Superfund Record of Decision Camp Lejeune Military Reservation OO 13 (Site 63) Onslow County NC


                                    EPA/ROD/R04-97/212
                                    1997
EPA Superfund
     Record of Decision:
     CAMP LEJEUNE MILITARY RES. (USNAVY)
     EPA ID: NC6170022580
     OU13
     ONSLOW COUNTY, NC
     05/15/1997

-------
EPA/541/R-97/212


                  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 13, Site 63
      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 Site 63. This
remedy is supported by the previously completed Remedial Investigation and Baseline Risk
As s e s sment Report s.

    The selected remedial alternative is no further action. This involves taking no further
remedial actions at the site and leaving the environmental media as they currently exist. 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.



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

-------
            FINAL

     RECORD OF DECISION
OPERABLE UNIT NO. 13  (SITE 63)

      MARINE CORPS BASE
CAMP LEJEUNE, NORTH CAROLINA

  CONTRACT TASK ORDER 0340

      JANUARY 21, 1997

        Prepared For:

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

           Under:

   LANTDIV CLEAN Program
  Contract N62470-89-D4814

        Prepared by:

  BAKER ENVIRONMENTAL, INC.
  Coraopolis, Pennsylvania

-------
                              TABIiE OF CONTENTS
                                                                                        Page

 INTRODUCTION 	 1

      Document Organization 	 1

 DECISION DECLARATION 	 2
      Site Name and Location 	 2
      Decision Basis and Purpose 	 2
      Description of the Selected Remedy 	 2

      Declaration Statement 	 2

 DECISION SUMMARY 	 3
      Background and Setting of MCB Camp Lejeune 	 3
      Site Name, Location, and Setting 	 3
      Site History 	 4
      Summary of Site Characteristics 	 6
      Summary of Site Risks 	 9
      Highlights of Community Participation 	 11

      Scope and Role of Response Action 	 11

      Description of the Selected Remedy 	 12

RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY 	14
    Community Involvement 	 14
    Integration of Comments 	 15

                                        LIST OF TABLES

1   Summary of Positive Detections in Soil, Site Inspection, 1991
2   Summary of Positive Detections in Groundwater,  Site Inspection, 1991
3   Summary of Positive Detections in Surface Water, Site Inspection, 1991
4   Summary of Positive Detections in Sediment, Site Inspection, 1991
5   Summary of Site Contamination,  Remedial Investigation, 1995
6   Summary of Current and Future Potential Site Risks, Remedial Investigation, 1995
7   Summary of Terrestrial Quotient Indices, Remedial Investigation, 1995

                                  LIST OF FIGURES

1   Operable Unit No. 13 - Site 63, Marine Corps Base, Camp Lejeune
2   Site Location Map, Site 63 - Verona Loop Dump
3   Site Map and Surface Contours,  Site 63 - Verona Loop Dump
4   Remedial Investigation Sampling Locations, Site 63 - Verona Loop Dump

                                 LIST OF APPENDICES

A    Public Meeting Transcript

-------
                          LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
 Ig/kg
 Ig/L
 GDI
 CERCLA
 Act
 CLEAN
 COPC
microgram per kilogram
microgram per liter
Chronic Daily Intake
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,  and Liability

Comprehensive Long-Term Environmental Action Navy
Contaminant of Potential Concern
 ODD
 DDE
 DDT
 DoN

 ER-L
 ER-M

 FFA
dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane
dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene
dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane
Department of the Navy

Effects Range - Low
Effects Range - Median

Federal Facilities Agreement
 HI
 HQ
hazard index
hazard quotient
IAS
ICR
IR
Initial Assessment Study
incremental cancer risk
Installation Restoration
LANTDIV
Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Atlantic Division
MCAS
MCB
MCL
mg/kg

NC DEHNR
NCP
NCWQS
NOAA

OU

PCBs
PRAP
Marine Corps Air Station
Marine Corps Base
Maximum Contaminant Level
milligrams per kilogram

North Carolina Department of Environment,  Health and Natural Resources
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan
North Carolina Water Quality Standard
National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration

Operable Unit

polychlorinated biphenyls
Proposed Remedial Action Plan
QI
Quotient Index
RA
RCRA
RI
ROD
risk assessment
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
Remedial Investigation
Record of Decision
SARA
SI
SQC
SSSVs
SVOCs
SWSV

TAL
TCL

US EPA
VOCs
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
Site Inspection
Sediment Quality Criteria
surface soil screening values
semivolatile organic compounds
surface water screening value

target analyte list
target compound list

United States Environmental Protection Agency
volatile organic compound

-------
                                       INTRODUCTION

This Record of Decision (ROD) document presents the final remedial action plan selected for
Operable Unit (OU)  No. 13 (Site 63)  at Marine Corps Base (MCB),  Camp Lejeune, North Carolina.
The Final ROD document presents the selected remedy along with a description of the selection
process. Various environmental media at Site 63 were investigated as part of a Remedial
Investigation (RI)  conducted during November 1995. Based upon the results of the RI, a preferred
remedial alternative was identified in the Proposed Remedial Action Plan (PRAP) document. The
public was then given the opportunity to comment on both the RI  and PRAP documents. Comments
received during the public meeting,  the public comment period,  and new information that became
available during the interim were used to select the final remedy for Site 63.

Document Organization

This ROD document has been divided into four main sections. The  first section presents the
introduction and report organization. The second section provides a formal declaration that
identifies the selected remedy for Site 63. The declaration indicates that the remedy selection
process was implemented in accordance with applicable statutory and regulatory reguirements. The
third section presents information pertaining to previous investigation activities conducted at
Site 63.
The third section also presents the background and setting of both MCB Camp Lejeune and Site 63;
the highlights of community participation; the scope and role of the response action; site
characteristics; and a summary of site risks determined by human health and ecological risk
assessments. Finally, the fourth section provides the responsiveness summary that contains a
synopsis of comments received during the public meeting and public comment period.

-------
DECISION DECLARATION

Site Name and Location

Operable Unit No. 13
(Site 63 - Verona Loop Dump)
Marine Corps Base
Camp Lejeune, North Carolina

Decision Basis and Purpose

This Record of Decision document presents the selected remedy for Operable Unit (OU) No. 13 at
Marine Corps Base (MCB), Camp Lejeune, North Carolina. The remedy for OU No. 13 has been
selected in accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and
Liability Act of 1980, as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act, and, to
the extent practicable, the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan.
The decision presented herein is based upon the collaborative effort of federal, state, and
community participants and information contained within the Administrative Record for OU No. 13.

The Department of the Navy and the Marine Corps have obtained concurrence for the selected
remedy from the North Carolina Department of Environment Health and Natural Resources and the
United States Environmental Protection Agency Region IV. Prior to any future deviation from the
specified remedy additional concurrence shall be obtained.

Description of the Selected Remedy

The selected remedy for OU No. 13 is No Future Action with Institutional Controls. The selected
remedy, as the name implies, involves taking no further action at the site and leaving the
environmental media as they currently exist. In addition, aguifer use restrictions in the Base
Master Plan will prohibit the installation of water supply wells within 1,000 feet of OU No. 13.
In the event that unforeseen hazard posed by conditions at the site occur in the future,
monitoring to verify that no unacceptable exposures have occurred may be authorized.

Declaration Statement

No further action is reguired at OU No. 13 to ensure the continued protection of human health
and the environment. Based upon risk assessment results and aguifer use restrictions implemented
by MCB Camp Lejeune, site conditions at OU No. 13 appear to be protective of human health and
environment both now and in the future.

-------
DECISION SUMMARY

Background and Setting of MCB Camp Lejeune

MCB Camp Lejeune is located in Onslow County, North Carolina. Construction of the "World's Most
Complete Amphibious Training Base" was begun in 1941 for the United States Marine Corps. MCB
Camp Lejeune is located approximately 45 miles south of New Bern, North Carolina and 47 miles
north of Wilmington, North Carolina. The facility encompasses approximately 236 sguare miles and
includes 14 miles of coastline. The military reservation is bisected by the New River, which
flows in a southeasterly direction and forms a large estuary before entering the Atlantic Ocean.
The Atlantic Ocean forms the eastern border of MCB Camp Lejeune; U.S. Route 17 and State Route
24 border the western and northwestern portions, of MCB Camp Lejeune. The City of Jacksonville,
North Carolina borders the facility to the north.

MCB Camp Lejeune was placed on the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and
Liability Act (CERCLA) National Priorities List effective 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
Department of the Navy (DoN) entered into a Federal Facilities Agreement (FFA) for MCB Camp
Lejeune. The primary purpose of the FFA was to ensure that environmental impacts associated with
past and present activities were thoroughly investigated and appropriate CERCLA response or
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) corrective action alternatives were developed and
implemented, as necessary, to protect public health and environment.

There are currently 42 Installation Restoration (IR) sites at MCB Camp Lejeune which have been
grouped into 18 OUs. OUs are formed as an incremental step toward addressing individual site
concerns. OUs may address geographical portions of a study area, site-specific problems or
initial phases of an action, or may consist of any set of actions performed over time or any
actions that may be concurrent but located in different parts of a site. OU No. 13 consists of
only one IR site; Site 63 is also referred to as the Verona Loop Dump. As depicted on Figure 1,
Site 63 is located within the western portion of the facility, to the south of Marine Corps Air
Station (MCAS), New River. [Note: All tables and figures have been provided at the end of this
document.]

Site Name, Location, and Setting

The Verona Loop Dump is comprised of approximately five acres and is located nearly two miles
south of the MCAS, New River operations area. As depicted on Figure 2, the study area is located
along Verona Loop Road approximately 1.25 miles cast of U.S. Route 17. Site 63 is bordered to
the south by Verona Loop Road, to the east by an unnamed tributary to Mill Run, and to the west
by a gravel access road.

Site 63 is relatively flat, however, the eastern portion of the study area slopes toward an
unnamed tributary; the unnamed tributary then discharges into Mill Run approximately 2,000 feet
south of Site 63. Mill Run discharges into the Southwest Creek which eventually flows into the
New River. A drainage ditch along Verona Loop Road receives surface water runoff from the
extreme southern portion of the site and the asphalt road surface. Figure 3 depicts the
topography and general arrangement of Site 63.

Much of the site is heavily vegetated with dense understory and trees greater than three inches
in diameter. A partially improved gravel road provides access to the main portion of the study
area; other unimproved paths extend outward from this road. Training exercises, maneuvers, and
recreational hunting are frequently conducted in the area. Several personnel entrenchments, used
during training exercises, have been excavated throughout the study area. Earthen berms and
small to medium size trees have been felled to construct protective works around many of the
entrenchments.

Site History

Very little information is available regarding the history or occurrence of waste management
practices at Site 63. The study area reportedly received wastes generated during training
exercises. The type of materials generated during these exercises are described only as
"bivouac" wastes. Additional information suggests that no hazardous wastes were disposed of at
-------
Site 63. The years during which disposal activities may have taken place are also not known.

The following describes the previous investigation activities that have been conducted at Site
63. These investigations include an initial assessment study (IAS), a site inspection (SI), and
an RI.

Initial Assessment Study, 1983

In 1983, an IAS was conducted at MCB Camp Lejeune by Water and Air Research, Inc. The IAS
evaluated potential hazards at various sites throughout MCB Camp Lejeune, including Site 63. The
IAS was based upon review of historical records, aerial photographs, a site visit, and personnel
interviews. The IAS concluded that waste guantities at Site 63, regardless of their nature, were
of a volume that did not reguire further investigation; therefore, additional investigations
were not recommended for the study area at that time.

Site Inspection, 1991

In 1991, Baker Environmental, Inc. conducted an SI at Site 63 to confirm findings of the IAS.
The SI consisted of the following field activities: the installation and sampling of three
monitoring wells; the collection of two soil samples from each monitoring well pilot test boring
(one sample obtained near the surface and the other obtained just above the water table); the
collection of two soil samples from six additional soil test borings; and the collection of two
surface water and two sediment samples from the adjacent tributary to Mill Run.

Upon visual inspection of the site, conclusive indications (e.g., distressed vegetation, denuded
areas, etc.) of hazardous waste disposal were not apparent; however, reinforced concrete rubble,
construction material, and various other inert debris was identified during the SI and
subseguent site visits. The observed waste material was limited to a number of distinct piles or
areas, rather than being strewn throughout the study area.

The following paragraphs briefly describe the results and conclusions of the SI at Site 63.
Tables 1 through 4 present summaries of laboratory analytical results from analyses performed on
the samples collected during the SI.

The volatile organic compounds (VOCs) toluene and xylene were detected at concentrations of 2
and 3 micrograms per kilogram (mg/kg) in a soil sample obtained from ground surface to a depth
of one foot. No other volatile compounds were detected among any of the samples obtained from
either surface or subsurface soils. As provided in Table 1, concentrations of semivolatile
organic compounds (SVOCs) ranged from 43 Ig/kg of di-n-butylphthalate to 280 Ig/kg of benzoic
acid.

The six soil samples obtained during installation of the three monitoring wells provided the
only SVOC detections. The pesticides 4,4'-DDE, 4,4'-ODD, and 4,4'-DDT were detected at low
concentrations in one surface sample obtained from the eastern portion of the study area; no
other pesticides were detected among the other soil samples. Aroclor-1254 was detected once at a
concentration of 1,000 Ig/kg in a surface sample obtained near the central portion of the study
area; no other polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) were detected. Several metals were also detected
among the soil samples obtained at Site 63. The concentrations of the detected metals were, for
the most part, consistent with base-specific background levels. Table 1 presents positive
detections of both organic and inorganic soil analytical results from the SI at Site 63.

Carbon disulfide, benzoic acid, and bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate were the only organic compounds
detected among groundwater samples. Carbon disulfide was not detected in any other environmental
media at Site 63. Total metal concentrations of aluminum, barium, chromium, lead, iron, and
manganese exceeded either federal Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) or North Carolina Water
Quality Standards (NCWQSs). However, other studies conducted at several sites throughout MCB
Camp Lejeune have also exhibited concentrations of total metals in excess of water guality
standards. The analyses tend to reflect the presence of suspended material in groundwater
samples resulting from sampling disturbance, rather than depict true groundwater conditions.
Table 2 presents a summary of the groundwater analytical results from the SI conducted at Site
63.

No organic compounds were detected among the two surface water and two sediment samples
-------
obtained from the unnamed tributary. A number of metals were, however, detected in both the
surface water and sediment samples. Iron was the only metal detected among the surface water
samples at a concentration which exceeded applicable state or federal standards. Table 3
provides a summary of positive surface water detections.

Two sediment samples were also collected from the same surface water and sediment sampling
stations along the unnamed tributary. Several metals were detected including arsenic, chromium,
copper, lead, nickel, and zinc. Only one detection each of copper and lead exceeded federal
screening values. The sediment comparison values were based upon a potential to adversely impact
aguatic life. The concentrations of copper and lead were within the "probable" adverse effects
to biota range. Table 4 presents sediment analytical results generated during the SI at Site 63.

Remedial Investigation, 1995

The RI field investigation of Site 63 was conducted during November 1995. The RI field program
at Site 63 consisted of a site survey; a soil investigation, which involved direct-push sample
collection; a groundwater investigation, which included temporary monitoring well installation,
sampling, and aguifer testing; a surface water and sediment investigation; and a habitat
evaluation. The following provides an overview of the various investigation activities carried
out during the RI:

Surface Soil Samples Collected 46
• Subsurface Soil Samples Collected 50
• Temporary Wells Installed and Sampled 8
• Existing Shallow Wells Sampled 3
• Surface Water Samples Collected 5
• Sediment Samples Collected 5

Findings from the RI are presented within a number of the sections which follow.

Summary of Site Characteristics

Various investigations were performed during the RI at Site 63 to assess the nature and extent
of contamination that may have resulted from previous waste management practices or site
activities; to assess the human health, ecological, and environmental risks associated with
exposure to surface and subsurface soils; and to characterize the geologic and hydrogeologic
setting of the study area. The following provides a brief summary regarding the extent of
contamination at Site 63. This summary focuses upon primary site concerns and is not intended to
address all analytical results. A summary of site contamination, by media, is provided in Table
5. Figure 4 depicts the various RI sampling locations at Site 63.

Soil

Styrene was detected in only one of the subsurface soil samples obtained at Site 63. Styrene was
detected at a concentration of 41 Ig/kg in a subsurface sample from location 63-SB15. No other
VOCs were detected among the 96 soil samples retained for laboratory analyses. Given the limited
extent of styrene and the lack corroborating evidence of volatile contamination, the presence of
styrene is most likely the result of a single event rather than long-term disposal operations.
Additionally, the single styrene detection did not exceed the applicable soil screening value of
2,000 Ig/kg.

The presence of SVOCs in soil is most likely the result of either former operational activities
at Site 63 or the decomposition of organic matter (e.g., leaves, pine needles, etc.). The
concentration and infreguent detection of semivolatile compounds among soil samples is
consistent with the historical use of Site 63; indicative of incidental spillage, or may be the
result of ongoing maneuvers and training exercises. Semivolatile compounds were identified in
both surface and subsurface soil samples obtained from the suspected disposal portion of the
study area. Concentrations of SVOCs were limited to two surface and three subsurface sampling
locations throughout the entire site. The positive SVOC results correspond directly to the
visual identification of graded soil or construction debris observed during the field
investigation. None of the positive SVOC detections exceeded applicable soil screening values
for the protection of groundwater, nor do they suggest long-term disposal operations.
-------
Positive detections of pesticides were observed among both surface and subsurface soil samples
at Site 63. Pesticide concentrations were low (i.e., less than 100 Ig/kg) and primarily limited
to within and adjacent to the suspected disposal portion of the study area. The majority of
pesticide detections were observed among surface soil samples. The freguency and overall
concentration of pesticides in soil, nonetheless, does not suggest pesticide disposal
activities. Much of the study area appears to have been graded during previous site operations;
the reworked surface soil may have contained residual pesticides. The presence of pesticide
compounds among soil samples obtained at Site 63 is most likely the result of routine base-wide
application and use of pesticides.

As provided in Table 5, a number of samples submitted for analyses had target analyte list (TAL)
metal concentrations which exceeded applicable soil screening values or base-specific background
levels. Arsenic, barium, and nickel were detected at concentrations which exceeded soil
screening values protective of groundwater among 1, 5, and 7 of the 96 soil samples submitted
for analyses; however, the same 3 metals were not detected above NCWQSs among any of the
groundwater samples obtained at Site 63.

The distribution of detected metals among both surface and subsurface samples followed no
discernible pattern. In at least one case, however, findings from the analytical program were
consistent with visual observations of buried debris and non-native surface material recorded
during the field investigation. A total of 13 metals were detected above twice their average
base-specific background levels; 9 of the 13 metals were detected at maximum concentrations in a
subsurface sample obtained from location 63-SB23. Boring 63-SB23 is located within the central
portion of the suspected disposal area and identified as having both surface and subsurface
debris (refer to Figure 4). With the exception of boring 63-SB23, metals were observed at
varying concentrations scattered throughout the study area.

Groundwater

Volatile, semivolatile, pesticide, and PCB organic compounds were not detected in any of the
groundwater samples submitted for analyses from Site 63. As a result of those analyses, the
extent of organic compounds in groundwater were not addressed.

Metals were detected in each of the 11 groundwater samples submitted for analyses from Site 63.
Iron, manganese, and zinc were the only target analyte list (TAL) total metals detected at
levels in excess of either federal MCL or NCWQS. Positive detections that exceeded applicable
screening standards for both iron and manganese were distributed throughout the suspected
disposal portion of the study area. The sample obtained from temporary well 63-TW07 exhibited
the only positive detection of zinc; detected at a concentration of 17,100 micrograms per liter
(Ig/L) which exceeded the 2,100 Ig/L screening standard. Subsurface soil samples collected from
both the eastern and western portions of the study area had positive detections of zinc which
exceeded background levels. Although the distribution of zinc among soil samples is not limited
to the suspected disposal portion of the study area, temporary well 63-TW07 is located within
one of the areas identified as having elevated concentrations of zinc in soil. The presence of
zinc in soil, however, does not completely account for its elevated concentration in
groundwater. If zinc disposal operations had taken place at Site 63 elevated concentrations of
zinc would also be evident in the adjacent monitoring well 63-GW02 and at much higher
concentrations among soil samples obtained from the suspected disposal area. Temporary
monitoring well 63-TW07 is hydraulically downgradient from the suspected disposal portion of the
study area and permanent well 63-GW02. The limited dispersion of zinc in sampling media suggests
that its presence is not indicative of former or ongoing disposal activities.

Groundwater within the coastal plain region of North Carolina is naturally rich in iron and
manganese. Groundwater concentrations of both iron and manganese at MCB Camp Lejeune often
exceed the state standards of 300 and 50 Ig/L, respectively. Elevated levels of iron and
manganese, at concentrations above the NCWQS, were reported in samples collected from a number
of base potable water supply wells which were installed at depths greater than 162 feet below
ground surface. Certain total metal concentrations in groundwater are due more to geologic
conditions (i.e., naturally occurring concentrations and unconsolidated soils) and sample
acguisition methods, than to mobile metal concentrations in the surficial aguifer.

Iron and manganese concentrations from a number of wells at Site 63 exceeded the NCWQS but fell
within the range of concentrations for samples collected elsewhere at MCB Camp Lejeune.
-------
Additionally, positive detections of both iron and manganese among groundwater samples retained
from the upper-most portion of the surficial aguifer had no discernible pattern of distribution.
The presence and concentrations of both iron and manganese in groundwater samples obtained at
Site 63 appear to be indicative of natural site conditions rather than disposal activities.

Surface Water

No organic compounds were detected among any of the five surface water samples submitted for
analyses from Site 63. As a result of those analyses, the extent of organic compounds in surface
water were not addressed within the RI report.

Aluminum was the only TAL total metal identified among each of the five surface water samples
obtained from the unnamed tributary that exceeded state or federal chronic screening values.
Each sampling station had a positive detection of aluminum above the 87 Ig/L chronic screening
value. Positive aluminum detections among the five surface water samples obtained from the
unnamed tributary ranged from 602 to 688 Ig/L. The headwaters of the unnamed tributary are less
than one hundred yards upgradient of Site 63, amongst pine and hardwood trees. The combination
of acidic soil and acidification due to decaying leaves and pine needles most probably has
contributed to the slightly acidic nature of surface water at Site 63. Field chemistry results
suggest that the pH of the unnamed tributary is less than 4.0. Several hundred or even several
thousand milligrams per liter of aluminum is not unusual for natural waters having a pH below
4.0. The slight acidity of surface water at Site 63, coupled with the natural occurrence of
aluminum in site soil and sediment has effectively contributed to the observed levels of
aluminum among each of the surface water samples.

Lead was identified among two of the five surface water samples at concentrations in excess of
chronic screening values. The maximum concentration of lead detected among the five surface
water samples was 2.2 Ig/L; the fresh water chronic screening value for lead is 1.32 Ig/L. The
two lead detections were obtained from adjacent and downstream sampling stations. As with
aluminum, water with a pH value below neutral may also dissolve considerable amounts of lead.
The limited dispersion and low concentration of lead in surface water which exceeded applicable
chronic screening values is not indicative of former or ongoing disposal activities, however.

Sediment

None of the TAL metal sampling results from Site 63 exceeded chronic sediment screening values;
therefore, the extent of inorganic analytes in sediment were not addressed within the RI report.
A summary of site contamination is presented in Table 5. Volatile, semivolatile, and PCB
compounds were not detected among any of the five sediment samples submitted for analyses from
Site 63. As a result of those analyses, the extent of volatile, semivolatile, and PCB compounds
in sediment were also not addressed.

The pesticides 4,4'-DDE, 4,4'-ODD, 4,4'-DDT, alpha-chlordane, and gamma-chlordane were
detected in one of the five sediment samples retained for analysis from Site 63. The only other
pesticide detection was that of 4,4'-ODD in a sample obtained from a separate sampling station.
Each of the pesticides were detected at concentrations less than 15 Ig/kg. The maximum pesticide
concentration among the five sediment samples obtained for laboratory analysis was 11 Ig/kg of
4,4'-ODD. Each of the pesticide detections exceeded applicable chronic sediment screening
values; however, the pesticide detections did not contribute significantly to either human
health or ecological risks. The observed concentrations of the detected pesticides were typical
of levels observed in sediments throughout MCB Camp Lejeune. Positive detections of these
compounds at Site 63 are most likely the result of former base-wide application and use of
pesticides. The freguency and overall concentration of pesticides at Site 63 is not indicative
of pesticide disposal activities.

Summary of Site Risks

As part of the RI, both a human health risk assessment (RA) and an ecological RA were conducted
to determine potential risks associated with possible exposure to environmental media at Site
63. The following briefly summarizes the findings of the human health and ecological RAs.

Human Health Risk Assessment
-------
Contaminants of potential concern (COPCs) were selected as part of the human health RA for
surface soil, subsurface soil, groundwater, surface water, and sediment. The selection of COPCs
was based upon criteria provided in the USEPA Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund. For each
COPC identified, incremental lifetime cancer risk (ICR) values and hazard index (HI) values were
calculated to quantify potential carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic risks posed by possible
exposure to site media. Table 6 presents ICR and HI values for each environmental media and both
current and future potential receptors. Current and future potential receptors evaluated in the
RI included current military personnel, current trespassers (i.e., children and adults), future
residents (i.e., children and adults), and future construction workers. Table 6 also presents
total ICR and HI values, which represent combined risks posed by possible exposure to site
media. The total site-related risk was estimated by logically summing the multiple exposure
pathways likely to affect the receptor during a given activity.

Table 6 presents the HI values that exceed the USEPA acceptable limit of 1.0. As depicted in
Table 6, unacceptable risk values include the HI for future child residents exposed to
groundwater (10.0) and the HI for future adult residents exposed to groundwater (4.5). The
subsections which follow present both current and future risk scenarios.

Current Scenario

In the current case, the following receptors were assessed: military personnel and trespassers.
Receptor exposure to surface soil, surface water, and sediment was assessed for the trespassers.
Receptor exposure to surface soil, subsurface soil, surface water, and sediment was assessed for
military personnel. The potential risks associated with the current receptors were within or
below the acceptable risk range as defined by USEPA.

Future Scenario

In the future case, child and adult residents were assessed for potential exposure to
groundwater, surface soil, surface water, and sediment. A construction worker was evaluated for
surface soil and subsurface soil exposure. There were no unacceptable risks associated with the
construction worker. However, there were potential noncarcinogenic risks calculated for the
child resident from groundwater (10.0) exposure. Similarly, there was a noncarcinogenic risk
(4.5) calculated for the adult resident from groundwater exposure. These risk values exceeded
the hazard index of 1.0 for noncarcinogenic effects. The maximum level of iron and zinc in
groundwater were the primary contributors to these noncarcinogenic risks.

As stated previously, groundwater is not currently used potably at the site, and future
residential development of the site is unlikely. Based on this information, the future
groundwater exposure scenario evaluated in this risk assessment, although highly protective of
human health, is unlikely to occur.

It should be noted that iron is an essential nutrient. The toxicity values associated with
exposure to this metal are based on provisional studies which have not been verified by USEPA.
In fact, if iron were removed from the evaluation of risk from groundwater ingestion, the
noncarcinogenic risk for the child would decrease from 10.0 to 4.8 and, for the adult, from 4.5
to 2.3. As a result, the potential human health risk from exposure to iron in groundwater is
conservative.

The other analyte contributing to the unacceptable HI value in groundwater for the future
residential child and adult is zinc. Zinc had a HI of 3.6 for the future child resident and 1.6
for the future adult resident. While zinc was detected at a frequency of six out of eleven
samples, only one detection exceeded the comparison criteria. This concentration of zinc (17,000
Ig/L) is one order of magnitude greater than those detected in Site 63 soils. In addition, zinc
was not detected in surface water. Consequently, the potential human health risk from exposure
to zinc in groundwater is a conservative estimate.

Although the HI values for future residents exceed USEPA acceptable limits, the risks they
represent appear to be insignificant. As a result, conditions at OU No. 13 may be considered
protective of human health and the environment.

Ecological Risk Assessment
-------
During the ecological RA, COPCs were selected for surface water, sediment, and surface soil, as
provided in Table 7. Then, potential ecological risks associated with each COPC were evaluated.
The following paragraphs summarize the conclusions made for aguatic and terrestrial receptors at
Site 63.

The following subsections provide an overview of potential risks to both aguatic and terrestrial
environs identified at Site 63 during this assessment. Potential risks to the aguatic
environment at Site 63 are demonstrated by the cumulative guotient index (QI) ratios greater
than 1.0 calculated for both surface water and sediment. In addition, potential risks to the
terrestrial environment are demonstrated by exceedances of soil toxicity values and risk
exhibited in terrestrial chronic daily intake (GDI) models. However, the significance of the
potential risks is considered to be low based on this ecological risk assessment.

Aguatic Ecosystem

Surface water concentrations of aluminum, barium, and lead may be adversely impacting the
aguatic environment in the freshwater stream at Site 63. Cumulative guotient index (QI) ratios
were calculated for the surface water at 1.31 for acute and 16.28 for chronic. These inorganic
COPCs were detected at relatively the same concentrations at each sampling location. However,
due to the conservative barium criteria and lead in the blank sample, aluminum appears to be the
only COPC potentially impacting the aguatic environment. It should be noted that aluminum and
barium were detected at higher concentrations during the 1991 SI. In addition, aluminum
dissolves readily into surface water under acidic conditions; PH concentrations detected at Site
63 surface water stations were below four. Therefore, the low pH levels may have elevated the
concentrations of aluminum detected in the surface water.

The potential risk to the aguatic community posed by the sediment is demonstrated by cumulative
QI value of 11.33 for the effects range-low (ER-L). It is noted that risk is not demonstrated by
the cumulative QI values calculated for the effects range-median (ER-M) (0.98) and sediment
guality criteria (SQC) (0.66) values. The risk to the aguatic environment from the sediment is
primarily due to concentrations of chlordane, 4,4'-DDD, and 4,4'-DDE. However, these pesticides
are not site-related contaminants, but rather a result of former base-wide pesticide control
programs.

The intermittent, shallow nature of the stream may also introduce stress to the aguatic
environment. The shallowness of the stream subjects the surface water to low dissolved oxygen
concentrations and high temperatures both of which may adversely impact many aguatic organisms.

Terrestrial Ecosystem

Overall, some potential impacts to soil flora and fauna may occur as a result of concentrations
of aluminum, chromium, copper, iron, lead, manganese, mercury, and zinc detected in the surface
soil at Site 63. It should be noted that there is much uncertainty in the use of the flora and
fauna surface soil screening values (SSSVs). In addition, the inorganics with the most
exceedances of the SSSVs (aluminum, chromium, and iron) also exceed SSSVs for the background
concentrations, indicating that regional conditions contribute to the potential risk to the
terrestrial flora and fauna.

The terrestrial intake models only demonstrated a significant risk greater than one for the
raccoon model. This risk was driven by concentrations of aluminum in the surface water via
bioconcentration in fish tissue; however, it should be noted that background surface water
concentrations of aluminum also may generate a risk in the raccoon model. Therefore, regional
conditions are contributing to the terrestrial risk to the vertebrate population at Site 63.

The conclusions of the ecological RA, for both aguatic and terrestrial receptors, indicate that
although a number of organic compounds and inorganic analytes exceeded applicable screening
values, ecological risks at Site 63 appear to be insignificant. As a result, conditions at Site
63 may be considered protective of the environment.

Highlights of Community Participation

The Final RI Report and Final PRAP for OU No. 13 were released to the public on November 6,
1996. These documents are available to the public in an administrative record file at both the
-------
Onslow County Public Library in Jacksonville, North Carolina and at the Installation Restoration
Division Office (Building 67, Room 238) at MCB Camp Lejeune. A notice regarding the
availability of these documents was published in the "Jacksonville Daily News" on November 3,
1996.

A public meeting was held on November 6, 1996 to accept guestions from the community regarding
the No Further Remedial Action Alternative for OU No. 13. During the public meeting,
representatives of the DoN and the Marine Corps discussed the preferred remedial action under
consideration. A copy of the public meeting transcript is provided as Appendix A to this ROD. A
30-day public comment period concerning the preferred remedy for OU No. 13 followed the public
meeting and concluded on December 6, 1996. No significant comments, criticisms, or relevant
information was received during the public comment period; therefore, responses to comments
havenot been prepared.

Scope and Role of Response Action

No Further Action with Institutional Controls is the selected alternative for OU No. 13. This
decision is based upon the findings of the RI, particularly the results of both human health and
ecological risk assessments. Justification for No Further Remedial Action with Institutional
Controls is presented within the sections which follow.

Description of the Selected Remedy

No Further Action with Institutional Controls is the preferred remedy for Site 63. As the name
suggests, this alternative involves taking no further action at OU No. 13. This includes
conducting no further environmental investigations or sampling. The site and all environmental
media located within the site will remain in their current state as long as existing site
conditions do not change. In addition, aguifer use restrictions in the Base Master Plan will
prohibit the installation of water supply wells within 1,000 feet of Site 63. This decision is
justifiable because conditions at OU No. 13 are protective of human health and the environment.
This selected Remedy will have no cost associated with it.

No Future Action with Institutional Controls Decision Rationale

A detailed justification in support of the preferred alternative for OU No. 13 is presented
herein. The paragraphs which follow address individual site concerns and remedial limitations
which have lead to the selection of the selected remedy.

There are no unacceptable site-related carcinogenic risks associated with exposure to
environmental media at Site 63. Multiple exposure pathways were evaluated for current and future
potential human receptors; resultant estimates indicate that carcinogenic site risks are within
or below the acceptable risk range as defined by USEPA.

An assessment of potential noncarcinogenic risks posed by exposure to environmental media at
Site 63 was also completed for possible current and future human receptors. This conservative
evaluation of site risk suggests that future residents, given a number of exposure assumptions,
could experience some adverse health effects. The evaluation was based upon the potential
exposure of future child and future adult residents. Over 90 percent of noncarcinogenic risk
generated by the future residential scenario is the result of presumed shallow groundwater
ingestion. Ingestion of iron and zinc at the maximum concentrations detected among all
groundwater samples obtained from Site 63 were used in the estimation of risk. Additionally,
ingestion of iron and lead at the maximum concentrations detected among soil samples constituted
the remaining noncarcinogenic risk to future child residents. It is important to note that this
risk assessment is highly protective of human health and that future residential development of
the site is unlikely.

The majority of site-related noncarcinogenic risk to future residents was generated by possible
ingestion of inorganic analytes in groundwater. Hydraulic conductivity results from Site 63
suggest that potable wells supplying groundwater for human consumption from the uppermost
portion of the surficial aguifer would not be practical. Groundwater flow rates would not be
sufficient to support a potable source of drinking water. In addition, suspended material
resulting from loose surficial soils would further inhibit groundwater flow capacities through
siltation. Given these circumstances, it is unlikely that the surficial aguifer could be used as
-------
a drinking water source. If a potable well were required in the future at Site 63 it would most
likely supply groundwater from the deeper, Castle Hayne Aguifer.

An ecological risk assessment of potential site-related impacts to both aguatic and terrestrial
ecosystems was performed. Environmental media were assessed to determine the theoretical risks
posed to various on-site ecological communities. Results of the ecological risk assessment
indicate that the aguatic environment may potentially be impacted by pesticides detected in the
sediment and that risks posed to the terrestrial environment are a result of naturally occurring
inorganic analytes detected in the surface water and surface soil. Similar aguatic and
terrestrial risks have been demonstrated by reference samples collected throughout MCB Camp
Lejeune from areas not known or suspected of having been impacted by facility operations. Based
upon this assessment, the significance of potential risks to ecological receptors at Site 63 is
considered negligible.

Inorganic analytes were detected in each soil, groundwater, surface water, and sediment sample
obtained during the field investigation at Site 63. Analytes such as aluminum, arsenic, iron,
lead, manganese, and zinc were principal contributors to both human health and ecological site
risks. These and other inorganic analytes naturally occur, often abundantly, in site media. No
discernible pattern of analyte distribution was evident among the various media sampled. Former
site operations do not appear to have contributed to the presence or freguency of these
analytes.
-------
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY

The Responsiveness Summary serves a dual purpose and is the final component of the ROD. First,
the Responsiveness Summary provides information regarding both the remedial preferences and the
general site concerns of the community. Second, it demonstrates to members of the community that
their comments and concerns are an integral part of the remedial decision making process.

A transcript of the November 6, 1996 public meeting is provided as Appendix A of this document.
Based upon the comments received during the public meeting, members of the community support
the selected remedy. No written comments concerning the proposed remedy for Site 63 were
received during the public comment period.

Community Involvement

A review of MCB Camp Lejeune files suggests that community involvement is centered upon
outreach programs and social clubs. Written concerns that the community may have regarding any
Installation Restoration (IR) sites were not identified during the file search. A review of
published newspaper articles indicated that the community is interested in the local drinking
water supply, groundwater guality, and surface water guality of the New River; however, there
were no expressed interests or concerns specific to the MCB Camp Lejeune IR sites (including
Site 63). Two local environmental groups, the Stump Sound Environmental Advocates and the
Southeastern Watermen's Association, have posed guestions to MCB Camp Lejeune and local
officials in the past regarding other environmental issues. Representatives of the two groups
were sought as interview participants prior to the development of the MCB Camp Lejeune,
Community Relations Plan. Neither group was available for the interviews.

Community relation activities pertaining to MCB Camp Lejeune IR sites in general and OU No. 13
specifically to date are summarized as follows:

• Conducted community relations interviews during February and March 1990. A total of
41 interviews were conducted with base personnel, on-base residents, local
officials, and off-base residents.

• Prepared a Community Relations Plan during September 1990.

• Conducted additional community relations interviews during August 1993. Nineteen
individuals were interviewed representing local business, military and civilian
interests, civic groups, and residential communities.

• Prepared a Final Community Relations Plan in February 1994.

• Established information repositories at both the Onslow County Public Library in
Jacksonville, North Carolina and at the Installation Restoration Division Office
(Building 67, Room 238) at MCB Camp Lejeune.

• Established an administrative record for all IR sites at MCB, Camp Lejeune.

• Released the PRAP for OU No. 13 for public review and comment on November 6, 1996.

• Released a notice soliciting public comment and announcing availability of the
PRAP document on November 3, 1996.

• Held a Remedial Action Board meeting on November 6, 1996 to solicit comments
concerning the RI findings and PRAP recommendation.

• Held a public meeting on November 6, 1996 to solicit comments and to provide
information and findings concerning OU No. 13. Approximately 16 members of the
community were in attendance. The transcript from the public meeting is provided as
Appendix A to this ROD and is also available at the two information repositories.

Integration of Comments

A public meeting was held on November 6, 1996 at the Onslow County Library in Jacksonville,
-------
North Carolina. Members of the community and representatives from the DoN, MCB Camp Lejeune,
USEPA Region IV and NC DEHNR were in attendance. The public meeting transcript is provided in
Appendix A. No written comments concerning the proposed remedy for Site 63 were received during
the public comment period.

As a result of both public meeting and public comment period, no significant changes to the
selected remedy were reguired.
-------
TABLE 1

SUMMARY OF POSITIVE DETECTIONS IN SOIL
SITE INSPECTION, 1991
SITE 63, VERONA LOOP DUMP
RECORD OF DECISION, CTO-0340
MCB, CAMP LEJEUNE, NORTH CAROLINA
Surface Soil (0-2 feet)
Organic Compounds
Toluene
Total Xylenes
Benzoic Acid
Di-n-butylphthaiate
bis(2-Ethyhexyl)
phthalate
4-4'-DDE
4-4'-ODD
4-4'-DDT
Aroclor-1254
Detection
Frequency

1/9
1/9
2/9
3/9
3/9

1/9
1/9
1/9
1/9
Range of Positive
Detections
(Ig/kg)

2
3
45-280
43-51
44-72

58
53
39
1000
Location of
Maximum
Concentration

SB03
SB03
MW02
MW01
MW02

SB04
SB04
SB04
SB02
Subsurface Soil (below 2 feet)

Range of Positive Location of
Detection Detections Maximum
Frequency (Ig/kg) Concentration
0/9
0/9
0/9
2/9
1/9

0/9
0/9
0/9
0/9
ND
ND
ND
43-78
62

ND
ND
ND
ND
NA
NA
NA
MW02
MW01

NA
NA
NA
NA
-------
TABLE 1 (Continued)

SUMMARY OF POSITIVE DETECTIONS IN SOIL
SITE INSPECTION, 1991
SITE 63, VERONA LOOP DUMP
RECORD OF DECISION, CTO-0340
MCB, CAMP LEJEUNE, NORTH CAROLINA
Inorganic Analytes
Surface Soil (0-2 feet)

Range of Positive Location of
Detection Detections Maximum
Freguency (mg/kg) Concentration
Subsurface Soil (below 2 feet)

Range of Positive Location of
Detection Detections Maximum
Freguency (mg/kg) Concentration
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Calcium
Chromium
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Nickel
Potassium
Vanadium
Zinc
8/9
4/9
3/9
0/9
8/9
8/9
8/9
8/9
7/9
7/9
5/9
4/9
8/9
6/9
975-8,450
1.4-2.3
16.9-22.9
ND
1.7-11.3
2.3-20.3
741-5980
2.2-36.3
32.2-324.0
6.6-22.8
2.1-3.9
373-697
2.2-13.8
8.4-57.1
SB01
SB03
SB04
NA
SB03
SB05
SB03
SB04
SB01
SB04
SB01
SB03
SB03
SB04
9/9
5/9
3/9
3/9
9/9
9/9
9/9
9/9
9/9
8/9
7/9
7/9
9/9
7/9
1,920-20,500
1.3-9.1
16.3-41.8
79.7-377.0
2.0-30.3
2.9-24.0
682-16,100
2.1-8.5
40.9-1020.0
4.9-57.1
2.2-7.3
290-2,000
1.6-36.9
6.6-33.9
SB04
SB06
SB04
SB04
SB04
SB04
SB01
SB04
SB04
SB04
SB04
SB04
SB04
SB04
Notes:
Ig/kg - micrograms per kilogram
Ig/kg - milligrams per kilogram
ND -not detected
NA - not applicable
-------
TABIiE 2
SUMMARY OF POSITIVE DETECTIONS IN GROUNDWATER
SITE INSPECTION, 1991
SITE 63, VERONA LOOP DUMP
RECORD OF DECISION, CTO-0340
MCB, CAMP LEJEUNE, NORTH CAROLINA
Potential Contaminant
Detection
Frequency
Range of Positive
Detections

(Ig/L)
Location of Maximum
Concentration
Comparison Criteria
USEPA North Carolina
MCL WQS
(Ig/L)
(Ig/L)
Carbon Disulfide
Benzoic Acid
bis (2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate
Aluminum
Barium
Chromium
Iron
Lead
Manganese
2/3
1/3
1/3
3/3
3/3
3/3
3/3
3/3
3/3
1
3
9
3,650-85,300
56.1-5,410
4.4-134
4,320-100,000
4.3-369
50.3-1,020
MW01,MW02
MW02
MW02
MW02
MW02
MW02
MW02
MW02
MW02
NE
NE
NE
0.05-0.2
2,000
100
300
15 (1)
50
70
NE
NE
NE
2,000
50
300
15
50
Notes:
Ig/L - microgram per liter
MCL - Maximum Contaminant Level
WQS - Water Quality Standard (North Carolina Administrative Code Title ISA, Subchapter 2L)
(1) USEPA "action level" for lead
NE - Not Established
-------
TABIiE 3
SUMMARY OF POSITIVE DETECTIONS IN SURFACE WATER
SITE INSPECTION, 1991
SITE 63, VERONA LOOP DUMP
RECORD OF DECISION, CTO-0340
MCB, CAMP LEJEUNE, NORTH CAROLINA
Contaminant
Aluminum
Barium
Calcium
Copper
Iron
Magnesium
Manganese
Nickel
Sodium
Thallium
Detection
Freguency
2/2
2/2
2/2
1/2
2/2
2/2
2/2
1/2
2/2
1/2
Range of
Positive
Detections
(Ig/L)
1,030-1,170
26.9-34.8
1,570-2,520
6.3
1,040-1,090
746-945
10.4-13.6
10.2
4,150-4,780
2.0
Comparison Criteria
FWQSV
(Ig/L)
NE
NE
NE
6.54
NE
NE
NE
8.8
NE
NE
NCWQSV
(Ig/L)
NE
1,000
NE
7.0
1,000
NE
200
25
NE
NE
Notes:
Ig/L - micrograms per liter
FWQSV - Fresh Water Quality Screening Value (USEPA Region IV, 1994).
NCWQSV - North Carolina Water Quality Screening Value for fresh water aguatic life or more stringent
standard to support additional uses.
NE - Not Established
-------
TABIiE 4
Contaminant

Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Calcium
Chromium
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Nickel
Potassium
Vanadium
Zinc

Notes:
SUMMARY OF POSITIVE DETECTIONS IN SEDIMENT
SITE INSPECTION, 1991
SITE 63, VERONA LOOP DUMP
RECORD OF DECISION, CTO-0340
MCB, CAMP LEJEUNE, NORTH CAROLINA
Detection

Freguency

2/2
1/2
2/2
1/2
1/2
2/2
2/2
2/2
2/2
2/2
2/2
2/2
1/2
2/2
2/2
Range of Positive
Detections

(mg/kg)

803-13,400
3.5
2.7-34.2
0.31
160
1.7-17.3
16.8-76.8
376-5750
3.4-90.0
36.5-525
2.7-14.7
3.5-8.2
873
1.6-24.0
3.5-19.0
Comparison Criteria

Effects Range Low (1)

(mg/kg)

NE
8.2
NE
NE
NE
81
34
NE
46.7
NE
NE
20.9

150
mg/kg - milligrams per kilogram
(1) Region IV - Effects Range Low from Long, et. al., 1995.
NE - Not Established
-------
TABLE 5
Fraction
Media (units)
Surface Volatile (Ig/kg)
Soil Semivolatile (Ig/kg)
Pesticide (Ig/kg)
PCB (Ig/kg)
Metal (1) (mg/kg)
SUMMARY OF SITE CONTAMINATION
SITE 63, VERONA LOOP DUMP
RECORD OF DECISION, CTO-0340
MCB, CAMP LEJEUNE, NORTH CAROLINA
Detected
Contaminants or
Analytes
Comparison Criteria

Screening Base Min.
Standard Background
Max.
Location of
Maximum
Detection
ND
Ni tr os odiphenyl amine
Di-n-butylphthalate
BEHP
Dieldrin
4-4 '-DDE
4-4 '-ODD
Endosulfan Sulfate
4-4 '-DDT
alpha-Chlordane
gamma-Chlordane
Aroclor-1260
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
Soil SL
200
120,000
11,000
1.0
500
700
NA
1,000
NA
NA
NA
15
32
180
6
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
3
21
NA
42,000
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.3
17.3
0.2
0.7
6.6
7.1
3,702
23.4
18.5
0.09
3.5
0.9
13.8

51 J
78 J
41 J
3 J
2.7 J
12
1.9 J
2 J
3.5
2.7 J
2.8 J
0.32
3.0
1.1 J
1.0
1.1
0.47
590
2.6
3.4 J
0.06
0.62 J
0.72
0.98

51 J
78 J
4,400
4.1 J
55 J
26 J
2.8 J
50 J
16
9
97
3.7
53.1
0.27
3.1
11.1
74.8
22,400
107
348 J
0.21 J
9.8
0.97
1,860

SB12
63-TW06
SB12
SB32
SB35
SB35
SB18
SB29
SB35
SB35
SB30
SB21
SB35
SB32
SB21
SB21
SB29
SB21
SB29
SB03
SB23
SB21
SB29
SB21
Detection
Freguency
Detections Above
Screening
Standard
0/46
1/45
1/45
7/45
3/46
7/45
2/45
4/45
11/45
2/45
2/45
2/45
36/46
46/46
5/46
2/46
44/46
29/46
46/46
46/46
46/46
4/46
33/46
2/46
36/46

0/45
0/45
0/45
3/46
0/45
0/45
NA
0/45
NA
NA
NA
0/46
3/46
0/46
0/46
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0/46
0/46
NA
0/46
Base
Background
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
5/46
8/46
1/46
2/46
6/46
10/46
9/46
5/46
13/46
1/46
2/46
1/46
7/46
Distribution of
Positive Detections
adjacent to 63-GW01
southeast
1 exceeds blank cone
central, scattered
central, scattered
central and eastern
central and northern
central, scattered
central and eastern
central and eastern
central
scattered
scattered
central
central and eastern
scattered
scattered
scattered
scattered
scattered
central
central
central
scattered
-------
TABIiE 5 (Continued)
SUMMARY OF SITE CONTAMINATION
SITE 63, VERONA LOOP DUMP
RECORD OF DECISION, CTO-0340
MCB, CAMP LEJEUNE, NORTH CAROLINA
Comparison Criteria
Detections Above
Fraction
Media (units)

Subsurface Volatile (Ig/kg)
Soil Semivolatile (Ig/kg)

Pesticide (Ig/kg)

PCB (Ig/kg)
Metal (1) (mg/kg)

Groundwater Volatile (Ig/L)
Semivolatile (Ig/L)
Pesticide (Ig/L)
PCB (Ig/L)
Total Metal (Ig/L)

Detected
Contaminants or
Analytes
Styrene
Nitrosodiphenylamine
BEHP
Dieldrin
4, 4 '-DDE
4, 4 '-ODD
4, 4 '-DDT
ND
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Chromium
Copper
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
ND
ND
ND
ND
Iron
Manganese
Zinc

Screening
Standard
2,000
200
11,000
1.0
500
700
1,000
Soil SL
NA
NA
15
32
180
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
21
NA
42,000
NCWQS/MCL
NCWQS/MCL
NCWQS/MCL
NCWQS/MCL
300
50
2,100

Base
Background
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
7,413
6.5
2
14.4
0.2
12.5
2.4
7,135
8.3
8.0
3.7
0.9
6.7
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA

Min.

41
94 J
41 J
2.1 J
2.6 J
5.6
7.8

312
2.5 J
0.4
2.5
0.08
1.2
0.55
425 J
2 J
1.5
1.0
1.8
1.

73.5
1.8
4.9

Max.

41
350 J
4,700
5.0 J
2.8 J
5.6
7.8

16,000
16.2 J
16
1,120
0.29
84.4
160
149,000
1,650
586
76.1
5.3
1,130

24,300
311
17,100
Location of
Maximum
Detection
SB15
SB19
SB19
SB32
SB22
SB22
SB20

SB07
SB23
SB14
SB23
63-TW08
SB23
SB23
SB23
SB23
SB23
SB26
SB23
SB23

63-TW05
63-GW02
63-TW07
Detection
Freguency

1/50
2/49
12/49
2/50
2/50
1/50
1/50
0/50
50/50
7/42
47/50
50/50
18/50
50/50
38/50
50/50
50/50
50/50
44/50
2/50
38/50
0/11
0/11
0/10
0/10
8/11
11/11
6/11

Screening
Standard
0/50
1/49
0/49
2/50
0/50
0/50
0/50

NA
NA
1/50
2/50
0/50
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
7/50
NA
0/50

4/11
4/11
1/11

Base
Background
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA

32/50
1/42
28/50
8/50
6/50
27/50
27/50
20/50
11/50
18/50
19/50
2/50
16/50

NA
NA
NA
Distribution of
Positive Detections

northwest
northern
3 exceed blank cone.
northern and western
central
central
nothern

scattered
central
scattered
scattered
scattered
scattered
scattered
scattered
scattered
scattered
scattered
central
scattered

central
central
eastern
-------
TABIiE 5 (Continued)
Media
Surface
Water
Sediment
Fraction
(units)
SUMMARY OF SITE CONTAMINATION
SITE 63, VERONA LOOP DUMP
RECORD OF DECISION, CTO-0340
MCB, CAMP LEJEUNE, NORTH CAROLINA
Detected
Contaminants or
Analytes
Comparison Criteria

Screening Base Min.
Standard Background
Volatile (Ig/L)
Semivolatile (Ig/L)
Pesticide (Ig/L)
PCB (Ig/L)
Metal(2)(Ig/L)
Volatile (Ig/kg)
Semivolatile (Ig/kg)
Pesticide (Ig/kg)
PCB (Ig/kg)
Metal (2)(mg/kg)
Max.
ND
ND
ND
ND
Aluminum
ND
ND
4, 4 '-DDE
4, 4 '-ODD
4, 4, -DDT
alpha-Chlordane
gamma-Chlordane
ND
ND above screening val
NCWQS
NCWQS
NCWQS
NCWQS
87
NOAA ER-L
NOAA ER-L
2
2
1
0.5
0.5
NOAA ER-L
NOAA ER-L
NA
NA
NA
NA
1,350
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Background
602

4,
2,
1.
4,
6,

.2
.6
.6
.7
.2

J
J
J
J
J

688

1
4
6

.2
11
.6
.7
.2

J
J
J
J
J

Location of
Maximum
Detection
63-SW05
63-SD04
63-SD04
63-SD04
63-SD04
63-SD04
Detections Above
Detection
Freguency
0/5
0/5
0/5
0/5
5/5
0/5
0/5
1/5
2/5
1/5
1/5
1/5
0/5
Screening
Standard
Base
Background
Distribution of
Positive Detections
5/5
1/5
2/5
1/5
1/5
1/5

0/5
0/5
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA

0/5
maximum downstream
adjacent to site
adjacent to site
adjacent to site
adjacent to site
adjacent to site
Notes: - Concentrations are presented in Ig/L for liguid and Ig/kg for solids (parts per billion), metal concentrations for soils and sediments are presented in mg/kg (parts per
million).

(1) Metals in both surface and subsurface soils were compared to twice the average base background positive concentrations for aluminum, barium, iron, manganese and priority
pollutant metals only (priority pollutant metals include antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, selenium, silver, thallium, zinc).
(2) Total metals in surface water and sediment were compared to the range of positive detections in upgradient samples at MCB, Camp Lejeune.
BEHP-bis (2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate
NA- Not applicable
ND- Not detected
MCL- Federal Maximum Contaminant Level. Maximum permissible level of a contaminant in water which is delivered to any user of a public water system.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Drinking Water Regulations and Health Advisories.
NCWQS - North Carolina Water Quality Standards. Separate Values Applicable to Groundwater (North Carolina Administrative Code, Title ISA, Subchapter 21) and
Surface Water (North Carolina Administrative Code, Title ISA, Subchapter 2B).
NOAA ER-L, - USEPA Region IV Sediment Effects-Range Low Screening Values, established by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Soil SL- USEPA Region III Soil Screening Levels for Protection of Groundwater, established by the Office of Solid Waste Emergency Response: R.L. Smith (October 4, 1995)
-------
FIGURES

-------
Reported by:
APPENDIX A
PUBLIC MEETING TRANSCRIPT

RESTORATION ADVISORY BOARD MEETING

Proposed Remedial Action Plan

Operable Unit No.12 (Site 3)
Operable Unit No.13 (Site 63)
November 6, 1996.
Onslow Public Library,
Jacksonville, North Carolina
EDNA POLLOCK, CVR
207 Moores Landing Extension
Hampstead, North Carolina 28443
(910)270-4541
Fax:270-5180
Copy *
-------
CAMP LEJEUNE RAB MEETING Page 2

WEDNESDAY EVENING SESSION

November 6, 1996

The Slide Presentation of the Proposed Remedial

Action Plan for Operable Units 12 and 13 by Baker

Environmental, Inc. during the Restoration Advisory Board

Meeting, convened at 8:00 o'clock p.m. in the Conference

Room of Onslow Public Library, 58 Doris Avenue East,

Jacksonville, North Carolina.

MR.THOMAS TREBILCOCK: We'll go ahead with the

slide presentation.

Some of these figures that are going to be in

here are in the Proposed Remedial Action Plan that we have

there.

We apologize for getting that out so late, but I

guess this has been on sort of a particular track.

But, anyway, my name is Tom Trebilcock with

Baker Environmental to speak to you tonight about Operable

Unit No.13, Site 63.

During the presentation, I would welcome any

guestions that you have and if you don't mind, if you

don't object, just state your name before your guestion so

our Court Reporter can just get a record of where the
-------
CAMP LEJEUNE RAB MEETING PAGE 3

questions are from and that will help us when we go to

address these questions with a response summary that will

be provided later.

As Matt talked about earlier, as he went through

each of the operable units, there are 18 operable units.

Some of those operable units are comprised of more than

one site.

It just so happens that Operable Unit 13 is

comprised of only one site and that's Site 63, the Verona

Loop Dump.

A sense of where the site is located, it's in

the western part of the facility over here, about two

miles south of the Marine Corps Air Station.

The next slide has a little bit better regional

location of it.

It's about a mile east of Highway 17 for Verona

and it's about a mile-and-a-half west of the New River.

MR.CARRAWAY: That's the one we did not see on

our field trip.

MR.MORRIS: We went there, but there were trees

down across the entrance.

MR.TREBILCOCK: Yes.
-------
CAMP LEJEUNE RAB MEETING PAGE 4

Yeah, it got some storm damage in both

hurricanes.

Site 63 is approximately a five acre site which

is comprised of mixed hardwood and pine forest. It's

located on sort of a topographic high or saddle between

two drainages.

So it's sort of on top of a hill.

It's reported to have received what's called

"bivouac" waste and I have a picture following this that

shows some of what that might include, although the

"bivouac" was never really described or defined in any

historical documents.

There were no known hazardous waste disposed of

at Site 63 also.

Same picture.

Okay, this is a photograph of Site 63 showing

the site from an access road that comes off of Verona Loop

Road which is what the site is named for.

Looking into the site looking north right here,

you can see it's sort of a fairly wooded area. Actually,

it's pretty thickly wooded.

Okay, the area is primarily used now as a
-------
CAMP LEJEUNE RAB MEETING Page 5

training area.

This is one that the personnel trenched out, a

sort of foxhole that they've dug out there.

This area and the site are also used for hunting

and recreational hunting, but primarily for exercises,

training exercises, things like that.

Let me get this in a little better focus.

But, this shows some of the things that were

observed out at the site and this is what—there are a few

mounds of the same type of - it looks like construction

material, but it's concrete, some metal, scrap metal and

in some of the other piles, there have been derelict

vehicles, vehicle parts, tires, wheel covers and things

like that.

So, you know, although we don't have a

definition of "bivouac" waste, from these piles out there

we could see the concrete and other - looks like

construction material.

There's a small tributary to Mill Run on this

side of the Base and it runs right—abuts sort of the site

itself.

This creek tends to dry up in the summer but
-------
CAMP LEJEUNE RAB MEETING Page 6

it's about two to three feet across right here.

And, that's the way most of it is all along

beside Site 63.

This is - in case you're wondering - is a

statement, just shows where a sample was taken, in this

case the surface water and sediment sample.

The investigation at that particular site, the

site was originally identified in an initial assessment

study in 1983 as a potential dump area.

In 1991, the first samples were collected at

Site 63 and that's part of the site investigation.

The findings from that site investigation

prompted the next step, the remedial investigation.

Part of the site investigation was recommending

further study of the site because only a limited amount of

soil samples and groundwater samples were collected.

As part of the remedial investigation that we

conducted in 1995, a total of 96 soil samples were

collected and 11 shallow groundwater samples were

collected from eight temporary wells and three existing

shallow wells.

And, also, five surface water and five sediment
-------
CAMP LEJEUNE RAB MEETING Page 7

samples were collected.

The findings from the soil investigation

indicated that among the 96 soil samples that were

collected, 20 of those samples had - let me get this in

focus - 20 of those samples had detectable levels of

pesticides.

Now it's sliding away. This slide projector is

living up to its name - sliding.

Twenty of those samples had pesticides,

detectable livels of pesticides in them.

Nineteen of the samples had detectable levels of

semi-volatile organic compounds in them.

And, then two of the ninety some samples had

polychlorinated biphenyls or what's commonly referred to

as PCBs.

And, then, finally, one sample had detectable

levels of volatile organic compounds.

Now, the concentrations of these compounds with

the exception of the semi-volatile organic compounds were

below one hundred parts per billion.

Now, only a few, actually one semi-volatile

organic compound was detected above that and it was
-------
CAMP LEJEUNE RAB MEETING Page

detected more than once.

This slide shows exactly where these soil

samples were collected throughout the site.

This shows what was thought to be, or still

remains to be what we think is the approximate site

boundary and this is the gravel road that we saw the

picture before.

Now, a lot of the sampling would basically

extend out beyond the boundary of the site just in case,

you know, this area wasn't well, and it hasn't been well

defined in the records.

Okay, the findings from the groundwater

investigation indicated that no organic compound was

detected among the 11 groundwater samples that were

collected.

Iron, manganese and zinc were however detected

at concentrations which exceeded the North Carolina

Groundwater Quality Standard.

But, those concentrations were detected at

concentrations that are typical of natural site conditions

in the coastal Plain in North Carolina.

Next slide.
-------
CAMP LEJEUNE RAB MEETING Page 9

If there are any questions—[laughter)--I'm kind

of rolling through this.

MS.ELEANOR WOOD: I have one in looking at this

chart and it talks about chlordane and it compares some

criteria of stream sediment and there is no chlordane and

I was curious about that.

MR.TREBILCOCK: That's right, for soil.

MS.WOOD: For soil.

MR.TREBILCOCK: Yes, that's right.

For some of the pesticides there are standards

and they're related to how and what concentration in soil

would a contaminant potentially impact groundwater.

And, for chlordane, for example, does not--

MS.WOOD: You don't have to deal with soil.

MR.TREBILCOCK: Well, it doesn't have a

standard.

I'm sure there probably is a concentration of it

that would impact groundwater, but I guess it hasn't been

esablished.

I don't know.

Are there any other questions?

[No response]
-------
CAMP LEJEUNE RAB MEETING Page 10

This figure here shows the location of each of

the samples, the groundwater sample locations. There are

five within the known site boundary, or six within the

known site boundary and five that extend outward from

there.

There were, as I mentiond before, five surface

water and five sediment samples collected.

There were also no organic compounds detected in

the surface water samples and there were only two of the

five samples that had detectable levels of pesticides in

them.

MR.JAMES SWARTZENBERG: Excuse me, Jim

Swartzenberg.

Is there a pattern to where these particular

samples were taken from?

MR.TREBILCOCK: Where they were taken?

MR.SWARTZENBERG: Yes.

MR.TREBILCOCK: Yeah, actually—

MR.SWARTZENBERG: Found.

MR.TREBILCOCK: Oh, found.

MR.SWARTZENBERG: Where you found some pesticide

and stuff.
-------
CAMP LEJEUNE RAB MEETING Page 11

MR.TREBILCOCK: It pretty much follows what

we've seen in other sites, you know. It gets back I think

not too long ago, actually '57 or sixties or fifties,

pesticides were fairly commonly used around the Base.

And, when we do find them, they're pretty

scattered throughout the Base.

MR.SWARTZENBERG: The same is true for the heavy

metals and PCB's and all that.

MR.TREBILCOCK: Yeah, there were no particular—

MR.SWARTZENBERG: Next to where the concrete

was?

MR.TREBILCOCK: Well, yeah, there were higher

metals detected where we had—where we did observe some in

the main part of the site there.

Visually, you could see metals in the sample

like rusted iron so in those samples we have a higher

concentration of iron.

But, that's where we had buried material mostly.

There were only a few places.

But, it usually did correlate.

Pesticides in sedment at least, they tend to

adhere to particles so where the surface water flows
-------
CAMP LEJEUNE RAB MEETING Page 12

across soil, it may pick up the particles in the sediment.

So, we see a lot of water pollution in sediments

because they sort of adhere to particles and they collect

in these drainage basins.

Yes !

MR.CARAWAY: Eric Caraway!

I was noticing on the map itself of the samples,

was there any particular reasoning why they were going

more towards 17 and none of them were taken across the

creek, or the little small branch?

MR.TREBILCOCK: Well, because it's in a sort of

a topographic high, the thinking was that if there were

sites and we weren't so sure where that site was, if the

only thing we had to indicate where the site was, was that

gravel road and also some of these debris piles, but the

thinking was that if there were a disposal area, it would

be on that kind of flat area at the top.

The site actually slopes pretty steeply down to

that creek that's to the east.

Maybe if I can flash that, flip forward and show

you the surface water sample locations--

MR.CARAWAY: My experience with landfills, you
-------
CAMP LEJEUNE RAB MEETING Page 13

fill in a low area.

MR.TREBILCOCK: Well, it's not a landfill.

MR.CARAWAY: Well, I know, but it was a dump

site.

MR.TREBILCOCK: A dump site.

MR.CARAWAY: Yeah, okay, dump site, landfill,

there's a definition now. Back then there wasn't.

If you have a low area you want to fill it in,

you start in the lowest part of the area and work your way

up.

So my question is not being able to see the

area--

MR.TREBILCOCK: Right.

MR.CARAWAY: —Was the ridge part of the waste

area, or was there a ridge and it was put on top and the

things filtered down?

MR.TREBILCOCK: It looks like that just this

area within the site boundary had the evidence of, you

know, that construction debris.

And, I think those are what originally indicated

where the site might be, the location of those debris

piles.
-------
CAMP LEJEUNE RAB MEETING Page 14

Now, you know, we dug down in the ground over 46

spots and only two of those spots did we find any evidence

of something buried and that was within this area here,

within this same--

MR.CARAWAY: Well, that was part of my guestion

was--

MR.TREBILCOCK: Yeah.

MR.CARAWAY: —That if we start by the creek and

work our way towards and the further we got towards and

then we worked towards 17 we're getting more samples,

we're getting our information toward the 17 side versus

the creek side.

MR.TREBILCOCK: Yeah.

MR.CARAWAY: Okay.

MR.TREBILCOCK: Yeah, I follow you.

And, actually, this out here had no evidence of

much of anything. In fact, it looks like they're

following the scenario that you described.

They were beginning to fill in or dump things

down towards the creek from the top, you know, down.

MR.CARAWAY: Yeah.

MR.TREBILCOCK: You know, like pull up a truck
-------
CAMP LEJEUNE RAB MEETING Page 15

and dump it down towards in the direction of the creek.

But, it's sort of like that, but I don't think

they buried much and if they did, it was just in—because

we had the place pretty well peppered--

MR.CARAWAY: Ri ght.

MR.TREBILCOCK: —With the soil locations.

MR.CARAWAY: Thank you.

MR.TREBILCOCK: Sure.

Okay, which brings us to I guess the goal of the

Remedial Investigation is to provide some indication of

these sites, do they pose a human health hazard?

A human health risk assessment was performed and

for these different potential receptors:

Current military personnel.

A current trespasser.

An adult trespasser.

A child trespasser.

A future construction worker.

A future adult resident.

A future child resident.

Now, the Environmental Protection Agency has

established guidelines to determine at what level do
-------
CAMP LEJEUNE RAB MEETING Page 16

carcinogenic or cancer risks, at what level and at what

number do they pose a threat.

And, that number is below this number up here.

And, for non-carcinogenic or non-cancerous risk,

the number is less than one.

Well, after going through exposure scenarios for

the various potential receptors we had, we came up with a

potential non-carcinogenic risk to future adult residents

and future child residents.

And, those numbers are based on the ingestion

of groundwater from the site.

Now, if you remember, we didn't see any

indication of organic contaminants in groundwater, but we

saw indications of metals, high metal concentrations in

the groundwater samples.

So, these two scenarios assume that for the

future adult resident and future child resident that

groundwater that we collected would be their primary

source of potable water, or drinking water.

So, that's how those are and so it's a very

conservative number that represents based on what we are

doing.
-------
CAMP LEJEUNE RAB MEETING Page 17

Based on the next slide, which we can come back

to this one, but based on the no further remedial action

which is the proposed remedy for Site 63, based on this

criteria the site will remain in its current state, with

no further environmental investigation.

And, also, there will be an aquifer for use

restriction placed on the site.

The potential for residents to ingest the

groundwater will be eliminated because that will be

prohibited from future development.

Are there any other guestions about any of the

slides or about anything?

MR.SWARTZENBERG: Jim Swartzenberg!

So, you're not proposing that they even go in

and clean up--

MR.TREBILCOCK: The surface debris?

MR.SWARTZENBERG: —The surface debris and stuff

like that?

MR.TREBILCOCK: No, that's right.

Just leave it there.

MR.SWARTZENBERG: Is it your opinion that that

wouldn't do any good?
-------
CAMP LEJEUNE RAB MEETING Page 18

MR.TREBILCOCK: Well, I think maybe Neal might

have a better handle on that.

I think in the past we've sort of just said

instead of suggesting, you know, if you say, well, we're

going to clean up the site from the aesthetic point of

view, you might indicate that, well, you think there

might be something there that could cause future

contamination.

Right now, we don't think that, you know,

concrete or the scrap metal or whatever else is going to

cause anything.

But, that's pretty much just a housecleaning

thing that I don't know whether Camp Lejeune--

MR.SWARTZENBERG: That's not the problem in

other words.

MR.TREBILCOCK: No.

MR.NEAL PAUL: No, that's not the problem.

MS.KATHERINE LANDMAN: It's not a problem of

contaminated site.

You might consider it an eyesore--

MR.TREBILCOCK: Yeah.

MS.LANDMAN: --But, you know, at such time as
-------
CAMP LEJEUNE RAB MEETING Page 19

the Marine Corps wants to do that is something else. They

might decide not to remove it.

MR.PAUL: It's a pretty remote area which we

don't have any plans to use, or any planned use or any way

to go in there.

on the other hand, you take lot 2 or 3, you

know, I think you guys got to see that site and all the

debris that was at that site. That's a site where we have

a lot of debris that's not contributing to contamination

of the site, but we are going to remove it because we want

to turn it over to a future industrial land use.

So, if there's a land use plan, then yeah we

would go in to remove the debris.

But, here, we don't have any planned land use.

MR.MORRIS: This site can be used or can be

pointed out to the Marine Corps for their Operation Clean

Sweep, which every spring they go through and pick up

debris.

We can identify this as one of the sites that

they could go ahead and clean up.

MR.PAUL: That's a good point, Tom.

MR.TREBILCOCK: Were there any other guestions
-------
CAMP LEJEUNE RAB MEETING Page 20

about the site itself?

MR.SWARTZENBERG: If they did do the Clean Sweep

thing - I don't want to run his over--

MR.TREBILCOCK: Oh, no, no.

MR.SWARTZENBERG: If you did do the Clean Sweep

though, from what you said it wouldn't change your figures

at all?

MR.TREBILCOCK: No, no.

MR.SWARTZENBERG: It would just make it look a

little better.

MR.PAUL: It would make it look a little better.

MR.CARAWAY: Wouldn't it change the figures ten

years down the road if that metal continues to

deteriorate?

Is the metal above the ground?

MR.TREBILCOCK: Well, it could, but, you know,

once again, it would be iron and things that really

wouldn't be hazardous to people or to the environment.

I mean, it could become more unsightly, you

know, if you have iron oxidizing and you're going to have

a stain or whatever on your ground, but not from a hazard

standpoint.
-------
CAMP LEJEUNE RAB MEETING Page 21

MS.TRACEY DeBOW: So, actually what we have at

this site was a couple of examples which had semi-volatile

organics so that somewhere between 43 and 80 micrograms

per millimeter of water or per liter.

And, that would really be, what, parts per

million or parts per billion?

MR.TREBILCOCK: Parts per billion.

MS.DeBOW: Parts per billion ratio, so it's more

than likely by the time we did anything to remove those

organics, they of themselves would dissociate--

MR.TREBILCOCK: Right.

MS.DeBOW: —And, not be worth the price—

MR.TREBILCOCK: Well, it would be very difficult

to remediate or to remove it.

MS.DeBOW: Since it's such a small amount.

MR.TREBILCOCK: Yeah.

MS.DeBOW: And, we don't have any real risk of

it getting in the creek?

MR.TREBILCOCK: No.

MS.DeBOW: Because I don't see any—

MR.TREBILCOCK: There is a chance for the

pesticide, for example. In my opinion, the pesticides are
-------
CAMP LEJEUNE RAB MEETING Page 22

probably migrating from the site into the sediment in the

form of particulates or, you know, tiny pieces absorbed

have washed into the creek and are now at the bottom of

the creek so when you collect a sediment sample, well,

you're going to see pesticides on that particle absorbed.

MS.DeBOW: Yes.

MR.TREBILCOCK: Now it has become a piece of

sediment, but it had been just a piece of regular surface

water.

MS.DeBOW: But, from what I saw, the pesticides

were below State minimum acceptable limits.

MR.TREBILCOCK: Yes.

MS.DeBOW: Yeah, okay.

MR.TREBILCOCK: In fact, this is one of the—

this site is probably at lower levels of pesticides than

what we typically see.

And, fewer in number too.

MS.WOOD: And, the same would apply to the

naphtha?

MR.TREBILCOCK: Yeah, it had two detections in

the soil and they were both under one hundred parts per

billion, so, yeah, the same thing would apply to those
-------
CAMP LEJEUNE RAB MEETING Page 23

also.

MR.PAUL: And, Tom, correct me if I'm wrong, but

as a general rule, pesticides are pretty much in the soil,

they're not going to be a mobile contaminant.

MR.TREBILCOCK: No, no. They're going to adhere

to the soil.

The bottom line really at this site it's going

to be controlled through time by the Marine Corps, but

right now there's no further remedial action indicated.

MR.BARTMAN: If you look at the regulations, the

regulations that are involved here, you know, federal and

state governments set of gualitative regulations and then

you go through them and we do gualitative assessment and

we determine we may have levels in the media that are

above our regulatory levels, but we determine that the

concentration and the specifics of the contaminant were

not posing a human health risk, it won't go anywhere.

MS.DeBOW: We won't go anywhere.

MR.BARTMAN: We won't go in there, exactly.

No exposures, no receptors.

MR.TREBILCOCK: Well, if there aren't any more

guestions, of if you'd like I'll be around after the
-------
CAMP LEJEUNE RAB MEETING Page 24

meeting if you want to talk to me about any specifics

about the site, but I'll turn it over to Matt.

We're sort of going in backwards order. I

talked about Operable Unit 13 and Matt Bartman's going to

talk about Operable Unit 12.

MR.BARTMAN: The discussion that I'll be dealing

with is Operable Unit 12, Site 3, which is also referred

to as the old Creosote Plant.

I know these pictures are difficult to see.

But, the old creosote plant, I'm going to pass

around this photo.

This is an aerial photo from 1949.

The old creosote plant is also referred to, like

I said, to Operable Unit 12, Site 3, and it's located on

Hoicomb Boulevard, about a half-mile off of Hoicomb

Boulevard, the main side of the Base.

It's also referred to as Lot 204 and that's the

big chimney, if anyone's going to the site you'll be able

to see this site.

This is from the entrance coming from Holcomb

Boulevard to the site.

And, this is what we refer to as the northern
-------
CAMP LEJEUNE RAB MEETING Page 25

area during our investigation.

This area will be referred to as the treatment

area, but then there's also the southern portion of the

site.

This is the side of the chimney for those of you

who were on the site may be familiar with the area.

Just to get everyone in here - see the reason I

passed around the aerial photo from 1949, this plant was

in operation from 1951 to 1952 and basically the operation

of the plant was to treat lumber for the construction of

the Base railroad.

And, as you can see in that aerial photo, the

Base railroad has not been constructed yet.

There's no indication of subsurface creosote

disposal however until we did our investigation.

However, like Site 63, there was a site

inspection completed here where subsurface contamination

in the form of creosote or PAH, polyaromatic hydrocarbon

contamination was indicated, therefore turning it into the

remedial investigation site.

Currently, the area is currently used to

construct a staging area for the removal of downed trees.
-------
CAMP LEJEUNE RAB MEETING Page 26

That's all taken place in the northern area of the site

from the hurricane that's taken place.

Now you can see the north area is the staging

area for all the downed trees.

This is a very guick slide of the layout of the

site.

Again we have the northern area where the downed

trees are now staged.

This is what we refer to as the treatment area

and then the railroad spike or the southern portion of the

site.

Mainly all the creosote treating operations were

conducted in this area. Again, the reason the chimney is

located here.

A dirt track and the railroad spike area which

not only comes to about here, but you can see remanants of

it where they used the pumps where they appeared to derive

water.

Field Investigation Summary.

What Baker Environmental did here, we had a

multi-phase field program which was conducted from

September 1994 to September 1996.
-------
CAMP LEJEUNE RAB MEETING Page 27

And, I say multi-phase because unlike Tom's

investigation, we found contamination and had to keep

delineating our contamination both in groundwater and in

soil.

In September of 1994, we came out here and

collected approximately 84 surface soil samples and those

surface soil samples were analyzed in the field using a

kit that's a immunoassay kit, bacterial testing kit, to

determine where PAHs - again polyaromatic hydrocarbons

which we knew are our known contaminants given our source

which was the creosote.

So, we came out here and we had to delineate the

site using surface soil samples.

We had to kind of focus our investigation in the

area where we think creosote contamination was going to be

a problem.

We came out in November of 1994 using the

information that we collected in September and were able

to focus our surface and subsurface soil investigation in

a specific area where we knew we had contamination.

As a follow-up, we had to come back out in June

of '95 to take additional samples because we were able to
-------
CAMP LEJEUNE RAB MEETING Page 28

locate through subsurface soil contamination in '94 that

we had additional problems.

This is again the treatment area and this is

just to give you an indication of how many samples we

collected out here.

The pink being the ENSYS investigation.

The green being the different phases of the

investigation we did in November of '94 and June of '95.

And, this does not even show the northern area

where we had several soil samples taken and also the

railroad spike area.

The multi-phase investigation also included

groundwater investigation.

In December of 1994 we put in seven shallow and

one intermediate monitoring well.

And, then due to the contamination we found

there, we came back out and had to put in eight. We

sampled the eight existing shallow monitoring wells.

We installed five new shallow monitoring wells.

One intermediate well and one deep well.

The shallow wells being roughly 25 to 30 feet.

Intermediate depth, 40 to 60 feet below ground
-------
CAMP LEJEUNE RAB MEETING Page 29

surface.

And, the deep well 140 feet below ground

surface.

MS.WOOD: How many deep wells?

I'm sorry, I got confused reading this.

The deep wells were going in to Castle Hayne?

MR.BARTMAN: Ye ah.

MS.WOOD: But not the intermediate?

MR.BARTMAN: NoThe intermediate would be

upper portion of Castle Hayne.

MS.WOOD: Right, okay.

MR.BARTMAN: And, the reason we had to do this

intermediate and deep wells in multi-phase so we could go

out there, we investigate the shallow for particle

contamination.

We go down vertically to see if the

intermediates are contaminated. If the intermediates are

contaminated, we focus in and keep going deeper until we

can find the particle extent of the contamination.

In order to confirm our findings from the June

of 1995 investigation, we came back out in September and

did another full round of sampling to confirm the presence
-------
CAMP LEJEUNE RAB MEETING Page 30

or absence of contamination.

That was again by September of 1995.

Through the findings of September of 1995, we

kind of have suspected misleading information between July

of '95 and September of '95 and wanted to confirm that and

that was in the deep well.

We only put in one deep well.

So, we had contamination in '95. We did see the

contamination in September of '95 and we came back out in

January of '96 and sampled that water and confirmed that

there was an absence of contamination deep.

Had we found contamination, we would've had to

go deeper.

But, given the nature of the contaminants which

again the majority of them are PAHs, again the

contaminants don't travel or migrate very readily in soil.

Usually you don't see them in the groundwater

because they don't have a high mobility, or high

leachability into the groundwater.

But, unfortunately, given the levels of creosote

in our soil, we saw them in groundwater.

This figure indicates the areas where our
-------
CAMP LEJEUNE RAB MEETING Page 31

groundwater monitoring wells were placed.

I apologize for the figures.

Again, the pink indicates the shallow monitoring

wells.

The blue are the intermediate wells.

And, the purple is the deep well.

You see we have wells on the north area, the

treatment area and the southern portions of the site.

Due to contamination we had here in this

intermediate well, in the second phase, we decided to put

in this intermediate well.

And, then go back and due to the contamination

put in this deep well.

What we found in all these phases of

investigations was that a majority of our contamination

both in soil and in groundwater, as we suspected but had

to confirm, was all of our contamination was in what we

were thinking would be the treatment area.

The chimney area used to heat the creosote.

If you don't know what creosote is, I could

explain it, but I think everybody knows what it is.

But, at first, it's a very tarry material that
-------
CAMP LEJEUNE RAB MEETING Page 32

needs to be cut using fuel related materials.

They heat it and then they treat the lumber.

So, we could tell that this was all where the

treatment took place.

And, we found in the northern area and in the

southern portion of the area we found isolated detections

of creosote contamination, apart from the drippings but

no known disposal.

So, we did have contamination in other portions

of the site, but concentrated mainly again in this

treatment area.

Like Tom's site, we had to go through the human

health risks.

Fortunately, for us we had limited receptors.

We only had the future residential child, future

residential adult.

The third, military personnel that could be

exposed.

We think at that site in the future

construction workers.

As you can see, the risks obviously to the

future residential child and would be the residential
-------
CAMP LEJEUNE RAB MEETING Page 33

adult, both carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic risks.

And, this is from the ingestion of groundwater.

However, shallow groundwater in this area is not

even used as a potable water supply.

However, we still have to consider it as a

potential exposure to future adult, to future residents.

Given that we don't have a risk to subsurface

soils, which the construction worker is the only exposed

receptor to subsurface soil.

However, we knew that that was part of our

readings and our findings or detections, we knew that

subsurface soil was where our contamination was. However,

there's no risk.

That puts us in a Catch-22 because we have

contamination but it's not causing risk, so what do you do

with it?

So, we knew that our sources was the soil. Our

groundwater was causing our contamination and causing our

risks.

So, we had to remove the source and that's what

we plan on doing as part of our proposed remedial action.

We went through five different alternatives.
-------
CAMP LEJEUNE RAB MEETING Page 34

The alternatives have been selected for

treatability studies at this phase, Number 5, which was

the source removal and biological treatment.

For those of you who did visit Lot 203, saw two

water treatment plants, for the pump and treat plant,

there's a biocell constructed there, we'll be doing a

similar biological treatment.

This biological treatment will be for PAH

contamination where that one at Lot 203 is for POL waste.

We'll be doing a treatability study hopefully

beginning in March to test out whether this technology

will be feasible to remediate this contamination.

We'll be excavating for subsurface soil

contamination down to roughly nine feet, where we know we

have known contamination.

Placing it into the biocell, mixing it with

several different types of bugs, nutrients, having it

aerated, water applied to it to see if the bugs, the

nutrients are able to degrade or decompose this

contamination.

As for groundwater, we know we have

contamination in our groundwater.
-------
CAMP LEJEUNE RAB MEETING Page 35

We know it exceeds regulatory levels.

We know that it poses a potential risk.

However, we feel that the source is really the

soil, so therefore we remove the soil.

All we want to do here is monitor the

groundwater.

Apparently, it's not posing a risk.

So, what we want to do is, again, monitor the

groundwater, see if once we remove the source what happens

to the concentrations in the groundwater?

Do they remain the same?

Do they increase?

Is there another source out there?

So, this monitoring will be conducted over a 30

year period, probably on a semi-annual basis and will be

up for a five year review by the regulators.

So, that's roughly what's going to be happening

at Site 3.

MS.WOOD: It says here the clinical phase, this

is because it is impractical to remediate the saturated

soil, which earlier it states is detectable for PAH

contamination because of water--[inaudible].
-------
CAMP LEJEUNE RAB MEETING Page 36

So, it is saturated soil below the water table.

MR.BARTMAN: Uh-huh.

MS.GOOD: Okay, and it is the PAHs are not going

to migrate.

MR.BARTMAN: No, they don't migrate readily into

the water.

Think of it this way, a piece of tar, take a

beaker and put some sand in it, drop the piece of tar into

that and that's what you have.

MS.GOOD: Okay.

And, they aren't going to break down into any

other--

MR.BARTMAN: They don't biodegrade. They're not

like chlorinated solvents.

MS.GOOD: All right.

MR.BARTMAN: No biodegradability. They don't

migrate readily even in presoils or groundwater.

That's why we don't see--we had this known

source inside this, I guess when I said take a beaker of

sand or a fish tank. Throw a piece of asphalt in there

and you have the water flowing back and forth, you don't

see the migration.
-------
CAMP LEJEUNE RAB MEETING Page 37

And, that's exactly what's happened in this
case.

MS.GOOD: Thank you.

MR.JOE BARNETT: You said the risk looks like is

higher for children, or I didn't understand that

statistic.

It looked like it was less for children.

MR.BARTMAN: Can't remember.

MS.DeBOW: It was ten to the minus three.

MR.BARTMAN: Ten to the minus three.

It's actually less for children, higher for an

adult.

MR.BARNETT: Does that mean for the adult,

because it started as a child and there's--

MR.BARTMAN: Basically—

MR.BARNETT: —A cumulative effect over your

lifetime for carcinogenic effect?

MR.BARTMAN: Exactly.

MR.BARRETT: Okay.

MR.BARTMAN: Also, exposure, the amount ingested

is higher for an adult. Exposure period's longer, so

you're at a higher risk.
-------
CAMP LEJEUNE RAB MEETING Page 38

There's usually a flip-flop for non-

carcinogenic. Usually the child is at higher risk, the

adult is at lower risk.

MR.SWARTZENBERG: What's the land use plan for

that area? Is there any?

MR.BARTMAN: Neal!

MR.PAUL: I don't think so. Tom!

MR.MORRIS: As a matter of fact, I was contacted

this afternoon about that treatment site.

They want to build a storage area into that

particular area.

MR.BARTMAN: Into the southern portion, or into

the treatment area?

MR.MORRIS: Into the southern portion of the

southern portion.

MR.BARTMAN: Okay.

MR.MORRIS: In other words, it's going to start

down the road a bit and extend up into the southern

portion of--

MS.WOOD: The railroad spur.

MR.MORRIS: —The railroad spur, right..

MR.BARTMAN: All right.
-------
CAMP LEJEUNE RAB MEETING Page 39

MR.PAUL: This is high performance storage

facility is POLs?

MR.MORRIS: Yes, PLOs.

MR.BARTMAN: It probably wouldn't be a problem

from our standpoint if it's that treatment area.

The southern portion, there's a monitoring well

on WO6 which I believe is the most downgraded shallow

well.

It's going to be one of the wells that we're

going to need to monitor because, for some reason, we

found contamination of subsurface soil and in that

groundwater as well.

So, as far as, I mean, as long as they don't

disturb any of the wells that we'll be using for longterm

monitoring, we're probably in good shape.

MR.PAUL: Is that an old site or new site?

MR.MORRIS: For?

MR.PAUL: What you talked about.

MR.BARTMAN: That is not the existing site that

we've been planning on--

MR.MORRIS: This is the one that NEPA is still

doing documentation on.
-------
CAMP LEJEUNE RAB MEETING Page 40

MR.PAUL: The only problem I see with it, this

facility is going to be only a hazardous waste storage

facility to the south?

MR.MORRIS: Uh-huh.

MR.PAUL: And, if we have contamination already

in the area, I don't know.

MS.LANDMAN: My response to that would be they

would need to stay around the area and need to monitor.

MR.PAUL: Yeah, right.

I don't want it to get that the current use

facility is contributing to the contamination and then

builds into--[inaudible].

MR.MORRIS: I only brought that up because they

are still looking in that area as far as doing additional

development.

MR.BARTMAN: One of the things during the

investigation, I talked about PAHs in the creosote.

contamination, this is not like water. We kind of knew

going in what contaminants we were looking for.

Now, the regulators still reguire that we did

full scan - I say full scan, that means we looked at all

the organics, semi-volatile organics, pesticide PCBs and
-------
CAMP LEJEUNE RAB MEETING Page 41

metals, as well as on select samples of soil and

groundwater, we ran full scan.

And, we did find trace levels of detections in

fish which was the volatile contaminants and in

groundwater and in soil.

So, that's when we go back to this multi-phase

groundwater samples to find out where that contamination

was coming from.

So, I just want to let everybody know that we

didn't just blow off certain chemical parameters. We did

examine other things.

The PAHs are driving our risks and our

contamination problems, so that's what our remedial effort

goes out to.

MR.PAUL: What units will be discussed after

our meeting will be more than likely--

MR.BARTMAN: Will be eleven which is Site 7,

Tarawa Terrace and also Site 80 which is the Paradise

Point Golf Course.

If there's any guestions on that now, what's

going on with those sites, what's happened at those sites,

I can answer those also.
-------
CAMP LEJEUNE RAB MEETING Page 42

MS.WOOD: I did have a question on 80.

When did the dumping and cleaning of the

pesticides stop?

MR.BARTMAN: The time critical for—

MS.GOOD: No, no, when did they start cleaning

up I wasn't sure on that.

MR.BARTMAN: Okay.

MR.DUNN: There was no dumping.

MS.GOOD: Just washing it out, but—

MR.BARTMAN: It's a discharging unit.

MS.GOOD: Right, well, when did they start doing

that?

When you all came in, were they doing it, or had

it stopped fifteen years ago, or what was the length of

time?

MR.BARTMAN: Well, it's still a pesticide mixing

area.

MS.GOOD: oh, they're still, but they're not

washing it?

MR.BARTMAN: It's registered pesticides.

MS.GOOD: Okay.

MR.BARTMAN: It's not the DDDs, the DDEs.
-------
CAMP LEJEUNE RAB MEETING Page 43

Unregulated pesticides are not being used.

MS.GOOD: Yeah, okay.

MR.DUNN: The area is still a maintenance area

for the golf course.

They still apply pesticides to the golf course,

but they're not the hazardous pesticides that we used in

the past.

MS.WOOD: Okay, so the hazardous pesticides were

stopped around '78?

MR.DUNN: I believe that's right.

MS.GOOD: DDT?

MR.DUNN: The DDT earlier, but the chlordane I

think was in '78.

MR.BARTMAN: Yeah, the Chlordane

MS.LANDMAN: The highest concentration area in

that particular site was probably due to a single event

spill rather than--I mean, there were other trace areas

that may have been due to washout or overspill to poor

mixing practices.

But, the one main area was most likely due to

one single incident spill in time which, you know, we

wouldn't know.
-------
CAMP LEJEUNE RAB MEETING Page 44

That's what the results appear to be.

MR.BARTMAN: If there's any questions regarding

these sites as you read through the documents, the fact

sheets of the Proposed Remedial Action Plan, feel free to

give Peter or Neal a call, or Tom or I at Baker

Environmental and we'll be able to answer guestions

relating to the site.

[Whereupon the proceedings concluded at 8:50

o'clock p.m.]
-------