. 3, 4, and 5,
however, active treatment processes will create residuals like metals sludqe, spent carbon, and
contaminated condensed vapor. These additional residuals will require proper disposal.

8.1.5 Short-Term Effectiveness

All five RAAs are expected to reduce COPC levels. However, RAA Nos. 3, 4, and 5 will create the
most risk durinq implementation. Risks to the community and workers will be increased durinq
extraction well, aeration well, pipinq, and treatment plant installation and operation. RAA No.
2 creates some minor risks associated with qroundwater samplinq, but these are insiqnificant
compared to the risks associated with RAA Nos. 3, 4, and 5. Implementation of RAA No. 1 will
create no risks.

The exact time required for the RAAs to remediate the aquifer is unknown qiven the complexity
and uncertainty associated with qroundwater remediation. However, the time in which RAA Nos. 3
and 5 are expected to achieve the remedial action objectives is relatively larqe compared to RAA
No. 4. The relative amount of time required for natural attenuation to restore the aquifer
(i.e., RAA Nos. 1 and 2) is expected to be much qreater than the time required for RAA Nos. 3,
4, and 5. Reqardless, all RAAs, with the exception of the no action alternative, involve
continued qroundwater monitorinq for 30 years.

8.1.6 Implementability

RAA No. 1 is the most implementable, if not the most effective, alternative. RAA Nos. 2, 3, and
5 use conventional, well-demonstrated, and commercially available technoloqies so these RAAs are
proven to be implementable and reliable. RAA No. 4 (in-well aeration), however, involves an
emerqinq technoloqy that does not have an extensive commercial track record. A field pilot test
is necessary to determine this alternative's implementability. Reqardless, RAA Nos. 3, 4, and 5
create more risk than RAA No. 2 durinq implementation.

8.1.7 Cost

In terms of NPW, the no action alternative (RAA No. 1) would be the least expensive RAA to
implement, followed by RAA No. 2, RAA No. 4, RAA No. 5, and then RAA No. 3. The estimated
NPW values in increasinq order are $0 (RAA No. 1), $600,000 (RAA No. 2), $1,300,000 (RAA
No. 4), $1,400,000 (RAA No. 4), and $2,100,000 (RAA No. 3).

8.1.8 USEPA/State Acceptance

To be addressed followinq USEPA/NC DEHNR review of the ROD.

8.1.9 Community Acceptance

To be addressed followinq the public comment period.

8.2 Site 28

8.2.1 Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment

RAA No. 1, the no action alternative, does not reduce potential risks to human health and the
-------
environment. On the other hand, RAA No. 2 does reduce potential risks because it involves
institutional controls that can prevent future exposure to the groundwater.

Regardless, the magnitude of residual risks is considered to be minimal. The groundwater COPCs
exceeding remediation levels, lead and manganese, do not pose substantial risks to human health
or the environment for the following reasons:

• Manganese concentrations (from both unfiltered and filtered samples) in
groundwater at MCB, Camp Lejeune often exceed the state and federal secondary
standard of 50 Ig/L. Elevated manganese levels, at concentrations above the state
standard, were reported in samples collected from a number of Base potable water
supply wells. Manganese concentrations at several Site 28 wells exceeded the state
standard, and all but one sample fell within the range of concentrations for samples
collected elsewhere at MCB, Camp Lejeune.

• Lead was detected above its remediation level at only one well. This well, which
is situated in an area of loosely compacted fill material, exhibited high turbidity
(above 10 turbidity units) and total suspended solids (111 mg/L). In addition, lead
was only detected in the unfiltered water sample, not the filtered water sample,
taken at this well. All of this information suggests that the high lead
concentration detected may be the result of suspended solids, and the unfiltered
sample represented lead in the soil and groundwater, not just the amount of lead
that is dissolved in the groundwater.

Considering the minimal risks associated with lead and manganese in the groundwater,
institutional controls (RAA. No.2) will be adeguate for protecting human health and the
environment. No action, however, provides no protection.

8.2.2 Compliance with ARARs

Under RAA Nos. 1 and 2, manganese levels are expected to exceed their chemical-specific ARARs.
However, this is not a great concern because manganese at the Base appears to naturally occur at
levels exceeding ARARs. Lead, however, is not expected to exceed ARARs because the high lead
detection is believed to be the result of suspended solids in the unfiltered water sample.

No location- or action-specific ARARs apply to RAA Nos. 1 and 2.

8.2.3 Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence

RAA No. 1 allows the most residual risk, and RAA No. 2 allows less residual risk. Regardless,
the magnitude of any residual risk will be minimal for the three reasons stated earlier.

RAA No. 2 involves monitoring, aguifer-use restrictions, and deed restrictions, which are all
adeguate and reliable controls; RAA No. 1 involves no controls. As a result, RAA No. 2 can
mitigate the potential for groundwater exposure, but RAA No. 1 cannot. Also, the effectiveness
of RAA No. 2 can be determined more often than the effectiveness of RAA No. 1.

Both RAAs reguire 5-year reviews to ensure that adeguate protection of human health and the
environment is maintained.

8.2.4 Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume Through Treatment

RAA Nos. 1 and 2 do not involve active treatment processes so these alternatives will not reduce
toxicity, mobility, or volume of the groundwater AOC. Additionally, neither RAA satisfies the
statutory preference for treatment.

8.2.5 Short-Term Effectiveness

Implementation of RAA Nos. 1 and 2 will not increase risks to the community. RAA No. 1 will not
increase risks to workers, but RAA No. 2 will. RAA No. 2, however, will not significantly
increase worker risks because worker protection will be utilized during groundwater sampling. In
addition, groundwater sampling has been successfully implemented in the past with minimal worker
risks.
-------
No additional environmental impacts are expected under RAA Nos. 1 and 2.

8.2.6 Implementability

RAA No. 1 is the most implementable, if not the most effective, alternative. RAA No. 2 is not as
implementable as RAA No. 1, but it is still easily implementable. RAA No. 2 involves
conventional, well-demonstrated, and commercially available technologies, and it has been easily
implemented in the past.

Unlike RAA No. 1, RAA No. 2 requires the submission of semiannual sampling reports. RAA No. 1
requires no coordination with agencies.

8.2.7 Cost

In terms of NPW, the no action alternative (RAA No. 1) would be the least expensive RAA to
implement, followed by RAA No. 2. The estimated NPW values in increasing order are $0 (RAA
No. 1) and $800,000 (RAA No. 2).

8.2.8 USEPA/State Acceptance

To be addressed following USEPA/NC DEHNR review of the ROD.

8.2.9 Community Acceptance

To be addressed following the public comment period.

9.0 SEIiECTED REMEDY

This section of the ROD presents the selected remedy for OU No. 7. A description of the selected
remedy is presented along with the estimated costs to implement the remedy. In addition, the
remediation levels to be attained at the conclusion of the remedy are discussed.

9.1 Remedy Description

The selected remedy for OU No. 7 consists of the three separate remedies developed for Sites 1,
28, and 30:

9.1.1 Site 1 Remedy - Institutional Controls (RAA No. 2)

• A long-term groundwater monitoring plan that is depicted in Figure 7. As shown,
eight wells will be sampled semiannually and the samples will be analyzed for VOCs.

• Aquifer use restrictions that will prohibit the future use of the aquifer as a
potable water source. The restrictions will be implemented via the Base Master Plan.

• Deed restrictions that will limit the future use of land at the site, including
placement of wells. The restrictions will be implemented via the Base Master Plan.

9.1.2 Site 28 Remedy - Institutional Controls (RAA No. 2)

• A long-term groundwater monitoring plan that is depicted in Figure 8. As shown,
six wells will be sampled semiannually and the samples will be analyzed for lead
and manganese.

• Aquifer use restrictions that will prohibit the future use of the aquifer as a
potable water source. The restrictions will be implemented via the Base Master Plan.

• Deed restrictions that will limit the future use of land at the site, including
placement of wells. The restrictions will be implemented via the Base Master Plan.

9.1.3 Site 30 Remedy - No Action

The selected remedy for Site 30 is the "no action" plan. The "no action" plan involves taking no
-------
further remedial actions (this includes conducting no further environmental investigations or
sampling) at the site. The site and all of the environmental media located within the site will
remain as they currently are.

9.2 Estimated Costs

The following costs were estimated for the Sites 1, 28, and 30 remedies:

Site 1: Capital Cost: $0
Annual O&M: $40,000
NPW: $600,000

Site 28: Capital Cost: $0
Annual O&M: $30,000
NPW: $500,000

Site 30: Capital Cost: $0
Annual O&M: $0
NPW: $0

The following total cost was estimated for the OU No. 7 remedy (the cost for the OU No. 7 remedy
is the costs of the Sites 1, 28, and 30 remedies combined):

Total for OU No. 7: Capital Cost: $0
Annual O&M: $70,000
NPW: $1,100,000

9.3 Remediation Levels

Although an operation period of 30 years was assumed for cost estimations, the selected remedy
will actually be operated until the remediation levels developed in the FS are met. The
following paragraphs describe the remediation levels for Sites 1 and 28. (Remediation levels
were not developed for Site 30 because site conditions were determined to be protective of human
health and the environment.)

9.3.1 Site 1

The remediation level for TCE in groundwater is 5.0 Ig/L. This remediation level is based on the
North Carolina state water guality standard.

Since the selected remedy does not involve active remediation, the remediation levels are
expected to be achieved via passive remediation, or natural attenuation processes. The long-term
groundwater monitoring plan will indicate when the remediation level has been achieved.

9.3.2 Site 28

The remediation levels for lead and manganese in groundwater are 15 Ig/L and 50 Ig/L,
respectively. These remediation levels are based on North Carolina state water guality
standards.

The long-term groundwater monitoring plan will indicate when lead has achieved its remediation
level. In the case of manganese in the groundwater, however, the remediation level will probably
never be achieved because this inorganic appears to naturally occur at high levels at MCB, Camp
Lejeune.

10.0 STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS

A selected remedy should satisfy the statutory reguirements of CERCLA Section 121 which
include: (1) protect human health and the environment; (2) comply with ARARs; (3) achieve
cost-effectiveness; (4) utilize permanent solutions and alternative treatment technologies or
resource recovery technologies to the maximum extent practicable; and (5) satisfy the preference
for treatment that reduces toxicity, mobility, or volume as a principal element, or provide an
explanation as to why this preference is not satisfied. The evaluation of how the remedy for OU
-------
No. 7 satisfies these requirements is presented below.

10.1 Protection of Human Health and the Environment

Institutional controls will provide protection to human health by preventing exposure to
potential contaminants in the groundwater at Sites 1 and 28. Institutional controls prevent
human exposure because they prohibit the surficial aquifer from being used as a potable water
source, and they prohibit the placement of wells within the aquifer.

The selected remedies will not provide any additional protection to the environment. However,
based on the ecological risk assessment for Sites 1 and 28, risks for aquatic and terrestrial
receptors appear to be insignificant. At Site 1, there were no ecological risks for aquatic
receptors and ecological risks for terrestrial receptors only slightly exceeded acceptable
limits. In addition, Site 1 is located within a heavy industrial/commercial area where
terrestrial receptors do not normally live. At Site 28, risks for aquatic receptors from surface
water and sediment only slightly exceeded acceptable limits. In addition, sediment in the New
River appears to be affected by a nearby active firing range rather than an on site source, and
surface water and sediment in Cogdels Creek appear to be affected by runoff from other sites in
addition to Site 28. Also, pesticides in the sediment appear to be the result of routine
pesticide application in the general vicinity of Site 28. Although there was an ecological risk
for terrestrial receptors at Site 28, the risk only slightly exceeded acceptable limits so it
appears to be insignificant.

Based on these low ecological risks, additional protection to the environment was determined to
be unnecessary at Sites 1 and 28.

At Site 30, the no action alternative will be protective because the site conditions already
appear to be protective of human health and the environment. There were no unacceptable risks to
human health and the slight risk generated for raccoons at the site appears to be insignificant.

10.2 Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements

The selected remedies for Sites 1 and 28 will allow potential contaminants to remain untreated
at levels exceeding chemical-specific ARARs. However, natural attenuation is expected to
eventually reduce TCE levels at Site 1 to below chemical-specific ARARs. In addition, lead in
the groundwater at Site 28 appears to be the result of suspended solids in the total inorganics
sample. As a result, lead is expected to meet its chemical-specific ARARs during the execution
of the long-term groundwater monitoring program. Manganese in the groundwater at Site 28,
however, may never meet it chemical-specific ARARs because it appears to naturally occur at the
Base at levels exceeding ARARs.

At Site 30, constituents detected in the environmental media already comply with
chemical-specific ARARs.

The selected remedies for Sites 1 and 28 can be designed to meet all location- and
action-specific ARARs that apply to them. No location- or action-specific ARARs apply to the no
action alternative for Site 30.

10.3 Cost-Effectiveness

Aquifer use and deed restrictions provide a cost-effective remedy since there are no significant
costs associated with their implementation other than administrative-type efforts. Groundwater
monitoring programs are also cost-effective. Compared to the more costly alternatives that
employ groundwater treatment, the selected remedies are more cost-effective because they provide
a comparable level of protection. Compared to the no action alternatives, the selected remedies
are more cost-effective because they provide at least some protection which is necessary at
Sites 1 and 28.

There are no costs associated with the no action alternative for Site 30. As a result, this
alternative is considered to be cost-effective.

10.4 Utilization of Permanent Solutions and Alternative Treatment Technologies
-------
The selected remedies will provide permanent, long-term remedies through the provision and
enforcement of aguifer and deed restrictions in the Base Master Plan. However, the selected
remedies do not employ alternative treatment technologies.

At Site 1, alternative treatment technologies were not selected because the risks associated
with TCE in the groundwater appear to be minimal. TCE was detected at low concentrations
(maximum of 27 Ig/L) that only slightly exceeded the remediation level (5 Ig/L). In addition,
TCE was not detected in the soil so there does not appear to be a significant site-related TCE
source. Also, based on an analytical model for solute transport in groundwater, VOCs at Site 1
do not currently impact the nearest receptor, a former water supply well that is currently
inactive. Vinyl chloride was detected at a concentration (4 Ig/L) that slightly exceeded state
and federal standards (0.015 and 2 Ig/L, respectively). But based on this low detected
concentration, and the fact that vinyl chloride was only detected in one well at the site, there
does not appear to be a significant source of vinyl chloride at the site. Based on these minimal
risks, alternative treatment technologies were deemed unnecessary for Site 1.

At Site 28, alternative treatment technologies were not selected because the risks associated
with manganese and lead appear to be minimal. Manganese concentrations at the Base appear to
naturally occur at levels exceeding the remediation level; lead was considered to be the result
of high suspended solids in the one well it was detected in.

At Site 30, alternative treatment technologies were not considered because site conditions
appear to be protective of human health and the environment.

10.5 Preference for Treatment as a Principal Element

The selected remedies do not satisfy the statutory preference for treatment. However, the
remedies are still capable of providing adeguate protection to human health and the environment.
Treatment alternatives were not considered appropriate for the reasons discussed in Section
10.4.

11.0 RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY

11.1 Overview

To be completed after the public meeting.

11.2 Background on Community Involvement

A record review of the MCB, Camp Lejeune files indicates that the community involvement centers
mainly on a social nature, including the community outreach programs and Base/community clubs.
The file search did not locate written Installation Restoration Program concerns of the
community. A review of historic newspaper articles indicated that the community is interested in
the local drinking and groundwater guality, as well as that of the New River, but that there are
no expressed interests or concerns specific to the environmental sites (including OU No. 7). Two
local environmental groups, the Stump Sound Environmental Advocates and the Southeastern
Watermen's Association, have posed guestions to the base and local officials in the past
regarding other environmental issues. These groups were sought as interview participants prior
to the development of the Camp Lejeune, IRP, Community Relations Plan. Neither group was
available for the interviews.

Community relations activities to date are summarized below:

• Conducted additional community relations interviews, February through March 1990. A
total of 41 interviews were conducted with a wide range of persons including base
personnel, residents, local officials, and off-base residents.

• Prepared a Community Relations Plan, September 1990.

• Conducted additional community relations interviews, August 1993. Nineteen persons
were interviewed, representing local business, civic groups, on- and off-base
residents, military and civilian interests.
-------
• Prepared a revised Final Community Relations Plan, February 1994.

• Established two information repositories.

• Established the Administrative Record for all of the sites at the base.

• Released PRAP for public review in repositories, July 1995.

• Released public notice announcing public comment and document availability of
the PRAP, July 1995.

• Held Technical Review Committee meeting, September 19, 1995, to review PRAP
and solicit comments.

• Held public meeting on October 5, 1995, to solicit comments and provide
information. Five people attended.

11.3 Summary of Comments Received During the Public Comment Period and Agency Responses

A public meeting was held on October 5, 1995 in the Onslow County Library in Jacksonville, North
Carolina. Five citizens from the Jacksonville area attended the meeting along with
representatives of MCB, Camp Lejeune, LANTDIV, NC DEHNR, and Baker. A representative from USEPA
Region IV was not present. The following summarizes the guestions and responses from the public
meeting.

General Questions

Question #1: How much will the National Superfund program be cut?

Response #1: The studies and cleanup programs at Camp Lejeune are funded by DERA, which
will be cut by 50 percent over the next 5 years. We are hoping to get state and EPA
involvement to help us ensure we secure funding for the next few years. The state
of California got almost half the DERA budget. Jon Johnston at the EPA is
supporting us. We hope that momentum will push the availability of funding.

Site 1 Questions

Question #1: How did you know where to look (regarding the areas to investigate)?

Response #1: The IAS (Initial Assessment Study) identified areas of concern based on personnel
interviews, records, documents, and aerial photos.

Question #2: How many buildings are new construction and what are they used for?

Response #2: Most are pre-1980; one building was constructed in 1990. None of those were
evaluated for environmental impact prior to construction. Now, there is an
environmental working group that reviews all new construction prior to starting.

Question #3: What did this study find (regarding original 1988 investigation of Site 1)?

Response #3: Low levels of solvent in one well in the southern area (1-GW05); The possible
contaminant was 1,2-DCE.

Question #4: What are TAL metals?

Response #4: These are the priority pollutant metals, the most toxic being lead, chromium,
mercury, etc.

Question #5: Why do you collect samples for physical characteristics?

Response #5: To help characterize/classify the soils.

Question #6: What is the definition of shallow (regarding groundwater sampling)?
-------
Response #6: Shallow is defined as groundwater samples collected within 25 feet of ground
surface. The water table is approximately 15 feet deep. Deep is defined as greater
than 100 feet below ground surface. Two deep wells and one water supply well was
sampled.

Question #7: Was this well sampled and what were the results (regarding the water supply well)?

Response #7: The supply well was sampled in 1992 and had 2 parts per billion of benzene
(Federal MCL is 5 ppb and the NC WQS is 1 ppb). The supply well was taken off
line at that time (1992). During our investigation, the supply well was clean.

Question #8: Why did it come up clean (regarding the supply well?

Response #8: Different sampling technigues may have been used or the contaminant may have
disappeared (attenuated) by the time we sampled.

Question #9: What direction does the groundwater flow at Site 1?

Response #9: Groundwater flows east to west across the site. Our sampling focused on the center
of the site (within the area of concern) and on the downgradient area. We
installed shallow and deep wells here which came up clean for volatiles. The water
supply well also came up clean.

Question #10: What do you mean by solids (regarding suspended solids in groundwater)?

Response #10: If you pump water directly from a well, you can get particles floating or
suspended.
These suspended solids will contribute to the total metals in groundwater.

Question #11: What metals are common (regarding groundwater)?

Response #11: Iron

Question #12: What is the typical pH of groundwater?

Response #12: Typically between 8 and 5.5 and as low as 4 to 4.5 in marshy areas.

Question #13: Why is it lower in marshy areas?

Response #13: High organic content in soils tends to lower the pH.

Question #14: Did you find any copper and zinc?

Response #14: Yes, they appear to be fairly consistent with levels found over the entire base.

(Brief discussion of low flow groundwater sampling and the results of the sampling efforts)

Question #15: What does 14/14 mean (regarding the results presented on a hand out)?

Response #15: This is a comparison to base background. We took 14 surface soil samples and
analyzed for metals and 1 out of 14 indicates we had 1 hit (detection) above
background samples (collected throughout the base).

Question #16: What do you mean by detection freguency of 14 of 14 for lead?

Response #16: For 14 samples, we had 14 samples which had detections higher than base
background. On that handout, lead and zinc exceeded base background most
freguently.

Question #17: Have you considered taking "background" samples, in say the Hoffman forest area?

Response #17: No. We have done something similar with surface water and sediment (and fish) at
the White Oak River.
-------
Question #18: How do you know if those metals you find in the soil will end up in the water
table (reference to Day Care Center - Site 2)?

Response #18: We have done a extensive investigation to determine that possibility. This subject
will be covered during a discussion of the human health risk assessment.

Question #19: Would all of the semivolatiles be characterized as persistent?

Response #19: We are not too surprised to find semivolatiles because as petroleum compounds
weather, these are the heavier compounds that are left.

Question #20: Is your methodology completely standardized, i.e., if you collect a volume of
sample and then collect a sample using a different method, could they result in
different analyses?

Response #20: Yes, we follow the USEPA Region IV sample collection procedures and USEPA
laboratory procedures.

Question #21: How long has it been since DDT was used?

Response #21: Quite awhile ago, at least 10 years. They are, however, very persistent in the
environment.

Question #22: Are you sure that what you found in the shallow groundwater is from a historical
origin, not from recent operations?

Response #22: We think it is from more recent operations, not historical. Levels that we are
seeing here are probably indicative of very small spills. The soils are very
permeable here and a very small amount would be all it would take to get these
levels. Surrounding wells are clean, so we see it as a very isolated plume.

(Brief discussion on the results of the human health and ecologic risk assessments)

Question #23: Is this information now logged into base files now to prevent use of groundwater?

Response #23: Part of our proposed plan is to place deed restrictions on use of shallow
groundwater.

Question #24: What happens if the base is closed (BRAG)? Who is responsible for cleaning it up?

Response #24: The federal government has the responsibility for clean up prior to turning it
over to the general public.

(Brief discussion on the proposed actions)

Question #25: What are you basing the monitoring time on?

Response #25: 30 years.

Question #26: What will be the conditions in 30 years?

Response #26: We expect to see a decrease due to natural degradation.

Question #27: Can the TCE degrade into something more toxic?

Response #27: Generally, TCE will degrade into DCE and eventually vinyl chloride which is more
toxic. Since we have low levels (TCE and vinyl chloride), we don't expect this to
be a problem.

Question 28#: How long will there be a risk with this TCE? What is the half-life?

Response #28: We do evaluate that for potential risk. We would have to look up the toxicity
profiles, available in the BRA of the RI report.
-------
Question #29: How do you get your risk based values?

Response #29: The information comes from a USEPA database.

Question #30: How far out (distance) will the aquifer restrictions extend?

Response #30: The Camp Lejeune well head protection program identifies how far away a well
must be from an industrial area.

Site 28 Questions

Question #1: What is the definition of surface water, (how is it collected)?

Response #1: Surface water was collected by dipping a bottle into the very top of the water
column. A sediment sample was taken at 0 to 6" and from 6 to 12".

Question #2: What is the source of thallium (in surface water)? Is it radioactive? Did it come
from hospital wastes?

Response #2: We really do not know what the source of thallium. We have not encountered it
before (previous sampling). We have an isolated hit.

Question #3: How high was the mercury in the fish samples?

Response #3: The human health risk assessment found no risk associated with the fish ingestion
or to aguatic communities. The only risk noted was for child receptors residents
drinking the groundwater.

(Brief discussion of proposed action plan).

Question #4: How soon do you start monitoring?

Response #4: Generally within one year after the final ROD is signed.

The public meeting ended at 9:00 pm, the closing time of the Onslow County Library.
Conseguently, Site 30 was not discussed during the meeting.

The public comment period ended on November 5, 1995. There were no public or regulatory comments
issued within the comment period.
-------
TABIiE 1

SUMMARY OF RI RESULTS
SITE 1, FRENCH CREEK LIQUIDS DISPOSAL AREA.
MCB, CAMP LEJEUNE, NORTH CAROLINA
Comparison Criteria Min.
Environmental Detected
Medium Fraction Constituents
Surface Soil Volatiles ND
Semivolatiles ND
Pesticides Dieldrin
4, 4 '-DDE
4-4 '-DDT
Endrin aldehyde
PCBs ND
Metals (1) Antimony
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
Subsurface Soil Volatiles Acetone
Trichloroethene
1,1,2,2-TCA
Toluene
Semivolatiles 4-Nitrophenol
southern
Phenanthrene (PAH)
di-n-butylphthalate
Fluor anthene (PAH)
Pyrene (PAH)
BEHP

ARAR
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA

NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Base
Background
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA 3.9
NA
0.3-8.0
0.2-1.8
0.03-0.16
0.18-0.58
0.3-12.5
0.5-87.2
0.5-142.0
0.6-3.6
0.3-28.3
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA

NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Concentration
Detected

4.3 J
2.2 J
7.0 J
N J 3 . 9 N J

9.0 J
0.57
0.19
0.62
1.5
1.6
1.0
1.6
3.5
490 J
3 J
27
1 J
930

47 J
74 J
110 J
86 J
36 J
Max.
Concentration
Detected

4.3 J
4.9
12

11.9
2.0
0.19
2.0
6.4
4.9
23.5
3
26.9
490J
3J
27
1 J
930

47 J
74 J
110 J
86 J
8,700

Detection
Frequency
0/14
0/14
1/14
2/14
3/14
1/14
0/14
3/14
6/14
1/14
3/14
13/14
6/14
14/14
3/14
9/14
1/110
1/110
1/110
1/110
1/110

1/110
1/110
1/110
1/110
45/110
Distribution
central northern
central northern and southern
scattered
central northern

3 exceed BB, all near pond
1 exceeds BB, scattered
1 exceeds BB, southern
3 exceed BB, southern
none exceed BB
none exceed BB
none exceed BB
none exceed BB
none exceed BB
southern
west of Building FC-120
central southern
central northern
along Main Service Road,

north of Building FC-120
north of Building FC-120
north of Building FC-120
north of Building FC-120
scattered
-------
TABIiE 1 (Continued)

SUMMARY OF RI RESULTS
SITE 1, FRENCH CREEK LIQUIDS DISPOSAL AREA.
MCB, CAMP LEJEUNE, NORTH CAROLINA
Environmental
Medium
Subsurface Soil
(Continued)
Fraction
Pesticides
PCBs
Metals (1)
southern
Groundwater
Volatiles (2)
Detected
Constituents
Dieldrin
4,4'-DDE
Endosulfan II NA
4,4'-ODD
4,4'-DDT
Endrin aldehyde
alpha-chlordane
gamma-Chlordane
Aroclor 1254
Aroclor 1260
Antimony
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium

Silver
Zinc
Vinyl Chloride
1,1-Dichloroethene
1,2-Dichloroethene
Trichloroethene
Xylenes (total)
son Criteria

Base
ARAR Background
NA
NA

NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NCWQS-0.015
MCL-7
MCL-100
NCWQS-2 . 8
NCWQS-530
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.4-6.9
0.03-1.50
0.17-1.20
0.7-10.5
0.5-6.6
0.5-11.5
0.01-0.68
0.6-4.7
0.12-0.55
0.18-1.00
0.3-11.6
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Min.
Concentration
Detected
7.1 J
11
55
2.2 J
1.6 J
24 NJ
4.2 NJ
2.5 NJ
18 J
1,300
6.1 J
0.6
0.62
1.5
1.1
1.3
0.06
1.2
0.81
1 J
0.63 J
2
2 J
1 J
1 J
3
Max.
Concentration
Detected
39 J
120
55
28 J
18 J
24 NJ
9.2 NJ
2.9 NJ
18 J
1,300
7.8 J
5.6
1.1
17.5
5
60.4 J
0.34
4.4
1.5 J
1 J
78.6 J
4 J
2 J
21
27
19

Detection
Frequency
2/110
2/110
1/110
2/110
7/110
1/110
2/110
2/110
1/110
1/110
7/110
58/110
5/110
109/110
42/110
101/110
7/110
40/110
2/110
1/110
74/110
1/19
1/19
2/19
3/19
1/19
Distribution

central northern
central northern
north of Building FC-120
scattered, northern
central northern, 1 southern
north of Building FC-120
northern
central northern
southern portion
north of Building FC-120
6 exceed BB, scattered
1 exceed BB, scattered
none exceed BB
6 exceed BB, scattered
none exceed BB
6 exceed BB, northern
none exceed BB
none exceed BB
2 exceed BB, northern and

does not exceed BB
8 exceed BB, scattered
1 exceeds ARAR, northwest
does not exceed ARAR
do not exceed ARAR
2 exceed ARAR
does not exceed ARAR
-------
TABIiE 1 (Continued)
SUMMARY OF RI RESULTS
SITE 1, FRENCH CREEK LIQUIDS DISPOSAL AREA
MCB, CAMP LEJEUNE, NORTH CAROLINA
Comparison Criteria
Environmental
Medium
Fraction
Detected
Constituents
Diethylphthalate NCWQS-5000 NA
Groundwater Semivolatiles Phenol
Diethylphthalate NCWQS-5,000 NA
Pesticides ND
PCBs ND NA
Total Metals (3) Iron
Manganese
Base
Min.
Concentration
Max.
Concentration
Detection
ARAR
Background
1.3 J
1.3 J
NA NA
1.3 J 1.3 J
MCL/NCWQS NA
NA
NCWQS-300 882-55,300
NCWQS-50 10-290
Detected
Detected
Freguency
Distribution
6.1 J
1/19
1/19 does not exceed ARAR
6.1 J 1/19 central northern portion continued
does not exceed ARAR
0/6
0/6
29,200 J 9/19 9 exceed ARAR, none exceed BB
1,200 18/19 15 exceed ARAR, 9 exceed BB
Notes: - Concentrations are presented in Ig/L for liguid and Ig/KG for solids (ppb), metal concentrations for solids and sediments are presented in mg/Kg (ppm).
(1) Metals in both surface and subsurface soils were compared to the range of Base background positive detections for priority pollutant metals only (i.e., antimony,
arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, selenium, silver, thallium, zinc).
(2) Additional groundwater samples were collected from wells which exhibited concentrations of volatile and semivolatile compounds during the initial round.
(3) Total metals in groundwater samples were compared to the range of positive detections in upgradient wells throughout MCB, Camp Lejeune.
ARAR - Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Reguirements
BB - Base Background (Refer to Appendix M)
BEHP - Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
NA - Not Applicable
NCWQS - North Carolina Water Quality Standard
ND - Not Detected
MCL - Federal Maximum Contaminant Level
PAH - Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbon
TCA - Tetrachloroethane
J - Estimated Quantity
-------
TABIiE 2
Environmental
Medium
Surface Soil
Orde Pond
Fraction
Volatiles
SUMMARY OF RI RESULTS
SITE 28, HADNOT POINT BURN DUMP
MCB, CAMP LEJEUNE, NORTH CAROLINA
Comparison Criteria

Detected Constituents ARAR
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
western
Semi-Volatiles bis(2-chloroethyl)ether

Naphthalene (PAH)
Acenaphthene (PAH)
Dibenzofuran
Fluorene (PAH)
Pentachlorophenol
Phenanthrene (PAH)
Anthracene (PAH)
Carbazole
di-n-Butylphthalate

Fluoranthene (PAH)
Pyrene (PAH)
Butyl benzyl phthalate
B(A) anthracene (PAH)
Chrysene (PAH)
B(B)fluoranthene (PAH)
B(K) fluoranthene (PAH)
Benzo(A)pyrene (PAH)
1(l,2,3-cd)pyrene (PAH)
D(a,h)anthracene (PAH)
B(g,h,i)perylene (PAH)
NA

NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA

NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA

Base
Background
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Min.

Concentration
Detected
2 J
69
69
49
70
56 J
46
41
120
69
58
43
51
88
56
43
41
41
58
44
120
49

J
J
J
J

J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
Max.
Concentration
Detected
2 J
69 J
69 J
83 J
70 J
88 J
46 J
1,100
240 J
170 J
70 J
1,800
2,100
88 J
1,300
1,200
2,100
740
1,600
1,500
120 J
1,700

Detection
Frequency
1/40
1/40
1/40
2/40
1/40
2/40
1/40
8/40
3/40
3/40
2/40
12/40
11/40
1/40
7/40
9/40
10/40
7/40
8/40
6/40
1/40
6/40

Distribution
eastern, adjacent
eastern
western
western
western
western
eastern
primarily western
western
western
1 eastern, 1
primarily western
primarily western
western
primarily western
primarily western
primarily western
primarily western
primarily western
western
western
western
-------
TABIiE 2 (Continued)
Environmental
Medium Fraction
Surface Soil Pesticides
(Continued)
PCBs

Metals (1)
SUMMARY OF RI RESULTS
SITE 28, HADNOT POINT BURN DUMP
MCB, CAMP LEJEUNE, NORTH CAROLINA

Comparison Criteria

Detected Constituents ARAR
Heptachlor epoxide NA
Dieldrin NA
4,4'-DDE NA
Endrin NA
4,4'-ODD NA
Endosulfan Sulfate NA
4,4'-DDT NA
Endrin aldehyde NA
alpha-Chlordane NA
gamma-Chlordane NA
Aroclor 1254 NA
Aroclor 1260 NA
Antimony NA
Arsenic NA
Cadmium NA
Chromium NA
Copper NA
Lead NA
Mercury NA
Nickel NA
Selenium NA
Silver NA
Thallium NA
Zinc NA
Min.
Base
Background
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.3-8.0
0.2-1.8
0.18-0.58
0.3-12.5
0.5-87.2
0.5-142.0
0.01-0.08
0.6-3.6
0.27-0.94
0.04-4.30
0.11-0.56
0.3-28.3
Max
Concentration
Detected
8 J
7.1 J
4.4 NJ
35 J
0.91 NJ
41 J
2.7 J
7.1 J
1.9 NJ
1.9 NJ
47 J
44
6.4 J
0.56 J
0.66
1.4 J
1.5
3.9
0.05
1.1 J
1.5
1.5 J
0.8
6.7 J
Concentration
Detected
43 J
7.1 J
1,300
35 J
320 J
41 J
1,400
7.1 J
160 NJ
96 J
58 J
44
28 J
16
12.5
26
4,260 J
551
1.1
36
10 J
6 J
2.5 3/43
23,100
Detection
Frequency
3/40
1/40
25/40
1/40
17/40
1/40
20/40
1/40
15/40
9/40
2/40
1/40
6/43
25/43
13/43
42/43
42/43
43/43
28/43
25/43
2/43
7/43

41/43
Distribution
2 eastern, 1 western
eastern
scattered
western
scattered
western
scattered
eastern
scattered
primarily eastern
western
eastern
4 exceed BB, western
7 exceed BB, primarily western
13 exceed BB, primarily western
8 exceed BB, primarily western
7 exceed BB, western
6 exceed BB, western
22 exceed BB, scattered
1 exceed BB, primarily western
2 exceed BB, eastern and western
1 exceeds BB, eastern
3 exceed BB, eastern and western
24 exceed BB, higher detects west
-------
TABIiE 2 (Continued)
Environmental
Medium
Subsurface
Soil
Fraction
Volatiles

Semivolatiles
SUMMARY OF RI RESULTS
SITE 28, HADNOT POINT BURN DUMP
MCB, CAMP IiEJEUNE, NORTH CAROLINA

Comparison Criteria
Detected Constituents
Benzene
Tetrachloroethene
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
4-Methylphenol
Naphthalene (PAH)
2-Methylnaphthalene
Dimethyl phthalate
Acenaphthene (PAH)
Dibenzofuran
Diethylphthalate
Fluorene (PAH)
Phenanthrene (PAH)
Anthracene (PAH)
Carbazole
Fluoranthene (PAH)
Pyrene (PAR)
B(a)anthracene (PAH)
Chrysene (PAH)
BEHP
B(b)fluoranthene (PAH)
B(k)fluoranthene (PAH)
Benzo(a)pyrene (PAH)
1(l,2,3-cd)pyrene (PAH)
D(a,h)anthracene (PAH)
B(g,h,i)perylene (PAH)
Min.
Max.

ARAR
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Base
Background
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Concentration
Detected
2 J
5 J
44 J
250 J
39 J
82 J
79 J
510
220 J
100 J
78 J
38 J
330 J
94 J
40 J
51 J
120 J
46 J
62 J
38 J
50 J
43 J
100 J
110 J
50 J
Concentration
Detected
2 J
5 J
140 J
250 J
2,600
89 J
220 J
2,500 J
1,300 J
100 J
2,600 J
27,000
8, 600
4,700
2,700
2,600
24,000
22,000
1,300
21,000
18,000
21,000
11,000
2,800 J
10,000
Detection
Frequency
1/32
1/32
2/32
1/32
6/32
2/32
2/32
2/32
2/32
1/32
4/32
9/32
2/32
2/32
9/32
6/32
3/32
5/32
15/32
6/32
3/32
4/32
3/32
2/32
4/32

Distribution
western
western
western
western
western
western
western
western
western
western
western
western
western
western
primarily western
western
western
western
scattered, western
western
western
western
western
western
western
-------
TABIiE 2 (Continued)
SUMMARY OF RI RESULTS
SITE 28, HADNOT POINT BURN DUMP
MCB, CAMP IiEJEUNE, NORTH CAROLINA

Environmental
Medium
Subsurface
Soil
(Continued)

Comparison

Fraction Detected Constituents
Pesticides 4, 4 '-DDE
4, 4 '-ODD
4, 4 '-DDT
alpha-Chlordane
gamma-Chlordane
PCBs Aroclor 1242
Aroclor 1260
Metals (1) Antimony
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Zinc
Criteria

ARAR
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA

Base
Background
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.4-6.9
0.03-1.50
0.03-2.30
0.17-1.20
0.7-10.5
0.5-6.6
0.5-11.5
0.01-0.68
0.6-4.7
0.12-0.55
0.19-1.00
0.12-0.50
0.3-11.6
Min.
Concentration
Detected
3.1 J
6.2
3 J
2.7 J
2.6 NJ
140 J
25 J
5.9 J
0.69
0.24
0.77
2 J
1.0 J
1.9 J
0.05
1.6
6 J
1.1 J
1
0.95 J
Max.
Concentration
Detected
1,600
880 NJ
7,300
65 J
11 NJ
140 J
77
46.7 J
25.1
1.1
15.6
128
3,280
2,060 J
2.8
102 J
6 J
18.4 J
1
4,330 J

Detection
Frequency
19/32
17/32
13/32
3/32
3/32
1/32
2/32
16/51
41/51
4/51
22/51
50/51
43/51
49/51
15/51
23/51
1/51
13/51
1/51
43/51
Distribution
scattered
scattered
scattered
western
western
western
western
15 exceed BB, western
30 exceed BB, scattered
none exceed BB
22 exceed BB, scattered
27 exceed BB, primarily western
23 exceed BB, western
25 exceed BB, primarily western
3 exceed BB, western
14 exceed BB, western
1 exceeds BB, western
13 exceed BB, scattered
1 exceeds BB, western
24 exceed BB, primarily western
-------
TABIiE 2 (Continued)
Environmental
Medium
Groundwater
Fraction
Volatiles
Semivolatiles
Pesticides (2)
SUMMARY OF RI RESULTS
SITE 28, HADNOT POINT BURN DUMP
MCB, CAMP IiEJEUNE, NORTH CAROLINA

Comparison Criteria
Total
Metals
(3)
Detection Constituents
Chloroform
Ethylbenzene
Xylenes (total)
2-Methylphenol
4-Methylphenol
2,4-Dimethylphenol
2,4-Dichlorophenol
Naphthalene
2-Methylnaphthalene
Dimethylphthaiate
Acenaphthene (PAH)
Dibenzofuran
Fluorene (PAH)
Phenanthrene (PAH)
Anthracene (PAH)
Carbazole
di-n-Butylphthalate
Fluoranthene (PAH)
Pyrene (PAH)
4,4'-DDE
4,4'-ODD
4,4'-DDT
gamma-Chlordane
PCBs
Iron
Lead
Manganese
ARAR
MCL-0.1
NCWQS-29
NCWQS-530
NA
NA
NA
NA
NCWQS-21
NA
NA
NA
NA
NCWQS-280
NCWQS-210
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NCWQS-0.027
ND
NCWQS-300
NCWQS-15
NCWQS-50
Base
Background
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
882-55,300
3.0-78.8
10-290
Min.
Concentration
Detected
2
5
19
1.3 J
29
1.6 J
99
33
1 J
1.3 J
12
18
14
2.6 J
11
1 J
1.7 J
1 J
0.06
0.06
0.05
0.05
NA
147 J
8.2
16.9
Max
Concentration
Detected
2
5
19
1.3
29
4.01
1.6
99
33
1 J
31
12
18
14
2.6
11

1 J
1.7 J
1 J
6.6 J
9
0.37 J
0.05 J
40,600
126
1,450
Detection Distribution
Freguency
1/13 1 exceeds ARAR, central western
1/13 does not exceed ARAR
1/13 does not exceed ARAR
1/13 western
1/13 western
2/13 central western
1/13 central western
1/13 1 exceeds ARAR, central western
1/13 central western
1/3 central western
2/13 central western
1/13 central western
1/13 does not exceed ARAR
1/13 does not exceed ARAR
1/13 central western
1/13 central western
1/13 western
1/13 central western
1/13 central western
5/13 western
6/13 western
2/13 western
1/13 does not exceed ARAR western
0/13
11/12 7 exceed ARAR, none exceed BB
2/12 1 exceeds ARAR and BB
11/12 7 exceed ARAR, 1 exceeds BB
-------
TABIiE 2 (Continued)
SUMMARY OF RI RESULTS
SITE 28, HADNOT POINT BURN DUMP
MCB, CAMP LEJEUNE, NORTH CAROLINA
Environmental
Medium
Orde Pond
Surface Water

Cogdels Creek
Surface Water

New River
Surface Water

Orde Pond
Sediment

Fraction
Volatiles
Semivolatiles
Pesticides
PCBs
Metals (3)
Volatiles
Semivolatiles
Pesticides
PCBs
Metals (3)
Volatiles
Semivolatiles
Pesticides

PCBs
Metals (3)

Volatiles
Semivolatiles
Pesticides
PCBs
Metals (3)
Comparison Criteria
Detected Constituents ARAR
ND NOAA/NCWQS
ND NOAA/NCWQS
ND NOAA/NCWQS
ND
Thallium
ND
ND
ND
ND
Lead
ND
Phenanthrene (PAH)
4,4' -DDE
4,4' -ODD
ND
Copper
Lead
Thallium
Zinc
ND
ND
4,4' -ODD
ND
ND
NOAA
NOAA- 4.0
NOAA/NCWQS
NOAA/NCWQS
NOAA/NCWQS
NOAA
NOAA- 1.32
NOAA/NCWQS
NA
NOAA-10.5
NOAA-0.0064
NOAA
NOAA- 6. 5
NOAA- 1.32
NOAA- 4
NOAA-58.9
NA
NOAA
NOAA- 2
NOAA
NOAA
Base
Background
NA
NA
NA
NA
ND
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.2-10.4
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
4-129
1.2-10.4
ND
18-111
NA
NA
NA
NA
BB
Min.
Concentration
Detected

1.
0.
0.

6.
1.
5.
10

4 J
04 J
05 J

6
7
6 J
.4

3 J

Max.
Concentration Detection
Detected Frequency
0/2
0/2
0/2

4.7

4.2

1.4 J
0.04 J
0.05 J

18.1
23.4
5.6 J
363

8.3 J

0/2
1/2
0/7
0/7
0/7
0/7
7/7
0/5
1/5
1/5
1/5
0/5
3/5
3/5
1/5
3/5
0/4
0/3
1/3
0/3
0/3
Distribution
1 exceeds ARAR and BB
7 exceed ARAR, none exceed BB

adjacent to study area
does not exceed ARAR
1 exceeds ARAR

3 exceed ARAR, none exceed BB
3 exceed ARAR, 1 exceeds BB
1 exceeds ARAR and BB
1 exceeds ARAR and BB
1 exceeds ARAR
-------
TABIiE 2 (Continued)
Environmental
Medium
Cogdels Creek
Sediment
Fraction
Volatiles
Semivolatiles
Pesticides
PCBs
Metals(3)
SUMMARY OF RI RESULTS
SITE 28, HADNOT POINT BURN DUMP
MCB, CAMP LEJEUNE, NORTH CAROLINA

Comparison Criteria
Detected Constituents
Carbon disulfide
Phenanthrene (PAH)
Anthracene (PAH)
Fluoranthene (PAH)
Pyrene (PAH)
Butyl benzyl phthalate
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine
B(a)anthracene (PAH)
Chrysene (PAH)
BEHP
B(b)fluoranthene (PAH)
B(k)fluoranthene (PAH)
Benzo(a)pyrene (PAH)
4,4'-DDE
4,4'-ODD
4,4'-DDT
alpha-chlordane
gamma-Chlordane
ND
Lead
Mercury
Silver
Zinc

ARAR
NA
NOAA-225
NCAA- 8 5
NCAA- 600
NOAA-350
NA
NA
NOAA-230
NOAA-400
NA
NA
NA
NOAA-400
NCAA- 2
NOAA-2
NOAA-1
NOAA-0.5
NOAA-0.5
NOAA
NOAA-35
NOAA-0.15
NOAA-1
NOAA- 120
Base
Background
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1-314
ND
7.3
12-916
Min. Max.
Concentration
Detected
9 J
260 J
61 J
77 J
63 J
410 J
410 J
56 J
58 J
100 J
63 J
42 J
47 J
6.4 J
4.3 J
50 J
2.6 NJ
6.1 J

6.8
0.12
2 J
9.3 J
Concentration
Detected
13 J
260 J
61 J
340 J
250 J
410 J
410 J
140 J
160 J
1,700 J
63 J
42 J
1,700 J
200 J
450 J
50 J
5.9 NJ
8.4 J

202
0.41
2 J
303
Detection
Frequency Distribution
2/14 maximum upstream of site
1/14 1 exceeds ARAR adjacent site
1/14 does not exceed ARAR, adjacent
3/14 none exceed ARAR, adjacent
5/14 none exceed ARAR, scattered
1/14 adjacent to site
1/14 adjacent to site
2/14 neither exceed ARAR, adjacent
2/14 neither exceed ARAk adjacent
12/14 scattered up and downstream
1/14 adjacent to site
1/14 adjacent to site
9/14 5 exceed ARAR, all upstream
9/14 9 exceed ARAR, scattered
7/14 7 exceed ARAR, scattered
1/14 1 exceeds ARAR, upstream of site
2/14 2 exceed ARAR, upstream of site
2/14 2 exceed ARAR, upstream of site
0/14
14/14 7 exceed ARAR, none exceed BB
6/14 4 exceed ARAR, 6 exceed BB
1/14 1 exceeds ARAR, downstream
14/14 2 exceed ARAR, none exceed BB
-------
TABLE 2 (Continued)

SUMMARY OF RI RESULTS
SITE 28, HADNOT POINT BURN DUMP
MCB, CAMP LEJEUNE, NORTH CAROLINA
Environmental
Medium
New River
Sediment
Fraction
Volatiles
Semivolatiles
Pesticides
Detected Constituents
Carbon disulfide
Acenaphthene
Dibenzofuran
Fluorene (PAH)
Phenanthrene (PAH)
Anthracene (PAH)
Carbazole
Fluoranthene (PAH)
Pyrene (PAH)
B(a)anthracene (PAH)
Chrysene (PAH)
BEHP
B(b)fluoranthene (PAH)
B(k)fluoranthene (PAH)
Benzo(a)pyrene (PAH)
I(l,2,3-cd)pyrene (PAH)
D(a,h)anthracene (PAH)
B(g,h,i)perylene (PAH)
4,4'-DDE
4,4'-ODD
4,4'-DDT
alpha-Chlordane
gamma-Chlordane
Comparison

ARAR
NA
NOAA - 150
NA
NOAA - 35
NOAA - 225
NOAA - 85
NA
NOAA - 600
NOAA - 350
NOAA - 230
NOAA - 400
NA
NA
NA
NOAA - 400
NA
NOAA - 60
NA
NOAA - 2
NOAA - 2
NOAA - 1
NOAA - 0.5
NOAA - 0.5
Criteria
Base
Background
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Min.
Concentration
Detected
2 J
150 J
60 J
120 J
47 J
97 J
57 J
80 J
75 J
150 J
160 J
580
55 J
120 J
130 J
68 J
47 J
65
33
4.8
3.1 J
Max.
Concentration
Detected
2 J
150 J
60 J
120 J
1,200
320 J
160 J
1,600
1,700
1,500
2,100
2,400
1,100
840
710
320 J
47 J
320 J
8.5
15
300
6.6 J
4.6 J
Detection
Frequency Distribution
1/10 adjacent to site
1/10 does not exceed ARAR, upstream
1/10 upstream of site
1/10 exceeds ARAR, upstream of site
4/10 2 exceed ARAR, max. upstream
4/10 2 exceed ARAR, max. upstream
3/10 maximum upstream of site
6/10 3 exceed ARAR, max. upstream
6/10 5 exceed ARAR, max. upstream
5/10 4 exceed ARAR, max. downstream
5/10 3 exceed ARAR, max, downstream
3/10 scattered up and downstream
6/10 maximum upstream of site
5/10 maximum downstream of site
5/10 3 exceed ARAR, max. upstream
6/10 maximum downstream of site
1/10 does not exceed ARAR, adjacent
5/10 maximum upstream of site
2/10 2 exceed ARAR, max. upstream
3/10 3 exceed ARAR, max. upstream
3/10 3 exceed ARAR, max. adjacent
2/10 2 exceed ARAR, max. at Cogdels
2/10 2 exceed ARAR, max. at Cogdels
-------
TABLE 2 (Continued)

SUMMARY OF RI RESULTS
SITE 28, HADNOT POINT BURN DUMP
MCB, CAMP LEJEUNE, NORTH CAROLINA
Environmental
Medium
New River
Sediment
(Continued)
Comparison Criteria
Base
Min.
Concentration
Fraction
PCBs
Metals (3)
Detected Constituents
ND
Antimony
Copper
Lead
Silver
ARAR
NOAA
NOAA - 2
NOAA - 70
NOAA - 35
NOAA - 1
Background
NA
ND
0.43 - 53,200
1 - 314
7.3
Detected

8.7 J
1.5
3.5 J
3.1 J
Max.
Concentration
Detected

263
1,340
38,800
3.4 J
Detection
Frequency
0/10
2/10
10/10
10/10
2/10
Distribution
2 exceed ARAR, max. upstream
2 exceed ARAR, both upstream
2 exceed ARAR, both upstream
2 exceed ARAR, max. adjacent
Notes: - Concentrations are presented in Ig/L for liquid and Ig/Kg for solids (ppb), metal concentrations for solids and sediments are presented in mg/Kg (ppm).
(1) Metals in both surface and subsurface soils were compared to the range of Base background positive detections for priority pollutant metals only (i.e., antimony,
arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, selenium, silver, thallium, zinc).
(2) Additional groundwater samples were collected from wells which exhibited concentrations of volatile and semivolatile compounds during the initial round.
(3) Total metals in groundwater samples were compared to the range of positive detections in upgradient wells throughout MCB, Camp Lejeune.
ARAR - Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
BB - Base Background (Refer to Appendix M)
BEHP - Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
NA - Not Applicable
NCWQS - North Carolina Water Quality Standard
ND - Not Detected
MCL - Federal Maximum Contaminant Level
PAH - Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbon
TCA - Tetrachloroethane
J - Estimated Quantity
-------
TABIiE 3
SUMMARY OF RI RESULTS
SITE 30, SNEADS FERRY ROAD FUEL TANK SLUDGE AREA
MCB, CAMP LEJEUNE, NORTH CAROLINA
Comparison Criteria
Environmental
Medium
Surface Soil
Subsurface Soil
Groundwater
Surface Water
Sediment

Fraction
Volatiles
Semivolatiles
Metals (1)
Volatiles
Semivolatiles
Metals (1)
Volatiles (2)
Semivolatiles
Total Metals (3)
Volatiles
Semivolatiles
Metals (3)

Volatiles
Semivolatiles
Metals

Detected Constituents
1,1, 1-Trichloroethane
ND
ND
1,1, 1-Trichloroethane
ND
Chromium
Chloroform
ND
Iron
ND
ND
Lead
Mercury
ND
BEHP
ND

ARAR
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NCWQS - 1.9
MCL/NCWOS
NCWQS - 300
NOAA/NCWQS
NOAA/NCWQS
NOAA - 1.32
NCWQS - 0.012
NA
NA
NOAA
Base
Background
NA
NA
BB
NA
NA
0.7 - 10.5
NA
NA
BB
NA
NA
1.2 - 10.4
0.52
NA
NA
BB
Min.
Concentration
Detected
2 J
2 J

1.5
3 J

692
2.3 J
0.15

74 J
Max.
Concentration
Detected
3 J
2 J

13.2
9

692
2.3 J
0.15

3,900
Detection
Frequency
2/11
0/11
0/14
1/11
0/11
12/14
1/3
0/3
1/3
0/3
0/3
1/3
1/3
0/6
6/6
0/6
Distribution
both detections north of tank trail
center of suspected disposal area

4 exceed BB, scattered
1 exceeds ARAR, both rounds

1 exceeds ARAR, upgradient
1 exceeds ARAR, upgradient
1 exceeds ARAR, upgradient

2 exceed 10X lab/blank contaminant
Notes: - Concentrations are presented in Ig/L for liguid and Ig/Kg for solids (ppb), metal concentrations for solids and sediments are presented in mg/Kg (ppm).
(1) Metals in both surface and subsurface soils were compared to the range of Base background positive detections for priority pollutant metals only (i.e., antimony,
arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, selenium, silver, thallium, zinc).
(2) Additional groundwater samples were collected from wells which exhibited concentrations of volatile and semivolatile compounds during the initial round.
(3) Total metals in groundwater samples were compared to the range of positive detections in upgradient wells throughout MCB, Camp Lejeune.
ARAR - Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
BB - Base Background (Refer to Appendix M)
BEHP - Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
NA - Not Applicable
NCWQS - North Carolina Water Quality Standard
ND - Not Detected
MCL - Federal Maximum Contaminant Level
PAH - Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbon
TCA - Tetrachloroethane
J - Estimated Quantity
-------
TABIiE 4

COPCs EVALUATED DURING THE HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
SITE 1, FRENCH CREEK LIQUIDS DISPOSAL AREA
MCB, CAMP LEJEUNE, NORTH CAROLINA
Environmental Medium
COPC
Surface Soil
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Manganese
Vanadium
Zinc
4,4-DDE
4,4'-DDT
Subsurface Soil
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Lead
Manganese
Nickel
Vanadium
Zinc
BEHP
Shallow and Deep Groundwater
Arsenic
Barium
Manganese
Mercury
1,2-dichloroethene (total) (1,2-DCE)
Trichloroethene (TCE)
Note:
COPC = Contaminant of Potential Concern

-------
TABIiE 6

COPCs EVALUATED DURING THE HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
SITE 28, HADNOT POINT BURN DUMP
MCB, CAMP LEJEUNE, NORTH CAROLINA
Environmental Medium
COPC
Surface Soil
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
Heptachlor epoxide
4,4-DDD
4,4-DDE
4,4'-DDT
Alpha-chlordane
Gamma-chlordane
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Carbazole
Chrysene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Subsurface Soil
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Vanadium
Zinc
4,4-DDD
4,4-DDE
4,4'-DDT
-------
TABIiE 6 (Continued)

COPCs EVALUATED DURING THE HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
SITE 28, HADNOT POINT BURN DUMP
MCB, CAW LEJEUNE, NORTH CAROLINA
Environmental Medium
COPC
Subsurface Soil (continued)
Alpha-chlordane
Gamma- chl ordane
2-methylnaphthalene
Naphthalene
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Chrysene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Shallow and Deep Groundwater
Arsenic
Barium
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
4,4-DDD
4,4-DDE
4,4'-DDT
2,4-dimethylphenol
4-methylphenol
Acenaphthene
Chloroform
2-methylnaphthalene
Phenanthrene
Surface Water
New River
Aluminum
Arsenic
Cadmium
Copper
Lead
Manganese
Vanadium
Zinc
4,4'-ODD
4,4'-DDE
Surface Water
Cogdels Creek
Aluminum
Arsenic
Lead
Manganese
Vanadium
Zinc
Surface Water
Orde Pond
Aluminum
Nickel
Thallium
-------
TABIiE 6 (Continued)

COPCs EVALUATED DURING THE HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
SITE 28, RADNOT POINT BURN DUMP
MCB, CAMP LEJEUNE, NORTH CAROLINA

Environmental Medium COPC

Sediment Antimony
New River Arsenic
Barium
Copper
Lead
Silver
Zinc
4,4'-DDD
4,4'-DDE
4,4'-DDT
Alpha-chlordane
Gamma-chlordane
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
Carbazole
Dibenzofuran
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Chrysene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate

Sediment Aluminum
Cogdels Creek Arsenic
Barium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Carbon disulfide
4,4'-DDD
4,4'-DDE
Alpha-chlordane
Gamma-chlordane
3,3'-dichlorobenzidine
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Fluoranthene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Chrysene
Benzo(a)pyrene
-------
TABIiE 6 (Continued)

COPCs EVALUATED DURING THE HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
SITE 28, HADNOT POINT BURN DUMP
MCB, CAMP LEJEUNE, NORTH CAROLINA
Environmental Medium
Sediment
Orde Pond
COPC
Aluminum
Arsenic
Beryllium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Lead
Manganese
Nickel
Vanadium
4,4'-DDD
Fish Tissue
New River
Antimony
Barium
Cobalt
Copper
Selenium
4,4'-DDD
4,4'-DDE
Alpha-chlordane
Fish Tissue
Orde Pond
Barium
Manganese
Selenium
Zinc
Note:
COPC = Contaminant of Potential Concern
-------
TABIiE 7
SUMMARY OF EXPOSURE PATHWAYS
SITE 29, HADNOT POINT BURN DUMP AREA
MCB, CAMIP IiEJEUNE, NORTH CAROLINA
Receptor

Current Military Personnel

Current Residential Adult and Child
Fisherman
Future Construction Worker

Future Residential Adult and Child
inhalation
Exposure Pathway
Surface soil ingestion, dermal contact and inhalation
Surface water ingestion and dermal contact (Orde Pond)
Sediment ingestion and dermal contact (Orde Pond)

Surface soil ingestion, dermal contact and inhalation
Surface water ingestion and dermal contact
(New River and Cogdels Creek)
Sediment ingestion and dermal contact
(New River and Cogdels Creek)

Surface water ingestion and dermal contact
(New River and Orde Pond)

Sediment ingestion and dermal contact
(New River and Orde Pond)
Fish ingestion (New River and Orde Pond)

Subsurface soil ingestion and dermal contact

Subsurface soil ingestion, dermal contact and

Groundwater ingestion, dermal contact and inhalation
Surface water ingestion and dermal contact
(New River and Cogdels Creek)
Sediment ingestion and dermal contact
(New River and Cogdels Creek)

-------
TABLE 10

SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL HUMAN HEALTH RISKS FOR THE
MILITARY, FISHERMAN, AND CONSTRUCTION WORKER RECEPTORS
SITE 28, HADNOT POINT BURN DUMP
MCB, CAMP LEJEUNE, NORTH CAROLINA
Exposure Pathway
Military
Nc Risk
Fisherman
Construction Worker
CARC Risk
NC Risk Care Risk NC Risk Care Risk
Surface Soil Ingestion
Surface Soil Dermal Contact
Surface Soil Inhalation
total
Subsurface Soil Ingestion
Subsurface Soil Dermal Contact
Subsurface Soil Inhalation
total
Groundwater Ingestion
Groundwater Dermal Contact
total
Orde Pond
Surface Water Ingestion
Surface Water Dermal Contact
total
Sediment Ingestion
Sediment Dermal Contact
total
Fish Ingestion
New River
Surface Water Ingestion
Surface Water Dermal Contact
total
Sediment Ingestion
Sediment Dermal Contact
total
Fish Ingestion
Current Risk (Orde Pond)
Current Risk (New River)
Future Risk (Orde Pond)
Future Risk (New River)
4.7E-01
4.2E-02
1.4E-03
5.2E-01
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.5E-05
8.5E-05
l.OE-04
3.5E-02
l.OE-02
4.5E-02
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.6
0.5
4.5E-02
NA
1.5E-06
2.8E-07
1.3E-10
1.8E-06
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
9.8E-07
2.9E-07
1.3E-06
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
3.0E-06
1.8E-06
1.3E-06
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.6E-05
9.1E-05
1.1E-04
4.7E-03
1.4E-03
6.1E-03
3.1E-01
8.6E-04
5.0E-03
5.9E-03
1.4E-01
4.0E-02
1.8E-01
3.8E-01
0.3
0.6
0.3
0.6
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
l.OE-06
2.9E-07
1.3E-06
NA
7.9E-08
6.2E-07
7.0E-07
1.8E-06
9.4E-07
2.7E-06
4.5E-06
1.3E-06
7.9E-06
1.3E-06
7.9E-06

5.
2.

NA
NA
NA

NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.
0.6
NA
NA
NA
NA
.8E-01
. 6E-02
NA
.1E-01
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA

NA
NA
NA
NA
4.5E-07
3.6E-08
NA
4.9E-07
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
4.9E-07
4.9E-07
Notes:
NC = Noncarcinogenic Risk (Shaded Areas Indicate HI > 1.0)
Care = Carcinogenic Risk (Shaded Areas Indicate ICR > l.OE-04)
NA = Not Applicable
-------
TABIiE 11

COPCs EVALUATED DURING THE ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT
SITE 28, HADNOT POINT BURN DUMP
MCB, CAMP LEJEUNE, NORTH CAROLINA

Environmental Medium COPC

Surface Soil Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
Heptachlor epoxide
4,4'-DDD
4,4'-DDE
4,4'-DDT
Alpha-chlordane
Gamma-chlordane
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Carbazole
Chrysene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Bis (2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Fluoranthene
Pyrene

Surface Water Aluminum
New River Arsenic
Cadmium
Copper
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Vanadium
Zinc
4,4' -DDD
4,4'-DDE
-------
TABIiE 11 (Continued)

COPCs EVALUATED DURING THE ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT
SITE 28, HADNOT POINT BURN DUMP
MCB, CAMP LEJEUNE, NORTH CAROLINA
Environmental Medium
COPC
Surface Water
Cogdels Creek
Aluminum
Copper
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Vanadium
Zinc
Surface Water
Orde Pond
Aluminum
Nickel
Thallium
Sediment
New River
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Copper
Lead
Silver
Zinc
4,4' -DDD
4,4'-DDE
4,4'-DDT
Alpha-chlordane
Gamma-chlordane
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
Carbazole
Dibenzofuran
Fluorene
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Chrysene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Sediment
Cogdels Creek
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Iron
-------
TABIiE 11 (Continued)

COPCs EVALUATED DURING THE ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT
SITE 28, HADNOT POINT BURN DUMP
MCB, CAMP LEJEUNE, NORTH CAROLINA
Environmental Medium
COPC
Sediment
Cogdels Creek (continued)
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Silver
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
Bis (2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Carbon disulfide
4,4'-DDD
4,4'-DDE
Alpha-chlordane
Gamma-chlordane
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Chrysene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Sediment
Orde Pond
Aluminum
Arsenic
Beryllium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Nickel
Vanadium
4,4'-DDD
Fish Fillet Tissue
New River
Antimony
Barium
Cobalt
Copper
Selenium
4,4'-DDD
4,4'-DDE
Alpha-chlordane
Fish Whole Body Tissue
New River
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Manganese
Mercury
-------
TABIiE 11 (Continued)

COPCs EVALUATED DURING THE ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT
SITE 28, HADNOT POINT BURN DUMP
MCB, CAMP LEJEUNE, NORTH CAROLINA
Environmental Medium
COPC
Fish Whole Body Tissue
New River (continued)
Selenium
Silver
Vanadium
Zinc
4,4'-DDD
4,4'-DDE
Alpha-Chlordane
Fish Fillet Tissue
Orde Pond
Barium
Manganese
Selenium
Zinc
Fish Whole Body Tissue
Orde Pone
Arsenic
Barium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Manganese
Mercury
Selenium
Zinc
4,4'-DDE
Alpha-Chlordane
Note:
COPC = Contaminant of Potential Concern
-------
TABIiE 12

COPCs EVALUATED DURING THE HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
SITE 30, SNEADS FERRY ROAD FUEL TANK SLUDGE AREA
MCB, CAMP LEJEUNE, NORTH CAROLINA

Environmental Medium COPC

Surface Soil No COPCS were identified
for Site 30 surface soil.

Subsurface Soil Aluminum
Arsenic
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Vanadium

Groundwater No COPCS were identified
for Site 30 groundwater.

Surface Water Aluminum
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Sediment Aluminum
Chromium
Lead
Manganese
Nickel
Vanadium
Zinc

Note:

COPC - Contaminant of Potential Concern
-------
TABIiE 13

SUMMARY OF EXPOSURE DOSE INPUT PARAMETERS
SITE 30, SNEADS FERRY ROAD FUEL TANK SLUDGE AREA
MCB, CAMP LEJEUNE, NORTH CAROLINA
Receptor
Input Parameter

Soil (mg/kg)
Ingestion Rate, IR
Fraction Ingested, FI
Exposure Frequency, EF
Exposure Duration, ED
Surface Area, SA
Absorption Factor, AF
Averaging Time, Noncarc., ATnc
Averaging Time, Care., ATcarc
Body Weight, BW
Conversion Factor, CF
Absorbance Factor, ABS
Sediment (mg/kg)
Ingestion Rate, IR
Fraction Ingested, FI
Exposure Frequency, EF
Exposure Duration, ED
Surface Area, SA
Absorption Factor, AF
Averaging Time, Noncarc., ATnc
Averaging Time, Care., ATcarc
Body Weight, BW
Conversion Factor, CF
Absorbance Factor, ABS
Surface Water (mg/L)
Ingestion Rate, IR
Exposure Time, ET
Exposure Frequency, EF
Exposure Duration, ED
Surface Area, SA
Averaging Time, Noncarc., ATnc
Averaging Time, Care., ATcarc
Conversion Factor, CF
Units
Child
Adult
Military
Personnel
mg/d
unitless
d/y
Y
cm 2
mg/cm 3
d
d
kg
kg/mg
unitless
mg/d
unitless
d/y
Y
cm 2
mg/cm 3
d
d
kg
kg/mg
unitless
L/h
h/d
d/y
Y
cm 2
d
d
L/cm 3
200
1
350
6
2300
1
2190
25550
15
1x10 -6
Organics
200
1
45
6
2300
1
2,190
25,550
15
1x10 -6
Organics
0.005
2.6
45
6
2300
2,190
25,550
0.001
100
1
350
30
5800
1
10,950
25,550
70
1x10 -6
100
1
250
4
4,300
1
1,460
25,550
70

= 0.01; Inorganics =
100
1
45
30
5800
1
10,950
25,550
70
1x10 -6
100
1
45
4
5800
1
1,460
25,550
70
1x10 -6
= 0.01; Inorganics =
0.005
2.6
45
30
5800
10,950
25,550
0.001
0.005
2.6
45
4
5800
1,460
25,550
0.001
Construction
Worker
480
1
90
1
4300
1
365
25,550
70
1x10 -6 1x10 -6
0.001
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.001
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-------
TABIiE 13 (Continued)

SUMMARY OF EXPOSURE DOSE INPUT PARAMETERS
SITE 30, SNEADS FERRY ROAD FUEL TANK SLUDGE AREA
MCB, CAMP LEJEUNE, NORTH CAROLINA
Input Parameter Units

Air (mg/m 3)
Outdoor Air
Inhalation Rate, IR m 3/d
Exposure Frequency, EF d/y
Exposure Duration, ED y
Averaging Time, Noncarc., ATnc d
Averaging Time, Care,. ATcarc d
Body Weight, BW kg
Receptor
Child Adult Military
Personnel

10
350
6
190 10,950
25,550
15
20
350
30
1,460
25,550
70
30
250
4

25,550
70
Construction
Worker
20
90
1
365
25,550
70
References:
USEPA Risk Assessment For Superfund Volume 1, Human Health Manual (Part A) Interim Final,
December, 1989.
USEPA Exposure Factors Handbook, July, 1989.
USEPA Risk Assessment For Superfund Volume I, Human Health Evaluation Manual Supplemental
Guidance.
"Standard Default Exposure Factors" Interim Final. March 25, 1991.
USEPA Dermal Exposure Assessment: Principles and Applications. Interim Report. January, 1992.
USEPA Region IV Guidance for Soil Absorbance. (USEPA, 1992d)
-------
TABIiE 14

SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL HUMAN HEALTH RISKS
SITE 30, SNEADS FERRY ROAD FUEL TANK SLUDGE AREA
MCB, CAMP LEJEUNE, NORTH CAROLINA
Current Risk
for the Military
Receptor
Future Risk
for the Child
Receptor
Future Risk
for the Adult
Receptor
Future Risk
for the
Construction
Worker
Environmental Media

Subsurface Soil
Surface Water
Sediment
Exposure Pathway

Ingestion

Dermal Contact

Inhalation
Ingestion
Dermal Contact
Ingestion
Dermal Contact

Total

Total
Total
NC
Risk
NA
NA
NA
NA
6.2E-05
5.6E-04
6.0E-04
7.2E-03
2.1E-03
9.3E-03
9.9E-03
Care
Risk
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA

NC Risk
7.8E-02
4.5E-03
6.6E-05
8.3E-02
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
8.3E-02
Care
Risk
1.7E-06
9.8E-08
1.6E-10
1.8E-06
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.8E-06
NC
Risk
8.4E-03
2.4E-03
2.8E-05
1.1E-02
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.1E-02
Care
Risk
9.1E-07
2.6E-07
3.4E-10
1.2E-06
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.2E-06
NC
Risk
l.OE-02
4.6E-04
NA
1.1E-02
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.1E-02
Care
Risk
3.7E-09
1.7E-09
NA
3.9E-08
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
3.9E-0
Notes:

NC = Noncarcinogenic Risk (Shaded Areas Indicate HI>1.0)
Care = Carcinogenic Risk (Shaded Areas Indicate ICR>1.0E-04)
NA = Not Applicable
-------
TABIiE 15

GLOSSARY OF EVALUATION CRITERIA

Overall Protection of Human Health and Environment - addresses whether or not
an alternative provides adequate protection and describes how risks posed through
each pathway are eliminated, reduced, or controlled through treatment engineering or
institutional controls

Compliance with ARARs/TBCs - addresses whether or not an alternative will meet all of the
applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs), other criteria to be
considered (TBCs), or other federal and state environmental statues and/or provide
grounds for invoking a waiver.

Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence - refers to the magnitude of residual risk and the
ability of an alternative to maintain reliable protection of human health and the
environment over time once cleanup goals have been met.

Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume Through Treatment - refers to the anticipated
performance of the treatment options that may be employed in an alternative.

Short-Term Effectiveness - refers to the speed with which the alternative achieves
protection, as well as the alternative's potential to create adverse impacts on human
health and the environment that may occur during the construction and implementation
period.

Implementability - refers to the technical and administrative feasibility of an
alternative, including the availability of materials and services needed to implement the
chosen solution.

Cost - includes capital and operation and maintenance (O&M) costs. For comparative
purposes, presents net present worth (NPW) values.
-------
SUMMARY OF THE COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
SITE 1, FRENCH CREEK LIQUIDS DISPOSAL AREA
MCB, CAMP LEJEUNE, NORTH CAROLINA
RAA No. 1
No Action
RAA No. 2
Institutional Controls
OVERALL
PROTECTIVENESS
D Human Health
D Environmental Protection
through natural attenuation of
the contaminated
groundwater.

No reduction in potential
risks to ecological receptors,
except through natural
attenuation of the
contaminated groundwater.
Institutional controls and
natural attenuation will
reduce potential human
health risks.
Institutional controls and
natural attenuation will
reduce potential risks to
ecological receptors.
Institutional controls, natural
attenuation, and the
groundwater extraction/
treatment system will reduce
potential human health risks.

Institutional controls, natural
attenuation, and the
groundwater extraction/
treatment system will reduce
potential risks to ecological
receptors.
Institutional controls, natural
attenuation, and in-we11
aeration will reduce potential
human health risks.
Institutional controls, natural
attenuation, and in-we11
aeration will reduce potential
risks to ecological receptors.
Institutional controls, natural
attenuation, and the
groundwater extraction/
treatment system will reduce
potential human health risks.
Institutional controls, natural
attenuation, and the
groundwater extraction/
treatment system will reduce
potential risks to ecological
receptors.
COMPLIANCE WITH
ARARS
D Chemical-Sped fie
ARARs
D Locat
ARARs
No active effort made to
reduce COPC levels to below
federal or state ARARs.
However, COPCs are
expected to meet ARARs via
natural attenuation processes

Not applicable.
No active effort made to
reduce COPC levels to below
federal or state ARARs.
However, COPCs are
expected to meet ARARs via
natural attenuation processes

Not applicable.
COPCs within the wells' radii
of influence are expected to
meet chemical-specific
ARARs.
D Action-Spacific ARARs
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
-------
SUMMARY OF THE COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
SITE 1, FRENCH CREEK LIQUIDS DISPOSAL AREA
MCB, CAMP LEJEUNE, NORTH CAROLINA
RAA No. 3
Extraction On-Site
Treatment
RAA No. 4
In-We11 Aeration and Of f-
Gas Carbon Adsorption
RAA No. 5
Extraction and Off-Site
Treatment
OVERALL
PROTECTIVENESS
D Human Health
No reduction in Potential
human health risks, except
through natural attenuation of
the contaminated
groundwater.
Institutional controls and
natural attenuation will
reduce potential human
health risks.
Institutional controls, nature
attenuation, and the
groundwater extraction/
treatment system will reduce
potential human health risks.
Institutional controls, natural
attenuation, and in-we11
aeration will reduce potential
human health risks.
Institutional controls, natural
attenuation, and the
groundwater extraction/
treatment system will reduce
potential human health risks.
D Environmental Protection
No reduction in potential
risks to ecological receptors,
except through natural
attenuation of the
contaminated groundwater.
Institutional controls and
natural attenuation will
reduce potential risks to
ecological receptors.
Institutional controls, natural
attenuation, and the
groundwater extraction/
treatment system will reduce
potential risks to ecological
receptors.
Institutional controls, natural
attenuation, and in-we11
aeration will reduce potential
risks to ecological receptors.
Institutional controls, natural
attenuation, and the
groundwater extraction/
treatment system will reduce
potential risks to ecological
receptors.
COMPLIANCE WITH
ARARS
D Chemical-Sped fie
ARARs
No active effort made to
reduce COPC levels to below
federal or state ARARs.
However, COPCs are
expected to meet ARARs via
natural attenuation processes.
No active effort made to
reduce COPC levels to below
federal or state ARARs.
However, COPCs are
expected to meet ARARs via
natural attenuation processes
COPCs within the wells' radii
of influence am expected to
meet chemical-specific
ARARs.
COPCs within the wells' radii
of influence are expected to
meet chemical-specific
ARARs.
COPCs within the wells' radii
of influence are expected to
meet chemical-specific
ARARs.
D Location-Sped fie
ARARs
D Action-Spadfic ARARs
-------
TABLE 16 (Continued)

SUMMARY OF THE COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
SITE 1, FRENCH CREEK LIQUIDS DISPOSAL AREA
MCB, CAMP LEJEUNE, NORTH CAROLINA
RAA No. 1
No Action
RAA No. 2
Institutional Controls
RAA No. 3
Extraction and On-Site
Treatment
RAA No. 4
In-Well Aeration and Off-
Gas Carbon Adsorption
RAA No. 5
Extraction and Off-Site
Treatment
LONG-TERM
EFFECTIVENESS AND
PERMANENCE
D Magnitude of Residual
Risk
The residual risk from
untreated COPCs will be
minimal; natural attenuation
will mitigate any residual risk
that may exist.
The residual risk from
untreated COPCs will be
minimal; institutional
controls and natural
attenuation will mitigate any
residual risk that may exist.
The residual risk from
untreated COPCs will be
minimal; institutional
controls and the extraction/
treatment system will
mitigate any residual risk that
may exist.
The residual risk from
untreated COPCs will be
minimal; institutional
controls and in-we11 aeration
will mitigate any residual risk
that may exist.
The residual risk from
untreated COPCs will be
minimal, institutional
controls and the extraction/
treatment system will
mitigate any residual risk that
may exist.
D Adeguacy and Reliability
of Controls
The proposed monitoring
plan is adeguate and reliable
for determining the
alternative's effectiveness;
aguifer-use and deed
restrictions are adeguate and
reliable for preventing human
health exposure.
The proposed monitoring
plan is adeguate and reliable
for determining the
alternatives effectiveness;
aguifer-use and deed
restrictions are adeguate and
reliable for preventing human
health exposure until
remediation levels are met.
The proposed monitoring
plan is adeguate and reliable
for determining the
alternatives effectiveness;
aguifer-use and deed
restrictions are adeguate and
reliable for preventing human
health exposure until
remediation levels are met.
The proposed monitoring
plan is adeguate and reliable
for determining the
alternative's effectiveness;
aguifer-use and deed
restrictions are adeguate and
reliable for preventing human
health exposure until
remediation levels are met.
D Need for 5-year Review
human health and the
environment.
Review will be reguired to
ensure adeguate protection of
human health and the
environment.
Until remediation levels are
met, review will be reguired
to ensure adeguate protection
of human health and the
environment.
Until remediation levels are
met, review will be reguired
to ensure adeguate protection
of human health and the
environment.
Until remediation levels are
met, review will be reguired
to ensure adeguate protection
of human health and the
environment.
REDUCTION OF
TOXICITY, MOBILITY,
OR VOLUME THROUGH
TREATMENT
D Treatment Process Used
The treatment process
includes air stripping for
VOC removal and
neutralization, precipitation,
flocculation, sedimentation,
and filtration as pretreatment
For the air stripper.
The treatment process
includes in-we11 air stripping
and off-gas carbon adsorption
for VOC removal.
The treatment processes
include air stripping and
carbon adsorption on for VOC
removal; also, flocculation
and sedimentation for metals
removal.
-------
TABLE 16 (Continued)

SUMMARY OF THE COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
SITE 1, FRENCH CREEK LIQUIDS DISPOSAL AREA
MCB, CAMP LEJEUNE, NORTH CAROLINA
Evaluation Criteria

D Environmental Impact
RAA No. 1
No Action
RAA No. 3
Extraction and On-Site
Treatment

No additional environmental
impacts if aquifer drawdown
does not affect surrounding
water bodies.
RAA No. 4
In-We11 Aeration and Off-
Gas Carbon Adsorption
RAA No. 5
Extraction and Off-Site
Treatment
No additional environmental
impacts if aquifer drawdown
does not affect surrounding
water bodies.
D Time Until Action is
Complete
Thirty years was used to
estimate NPW costs. The
exact time for completion of
remediation is unknown.
Thirty years was used to
estimate NPW costs. The
exact time for completion of
remediation is unkwown.
Three years was used to
estimate in-we11 aeration
costs; 30 years was used to
estimate monitoring costs.
The exact time for
completion of remediation is
unknown.
Three years was used to
estimate trucking cost; 30
years was used to estimate
monitoring costs. The exact
time for completion of
remediation is unknown.
IMPLEMENTABILITY
D Ability to Construct and
No construction or operation
activities; institutional
controls has been easily
implemented in the past.
The infrastructure within a
developed area like Site 1
poses some minor
construction problems.
O&M may be difficult
because groundwater must be
lifted above ground surface
for treatment, and metals
precipitation could clog well
screens.
The technology has been
commercially applied, but it
is still relatively new. The
infrastructure within a
developed area like Site 1
poses some minor
construction problems also,
metals precipitation could
clog well screens.
The infrastructure within a
developed area like Site 1
poses some minor
construction problems. Also,
metals precipitation could
clog well screens.
D Ability to Monitor
Effectiveness
No proposed monitoring plan
plan; failure to detect
contamination could result :
potential ingestion of
groudwater.
Proposed monitoring plan
will detect contaminants
before significant exposure
can occur.
Proposed monitoring plan
will detect contaminants
before significant exposure
can occur; Q&M checks will
provide notice of a system
failure.
Proposed monitoring plan
will detect contaminants
before significant exposure
can occur; Q&M checks will
provide notice of a system
failure.
Proposed monitoring plan
will detect contaminants
before significant exposure
can occur; O&M checks will
provide notice of a system
failure.
D Availability of Services
and Capacities;
Services and equipment are
readily available.
-------
Evaluation Criteria

D Requirments for
Agency Coordination
RAA No. 1
No Action
RAA No. 4
In-We11 Aeration and Off-
Gas Carbon Adsorption
The substantive requirments
of air and water discharge
permits must be met.
Air and water discharge
permits may be required if
existing permits are not
adequate for the additional
groundwater load.
-------
TABLE 17

SUMMARY OF THE COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
SITE 28, HADNOT POINT BURN DUMP
MCB, CAMP LEJEUNE, NORTH CAROLINA
Evaluation Criteria
RAA No. 1
No Action
RAA No. 2
Institutional Controls
OVERALL
PROTECTIVENESS
D Human Health
No reduction in potential human
health risks.
Institutional controls reduce potential
human health risks.
D Environmental Protection
No reduction in potential risks to
ecological receptors.
Institutional controls reduce potential
risks to ecological receptors.
COMPLIANCE WITH ARARS
D Chemical-Specific ARARs
Manganese is expected to exceed
chemical - specific ARARs, but it
appears to naturally exceed ARARs
in groundwater throughout MCB,
Camp Lejeune. Lead is believed to
be the result of suspended solids so it
is not expected to exceed ARARs.
Manganese is expected to exceed
chemical - specific ARARs, but it
appears to naturally exceed ARARs
in groundwater throughout MCB,
Camp Lejeune. Lead is believed to
be the result of suspended solids so it
is not expected to exceed ARARs.
-------
D Location-Specific ARARs

D Action-Specific ARARs
Not applicable.

Not applicable.
Not applicable.

Not applicable.
LONG-TERM
EFFECTIVENESS AND
PERMANENCE
D Magnitude of Residual
Risk
The residual risk from untreated lead
and manganese will be minimal.
The residual risk from untreated lead
and manganese will be minimal;
institutional controls will mitigate any
residual risk that may exist.
D Adeguacy and Reliability
of Controls
D Need for 5-year Review
Not applicable-no controls.
Review will be reguired to ensure
adeguate protection of human health
and the environment.
The monitoring plan is adeguate and
reliable for determining effectiveness;
aguifer-use and deed restrictions are
adeguate and reliable for preventing
human health exposure.

Review will be reguired to ensure
adeguate protection of human health
and the environment.
REDUCTION OF TOXICITY,
MOBILITY, OR VOLUME
THROUGH TREATMENT
D Treatment Process Used

D Amount Destroyed or
Treated
No treatment process.

None.
No treatment process.

None.
D Reduction of Toxicity,
Mobility, or Volume

D Residuals Remaining After
Treatment
None.
Not applicable-no treatment.
None.
Not applicable-no treatment.
D Statutory Preference for
Treatment
Not satisfied.
Not satisfied.
SHORT-TERM
EFFECTIVENESS
D Community Protection
Potential risks to the community will
not be increased.
Potential risks to the community will
not be increased.
D Worker Protection
No risks to workers.
No significant risks to workers.
-------
TABIiE 17 (Continued)

SUMMARY OF THE COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
SITE 28, HADNOT POINT BURN DUMP
MCB, CAMP LEJEUNE, NORTH CAROLINA
Evaluation Criteria

D Environmental Impact
RAA No. 1
No Action

No additional environmental impacts;
current impacts will continue.
RAA No. 2
Institutional Controls

No additional environmental impacts;
current impacts will continue.
D Time Until Action is
Complete
Not applicable.
Estimated 30 years.
IMPLEMENTABILITY
D Ability to Construct and
Operate
D Ability to Monitor
Effectiveness
D Availability of Services
and Capacities; Equipment

D Requirements for Aqency
Coordinations
No construction or operation
activities.
No monitorinq plan; failure to detect
increases in COPC levels could result
in potential inqestion of qroundwater.

No services or equipment required.
None required.
No construction or operation
activities; institutional controls have
been easily implemented in the past.

Proposed monitorinq plan will detect
increases in COPC levels before
siqnificant exposure can occur.

No special services or equipment
required.

Must submit semiannual reports to
document samplinq.
COST (Net Present Worth)
$0
$800,000
-------
FIGURES

-------