EPA/ROD/R04-01/566
2001
EPA Superfund
Record of Decision:
CAMP LEJEUNE MILITARY RES. (USNAVY)
EPA ID: NC6170022580
OU10
ONSLOW COUNTY, NC
09/28/2001
-------
Final
Record of Decision
Operable Unit No. 9
(Site 65)
Marine Corps Base
Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
Prepared For
Department of the Navy
Atlantic Division
Naval Facilities Engineering Command
Norfolk, Virginia
Contract No. N62470-95-D-6007
CTO-0130
August 2001
Prepared by
HILL
Federal Group, Ltd.
Baker
Environmental, Inc.
COM
Federal Programs Corp.
-------
TECHNICAL REVIEW SIGNATURE PAGE
Revised Draft
Record of Decision for
Operable Unit No. 9 (Site 65) at
Marine Corps Base, Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
Contract Task Order Number - 01.30
Contract iNfumber N62470-95-D-6007
Navy CLEAN II Program
Prepared by
BAKER ENVIRONMENTAL, INC
Coraopolis, Pennsylvania
June, 2001
Approved by: _//_ {.^£&SZ-^^' Datc:
]VL~Sch«Kc
Project Manager (CII2M HILL)
Approved by: ^t&2*^'{/*f~ Dale:
5. Bailey
Activity Manager (CH2M HILL)
Approved by-.^^^"*—t^ S/W^^l/^—"" "" Date: ^ \
RBonclH
Project Manager (BAKER ENV., INC.)
N' : CLE AK_?JC-r Ar;r.i
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
PARTI
DECLARATION
PART II
DECISION SUMMARY
1.0 SITE NAME, LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION 1
2.0 SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES 1
2.1 Initial Assessment Study 2
2.2 Site Inspection 2
2.3 Remedial Investigation 2
2.4 Post-RI Sampling 3
3.0 HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION 3
4.0 SCOPE AND ROLE OF RESPONSE ACTION 3
5.0 SITE CHARACTERISTICS 5
5.1 Conceptual Site Model 5
5.2 Topography and Surface Features 5
5.3 Geology 5
5.4 Hydrogeology 6
5.5 Identification of Water Supply Wells 6
5.6 Ecology 7
5.7 Nature and Extent of Contamination 7
5.7.1 Remedial Investigation 7
5.7.2 Post-RI Sampling 13
6.0 CURRENT AND POTENTIAL FUTURE LAND AND RESOURCE USES 16
7.0 SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS 16
7.1 Human Health Risk Assessment 16
7.1.1 Selection of COPCs 17
7.1.2 Quantification of Exposure 18
7.2 Ecological Risk Assessment 19
7.2.1 Aquatic Ecosystem 21
7.2.2 Terrestrial Ecosystem 21
8.0 EXPLANATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES 22
9.0 REFERENCES 22
PART III
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
LIST OF TABLES
1 Summary of Site Contamination
2 Summary of Site Contamination - Post RI Sampling
3 Summary of Human Health COPCs in Each Media of Concern
4 Ecological Contaminants of Concern in Each Media
5 Glossary of USEPA Remedial Alternative Evaluation Criteria
LIST OF FIGURES
1 Operable Unit 9 - Location Map
2 Site 65 Location Map
3 Conceptual Site Model for Current and Future Human Receptors
4 Conceptual Exposure Model for Ecological Receptors
5 Ground-water Contour Map - Surficial Aquifer
6 Groundwater Contour Map - Castle Hayne Aquifer
7 Supply Well Location Map
8 Post Remedial Investigation Sample Location Map
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A State of North Carolina Concurrence Letter
Appendix B Public Meeting Transcript
Appendix C Letter from North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services
Toxicologist
in
-------
ARAR
Baker
bgs
CERCLA
COPC
CT
DoN
FS
ft/ft
gpm
HI
IAS
ICR
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
Baker Environmental, Inc.
below ground surface
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act
contaminant of potential concern
central tendency
Department of the Navy
Feasibility Study
feet per foot
gallons per minute
hazard index
Initial Assessment Study
incremental cancer risk
LANTDIV Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Atlantic Division
MCB Marine Corps Base
MCL Maximum Contaminant Level
msl mean sea level
|_ig/kg micrograms per kilogram
NC DENR North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
NCP National Contingency Plan
NCWQS North Carolina Water Quality Standards
OU operable unit
PAH polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons
PCB polychlorinated biphenyl
POL petroleum, oil, and lubricant
PRAP Proposed Remedial Action Plan
PRO Preliminary Remediation Goal
QA/QC quality assurance/quality control
RA risk assessment
RAB Restoration Advisory Board
RBC Risk Based Concentration
RI Remedial Investigation
ROD Record of Decision
SARA Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
SI Site Inspection
SSL soil screening level
SSSV surface soil screening value
SSV sediment screening value
SVOC semivolatile organic compound
SWSV surface water screening value
IV
-------
TBC to-be-considered
USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
VOC volatile organic compound
WAR Water and Air Research, Inc.
-------
DECLARATION
Site Name and Location
Operable Unit No. 9
Site 65
Marine Corps Base (MCB)
Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
Statement of Basis and Purpose
This document presents the selected remedy for Operable Unit (OU) No. 9 (Site 65) at MCB,
Camp Lejeune, North Carolina. OU No. 9 was originally comprised of two sites, Sites 65 and 73,
because of their geographical proximity. Because groundwater contamination exists at Site 73
that will require an active remedy, these sites were separated into different OUs. Accordingly,
this decision document has been prepared to address only Site 65. The selected remedy for Site
65 was chosen in accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended by the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986, and to the extent practicable, the National Oil and
Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). This decision document is based on
the Administrative Record for OU No. 9, Site 65.
Assessment of the Site
The lead agency has determined that no action is necessary at OU No. 9 (Site 65) to protect
public health and welfare or the environment from actual or threatened releases of pollutants to
the environment.
Description of the Selected Remedy
The selected remedial alternative for OU No. 9, Site 65 is No Action. This alternative involves
taking no remedial actions at this site. The environmental media will be left as they currently
exist at the site. No institutional or engineering controls will be implemented. Five-year reviews
are not required for this site because it has been determined that constituents at the site are present
at levels that will allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure to site environmental media.
Statutory Determinations
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) believes that the No Action
decision is justifiable, as the present conditions at OU No. 9 are protective of human health and
the environment. No remedial action is necessary at Site 65 to ensure this protection. The North
Carolina Department of Environmental and Natural Resources has reviewed and concurs with the
No Action decision. A concurrence letter from the NC DENR is presented in Appendix A.
Data Certification Checklist
The following information is included in the Decision Summary sections of this Record of
Decision (ROD). Additional information can be found in the Administrative Record file for this
OU.
-------
Chemicals of potential concern and their respective concentrations from the
environmental investigations conducted at this site are discussed in Section 5.7.
The quantitative human health and ecological risk assessments conducted for Site 65 are
summarized in Sections 7.1 and 7.2, respectively.
Cleanup levels were not established for Site 65 because no remedial actions are required.
There are no source materials constituting a threat at this site. The environmental media
will be left as they currently exist.
No restrictions apply to land or groundwater use at this site.
The No Action decision for Site 65 is evaluated using USEPA criteria as described in the
Decision Summary section.
The No Action alternative requires no capital or annual operation and maintenance costs.
No Action will be effective upon approval of this ROD.
2 5 SEP 2001
Major General D.M. Mize ° Date
Commanding General
Marine Corps Base, Camp Lejeune
Richrd D. Green, Directo / Date
Waste Management Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region 4
Dexter Matthews, Interim Director Date
Division of Solid Waste Management
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
-------
DECISION SUMMARY - OU No. 9
This Record of Decision (ROD) document presents the final remedial action plan selected for
Operable Unit (OU) No. 9 (Site 65) at Marine Corps Base (MCB), Camp Lejeune, North
Carolina. The environmental media at this site were investigated as part of a Remedial
Investigation (RI) (Baker, 1997) and Post-RI sampling (Baker Environmental, Inc. [Baker],
200la). Based on the results of the RI, a No Action alternative was identified as the preferred
alternative for Site 65 in a Proposed Remedial Action Plan (PRAP) document (Baker, 200Ib).
The public was given the opportunity to comment on the RI and PRAP. Based on comments
received during the public comment period, and any new information that became available in the
interim, a final remedial action plan was selected for OU No. 9 (Site 65).
This ROD document presents the final selected remedy along with a summary of the remedy
selection process. The selected remedial action alternative for OU No. 9 (Site 65) is No Action.
No Action was the only alternative considered for this site because the extent and level of
contamination was not significant enough to warrant remedial action. It should be noted that
there have been no enforcement activities conducted or required for OU No. 9. With the signing
of this ROD, Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act
(CERCLA) requirements for this OU will be satisfied.
-------
1.0 SITE NAME, LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
OU No. 9 is one of 21 OUs located within MCB, Camp Lejeune. Figure 1 depicts the location of
OU No. 9 within MCB, Camp Lejeune. As shown, OU No. 9 is located within the southern
portion of the Base.
Figure 2 presents a site map of Site 65, the Engineer Area Dump. Site 65 is primarily a wooded
area located immediately west and north of the Marine Corps Engineer School, which occupies
property between Site 65 and Courthouse Bay. The school is used for maintenance, storage, and
operator training of amphibious vehicles and heavy construction equipment. The school also
utilizes a several acre parcel located just east of Site 65 to conduct heavy equipment training
activities. Two ponds, Courthouse Bay Pond and Powerline Pond, are located east of the Heavy
Equipment Training Area.
2.0 SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
Site 65 reportedly was used for waste disposal from 1952 to 1972. Two separate disposal areas
were originally reported including: (1) a battery acid disposal area; and (2) a liquids disposal area
where petroleum, oil, and lubricant (POL) products were reportedly disposed. There are no
historical maps or figures which depict the location of the disposal areas, and neither area is
currently discernible due to heavy vegetative growth. Base maps are available which indicate the
location of a former burn area (Figure 2). Like the disposal area, the location of the burn area is
not currently discernible from the surrounding landscape. Historical aerial photographs depict
disturbed areas east of the Engineer School, which represent perhaps the best available means for
approximately locating the site.
No enforcement activities have been conducted or required to date at Site 65. Previous
investigations conducted at Site 65 include an Initial Assessment Study (IAS) (Water and Air
Research, Inc. [WAR], 1983), a Site Inspection (SI) (Baker, 1994a), an RI (Baker, 1997) and
Post-RI sampling (Baker, 200la). The following paragraphs briefly describe these investigations.
-------
2.1 Initial Assessment Study
In 1983, an IAS was conducted at MCB, Camp Lejeune. The IAS evaluated the potential hazards
at various sites throughout the facilities, including Site 65. The evaluation included a review of
historical records, aerial photographs, inspections, and personnel interviews. Sampling of
environmental media was not conducted. The IAS concluded that Site 65 did not require further
confirmation; however, a decision to perform an SI was subsequently made by the Department of
the Navy (DoN) in 1991.
2.2 Site Inspection
The SI was conducted for Site 65 in July and August, 1991. The SI consisted of the following
field activities: the installation of three shallow monitoring wells; the advancement of five, 15-
foot deep soil borings; the collection of soil samples from each soil boring; groundwater
sampling; and the collection of three surface water/sediment samples from two on-site ponds and
an adjacent marshy area. Contaminants detected during the SI included metals and pesticides in
groundwater; low levels of polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and pesticides in surface
soil; low levels of pesticides and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in subsurface soil; metals in
surface water; pesticides and metals in marsh sediment; and phenolic constituents in pond
sediment. Based on the findings of the SI, an RI/Feasibility Study (FS), including a human health
and ecological Risk Assessment (RA), was recommended to further evaluate the nature and
extent of soil, sediment, surface water, and groundwater contamination. Also, further
characterization of upgradient and downgradient surface soil, evaluation of debris piles, and
surface water, sediment, fish, benthic community and groundwater sampling was recommended.
2.3 Remedial Investigation
From April 3 through May 25, 1995, an RJ was conducted at Site 65. The RI consisted of the
following field activities: a soil investigation; a groundwater investigation; surface water and
sediment, and ecological investigations. The findings of the RI are presented in Section 5.0 of
this document.
-------
2.4 Post-RI Sampling
Surface and subsurface soil, sediment, surface water, and groundwater samples were collected on
April 25, 27, and 29, 2001 to evaluate potential site impacts from a newly discovered (January
2001) pile of discarded drums. The findings of this sampling event are also presented in Section
5.0 of this document.
3.0 HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
The PRAP document for OU No. 9 was released to the public on July 11, 2001. This document is
available in an administrative record file at information repositories maintained at the Onslow
County Public Library and at the Installation Restoration Branch Office (Building 58, MCB,
Camp Lejeune). This document was made available to the public at the information repositories
maintained at the Onslow County Public Library and the MCB Camp Lejeune Library.
A public comment period regarding OU No. 9 was held from July 11, 2001 through August 10,
2001; and a public meeting was held on July 18, 2001. An advertisement for the public meeting
was published in the Jacksonville Daily News on July 18, 2001. During this public meeting,
representatives from the DoN and the Marine Corps discussed the preferred remedial action under
consideration. Community concerns were also addressed during the public meeting.
Community comments regarding the preferred remedial action, and the response to the comments
received during the noted comment period are included in the Responsiveness Summary section
of this ROD.
4.0 SCOPE AND ROLE OF RESPONSE ACTION
No Action is the selected response action for OU No. 9, Site 65. The No Action decision is the
final recommended action for OU No. 9, Site 65. This decision is based on the findings of the RI
field investigation, along with the results of the baseline human health and ecological RAs. In
addition, justification of this decision is based on evaluation of the No Action alternative with
respect to the USEPA criteria for evaluating remedial actions and remedy selection. Evaluation
of the No Action decision with respect to each of the criteria is presented below. Table 5
provides a glossary of the USEPA evaluation criteria.
-------
Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment: The No Action alternative is
protective of human health and the environment because site-related contaminant concentrations
are generally below, or only slightly exceed, screening criteria considered protective for
residential land use. In addition, exceedances are not prevalent and do not impact a large area of
the site.
Compliance with ARARs/TBCs: Applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements
(ARARs) for groundwater are North Carolina Water Quality Standards (NCWQS) and Federal
Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs). Risk-based concentrations (RBCs) for soil and
groundwater, and soil screening levels (SSLs) for soil are criteria to be considered (TBCs).
Surface water data was compared to USEPA Water Quality Criteria for human health (water and
organism consumption). Sediment data was compared to average upstream sediment
concentrations from the White Oak River Basin Study. A comparison of site data to
ARARs/TBCs is presented in Section 5.7 and in Tables 1 and 2.
Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence: Because of the isolated occurrences and generally
low concentrations of site-related contaminants, the No Action alternative will be protective of
human health and the environment over the long term.
Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume through Treatment: No treatment is required at
this site to protect human health and the environment.
Short-Term Effectiveness: The No Action decision is protective to human health and the
environment in the short term because no action is required to be protective.
Implementability: No Action is easily implemented.
Cost: No costs will be incurred with implementation of the No Action alternative.
-------
5.0 SITE CHARACTERISTICS
5.1 Conceptual Site Model
Conceptual site models were developed for human and ecological receptors for the RI report.
These models identified all potential exposure pathways via all media and the likelihood that an
exposure would occur given site conditions, contaminant migration pathways, land use patterns,
etc. The models for human and ecological exposure are presented on Figures 3 and 4,
respectively.
5.2 Topography and Surface Features
The generally flat topography of MCB, Camp Lejeune is typical of the North Carolina Coastal
Plain. Elevations on the Base vary from sea level to 72 feet above mean sea level (msl). The
elevation of Site 65 is between 20 and 40 feet msl.
Site 65 is situated in a topographically high area that is gently pitched to the south-southeast with
an average elevation of about 40 feet above msl. Due to the sandy surface soils, there is relatively
little storm water runoff. The limited surface water runoff tends to drain radially to the east,
south, and west, away from the site or collect in local surface depressions. Immediately east of
Site 65 is the equipment training area which occupies the area between Site 65 and two small
ponds located to the southeast. Portions of the area surrounding the ponds are marshy.
5.3 Geology
Subsurface soils encountered during drilling at Site 65 are representative of undifferentiated and
River Bend Formations. Numerous borings were advanced within the study area during the field
investigations conducted by Baker. Soil conditions are generally uniform throughout the study
area. In general, the shallow soils consist of unconsolidated deposits of sand and silty sand.
These soils represent the Quaternary age "undifferentiated" deposits which overlay the River
Bend Formation.
Underlying the previously described soils is a loose to medium dense, greenish gray, fine sand
containing little clay (approximately 10-35%) and trace silt. This soil unit constitutes the
Belgrade Formation in the semi-confining unit separating the Quaternary sediments from the
-------
Castle Hayne aquifer. The semi-confining unit appears to be approximately 7.5 to 15 feet thick,
generally thickening toward the north. Beneath this unit resides the River Bend Formation.
Borings were only advanced 10 to 15 feet into this formation during the RI, therefore providing
limited knowledge of specific details regarding the condition of the River Bend beneath the study
area. The upper portion of the River Bend was described as a partially cemented, gray, fine sand
with some shell fragment and limestone fragments encountered periodically.
5.4 Hydrogeology
Hydrogeologic characteristics in the vicinity of the site were evaluated by reviewing existing
information and installing a network of shallow and deep monitoring wells.
Groundwater was encountered at varying depths during the drilling program. This variation is
primarily attributed to topographical changes. In general, the groundwater was encountered
between 7.5 and 11 feet below ground surface (bgs) during field activities performed at the site.
Three rounds of groundwater level measurements were obtained on April 20, 23 and August 21,
1995, from the shallow and deep monitoring wells within the study area. Groundwater contours
for the surficial aquifer are depicted on Figure 5. The data indicates that the groundwater flow is
toward the south-southwest, with an average gradient of 9.7 x 10"3 ft/ft. The southwestern portion
of the site has a steeper gradient (an average of 1.2 x 10"2 feet per foot [ft/ft]) than the rest of the
site (an average of 8.2 x 10'3 ft/ft).
Groundwater elevations and flow patterns for the upper portion of the Castle Hayne aquifer are
depicted on Figure 6. Given the limited number of points, groundwater flow direction and
gradient is estimated to flow in a southern to southwestern direction with a gradient of 2.3 x 10"03
to 2.7 xlO'03 ft/ft.
5.5 Identification of Water Supply Wells
Five active groundwater supply wells are located within a one-mile radius of Site 65 (BB44,
BB47, BB218, BB220, and BB221). All of the water supply wells utilize the Castle Hayne
aquifer. The Castle Hayne aquifer is highly permeable, semi-confined aquifer that is capable of
yielding several hundred to 1,000 gallons per minute (gpm) in municipal and industrial wells in
the MCB, Camp Lejeune area. Figure 7 identifies the locations of these supply wells within a
one-mile radius of the site.
6
-------
No contamination was indicated in any of the five active supply wells (Geophex, 1991).
Production well BB44 is located approximately 1,200 feet from the site. The total depth of this
well is 62 feet bgs and is screened from 32 to 62 feet bgs. This well was suspected to potentially
have been impacted by surficial groundwater infiltration due to its relatively shallow screen.
However, drilling logs for this well indicate the presence of confining units above the shallow
screened interval, thus, well is not likely affected by surface waters (Geophex, 1991). Production
well BB-44 was sampled in January and June 1997. For these sampling events, all volatile
organic compounds (VOCs) tested for by USEPA method 524.2 were below the analytical
laboratory's stated detection limit of 0.5 micrograms per kilogram (|j,g/kg).
5.6
During May 15 to 24, 1995, Baker conducted a qualitative habitat evaluation of the terrestrial
environment at Site 65. The site and surrounding areas are dominated by a mixed forest
composed of pine and deciduous trees. Cleared, sandy areas are located to the south and
southeast of the site. Buildings, mowed grass, and paved surfaces are located to the west, and an
earth moving training area is located east of Site 65. Mixed forest extends across Site 65, and is
interspersed around the aforementioned zones. Topography is primarily broad and flat with
scattered depressions.
Four habitat types are present at Site 65. These include forested areas, two separate wetland
areas, and a low-lying drainage area. Wetlands at the site were classified as Palustrine systems,
with unconsoldiated bottom class and a permenently flooded water regime.
One threatened or endangered plant species (rough-leaf loose strife) and one state candidate plant
specie (Blackfruit Spikerush) were identified at the site.
5.7 Nature and Extent of Contamination
5.7.1 Remedial Investigation
Table 1 summarizes the RI analytical results. Detected contaminant concentrations were
compared to screening criteria appropriate for each media. Surface soil screening criteria include
USEPA Region III RBCs for residential land use, and two times base background concentrations
(inorganics only). Base background levels for inorganics were established by compiling surface
-------
soil and subsurface soil concentrations from samples that were collected from areas known to not
have been used for site operations or disposal activities. The comparison criteria for groundwater
are Federal MCLs and NCWQS. Inorganics in groundwater were also screened against base
background levels (not presented in Table 1 for groundwater). Base background levels for
inorganics in groundwater were established by compiling groundwater concentrations from
samples collected from monitoring wells installed in areas known not to have been impacted by
site activities, or upgradient of site activities across the Base (Baker, 1994b). Surface water
contaminant concentrations were compared to freshwater screening values for human health
(water and organism consumption) including USEPA Region IV Water Quality Standards or
NCWQS, and upstream background concentrations from the White Oak River Basin Study
(analytical results are presented in the RI). Sediment contaminant concentrations were compared
against the average upstream background sediment concentrations from the White Oak River
Basin Study. Fish tissue contaminant concentrations were compared to USEPA Region III RBCs
for human ingestion of fish. Criteria reported in the table have been updated since the publication
oftheRI.
Soil Investigations
A total of 13 surface soil samples were collected at Site 65. Six of the samples were collected
near the waste piles and burn area. The remaining samples were collected from other locations
potentially impacted by historical activities at the site. VOCs, semivolatile organic compounds
(SVOCs), pesticides, and inorganics were detected in surface soil. The analytical results from the
surface soil samples are summarized below:
• Six VOCs were detected in the surface soil samples, although four of the compounds
were determined to be laboratory contaminants because all detected concentrations were
less than 10 times the maximum concentrations detected in the Quality
Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) blanks. The two remaining VOCs detected at low
levels in surface soils were ethylbenzene and total xylenes. The concentrations of these
compounds did not indicate a specific source, but may have originated from vehicles and
heavy equipment passing through the site.
• The most widespread SVOC detected was bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, which was
encountered at nine locations. This phthalate is a common plasticizer in rubber and
-------
plastic products, such as tires. All of the sample locations with estimated concentrations
of these phthalates are near roads or equipment training areas.
• PAH constituents were detected in three samples, all near existing or previously existing
debris piles. The suspected source of the PAH contamination are the debris piles and
historical burning areas at the site. Di-n-butyl phthalate was detected at two locations
near the waste piles, but a specific source for this contaminant cannot be identified.
• Pesticides were detected in all areas of the site. The levels detected in the samples are
similar to base-wide concentrations from the historical use of pesticides at Camp
Lejeune.
• The PCB Aroclor 1260 was detected at one location near the burn area and the
southernmost debris piles. Historical records do not indicate the disposal of PCBs;
however, PCBs were detected in a subsurface soil sample collected during the 1991 Site
Inspection. The detection of PCBs within the vicinity of the debris piles indicates that
some product containing PCBs may have been spilled or disposed at the site.
• Surface soil sample analytical results for inorganics were compared to a screening level
of two times average background concentrations. Seven of 13 sample locations exceeded
two times the average base background for one or more inorganic. The detections were
observed in the heavy equipment training area and the southernmost debris pile. The
distribution of the inorganics indicates that they may be the result of rusting metal debris
disposed at the site and the heavy equipment used for training.
A total of 13 subsurface soil samples were collected from the same locations as the surface soil
sample locations. VOCs, SVOCs, and inorganics were detected in subsurface soil. The
analytical results from the subsurface samples are summarized below:
• Five VOCs were detected in the subsurface soil samples, although four of the
contaminants were determined to be laboratory-related because all detected
concentrations were less than 10 times the maximum concentrations detected in the
QA/QC blanks. Xylenes, a constituent of petroleum products which may have been
deposited by heavy equipment, was the only non-laboratory related VOC detected.
-------
• The most widespread SVOC detected was bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate. The source of this
contaminant is assumed to be the same as for detections in surface soil, although this
compound is also commonly a laboratory and field contaminant.
• Di-n-butyl phthalate was detected in the subsurface soil at the same two locations where
it was detected in the surface soils. The remaining 14 SVOCs, all PAH constituents,
were detected at the same sampling location where they were detected in the surface soil.
• Pesticide detections in subsurface soils mainly occurred in areas where the soils have
been either disturbed by excavation or disposal. The occurrence of pesticide
contamination may be attributed to the historical use of pesticides at MCB, Camp
Lejeune.
• PCBs were not detected in the subsurface soil samples collected during the RI.
• Nine of 13 subsurface soil sample locations exceeded two times the average base
background for one or more inorganic constituent. The majority of the inorganics
occurred in either the heavy equipment training area or the debris piles. The suspected
source of inorganics is rusting metal.
• A total of six subsurface soil samples were collected from test pits near the waste piles
and burn area. Three VOCs were detected in the soil samples from the test pits, although
all of the compounds were determined to be laboratory contaminants. The most
widespread SVOC detected was di-n-butyl phthalate, which was detected at all six test pit
locations. Pesticide results for subsurface test-pit soil samples included detections at four
of six locations. All six test pit sample locations exceeded two times the average base
background for two or more inorganics. The suspected source of the inorganics is the
rusting debris disposed of in these piles.
Groundwater Investigation
Groundwater samples were collected from three existing wells, and seven wells installed during
the RI. VOCs, SVOCs, and inorganics were detected in groundwater. The analytical results are
summarized below:
10
-------
• Five VOCs were detected in ground-water samples collected at the site. Four were
determined to be laboratory contaminants because detected concentrations were less than
10 times the maximum concentrations in QA/QC samples. Carbon disulfide was the only
VOC detected in the groundwater samples that was not determined to be a laboratory
contaminant. It was detected in one upgradient sample location at a low concentration.
• The SVOC naphthalene was detected in one upgradient sample location at a low
concentration.
• Groundwater samples collected from the monitoring wells contained no detectable
concentrations of pesticides or PCBs.
• Inorganic concentrations were, on average, one or two orders of magnitude below the
base background levels for groundwater. Only two of the inorganics, iron and
manganese, were detected at concentrations that exceed the screening criteria. Neither
iron nor manganese concentrations, however, exceeded the federal standard in any of the
samples collected at the site, and these inorganics are normally found at similar
concentrations in groundwater throughout the Base.
Surface Water and Sediment Investigations
Two surface water samples were collected, one each from Powerline Pond and Courthouse Bay
Pond. VOCs and inorganic compounds were detected. The analytical results are summarized
below:
• Two organic compounds were detected in surface water and were attributable to
laboratory contamination because detected concentrations were less than 10 times the
maximum concentration in QA/QC samples.
• A total of 13 inorganics were detected in the surface water samples. Aluminum, barium,
copper, iron, lead, manganese, vanadium and zinc exceeded the lowest surface water
screening value. All of the detected inorganic concentrations, except iron, exceeded the
average reference station concentration established at Camp Lejeune. The only sources
of recharge for the ponds are groundwater and stormwater runoff. Since groundwater
11
-------
was not found to be significantly impacted, water evaporation and soil erosion are the
suspected causes of elevated inorganics in the ponds.
A total of four sediment samples were collected at Site 65; two samples from each surface water
sample location (0-6 inches and 6 to 12 inches). VOCs, SVOCs, pesticides, and inorganics were
detected in sediment. The analytical results are summarized below:
• Carbon tetrachloride and tetrachloroethene were the only two VOCs detected in sediment
that were not attributable to laboratory contamination. The other four VOCs were
detected below, or only slightly above 10 times the maximum concentrations in QA/QC
samples. The specific sources of carbon tetrachloride and tetrachloroethene have not
been determined, but are suspected to have originated from various site operations. The
detected levels did not exceed sediment screening values.
• Only one SVOC, di-n-butylphthalate, was detected in the sediment samples, but it is
believed to be the result of laboratory contamination because it was detected at less than
10 times the maximum concentration in the QA/QC samples.
• Pesticides, including beta-BHC, 4,4'-DDD, and 4,4'-DDE, were detected in all of the
sediment samples collected. All of these pesticides exceeded the lowest sediment
screening value (SSV) and the average reference concentration. These concentrations are
similar to the concentrations detected in the surface soils across the site.
• Thirteen inorganics were detected in the sediment. Copper, lead and zinc were detected
at concentrations exceeding the lowest SSV only one time; however, all of these
inorganics exceeded the average reference concentration (White Oak River Basin Study)
at least one time. The inorganics are suspected to be the result of metals precipitation
accumulated within the surface water as evaporation occurs.
Fish Tissue
Organics and inorganics were detected in fish tissue. Four fish-tissue samples were collected for
fillet analysis, and five fish-tissue samples were collected for whole-body analysis. The
analytical results are summarized below:
12
-------
• Only two organics, acetone and 4,4'-DDD, were detected in the fillet samples.
• Twelve inorganics were detected in the fillet samples: aluminum, barium, calcium,
copper, magnesium, manganese, mercury, potassium, selenium, sodium, thallium, and
zinc.
• Four VOCs were detected in the whole-body samples, but they were all determined to be
laboratory contaminants.
• There were no SVOCs detected in the whole-body samples.
• There were two pesticides, 4,4'-DDD and 4,4'-DDE, detected in the whole-body samples.
• Seventeen inorganics were detected in the whole-body samples: aluminum, antimony,
arsenic, barium, beryllium, calcium, copper, iron, lead, magnesium, manganese, mercury,
potassium, selenium, sodium, thallium, and zinc. Because mercury was not detected in
any media with the exception of fish tissue, mercury contamination does not appear to be
related to Site 65 or the local environment. Other potential sources for mercury in fish
could be that the fish were transported to the ponds from off-site sources, or that
bioaccumulation is occurring through a food chain.
5.7.2 Post-RI Sampling
Post-RI sampling was conducted near Site 65 to determine if contaminants were released from
dissolved drum piles that were discovered in early 2001. The piles are located the wooded area to
the south of Courthouse Bay Pond along its tributary to Courthouse Bay. A site walk was
conducted in March 2001 and the location of piles was verified.
This area was not in the original Site 65 boundary, but is included under this OU because
activities similar to those conducted in the original Site 65 boundary were conducted in this area.
Soil, surface water, sediment, and groundwater samples were collected from the area shown on
Figure 8 in April 2001. Table 2 summarizes the post-RI sampling analytical results. Detected
contaminant concentrations were compared to screening criteria appropriate for each media.
Surface soil screening criteria include USEPA Region III RBCs for residential land use, USEPA
13
-------
Region IX Preliminary Remediation Goals (PRGs) for residential land use, and two times average
base background concentrations (inorganics only) as described for the RI. The comparison
criteria for groundwater are Federal MCLs and NCWQS. Surface water contaminant
concentrations were compared to USEPA Tier II freshwater screening values for human health
(water and organism consumption), and NCWQS for fresh surface water, and average upgradient
surface water values from the White Oak River Basin Study (Baker, 1994c), representing average
background conditions. Sediment contaminant concentrations were compared to USEPA Region
IV ecological screening levels for freshwater and average upgradient sediment values from the
White Oak River Basin.
Soil Investigations
Two surface soil and four subsurface soil samples were collected at Site 65 in April of 2001 and
were analyzed for VOCs, SVOCs, pesticides, PCBs, herbicides, and metals. VOCs, SVOCs,
pesticides, herbicides, and metals were detected in the surface soil samples. None of the detected
concentrations for VOCs, SVOCs, pesticides, PCBs, or herbicides exceeded any screening
criteria. The inorganics aluminum, copper, and sodium were detected at concentrations
exceeding both Region III RBCs and Region IX PRGs. Thirteen inorganics were detected at
concentrations exceeding two times base background concentrations.
VOCs, SVOCs, pesticides, herbicides, and inorganics were also detected in subsurface soils.
None of the detected concentrations of VOCs, SVOCs, pesticides, or herbicides exceeded
screening criteria. The inorganic arsenic was detected at concentrations exceeding both Region
III RBCs and Region IX PRGs. The essential nutrients calcium and sodium were detected at
concentrations exceeding two times base background concentrations.
The source of inorganics in surface and subsurface soils at Site 65 is believed to be rusting metal
debris disposed of at the site.
Groundwater Investigation
Groundwater samples were collected from three temporary wells. VOCs, total, and dissolved
metals were detected in groundwater. None of the detected concentrations of VOCs exceeded
screening criteria. Of the inorganics that were detected, concentrations of iron and manganese
14
-------
exceeded NCWQS. These inorganics are normally found at similar concentrations in
groundwater throughout the Base.
Surface Water and Sediment Investigations
Three surface water and sediment samples were collected. VOCs and metals were detected in
surface water. None of the detected concentrations of VOCs exceeded screening criteria. The
metals arsenic, chromium, copper, iron, lead, manganese, thallium, and zinc were detected at
concentrations exceeding EPA Tier II freshwater screening values and/ or NCWQS for surface
water. Maximum detected concentrations of aluminum, barium, calcium, iron, magnesium, and
sodium exceeded average concentrations detected in upgradient areas of the White Oak River
Basin. Water evaporation and soil erosion are suspected to be the source of elevated inorganics
in the surface water.
VOCs, SVOCs, pesticides, herbicides, and metals were detected in sediment. There are no
sediment screening values for the six VOCs that were detected in sediment. Of the four SVOCs
that were detected in sediment, only one has an established screening criteria that the detected
concentration it can be compared to. This contaminant concentration did not exceed the sediment
screening criteria. The pesticides 4,4'-DDD, 4,4'-DDE, 4,4'-DDT, alpha chlordane, dieldrin,
endrin, endrin aldehyde, endrin ketone, and gamma chlordane were detected at concentrations
exceeding Region IV ecological screening levels for freshwater. The levels detected in these
samples are similar to base-wide concentrations from the historical use of pesticides at Camp
Lejeune. Maximum detections of the pesticides 4,4'-DDD, 4,4'-DDE, 4,4'-DDT, endrin
aldehyde, and p,p'-methoxychlor exceeded average concentrations detected in sediments in
upgradient areas of the White Oak River Basin. There are no screening criteria for herbicides in
sediment. The inorganics barium, copper, and lead were also detected at concentrations exceeding
Region IV ecological screening levels for freshwater. Each of these inorganics and aluminum,
arsenic, calcium, chromium, iron, magnesium, manganese, selenium, vanadium, and zinc were
detected at concentrations exceeding average concentrations in upgradient areas of the White Oak
River Basin. The inorganics are suspected to be the result of metals precipitation accumulated
within the surface water as evaporation occurs.
15
-------
6.0 CURRENT AND POTENTIAL FUTURE LAND AND RESOURCE USES
Site 65 is a primarily wooded area located immediately east of the Marine Corps Engineer School
which occupies property between Site 65 and the bay. The school is used for maintenance,
storage, and operator training of amphibious vehicles and heavy construction equipment. The
school also utilizes a several acre parcel located just east of Site 65 to conduct heavy equipment
training activities. Two surface ponds are located immediately east of the training facilities that
have recreational fishing available, and are stocked by the base fishing commission. Also, there
are some physical fitness trails and exercise stops that run throughout the site and surrounding
areas. Several wide, cleared trails for tanks and heavy equipment cross the site. The current land
use is unlikely to change in the immediate future.
As discussed in the Site Characteristics section of this document, five active groundwater supply
wells are located within a one-mile radius of the site. It is likely that these wells will continue to
be used in the immediate future.
7.0 SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS
As part of the RI, human health and ecological RAs were conducted to determine the potential
risks associated with the chemical constituents detected at Site 65. The RAs are based only on
the RI data because the post-RI work was conducted subsequent to the RAs. The following
subsections briefly summarize the findings of the human health and ecological RAs.
7.1 Human Health Risk Assessment
A quantitative human health RA was conducted for Site 65. This included identification of
contaminants of potential concern (COPCs), and calculation of potential carcinogenic and non-
carcinogenic risk for different human receptors.
7.1.1 Selection of COPCs
During the human health RA, chemicals of potential concern (COPCs) were selected for surface
soil, subsurface soil, groundwater, surface water, sediment, and fish tissue as shown on Table 3.
The selection of COPCs was based on methodology described in the USEPA Risk Assessment
Guidance for Superfund (USEPA, 1989a, 1989b, 199la, 1991b, 1995). COPCs were selected by
16
-------
comparing detected concentrations to contaminant-specific screening criteria, as well as by
evaluation of site and contaminant characteristics. Criteria used in selecting a detected
contaminant as a COPC included historical information, background and naturally occurring
levels, field and laboratory blank data, USEPA Region III Contaminants of Concern, prevalence,
federal and state criteria and standards, toxicity, anthropogenic levels, persistence, and mobility.
As shown on Table 3, no detected VOCs, pesticides, or PCBs exceeded screening criteria and
were not retained as COPCs in surface soil. Two SVOCs, benzo(a)pyrene and dibenzo(a,
h)anthracene, were retained as a COPCs because the maximum concentrations exceeded the
residential soil screening values. Manganese and thallium were the only inorganics that were
retained as surface soil COPCs because they exceeded the residential soil screening values.
For subsurface soil, no VOCs, pesticides, or PCBs were retained as COPCs. Benzo(a)anthracene,
benzo(a)pyrene, aluminum, iron, and manganese were retained as COPCs because their
maximum concentrations exceeded residential soil screening levels. Lead was retained as a
COPC because its maximum concentration exceeded the lead action level. Antimony, arsenic,
copper, nickel, and thallium were retained as subsurface soil COPCs because their concentrations
exceeded background and/or residential soil screening levels.
For groundwater, no SVOCs, pesticides, or PCBs were retained because their concentrations did
not exceed the tap water screening values and/or the blank sample concentration. Carbon
disulfide, manganese, and iron were retained as COPCs because their concentrations exceeded tap
water screening criteria. It should be noted that 1,2-dichloroethane, bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate,
and aluminum were not retained as COPCs because their concentrations did not exceed blank
contamination (organics), or naturally occurring levels (aluminum).
For surface water, no VOCs, SVOCs, pesticides, or PCBs were retained as COPCs because their
concentration did not exceed the North Carolina Water Quality Standards, and/or blank sample
concentrations. Copper, iron, lead, and zinc were detected at concentrations greater than
corresponding NCWQS and were retained as COPCs. There were no NCWQS for aluminum,
barium, manganese, and vanadium, so these inorganics were also retained as surface water
COPCs.
For sediment, no VOCs, SVOCs, pesticides, or PCBs were retained as COPCs because their
concentrations were less than the respective residential soil screening values and/or blank sample
17
-------
concentrations. Aluminum, antimony, chromium, and iron were detected at concentrations that
exceeded corresponding soil RBCs. Therefore, these inorganics were retained as sediment
COPCs.
No VOCs, SVOCs, pesticides, or PCBs were retained as COPCs for fish tissue. Mercury and
thallium were the only constituents retained as COPCs for fish tissue because their concentrations
exceeded fish tissue screening levels. However, it should be noted that the North Carolina
Department of Health and Human Services was contacted regarding the constituents detected in
fish and crab tissue. The state toxicologist concluded that consumption of fish and crab found at
this site should not pose a significant health risk (see Appendix C).
7.1.2 Quantification of Exposure
For each COPC, incremental cancer risk (ICR) and hazard index (HI) values were calculated to
quantify potential carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic risks, respectively. An ICR is a value that
indicates the probability of developing cancer when exposed to certain contaminants. The
USEPA has established an acceptable range of carcinogenic risk is IxlO"6 to IxlO"4. This means
that the acceptable range is between one person in a million and one person in ten thousand
getting cancer in one's lifetime due to exposure to contaminants. A HI is an index that compares
the site contaminant concentrations to reference concentrations (federal guidelines and literature
values), if exceeded, could cause non-carcinogenic health risk. An HI greater than 1.0 indicates a
potential human health risk due to exposure to a contaminant.
7.1.2.1 Current Scenario
Under the current exposure scenario, military personnel (trainee), military personnel (recreational
user), adult and child fisherman receptors were evaluated as potential receptors, and risk values
were calculated for exposure to surface soil (military personnel - trainee and recreational user);
subsurface soil (military personnel - trainee); inhalation of particles (military personnel - trainee
and recreational user); and surface water, sediment and fish tissue (fisherman). ICR values did
not exceed the USEPA acceptable risk range of IxlO"4 to IxlO"6. Thus, there are no unacceptable
carcinogenic current risks associated with any media at Site 65. The HI values for the child- and
adult fisherman receptor (HI = 6.1 and 1.3, respectively) exceeded unity due to the ingestion of
fish tissue. The elevated HI values associated with fish tissues are primarily due to mercury
which does not appear to be site related for the following reasons: (1) mercury was detected only
18
-------
in fish tissue and not in any other site media; (2) the ponds where mercury was detected are not
located near the heavy equipment training area which prevents them from being impacted by Site
65 surface runoff; and (3) the ponds were stocked with fish from off-site sources. However, upon
review of site data, the North Carolina state toxicologist concluded that consumption of fish and
crab tissue from this site would not pose a significant threat to human health (see Appendix C).
7.1.2.2 Future Scenario
Under the future scenario, child and adult residents were evaluated as potential receptors, and risk
values were calculated for exposure to surface soil, subsurface soil, groundwater, surface water,
and sediment. ICR values did not exceed the USEPA acceptable risk range of IxlO"4 to IxlO"6.
Thus, there are no unacceptable carcinogenic future risks associated with any media at Site 65.
The HI values for the child resident receptor (HI = 3.0) exceeded unity due to the ingestion of
iron in groundwater. However, iron is still considered an essential nutrient, and toxicity criteria
have not been finalized by the USEPA. Further, the central tendency (CT) exposure scenarios
calculated for the child resident showed no unacceptable risk.
7.2 Ecological Risk Assessment
During the ecological RA, ecological COPCs were selected for surface water, sediment, surface
soil, and fish tissue, as shown in Table 4. Criteria used to select ecological COPCs included
historical information, prevalence, toxicity, federal and state criteria and standards, field and
laboratory blank data, background and naturally occurring levels, and anthropogenic levels.
For surface soil, six VOCs (methylene chloride, acetone, trichloroethene, toluene, ethylbenzene,
and xylenes) were detected in the surface soil. Methylene chloride, acetone, and toluene were not
retained as COPCs because they are common laboratory contaminants and they were detected at
less than 10 times the concentration in the blank samples. Trichloroethene, ethylbenzene, and
xylenes were retained as COPCs. Nineteen SVOCs were detected in the surface soil.
Acenaphthene, 2,4-dinitrophenol, anthracene, benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(b)fluoranthene,
benzo(k)fluoranthene, benzo(a)pyrene, ideno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene, benzo(g,h,i)perylene, carbazole,
chrysene, dibenzo(a,h)anthracene, dibenzofuran, fluorene, phenanthrene, di-n-butylphthalate,
fluoranthene, pyrene, and bis(2-ethylexyl)phthalate were retained as COPCs. Five pesticides
were detected in the surface soil. Endosulfan II, 4,4'-DDE, 4,4'-DDT, 4,4'-DDD, and heptachlor
epoxide were retained as COPCs. Aroclor 1260 was detected in one of the surface soil samples
19
-------
and was retained as a COPC. Fifteen metals were detected in the surface soil. Calcium,
magnesium, potassium, and sodium were not retained as a COPCs. Copper was not retained as a
COPC because it was detected at a concentration of less than five times the concentration in the
blank sample. Aluminum was not retained as a COPC because it was detected at concentrations
of less than twice base background. Barium, chromium, iron, lead, manganese, nickel, thallium,
vanadium and zinc were retained as COPCs.
Two VOCs (acetone, and 1,2-dichloroethane) were detected in the surface water. Neither
contaminant was retained as a COPC for aquatic and terrestrial receptors because they are
common laboratory contaminants and were detected at a concentration of less than 10 times the
concentration in the blank sample. No SVOCs, pesticides, or PCBs were detected in the surface
water samples. Thirteen metals were detected in the surface water samples. Calcium,
magnesium, potassium, and sodium were not retained as COPCs for aquatic or terrestrial
receptors. Chromium was not retained as a COPC for aquatic receptors because detected
concentrations do not exceed the surface water screening values. However, chromium was
retained as a COPC for terrestrial receptors. Aluminum, barium, copper, iron, lead, manganese,
vanadium, and zinc were retained as COPCs for both aquatic and terrestrial receptors.
At each station, sediment samples were collected from two depths, zero to six inches and six to
12 inches. Six VOCs were detected in the sediment. Acetone, chloroform, and toluene were not
retained as COPCs because they are common laboratory contaminants and were detected at a
concentration of less than 10 times the concentration in the blank sample. Carbon tetrachloride,
2-butanone, and tetrachloroethene were not retained as COPCs because they were detected at
concentrations below sediment screening values (SSVs). One SVOC (di-n-butylphthalate) was
detected and retained as a COPC in sediment. Three pesticides were detected in the sediment.
Beta-BHC, 4,4'-DDE, and 4,4'-DDD were all retained as COPCs. Fifteen metals were detected
in the sediment. Calcium, magnesium, potassium, and sodium were not retained as COPCs.
Barium, chromium, iron, and manganese were not retained as COPCs because they did not
exceed their respective SSVs. Aluminum, antimony, cobalt, copper, lead, vanadium, and zinc
were retained as COPCs.
For the fish-fillet sample, one VOC (acetone) was detected and retained as a COPC in the fish
fillet tissue. No SVOCs were detected in the fish fillet samples. One pesticide (4,4'-DDD) was
detected and retained as a COPC. For the whole-body fish samples, four VOCs were detected in
the fish, whole-body tissue. Acetone, 2-butanone, methylene chloride, and toluene were retained
20
-------
as COPCs. No SVOCs were detected in the fish, whole-body samples. Two pesticides were
detected in the fish, whole-body tissue. Pesticides 4,4'-DDD and 4,4'-DDE were retained as
COPCs. Seventeen metals were detected in the fish, whole-body tissue. Calcium, magnesium,
potassium, and sodium were not retained as COPCs. The remaining thirteen metals (aluminum,
antimony, arsenic, barium, beryllium, copper, iron, lead, manganese, mercury, selenium,
thallium, and zinc) were retained as COPCs.
Following the selection of ecological COPCs, the potential ecological risks associated with each
COPC were evaluated. The paragraphs that follow summarize the conclusions made for aquatic
and terrestrial receptors at Site 65.
7.2.1 Aquatic Ecosystem
There is a moderate potential risk to aquatic life in Courthouse Bay Pond, with most of the risk
associated with the non-site-related inorganics in the surface water. There is only a slight risk to
aquatic life in Powerline Pond; however, these risks are due to non-site-related contaminants
(4,4'-DDD and 4,4'-DDE). Based on the ecological RA, no further investigations are deemed
necessary.
7.2.2 Terrestrial Ecosystem
Some potential impacts to soil invertebrates and plants may occur as a result of site-related
contaminants. It should be noted that there is much uncertainty in the Surface Soil Screening
Values (SSSVs) used to assess this impact. In addition, a potential decrease in the terrestrial
vertebrate population from site-related contamination is not expected based on the terrestrial
intake model that is included in the RI ecological RA.
8.0 EXPLANATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES
The PRAP presents the No Action remedy as the preferred alternative for Site 65. No significant
changes to the remedy detailed in that document have been made.
21
-------
9.0 REFERENCES
Baker Environmental, Inc. (Baker). 1994a. Final Site Inspection Report. Site 65 Engineer Dump
Area. Marine Corps Base. Camp Lejeune. North Carolina. January 1994.
Baker. 1994b. Draft Evaluation of Metals in Groundwater. Marine Corps Base. Camp Lejeune.
North Carolina. June 1994.
Baker. 1994c. White Oak River Basin Study. 1994.
Baker. 1997. Final Remedial Investigation Report Operable Unit No. 9 (Site 65). Marine Corps
Base Camp Lejeune. North Carolina. Prepared for the Department of the Navy Atlantic Division,
Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Norfolk, Virginia. November 1997.
Baker. 200la. Post-RI Sampling Letter Report. Prepared for the Department of the Navy
Atlantic Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Norfolk, Virginia. June 2001.
Baker. 200Ib. Proposed Remedial Action Plan. Prepared for the Department of the Navy
Atlantic Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Norfolk, Virginia. June 2001.
Geophex, Ltd. 1991. Wellhead Management Program Engineering Study 91-36. Prepared for
the Officer in Charge of Construction, Marine Corps Base, Camp Lejeune, North Carolina.
January 1991.
USEPA. 1989a. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Risk Assessment Guidance
for Superfund Volume I. Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part A) Interim Final Office of
Solid Waste and Emergency Response. Washington, D.C. EPA/540/1-89-002. December 1989.
USEPA. 1989b. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Risk Assessment Guidance
for Superfund Volume II. Environmental Evaluation Manual Interim Final Office of Solid
Waste and Emergency Response. Washington, D.C. EPA/540/1-89-001. December 1989.
USEPA. 199la. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Risk Assessment Guidance
for Superfund Volume I. Human Health Evaluation Manual Supplemental Guidance. "Standard
22
-------
Default Exposure Factors" Interim Final. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response.
Washington, D.C. OSWER Directive 9285.6-03. March 25, 1991.
USEPA. 1991b. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Supplemental Region IV Risk
Assessment Guidance. Health Assessment Office. March 20, 1991.
USEPA. 1995. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Supplemental Guidance to
RAGS: Region IV Bulletins. Office of Water. Washington, D.C. November, 1995.
Water and Air Research, Inc. (WAR). 1983. Initial Assessment Study of Marine Corps Base.
Camp Lejeune. North Carolina. Prepared for Naval Energy and Environmental Support Activity.
23
-------
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
The selected remedy for Site 65, OU No. 9, is No Action.
The USEPA Region IV and NC DENR are in support of the selected remedy outlined herein for
OU No. 9. A concurrence letter from the NC DENR is included in Appendix A.
Based on comments received from the audience of the July 18, 2001 public meeting, the public
supports the selected remedy for OU No. 9. No additional comments were made during the
public comment period which ended on August 10, 2001. The public meeting consisted of a
presentation of OU Nos. 9 and 17, and question and answers. OU No. 9 was presented during the
first half of the public meeting. The transcript for the public meeting is provided in Appendix B.
The entire public meeting transcript has been reproduced in this ROD because both presentations
were included in the same legally sealed and certified report document.
The attendees of the public meeting included representatives from Naval Facilities Engineering
Command, Atlantic Division (LANTDIV); MCB Camp Lejeune Environmental Management
Division (EMD); NC DENR Superfund Section; USEPA Region IV; Restoration Advisory Board
(RAB) Community Members; and Baker. In attendance were:
Laura Baker RAB Community Member
Ellen Bjerklie Hanna Baker
Rich Bonelli Baker
Thomas Burton MCB Camp Lejeune EMD
Heather Govenor Baker
Carrie Anne Hayward RAB Community Member
Bart Herpel Community Member
Ray Humphries RAB Community Member
David Lown NC DENR, Superfund Section
Steve Martin LANTDIV
Rick Raines MCB Camp Lejeune EMD
Kirk Stevens LANTDIV
Jim Swartenberg RAB Community Chairperson
Gena Townsend USEPA Region IV
Karren Wood Baker
In general, the meeting attendees asked about mercury in fish samples, the safety of eating fish
from the ponds at Site 65, and sampling methods. All questions asked at the meeting were
resolved so no follow up on any issue is required.
-------
TABLES
-------
TABLE 1
SUMMARY OF SITE CONTAMINATION
SITE 65 - ENGINEER AREA DUMP
RECORD OF DECISION, CTO-0130
MCB, CAMP LEJEUNE, NORTH CAROLINA
Media
Surface Soil(1)
Fraction
Volatiles
Semivolatiles
Detected
Organics/Inorganics
Methylene Chloride
Acetone
Trichloroethene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
Xylene (total)
Acenaphthene (PAH)
2,4-Dinitrophenol
Dibenzofuran
Fluorene (PAH)
Phenanthrene (PAH)
Anthracene (PAH)
Carbazole
di-n-Butyl-phthalate
Fluoranthene (PAH)
Benzo(a)anthracene (PAH)
Chrysene (PAH)
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate
Benzo(b)fluoranthene (PAH)
Benzo(k)fluoranthene (PAH)
Comparison Criteria
Criteria I
8.5 X104
7.8 X105
5.8X104
1.6 X106
7.8 X105
1.6 X107
4.7 X105
1.6 X104
3.1X104
3.1X105
2.3 X105
2.3 X106
3.2 X104
7.8 X105
3.1X105
870
8.7 X104
4.6 X104
870
8700
Criteria II
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Site Contamination
Min.
Cone.
2J
10J
U
U
U
3J
130J
150J
58J
100J
59J
190J
180J
260J
130J
76J
70J
48J
89J
120J
Max.
Cone.
2J
10J
U
2J
U
5J
130J
150J
58J
100J
860
190J
180J
390J
830
510
470
87J
360J
510
Location(s) of Maximum
Concentration
65-MW07A-00 & SB 12-00
65-MWO5A-00
65-SB06-00
65-DW04-00 & MW07A-00
65-SB07-00
65-SB07-00
65-DW01-00
65-DW04-00
65-DW01-00
65-DW01-00
65-DW01-00
65-DW01-00
65-DW01-00
65-SB06-00
65-DW01-00
65-DW01-00
65-DW01-00
65-MW06A-00
65-DW01-00
65-DW01-00
Detection
Frequency
2/13
1/13
1/13
3/13
1/13
2/13
1/13
1/13
1/13
1/13
3/13
1/13
1/13
2/13
3/13
3/13
3/13
9/13
3/13
2/13
Number of
Detections Above
Comparison
Criteria I
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Number of Detections
Above Comparison
Criteria II
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Notes:
Concentrations are presented in Jig/Kg for organics in soil and sediment and in |ig/L for all water contaminants (ppb); metal concentrations for soil and sediment are presented in mg/Kg (ppm).
NA - Not applicable
ND - Not detected
PAH - Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon
w Organics and Metals in both surface and subsurface soils are compared to EPA Region III Risk Based Concentrations (RBCs) for a residential area (Criteria I) (EPA updated 5/8/2001),
and two times base background concentrations for MCB, Camp Lejeune (Criteria II) (Metals only). Only priority pollutant metals (i.e., aluminum, antimony, arsenic, barium, cadmium,
chromium, cobalt, copper, iron, lead, manganese, nickel, selenium, silver, thallium, vanadium, zinc) are presented on this table. For lead, the residential action level in soil is used
(USEPA, 1994). Refer to the RI for completed metals detection data.
-------
TABLE 1 (Continued)
SUMMARY OF SITE CONTAMINATION
SITE 65 - ENGINEER AREA DUMP
RECORD OF DECISION, CTO-0130
MCB, CAMP LEJEUNE, NORTH CAROLINA
Media
Surface Soil
Fraction
Semivolatiles
(continued)
Pesticides
PCBs
Metals
Detected
Organics/Inorganics
Benzo(a)pyrene (PAH)
Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene (PAK
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene (PAI
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene (PAH)
Heptachlor epoxide
4-4'-DDE
Endosulfan II
4-4'-DDD
4-4'-DDT
Aroclor 1260
Aluminum
Barium
Chromium
Copper
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Nickel
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
Comparison Criteria
Criteria I
87
870
87
2.3 X105
70
1900
4.7 X104
2700
1900
320
7800
550
23
310
2300
400
160
160
0.55
55
2300
Criteria II
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
5940
17.36
3.693
7.2
3755
23.75
18.5
3.434
0.889
11.63
13.88
Site Contamination
Min.
Cone.
100J
88J
45J
70J
2.3
4.3
3.8NJ
3.8NJ
25
52J
656
2.7
2.3
2.5
50.9
2
2.9
4.6
2.3
2.8
3.7
Max.
Cone.
400
310J
150J
250J
2.3
83J
3.9NJ
59J
56J
52J
5040
36.3
8.6
55.6
16400
178
163J
5.7
2.3
12
377J
Location(s) of Maximum
Concentration
65-DW01-00
65-DW01-00
65-DW01-00
65-DW01-00
65-MW07A-00
65-MW07A-00
65-DW02-00
65-SB 10-00
65-MW07A-00 & SB07-00
65-DW01-00
65-DW01-00
65-DW01-00
65-DW01-00
65-DW01-00
65-SB12-00
65-DW01-00
65-DW01-00
65-SB12-00
65-SB 10-00
65-DW01-00
65-DW01-00
Detection
Frequency
2/13
2/13
2/13
2/13
1/13
6/13
2/13
7/13
3/13
1/13
13/13
13/13
11/13
9/13
13/13
13/13
13/13
2/13
1/13
9/13
11/13
Number of
Detections Above
Comparison
Criteria I
2
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
3
0
1
0
0
Number of Detections
Above Comparison
Criteria II
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0
3
2
6
2
4
5
2
1
1
6
Notes:
Concentrations are presented in Jig/Kg for organics in soil and sediment and in |ig/L for all water contaminants (ppb); metal concentrations for soil and sediment are presented in mg/Kg (ppm).
NA - Not applicable
ND - Not detected
PAH - Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon
-------
TABLE 1 (Continued)
SUMMARY OF SITE CONTAMINATION
SITE 65 - ENGINEER AREA DUMP
RECORD OF DECISION, CTO-0130
MCB, CAMP LEJEUNE, NORTH CAROLINA
Media
Subsurface
Soil(1)
Fraction
Volatiles
Semivolatiles
Detected
Organics/Inorganics
Acetone
Carbon Bisulfide
2-Butanone
Trichloroethene
Toluene
Xylene (total)
Naphthalene (PAH)
2-Methylnaphthalene
Acenaphthene
Fluorene
Dibenzofuran
Phenanthrene (PAH)
Anthracene
Carbazole
di-n-Butylphtalate
Fluoranthene (PAH)
Pyrene (PAH)
Benzo(a)anthracene (PAH)
Chrysene (PAH)
Comparison Criteria
Criteria I
7.8 X 10'
7.8 X105
4.7 X106
5.8X104
1.6 X106
1.6 X107
1.6 X105
1.6 X105
4.7 X105
3.1X105
3.1X104
2.3 X105
2.3 X106
3.2 X104
7.8 X105
3.1X105
2.3 X105
870
8.7 X104
Criteria II
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Site Contamination
Min.
Cone.
7J
2J
2J
2J
U
U
55J
60J
94J
110J
42J
150J
290J
120J
160J
230J
190J
100J
110J
Max.
Cone.
380
2J
29
2J
U
3J
55J
60J
97J
110J
42J
1200
290J
120J
340J
1900
1400
900
800
Location(s) of Maximum
Concentration
65-DW02-02
65-TP04
65-TP05
65-SB07-04
65-SB11-04
65-SB 10-01
65-TP07
65-TP07
65-SB06-02
65-SB06-02
65-TP07
65-SB06-02
65-SB06-02
65-SB06-02
65-SB06-02
65-SB06-02
65-SB06-02
65-SB06-02
65-SB06-02
Detection
Frequency
13/19
1/19
3/19
1/19
1/19
5/19
1/19
1/19
2/19
1/19
1/19
2/19
1/19
1/19
8/19
2/19
2/19
2/19
2/19
Number of
Detections Above
Comparison
Criteria I
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
Number of Detections
Above Comparison
Criteria II
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Notes:
Concentrations are presented in |ig/Kg for organics in soil and sediment and in |ig/L for all water contaminants (ppb); metal concentrations for soil and sediment are presented in mg/Kg (ppm).
NA - Not applicable
ND - Not detected
PAH - Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon
w Organics and Metals in both surface and subsurface soils are compared to EPA Region III Risk Based Concentrations (RBCs) for a residential area (Criteria I) (EPA, updated 5/8/2001),
and two times base background concentrations for MCB, Camp Lejeune (Criteria II) (Metals only). Only priority pollutant metals (i.e., aluminum, antimony, arsenic, barium, cadmium,
chromium, cobalt, copper, iron, lead, manganese, nickel, selenium, silver, thallium, vanadium, zinc) are presented on this table. Refer to Table the RI for completed metals detection data.
-------
TABLE 1 (Continued)
SUMMARY OF SITE CONTAMINATION
SITE 65 - ENGINEER AREA DUMP
RECORD OF DECISION, CTO-0130
MCB, CAMP LEJEUNE, NORTH CAROLINA
Media
Subsurface
Soil
Fraction
Semivolatiles
(continued)
Pesticides
PCBs
Metals
Detected
Organics/Inorganics
bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Benzo(b)fluoranthene (PAH)
Benzo(k)fluoranthene (PAH)
Benzo(a)pyrene (PAH)
Ideno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene (PAH)
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene (PAH)
Endosulfan I
4,4'-DDE
4,4'-DDD
4,4'-DDT
Endrin Aldehyde
alpha-Chlordane
gamma-Chlordane
ND
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Comparison Criteria
Criteria I
4.6 X104
870
8700
87
870
2.3 X105
4.7 X104
1900
2700
1900
2300
1800
1800
NA
7800
3.1
0.43
550
3.9
23
160
310
2300
Criteria II
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
7375
6.409
1.968
14.2
0.712
12.56
1.504
2.416
7252
Site Contamination
Min.
Cone.
37J
96J
110J
69J
480
67J
3.1NJ
4.6
4.4J
9.6
9.4J
8.3J
3J
NA
1020
11.8
2.6
2.7
1.3
2.6
11.5
7.7
236J
Max.
Cone.
370
710
620
680
480
360J
3.1NJ
45J
340J
40
9.4J
8.3J
7.5J
NA
10600
11.8
3.3
38.3
1.3
17.3
11.5
67.2
31300
Location(s) of Maximum
Concentration
65-DW01-04
65-SB06-02
65-SB06-02
65-SB06-02
65-SB06-02
65-SB06-02
65-TP05
65-TP04
65-TP05
65-TP07
65-DW01-04
65-SB06-02
65-SB06-02
NA
65-SB07-04
65-TP07
65-SB06-02
65-SB06-02
65-SB06-02 & TP04
65-SB07-04
65-TP07
65-TP07
65-SB06-02
Detection
Frequency
15/19
2/19
2/19
2/19
1/19
1/19
1/19
8/19
8/19
4/19
1/19
1/19
3/19
0/19
19/19
1/19
3/19
19/19
2/19
16/19
1/19
8/19
19/19
Number of
Detections Above
Comparison
Criteria I
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NA
1
1
3
0
0
0
0
2
9
Number of Detections
Above Comparison
Criteria II
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1
1
3
7
2
1
1
8
5
Notes:
Concentrations are presented in Jig/Kg for organics in soil and sediment and in |ig/L for all water contaminants (ppb); metal concentrations for soil and sediment are presented in mg/Kg (ppm).
NA - Not applicable
ND - Not detected
PAH - Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon
-------
TABLE 1 (Continued)
SUMMARY OF SITE CONTAMINATION
SITE 65 - ENGINEER AREA DUMP
RECORD OF DECISION, CTO-0130
MCB, CAMP LEJEUNE, NORTH CAROLINA
Media
Subsurface
Soil
Ground-water1-2'
Fraction
Metals
(continued)
Volatiles
Semivolatiles
Pesticides
PCBs
Metals
Detected
Organics/Inorganics
Lead
Manganese
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
Methylene Chloride
Acetone
Carbon Bisulfide
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
2-Butanone
Naphthalene
di-n-Butylphthalate
bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
ND
ND
Aluminum
Barium
Comparison Criteria
Criteria I
400
160
160
39
39
0.55
55
2300
NA
NA
NA
5
NA
NA
NA
6
NA
NA
50-200(3)
2000
Criteria II
8.327
7.919
3.714
0.801
0.866
0.955
13.45
6.662
5
700
700
0.38
170
21
700
3
NA
NA
NA
2000
Site Contamination
Min.
Cone.
1.6
2
4.8
1.5
4.2
4.2
3.1
2.5J
U
5J
5J
2J
U
3J
2J
U
NA
NA
40.3
17.9
Max.
Cone.
539
471
243
1.5
4.2
4.2
27.2
764
2J
7J
5J
2J
U
3J
6J
6J
NA
NA
421
151
Location(s) of Maximum
Concentration
65-SB06-02
65-SB06-02
65-SB06-02
65-TP07
65-TP07
65-SB06-02
65-SB07-04
65-SB06-02
65-MW06
65-MW06
65-MW04
65-MW07
65-MW03, 05, & 06
65-DW04
65-MW07
65-MW07
NA
NA
65-MW06
65-MW03
Detection
Frequency
19/19
19/19
3/19
1/19
1/19
1/19
15/19
16/19
6/11
7/11
1/11
8/11
3/11
1/11
3/11
5/11
0/11
0/11
7/11
10/11
Number of
Detections Above
Comparison
Criteria I
1
2
1
0
0
1
0
0
NA
NA
NA
0
NA
NA
NA
0
NA
NA
6
0
Number of Detections
Above Comparison
Criteria II
8
10
3
1
1
NA
1
12
0
0
0
8
0
0
0
2
NA
NA
NA
0
Notes:
Concentrations are presented in |ig/Kg for organics in soil and sediment and in |ig/L for all water contaminants (ppb); metal concentrations for soil and sediment are presented in mg/Kg
NA - Not applicable
ND - Not detected
PAH - Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon
Comparison Criteria for groundwater are Federal Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCL) (Criteria I) and North Carolina Water Quality Standards (NCWQS) (Criteria II).
w Secondary MCL for aluminum, iron, and zinc; if MCL is a range, the lower concetration is used for comparison.
(ppm).
-------
TABLE 1 (Continued)
SUMMARY OF SITE CONTAMINATION
SITE 65 - ENGINEER AREA DUMP
RECORD OF DECISION, CTO-0130
MCB, CAMP LEJEUNE, NORTH CAROLINA
Media
Groundwater
Surface
Water(5)
Fraction
Metals
(continued)
Volatiles
Semivolatiles
Pesticides
PCBs
Metals
Detected
Organics/Inorganics
Chromium
Cobalt
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Nickel
Zinc
Acetone
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
ND
ND
ND
Aluminum
Barium
Chromium (total)
Copper
Iron
Comparison Criteria
Criteria I
100
NA
300W
15w
NA
100
5000(3)
NA
0.38 (EPA)
NA
NA
NA
NA
1000 (NC)
50(6)(EPA)
1300(7)(EPA;
300(6) (EPA)
Criteria II
50
NA
300
15
50
100
2100
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
333.17
25.67
NA
NA
575.67
Site Contamination
Min.
Cone.
10
20.1
41.9
3.4
3
53.1
11
5J
U
NA
NA
NA
25800
36.7
27.6
41.1
348
Max.
Cone.
10.2
52.4
6580
3.4
186
59.6
58.9
5J
U
NA
NA
NA
25800
69.3
27.6
41.1
7890
Location(s) of Maximum
Concentration
65-MW01
65-DW02-02
65-MW02
65-DW04
65-DW02-02
65-DW02-02
65-DW02-02
65-SW04-01
65-SW04-01 & SW05-01
NA
NA
NA
65-SW04-01
65-SW04-01
65-SW04-01
65-SW04-01
65-SW04-01
Detection
Frequency
2/11
4/11
10/11
1/11
11/11
2/11
10/11
1/2
2/2
0/2
0/2
0/2
1/2
2/2
1/2
1/2
2/2
Number of
Detections Above
Comparison
Criteria I
0
NA
5
0
NA
0
0
NA
2
NA
NA
NA
NA
0
0
0
2
Number of Detections
Above Comparison
Criteria II
0
NA
5
0
5
0
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1
1
0
NA
1
Notes:
Concentrations are presented in Jig/Kg for organics in soil and sediment and in |ig/L for all water contaminants (ppb); metal concentrations for soil and sediment are presented in mg/Kg
NA - Not applicable
ND - Not detected
PAH - Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon
Secondary MCL for aluminum, iron, and zinc; if MCL is a range, the lower concetration is used for comparison.
Federal Action Level for lead.
Positive contaminant detections in surface water are compared to freshwater screening values for human health (water and organism consumption): EPA Region IV Water Quality
Standards (EPA), 1995 or NCWQS (NC) (Criteria I), and upstream background concentrations from the White Oak River Basin Study (Criteria II).
EPA Water Quality Criteria, 1991, Human Health Published Criteria (water and organism consumption).
EPA Water Quality Criteria, 1991, Human Health Recalculated Values using IRIS, as of 9/90 (water and organism consumption).
(ppm).
-------
TABLE 1 (Continued)
SUMMARY OF SITE CONTAMINATION
SITE 65 - ENGINEER AREA DUMP
RECORD OF DECISION, CTO-0130
MCB, CAMP LEJEUNE, NORTH CAROLINA
Media
Surface
Water
Sediment(8)
Fraction
Metals
(continued)
Volatiles
Semivolatiles
Pesticides
Metals
Detected
Organics/Inorganics
Lead
Manganese
Vanadium
Zinc
Acetone
Chloroform
2-Butanone
Carbon Tetrachloride
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
Di-n-Butylphthalate
beta-BHC
4,4'-DDE
4,4'-DDD
Vanadium
Zinc
Comparison Criteria
Criteria I
5016)(EPA)
200 (NC)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Criteria II
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2.51
2.42
1.57
17.57
27.38
Site Contamination
Min.
Cone.
45.8
57.3
26.2
33.6
190J
79J
72J
13J
6J
3J
940J
8.3NJ
18J
76J
40.5
7.9
Max.
Cone.
45.8
88.4
26.2
144
450J
79J
94J
18J
15J
7J
1,600J
8.3NJ
19NJ
84J
40.5
280J
Location(s) of Maximum
Concentration
65-SW04-01
65-SW04-01
65-SW04-01
65-SW04-01
65-SD05-612
65-SD04-06
65-SD04-06
65-SD04-06
65-SD04-06
65-SD04-06
65-SD04-612
65-SD04-612
65-SD05-06
65-SD05-06
65-SD04-06
65-SD04-06
Detection
Frequency
1/2
2/2
1/2
2/2
4/4
1/4
4/4
2/4
2/4
3/4
4/4
1/4
2/4
2/4
1/4
4/4
Number of
Detections Above
Comparison
Criteria I
0
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Number of Detections
Above Comparison
Criteria II
NA
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1
2
2
1
3
Notes:
Concentrations are presented in ng/Kg for organics in soil and sediment and in ng/L for all water contaminants (ppb); metal concentrations for soil and sediment are presented in mg/Kg
NA - Not applicable
ND - Not detected
PAH - Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon
w EPA Water Quality Criteria, 1991, Human Health Published Criteria (water and organism consumption).
{!> EPA Water Quality Criteria, 1991, Human Health Recalculated Values using IRIS, as of 9/90 (water and organism consumption).
w There are no established criteria for sediment, therefore Criteria I is NA. Criteria II is the average upstream background sediment concetration from the White Oak River Basin Study.
(ppm).
-------
TABLE 1 (Continued)
SUMMARY OF SITE CONTAMINATION
SITE 65 - ENGINEER AREA DUMP
RECORD OF DECISION, CTO-0130
MCB, CAMP LEJEUNE, NORTH CAROLINA
Media
Fish Tissue(9)
Fraction
Volatiles
Pesticides
Metals
Detected
Organics/Inorganics
Acetone
4,4'-DDD
Aluminum
Barium
Copper
Manganese
Mercury
Selenium
Thallium
Zinc
Comparison Criteria
Criteria I
14000
13
140
9.5
5.4
2.7
0.041
0.68
9.5 X10'3
41
Criteria II
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Site Contamination
Min.
Cone.
5600J
5.7J
0.99
0.21J
0.46
0.092J
0.051J
0.14
0.11
5.8J
Max.
Cone.
7900J
5.7J
0.99
0.21
0.49
0.45J
0.3J
0.22
0.11
8.4J
Location(s) of Maximum
Concentration
65-FS05-LB01F
65-FS04-BG01F
65-FS05-LB01F
65-FS04-BG01F
65-FS04-BG01F
65-FS04-BG01F
65-FS05-LB01F
65-FS04-BG01F
65-FS05-RS01F
65-FS05-BG01F
Detection
Frequency
2/4
1/4
1/4
1/4
2/4
4/4
4/4
4/4
3/4
4/4
Number of
Detections Above
Comparison
Criteria I
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
3
0
Number of Detections
Above Comparison
Criteria II
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Notes:
Concentrations are presented in |ig/Kg (ppb) for organics in fish tissue and in mg/Kg for metals in fish tissue (ppm).
NA - Not applicable
(y> Organics and Metals in fish tissue (fillet samples) are compared to EPA Region III RBCs for human ingestion of fish (Criteria I).
There is no Criteria II.
-------
TABLE 2
SUMMARY OF SITE CONTAMINATION - POST RI SAMPLING
SITE 65 - ENGINEER AREA DUMP
RECORD OF DECISION, CTO-0130
MCB, CAMP LEJEUNE, NORTH CAROLINA
Media
Surface Soilu)
Surface Soil
Fraction
Volatiles
Semivolatiles
Pesticides/PCBs
Herbicides
Total Metals
Detected
Organics/Inorganics
1, 1,2-Trichloro- 1,2,2-trifluoroethane
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
Toluene
Xylenes (Total)
Caprolactam
Phenol
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate
4,4'-DDD
4,4'-DDE
4,4'-DDT
Alpha-BHC
Beta-BHC
Delta-BHC
Endosulfan I
Endosulfan II
p,p'-Methoxychlor
2,4 5-TP (Silvex)
2,4,5-T
2,4-D
2,4-DB
4-Nitrophenol
Dalapon
Dicamba
Dichloroprop
Dinoseb
Pentachlorophenol
Aluminum
Barium
Beryllium
Calcium
Chromium
Comparison Criteria Site Contamination
Criteria I
2.35E+08
7.82E+04
1.56E+06
1.56E+07
3.91E+06
4.69E+06
4.56E+04
2.66E+03
1.88E+03
1.88E+03
1.01E+02
3.55E+02
NE
4.69E+04
4.69E+04
3.91E+04
7.82E+04
7.82E+04
7.82E+04
6.26E+04
6.26E+04
2.35E+05
2.35E+05
NE
7.82E+03
5.32E+03
7821
548
15643
NE
235
Criteria II
5.60E+06
6.50E+04
5.20E+05
2.10E+05
3.10E+06
3.70E+06
3.50E+04
2.40E+03
1.70E+03
1.70E+03
9.00E+01
3.20E+02
3.20E+02
3.70E+04
3.70E+04
3.10E+04
6.10E+04
6.10E+04
6.90E+04
4.90E+04
4.90E+04
1.80E+05
NA
NA
6.10E+03
3.00E+03
7600
540
15
NA
210
Criteria III
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
5940
17.36
NA
1397
6.693
Min. Cone.
3 J
0.6 J
0.7 J
0.6 J
220 J
580
120 J
4.8 J
1.3 J
3.4 J
1.3 J
3.4 J
1.3 J
0.56 J
2.1 J
23 J
1.2 J
1.2 J
14
34 J
2.2 J
11 J
2.1 J
22 J
2.5 J
0.62 J
1490
5.3
3.2
296
2.2
Max. Cone.
3 J
0.6 J
0.7 J
0.6 J
220 J
580
330 J
4.8 J
1.3 J
3.4 J
1.3 J
3.4 J
1.3 J
0.56 J
2.1 J
23 J
3.4 J
3.4 J
14
41 J
10 J
14 J
2.1 J
48 J
5.1 J
0.62 J
9140
416
3.2
10400
10.1
Location(s) of
Maximum
Concentration
65-IS01-00
65-IS01-00
65-IS01-00
65-IS01-00
65-IS03-00
65-IS01-00
65-IS03-00
65-IS01-00
65-IS01-00
65-IS01-00
65-IS03-00
65-IS03-00
65-IS03-00
65-IS03-00
65-IS01-00
65-IS01-00
65-IS01-00
65-IS01-00
65-IS01-00
65-IS01-00
65-IS03-00
65-IS03-00
65-IS03-00
65-IS03-00
65-IS03-00
65-IS01-00
65-IS03-00
65-IS03-00
65-IS03-00
65-IS03-00
65-IS03-00
Detection
Frequency
1/2
1/2
1/2
1/2
1/2
1/2
2/2
1/2
1/2
1/2
1/2
1/2
1/2
1/2
1/2
1/2
2/2
2/2
1/2
2/2
2/2
2/2
1/2
2/2
2/2
1/2
2/2
2/2
1/2
2/2
2/2
Number of
Detections
Above
Comparison
Criteria I
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NA
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NA
0
0
1
0
0
NA
0
Number of
Detections
Above
Comparison
Criteria II
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NA
NA
0
0
1
0
0
NA
0
Number of
Detections Above
Comparison
Criteria III
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1
1
NE
1
1
-------
TABLE 2
SUMMARY OF SITE CONTAMINATION - POST RI SAMPLING
SITE 65 - ENGINEER AREA DUMP
RECORD OF DECISION, CTO-0130
MCB, CAMP LEJEUNE, NORTH CAROLINA
Media
Surface Soil
Subsurface
Soil(1)
Fraction
Total Metals
(continued)
Volatiles
Semivolatiles
Pesticides
Detected
Organics/Inorganics
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Sodium
Vanadium
Zinc
1, 1,2-Trichloro- 1,2,2-trifluoroethane
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
Chlorobenzene
Toluene
Xylenes (Total)
Anthracene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Caprolactam
Carbazole
Chrysene
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate
4,4'-DDD
4,4'-DDE
4,4'-DDT
Aldrin
Alpha chlordane
Comparison Criteria Site Contamination
Criteria I
156
313
2346
NE
1095
NE
156
NE
39
NE
55
2346
2.35E+08
7.82E+04
1.56E+05
1.56E+06
1.56E+07
2.35E+06
8.75E+02
8.75E+01
8.75E+02
8.75E+03
3.91E+06
3.19E+04
8.75E+04
3.13E+05
2.35E+05
4.56E+04
2.66E+03
1.88E+03
1.88E+03
3.76E+01
1.8E+00
Criteria II
470
290
2300
NA
180
2.3
160
NA
39
NA
55
2300
5.60E+06
6.50E+04
1.50E+04
5.20E+05
2.10E+05
2.20E+06
6.20E+02
6.20E+01
6.20E+02
6.20E+03
3.10E+06
2.40E+04
6.20E+04
2.30E+05
2.30E+05
3.50E+04
2.40E+03
1.70E+03
1.70E+03
2.90E+01
1.60E+03
Criteria III
2.348
7.2
3755
205.8
18.497
0.078
3.43
200
NA
59.3
11.63
13.88
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Min. Cone.
5.9
0.94
994
62.4 J
10.2
0.26
0.65
1460
2.2 J
138 J
2.1 J
13.8
3 J
0.7 J
0.6 J
1 J
1 J
25 J
82 J
45 J
110 J
54 J
53 J
18 J
100 J
33 J
22 J
170 J
0.4 J
0.23 J
0.49 J
0.086 J
0.12 J
Max. Cone.
5.9
43.1
9150
951 J
66.8
0.26
43.6
1460
2.2 J
138 J
176
13.8
4 J
0.7 J
0.6 J
2 J
1 J
25 J
82 J
45 J
110 J
54 J
79 J
18 J
100 J
110 J
94 J
24000 D
0.64 J
1.3 J
3.2 J
0.086 J
0.44 J
Location(s) of
Maximum
Concentration
65-IS03-00
65-IS03-00
65-IS03-00
65-IS03-00
65-IS03-00
65-IS03-00
65-IS03-00
65-IS03-00
65-IS03-00
65-IS03-00
65-IS03-00
65-IS03-00
65-IS02-01
65-IS02-01
65-IS01-03
65-IS01-03
65-IS01-03
65-IS02-01D
65-IS02-01D
65-IS02-01D
65-IS02-01D
65-IS02-01D
65-IS02-01D
65-IS02-01D
65-IS02-01D
65-IS02-01D
65-IS02-01D
65-IS02-01
65-IS03-03
65-IS02-01
65-IS02-01
65-IS03-03
65-IS02-01
Detection
Frequency
1/2
2/2
2/2
2/2
2/2
1/2
2/2
1/2
1/1
1/2
2/2
1/2
2/4
1/4
1/4
2/4
1/4
1/4
1/4
1/4
1/4
1/4
2/4
1/4
1/4
2/4
2/4
4/4
2/4
3/4
4/4
1/4
3/4
Number of
Detections
Above
Comparison
Criteria I
0
0
1
NA
0
NA
0
NA
0
NA
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Number of
Detections
Above
Comparison
Criteria II
0
0
1
NA
0
0
0
NA
0
NA
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Number of
Detections Above
Comparison
Criteria III
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
NE
1
1
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-------
TABLE 2
SUMMARY OF SITE CONTAMINATION - POST RI SAMPLING
SITE 65 - ENGINEER AREA DUMP
RECORD OF DECISION, CTO-0130
MCB, CAMP LEJEUNE, NORTH CAROLINA
Media
Subsurface
Soil
Subsurface
Soil
Fraction
Pesticides
(continued)
Herbicides
Total Metals
Detected
Organics/Inorganics
Alpha-BHC
Beta-BHC
Delta-BHC
Dieldrin
Endosulfan II
Endosulfan sulfate
Endrin
Endrin aldehyde
Endrin ketone
Comparison Criteria Site Contamination
Criteria I
1.01E+02
3.55E+02
NE
3.99E+01
4.69E+04
4.69E+02
2.35E+03
2.35E+01
2.35E+01
Gamma chlordane 1 .8E+00
Gamma-BHC (Lindane)
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxide
p,p'-Methoxychlor
2,4-D
2,4-DB
4-Nitrophenol
Dalapon
Dichloroprop
Dinoseb
Pentachlorophenol
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Calcium
4.91E+02
1.42E+02
7.02E+01
3.91E+04
7.82E+04
6.26E+04
6.26E+04
2.35E+05
NE
7.82E+03
5.32E+03
7821
0.0426
548
NE
Chromium 235
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Nickel
Sodium
313
2346
400
NE
1095
156
NE
Criteria II
9.00E+01
3.20E+02
3.20E+02
3.00E+01
3.70E+04
3.70E+04
1.80E+03
1.80E+03
1.80E+03
1.60E+03
4.40E+02
1.10E+02
5.30E+01
3.10E+04
6.90E+04
4.90E+04
4.90E+04
1.80E+05
NA
6.10E+03
3.00E+03
7600
0.390
540
NA
210
290
2300
400
NA
180
160
NA
Criteria III
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
7375
1.97
14.20
392
12.56
2.416
7252
8.327
261
7.919
3.714
52.7
Min. Cone.
0.4 J
0.19 J
0.12 J
0.51 J
0.065 J
0.18 J
0.086 J
0.066 J
0.42 J
1.6 J
0.055 J
0.038 J
0.047 J
1.3 J
5.4 J
21 J
2.1 J
4.7 J
19 J
2.6 J
0.24 J
1350
0.32 J
6.3
125
2.2
0.83
786
2.3
49.8 J
13.7
0.81
27 J
Max. Cone.
0.42 J
0.54 J
0.12 J
0.51 J
0.79 J
0.18 J
0.21 J
0.066 J
0.42 J
1.8 J
0.055 J
0.2 J
0.047 J
33 J
11 J
31
5.3 J
33 J
23 J
2.7 J
0.29 J
2690
0.66 J
7.7
945
2.8
1.5
1530
2.3
108 J
18.2
0.95
320
Location(s) of
Maximum
Concentration
65-IS03-03
65-IS01-03
65-IS01-03, 65-
IS03-03
65-IS03-03
65-IS02-01D
65-IS03-03
65-IS01-03
65-IS03-03
65-IS03-03
65-IS02-01
65-IS03-03
65-IS01-03
65-IS03-03
65-IS01-03
65-IS02-01D
65-IS01-03
65-IS02-01
65-IS02-01
65-IS02-01D
65-IS02-01D
65-IS02-01D
65-IS02-01D
65-IS02-01D
65-IS02-01
65-IS02-01D
65-IS01-03
65-IS01-03
65-IS01-03
65-IS01-03
65-IS02-01D
65-IS01-03
IS03-03
65-IS02-01D
Detection
Frequency
2/4
2/4
2/4
1/4
3/4
1/4
2/4
1/4
1/4
2/4
1/4
2/4
1/4
3/4
2/4
3/4
3/4
4/4
3/4
3/4
2/4
4/4
4/4
4/4
4/4
4/4
4/4
4/4
1/4
4/4
3/4
4/4
2/4
Number of
Detections
Above
Comparison
Criteria I
0
0
NA
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NA
0
0
0
4
0
NA
0
0
0
0
NA
0
0
NA
Number of
Detections
Above
Comparison
Criteria II
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NA
0
0
0
2
0
NA
0
0
0
0
NA
0
NA
Number of
Detections Above
Comparison
Criteria III
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
-------
TABLE 2
SUMMARY OF SITE CONTAMINATION - POST RI SAMPLING
SITE 65 - ENGINEER AREA DUMP
RECORD OF DECISION, CTO-0130
MCB, CAMP LEJEUNE, NORTH CAROLINA
Media
Subsurface
Soil
Groundwater
Fraction
Total Metals
(continued)
Volatiles
Total Metals
Dissolved Metals
Detected
Organics/Inorganics
Vanadium
1, 1,2-Trichloro- 1,2,2-trifluoroethane
Acetone
Carbon disulfide
Ethylbenzene
Methylene chloride
Aluminum
Barium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Sodium
Vanadium
Zinc
Aluminum
Antimony
Barium
Calcium
Chromium
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Comparison Criteria Site Contamination
Criteria I
55
NE
NE
NE
700
NE
NE
2000
NE
100
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
2
100.0
NE
50
NE
NE
NE
NE
6
2000
NE
100
NE
NE
NE
NE
Criteria II
55
210000
700
NE
29
5
NE
2000
NE
50
NE
1000
300
15
NE
50
1
100.0
NE
50
NE
NE
2100
NE
NE
2000
NE
50
300
15
NE
50
Criteria III
13.45
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Min. Cone.
1.8 J
0.2 J
4 J
0.2 J
0.2 J
0.7
3530
33.2
13900
4.4 J
0.47 J
2.6 J
5270
2.1 J
1490
85.8
0.11 J
5.8
1100
2.5 J
8800 J
5.7 J
2.7 J
3530
1.8 J
33.2
13900
4.4 J
5270
2.1 J
1490
85.8
Max. Cone.
3.5
0.2 J
4 J
0.2 J
0.2 J
0.7
22200
75
29100
27.9
4.7 J
8.6
13200
14.5
2690
166
0.11 J
14.3
1660
2.5 J
13300 J
18 J
15.2 J
22200
1.8 J
75
29100
27.9
13200
14.5
2690
166
Location(s) of
Maximum
Concentration
65-IS02-01D
65-IS03-GW01
65-IS02-GW01
65-IS02-GW01D
IS02-GW01D
65-IS01-GW01
65-IS01-GW01
65-IS01-GW01
65-IS03-GW01
65-IS01-GW01
65-IS01-GW01
65-IS01-GW01
65-IS01-GW01
65-IS01-GW01
65-IS01-GW01
65-IS01-GW01
65-IS01-GW01
65-IS01-GW01
65-IS01-GW01
65-IS01-GW01
65-IS03-GW01
65-IS01-GW01
65-IS01-GW01
65-IS01-GW01
65-IS02-GW01D
65-IS01-GW01
65-IS03-GW01
65-IS01-GW01
65-IS01-GW01
65-IS01-GW01
65-IS01-GW01
65-IS01-GW01
Detection
Frequency
4/4
1/3
1/2
1/4
2/4
1/4
4/4
4/4
4/4
4/4
4/4
3/4
4/4
4/4
4/4
4/4
1/4
3/4
4/4
1/4
4/4
4/4
3/4
4/4
1/4
4/4
4/4
4/4
4/4
4/4
4/4
4/4
Number of
Detections
Above
Comparison
Criteria I
0
NA
NA
NA
0
NA
NA
0
NA
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0
0
NA
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
0
0
NA
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
Number of
Detections
Above
Comparison
Criteria II
0
0
0
NA
0
0
NA
0
NA
0
NA
0
4
0
NA
4
0
0
NA
0
NA
NA
0
NA
NA
0
NA
0
4
0
NA
4
Number of
Detections Above
Comparison
Criteria III
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-------
TABLE 2
SUMMARY OF SITE CONTAMINATION - POST RI SAMPLING
SITE 65 - ENGINEER AREA DUMP
RECORD OF DECISION, CTO-0130
MCB, CAMP LEJEUNE, NORTH CAROLINA
Media
Groundwater
Surface
Water®
Sediment^
Fraction
Dissolved Metals
(continued)
Volatiles
Total Metals
Volatiles
Semivolatiles
Detected
Organics/Inorganics
Potassium
Sodium
Acetone
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Nickel
Potassium
Sodium
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
1, 1,2-Trichloro- 1,2,2-trifluoroethane
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
2-Butanone
Acetone
Methylene chloride
Toluene
4,6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol
4-Methylphenol
Benzaldehyde
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate
Comparison Criteria Site Contamination
Criteria I
NE
NE
NE
NE
14
0.018
NE
NE
170
NE
1300
300
50
NE
50
610
NE
NE
2
NE
9100
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
1.82E+02
Criteria II
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
50*
NE
NE
50*
NE
7*(AL)
1000* (AL)
25 *
NE
NE
88
NE
NE
NE
NE
50 * (AL)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Criteria III
NA
NA
NA
333
NA
NA
26
17567
NA
NA
NA
576
NA
1745
NA
NA
NA
9830
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Min. Cone.
1100
8800 J
21 J
421
2.6 J
2.8 J
32.5
25400
1.6 J
0.93 J
1.6 J
10100
2.3 J
2380
196
5.5
1030
12400 J
6.4 J
2.2 J
95.3
5 J
0.9 J
4 J
16 J
2 J
4 J
1100
140 J
110 J
98 J
Max. Cone.
1660
13300 J
21 J
9250
2.6 J
2.8 J
164
30100
12.6
0.93 J
40.6
54800
68.9
3020
332
5.5
1890
12900 J
6.4 J
19.8 J
95.3
5 J
0.9 J
4 J
16 J
2 J
21
1100
140 J
110 J
160 J
Location(s) of
Maximum
Concentration
65-IS01-GW01
65-IS03-GW01
65-SW01
65-SW01
65-SW01
65-SW01
65-SW01
65-SW01
65-SW01
65-SW01
65-SW01
65-SW01
65-SW01
65-SW01
65-SW01
65-SW01
65-SW01
65-SW02D
65-SW01
65-SW01
65-SW01
65-SD01
65-SD01
65-SD02
65-SD02
65-SD02
65-SD02
65-SD02
65-SD02
65-SD01
65-SD01
Detection
Frequency
4/4
4/4
1/1
3/3
1/3
1/3
3/3
3/3
3/3
1/3
2/3
3/3
3/3
3/3
3/3
1/3
3/3
3/3
1/3
2/3
1/3
1/3
1/3
1/3
1/2
1/3
3/3
1/3
1/3
1/3
3/3
Number of
Detections
Above
Comparison
Criteria I
NA
NA
NA
NA
0
1
NA
NA
0
NA
0
3
1
NA
3
0
NA
NA
1
NA
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0
Number of
Detections
Above
Comparison
Criteria II
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0
NA
NA
0
NA
1
3
1
NA
NA
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
1
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Number of
Detections Above
Comparison
Criteria III
NA
NA
NA
3
NA
NA
3
3
NA
NA
NA
3
NA
3
NA
NA
NA
3
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-------
TABLE 2
SUMMARY OF SITE CONTAMINATION - POST RI SAMPLING
SITE 65 - ENGINEER AREA DUMP
RECORD OF DECISION, CTO-0130
MCB, CAMP LEJEUNE, NORTH CAROLINA
Media
Sediment
Fraction
Pesticides/PCBs
Herbicides
Total Metals
Detected
Organics/Inorganics
4,4'-DDD
4,4'-DDE
4,4'-DDT
Aldrin
Alpha chlordane
Alpha-BHC
Beta-BHC
Dieldrin
Endosulfan I
Endosulfan sulfate
Endrin
Endrin aldehyde
Endrin ketone
Gamma chlordane
Gamma-BHC (Lindane)
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxide
p,p'-Methoxychlor
2,4 5-TP (Silvex)
2,4,5-T
2,4-D
2,4-DB
4-Nitrophenol
Dalapon
Dicamba
Dichloroprop
Dinoseb
Pentachlorophenol
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Calcium
Comparison Criteria Site Contamination
Criteria I
1.22E+00
2.00E+00
l.OOE+00
NE
5.00E-01
NE
NE
2.00E-02
NE
NE
2.00E-02
2.00E-02
2.00E-02
5.00E-01
3.20E-01
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
2.00E+00
NE
7.24E+00
NE
Criteria II
2
2
2
1
1
NA
3
2
NA
NA
NA
2
NA
1
NA
1
NA
10
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1166
NA
0.37
6
1967
Criteria III
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Min. Cone.
28
24
5.6 J
0.2 J
0.45 J
0.2 J
0.29 J
0.13 J
0.076 J
0.31 J
0.16 J
2.1 J
4.9 J
0.23 J
0.04 J
0.03 J
0.063 J
52 J
0.78 J
0.78 J
6.5 J
39 J
8.4
10 J
1.7 J
35 J
4.3 J
0.85 J
7510
1.6 J
1.7
24.1
790
Max. Cone.
64
30
8 J
0.2 J
0.52 J
0.2 J
0.29 J
1.3 J
0.076 J
20 J
0.66 J
4.1 J
16 J
0.94 J
0.04 J
0.59 J
2.3 J
110 J
1.2 J
1.2 J
16 J
68 J
19 J
11 J
6.1 J
43 J
5 J
1.6 J
13800
1.6 J
2
48.2
2170
Location(s) of
Maximum
Concentration
65-SD01D
65-SD01
65-SD02
65-SD02
65-SD02
65-SD02
65-SD02
65-SD01D
65-SD02
65-SD01D
65-SD01D
65-SD01D
65-SD02
65-SD01D
65-SD02
65-SD01
65-SD01D
65-SD01D
65-SD02
65-SD02
65-SD01D
65-SD02
65-SD01D
SD02
65-SD01D
65-SD01D
65-SD01
65-SD02
65-SD02
65-SD01
65-SD01
65-SD02
65-SD02
Detection
Frequency
3/3
3/3
3/3
1/3
2/3
1/3
1/3
2/3
1/3
3/3
2/3
2/3
3/3
2/3
1/3
2/3
3/3
3/3
3/3
3/3
3/3
3/3
3/3
3/3
3/3
3/3
3/3
3/3
3/3
1/3
3/3
3/3
3/3
Number of
Detections
Above
Comparison
Criteria I
3
3
3
NA
1
NA
NA
2
NA
NA
2
2
3
1
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0
NA
3
NA
Number of
Detections
Above
Comparison
Criteria II
3
3
3
0
0
NA
0
0
NA
NA
NA
2
NA
0
NA
0
NA
3
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
3
NA
3
3
1
Number of
Detections Above
Comparison
Criteria III
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
-------
TABLE 2
SUMMARY OF SITE CONTAMINATION - POST RI SAMPLING
SITE 65 - ENGINEER AREA DUMP
RECORD OF DECISION, CTO-0130
MCB, CAMP LEJEUNE, NORTH CAROLINA
Media
Sediment
Fraction
Total Metals
(continued)
Detected
Organics/Inorganics
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Sodium
Vanadium
Zinc
Comparison Criteria Site Contamination
Criteria I
5.23E+01
NE
1.87E+01
NE
3.02E+01
NE
NE
1.30E-01
1.59E+01
NE
NE
NE
NE
1.24E+02
Criteria II
1.86
NA
0.75
434
0.79
45
3.63
0.14
NA
NA
0.19
NA
1.52
5.11
Criteria III
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Min. Cone.
9.3
0.61 J
20.5
3370
36.6
217 J
18.6
0.069
2.8
234
0.42 J
1370
10
43.8
Max. Cone.
17.7
1.4
43
6990
75.5
487 J
46
0.11
5.7
498
0.42 J
1370
16.9
97.6
Location(s) of
Maximum
Concentration
65-SD02
65-SD02
65-SD02
65-SD02
65-SD02
65-SD02
65-SD02
65-SD01D
65-SD02
65-SD02
65-SD01D
65-SD01
65-SD02
65-SD02
Detection
Frequency
3/3
3/3
3/3
3/3
3/3
3/3
2/3
3/3
3/3
3/3
1/1
1/3
3/3
3/3
Number of
Detections
Above
Comparison
Criteria I
0
NA
3
NA
3
NA
NA
0
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
0
Number of
Detections
Above
Comparison
Criteria II
3
NA
3
3
3
3
2
0
NA
NA
1
NA
3
3
Number of
Detections Above
Comparison
Criteria III
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Notes:
Concentrations are presented in ug/Kg for organics in soil and sediment and in ug/L for all water contaminants (ppb); metal concentrations for soil and sediment are presented in mg/Kg (ppm).
NA - Not applicable
NE - Not established
(l> Organics and Metals in both surface and subsurface soils are compared to EPA Region III Risk Based Concentrations (RBCs) for a residential area (Criteria I) (EPA updated 5/8/2001),
EPA Region IX Preliminary Remediation Goals (PRGs) for a residential area (Criteria II) (EPA 11/01/00), and two times base background concentrations for MCB, Camp Lejeune (Criteria III)
(Metals only). For lead, the residential action level in soil is used (USEPA 1994).
(2) Comparison Criteria for groundwater are Federal Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCL) (Criteria I) and North Carolina Water Quality Standards (NCWQS) (Criteria II).
(1> Positive contaminant detections in surface water are compared to EPA Tier II freshwater screening values for human health (water and organism consumption) (Criteria I), North Carolina Water Quality
Standards (NCWQS) for fresh surface water (Criteria II), and the average upstream background surface water concentrations from the White Oak River Basin Study (Criteria III). NCWQS were human health values.
If human health values were not available, values for aquatic life were used (NCDENR, 1988).
* Human health value not available, value is for aquatic life
(AL) Value represents action level
(4) There are no established human health criteria for sediment. Comparison Criteria are EPA Region IV Ecological Screening Levels for freshwater (EPA 2000) (Criteria I), and the average
upstream background sediment concentration from the White Oak River Basin Study (Criteria II).
-------
TABLE 3
SUMMARY OF COPCs IN EACH MEDIA OF CONCERN
SITE 65 - ENGINEER AREA DUMP
RECORD OF DECISION, CTO-0130
MCB, CAMP LEJEUNE, NORTH CAROLINA
Contaminant
Surface
Soil
Subsurface
Soil
Groundwater
Surface
Water
Sediment
Fish Tissue
Volatiles
Methylene Chloride
Acetone
Carbon disulfide
Chloroform
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
2-Butanone
Carbon Tetrachloride
Trichloroethene
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
Xylenes (Total)
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
X
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Semivolatiles
Naphthalene
2-Methyhiaphthalene
Acenaphthene
2,4-Dinitrophenol
Dibenzofuran
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
Carbazole
Di-n-butylphthalate
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Chrysene
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Ideno(l ,2,3-cd)pyrene
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
X
X
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
X
X
!
!
!
!
Notes:
! = Detected in media; compared to relevant criteria and standards.
X = Selected as a COPC in the human health risk assessment.
-------
TABLE 3 (Continued)
SUMMARY OF COPCs IN EACH MEDIA OF CONCERN
SITE 65 - ENGINEER AREA DUMP
RECORD OF DECISION, CTO-0130
MCB, CAMP LEJEUNE, NORTH CAROLINA
Contaminant
Surface
Soil
Subsurface
Soil
Groundwater
Surface
Water
Sediment
Fish Tissue
Pesticide/PCBs
beta-BHC
Heptachlor Epoxide
Endosulfan I
4,4'-DDE
Endosulfan II
4,4'-DDD
4,4'-DDT
Endrin Aldehyde
Alpha Chlordane
Gamma Chlordane
Aroclor-1260
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Inorganics
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
X
X
X
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
X
X
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
X
X
X
X
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
X
X
Notes:
! = Detected in media; compared to relevant criteria and standards.
X = Selected as a COPC in the human health risk assessment.
-------
TABLE 4
ECOLOGICAL CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN IN EACH MEDIA
SITE 65 - ENGINEER AREA DUMP
RECORD OF DECISION, CTO-0130
MCB, CAMP LEJEUNE, NORTH CAROLINA
Contaminant
Volatiles
Acetone
2-Butanone
Ethylbenzene
Methylene chloride
Toluene
Trichloroethane
Xylenes (Total)
Semivolatiles
Acenaphthene
Anthracene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Carbazole
Chrysene
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Dibenzofuran
Di-n-butylphthalate
2,4-Dinitrophenol
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pryene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Surface Water
Aquatic
Receptors
Terrestrial
Receptors
Sediment
X
Surface
Soil
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Fish
Fillet
X
Whole
Body
X
X
X
X
-------
TABLE 4 (Continued)
ECOLOGICAL CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN IN EACH MEDIA
SITE 65 - ENGINEER AREA DUMP
RECORD OF DECISION, CTO-0130
MCB, CAMP LEJEUNE, NORTH CAROLINA
Contaminant
Pesticides/PCBs
Beta-BHC
4,4'-DDE
4,4'-DDD
4,4'-DDT
Endosulfan II
Heptachlor epoxide
Aroclor-1260
Inorganics
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
Surface Water
Aquatic
Receptors
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Terrestrial
Receptors
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Sediment
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Surface
Soil
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Fish
Fillet
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Whole
Body
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-------
TABLE 5
GLOSSARY OF USEPA REMEDIAL ATERNATIVE
EVALUATION CRITERIA
MCB CAMP LEJEUNE, NORTH CAROLINA
Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment - addresses whether or not
an alternative provides adequate protection and describes how risks posed through each
pathway are eliminated, reduced, or controlled through treatment engineering or
institutional controls.
Compliance with ARARs/TBCs - addresses whether or not an alternative will meet the
applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs), criteria to-be-considered
(TBCs), and other federal and state environmental statutes, and/or provide grounds for
invoking a waiver.
Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence - refers to the magnitude of residual risk
and the ability of an alternative to maintain reliable protection of human health and the
environment over time once cleanup goals have been met.
Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume Through Treatment - refers to the
anticipated performance of the treatment options that may be employed within an
alternative.
Short-Term Effectiveness - refers to the speed with which the alternative achieves
protection, as well as the remedy's potential to create adverse impacts on human health
and the environment that may occur during the construction and implementation period.
Implementability - refers to the technical and administrative feasibility of an alternative,
including the availability of materials and services required to implement the chosen
solution.
Cost - includes capital and operation and maintenance costs. For comparative purposes,
present worth values are provided.
-------
FIGURES
-------
J^D^^ &' QZ
/•:•:•:• :•:•:•:•..<> ••:•:•:•:; ::•:•:<
m mm m
MILITARY i RESERVATION
ViY.Y.Y.y.Y.Y.Y.y^^^^
^iMiMiMMiM FRENCH
_^liPS|F
j,
j:^'
CAMP LEJEUNE ^
BOUNDARY
l"\-v
.y.v.-jXv.v.-. .•:.::•:!>.•:.•.•:: ::::f '-^
.'•:/•" 'v:::::::::::::::::::::::::::^^^
we viiSSiSiSS^^
x:x:^^^
^"Xv-O^
•.•.•.•.•.•.•.y:-Hv.\. r 1-.\S'.O
\v.v.-y >-y •«:•??•«•
>-'-:^ .':<• 'J ^
l inch = 1.5 MILES. :>: Baker Environmental, mo.
2130SOOR /•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.v.v.v.y
FIGURE 1
LOCATION MAP
OPERABLE UNIT NO. 9
RECORD OF DECISION
CTO-0130
MARINE CORPS BASE, CAMP LEJEUNE
NORTH CAROLINA
-------
2130501R
WOODED AREA
I
I BURN-
• AREA
I
SCATTERED-
DEBRIS
I
I DEBRIS-
| PILES
X
OPEN
•— ^, AREA
^
\
\
\
\
^
?//*
?//*
?//*
v/t
V/J
?//*
///*
#/*
x\—
)
s
\
^
\\
\
J. 1
N
I— SOIL
MOUND
^^SITE 65
j*^ BOUNDARY
^
\
\
\
\
\
\
BUILDING \
HEAVY EQUIPMENT
TRAINING AREA
?//*
HARDWOODS
PINES &
\
\
^
/jt
^
^
/,
z&
BUILDING..^
,O
"^
%
^
^
^
^
%
\
\
\
1^— -7?*r»^ir*^V'
X
X
.X
^
N
WOODED AREA
^
N
OPEN
AREA
\
^
\
^C
\
OPEN
AREA
^05
-SSS&-
%p-
^VA>
\
\COURTHOUSEx
• BAY POND
^
^<\>
^~
WOODED AREA
fii/
WOODED AREA
^
' ~\
POWERLINE J
POND
>cs
il_
rronfTYYTTYYYYTYTYYTY^
rfa.c.
tfOOre
f72>
OPEN AREA
HEAVY EQUIPMENT
STORAGE AREA
WOODED AREA
SOURCE: BRENT A. LANIER, SURVEYING AND PLANNING, MAY 1995
200
100
200
1 inch = 200 ft.
'aker
Mat Environmental, ha
FIGURE 2
SITE LOCATION MAP
SITE 65 - ENGINEER AREA DUMP
RECORD OF DECISION, CTO - 0130
MARINE CORPS BASE, CAMP LEJEUNE
NORTH CAROLINA
-------
FIGURE 3
Future
Residents
Current
Military
Personnel
(Trainees and
Recreational
Users)
Future
Construction
Workers
Future
Residents
Current
Fishermen
Current
Fishermen
CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL
FOR CURRENT AND FUTURE HUMAN RECEPTORS
SITE 65 - ENGINEER AREA DUMP
MCB, CAMP LEJEUNE, NORTH CAROLINA
Inhalation
Air
Paniculate
Emissions
Atmospheric
Deposition
Ingestion
Dermal Contact
Erosion/Advective
Soil
Ingestion
Dermal Contact
Infiltration/
Percolation
Transport
Surface
Water
Future
Residents
Current
Military
Personnel
(Trainees and
Recreational
Users)
Future
Construction
Workers
Groundwater
Volatilization
Shower
Air
Ingestion/
Dermal Contact
Future
Residents
Partitioning/Deposition
Ingestion
Fish
Uptake/
Bioaccummulation
Sediment
Ingestion/
Dermal Contact
Future
Residents
Future
Residents
Current Adult
Fishermen
-------
FIGURE 4
CONCEPTUAL EXPOSURE MODEL FOR ECOLOGICAL RECEPTORS
SITE 65 - ENGINEER AREA DUMP
MCB, CAMP LEJEUNE, NORTH CAROLINA
None
Inhalation
Air
Particulate
Emissions
Volitalization
Soils
Atmospheric
Deposition
Aquatic
Receptors
Terrestrial
Receptors
i Ingestion/
Dermal
Contact
Erosion/
Advective
Ingestion/
Dermal Contact
Terrestrial
Receptors
Bioaccumulation
Infiltration/
Percolation
Terrestrial
Biotia
Ingestion
Terrestrial
Receptors
Transport
Surface Waters
Groundwater
Partitioning/Deposition
Bioaccumulation
Aquatic
Receptors
Terrestrial
Receptors
Ingestion
Aquatic Biotia
Bio-
1 accumulation
Volatilization
Indoor Air
None
Ingestion/
Dermal Contact
Sub-Surface
Biota
None
Sediments
Ingestion/
Dermal ,
Contact
Aquatic
Receptors
Terrestrial
Receptors
-------
2130503R
SITE 65
BOUNDARY
65MW-03
\^ (25.60)
I
EAVY EQUIPMENT
TRAINING AREA
65MW-01
21.57)
SCATTERED
DEBRIS
I DEBRIS
| PILES
65MW-07
22.84)
5MW-06
(24.37)/•'
COURTHOUSE^
BAY POND
POWERLINE
POND
65MW-0
17.99
65MW-OT
(17.12) /
y
Baker Environmental, t»
OPEN AREA
HEAVY EQUIPMENT
STORAGE AREA
XX
LEGEND
SHALLOW MONITORING WELL LOCATION
(21.57) STATIC WATER ELEVATION
- 7.0 GROUNDWATER CONTOUR
GROUNDWATER FLOW DIRECTION
SOURCE: BRENT A. LANIER, SURVEYING AND PLANNING, MAY 1995
FIGURE 5
GROUNDWATER CONTOUR
SURFICIAL AQUIFER
AUGUST 21, 1995
SITE 65 - ENGINEER AREA DUMP
RECORD OF DECISION, CTO - 0130
MARINE CORPS BASE, CAMP LEJEUNE
NORTH CAROLINA
-------
2130502R
SITE 65
BOUNDARY
HEAVY EQUIPMENT
TRAINING AREA
COURTHOUSE;
• BAY POND
I BURN
• AREA
I
SCATTERED
DEBRIS
I
I DEBRIS
| PILES
WOODED AREA
200
100
200
1 inch = 200 ft
'aker
Baker Environmental, t»
OPEN AREA
HEAVY EQUIPMENT
STORAGE AREA
LEGEND
DEEP MONITORING WELL LOCATION
(8.06) STATIC WATER ELEVATION
7.0 GROUNDWATER CONTOUR
-^ GROUNDWATER FLOW DIRECTION
SOURCE: BRENT A. LANIER, SURVEYING AND PLANNING, MAY 1995
FIGURE 6
GROUNDWATER CONTOUR MAP
CASTLE HAYNE AQUIFER
AUGUST 21, 1995
SITE 65 - ENGINEER AREA DUMP
RECORD OF DECISION, CTO - 0130
MARINE CORPS BASE, CAMP LEJEUNE
NORTH CAROLINA
-------
MILITARY RESERVATION
aker
1 inch = 1 MILE.
Baker Environmental, ha
LEGEND
O ~ SITE
HR—771
£ - ACTIVE SUPPLY WELL
BB£*3 - DEACTIVATED SUPPLY WELL (1991)
SOURCE: GEOPHEX, 1993.
FIGURE 7
SUPPLY WELL LOCATION MAP
SITE 65 - ENGINEER AREA DUMP
RECORD OF DECISION
CTO - 0130
MARINE CORPS BASE, CAMP LEJEUNE
NORTH CAROLINA
-------
LEGEND
0 - SEDIMENT SAMPLE LOCATION
- TEMPORARY MONITORING WELL LOCATION
' - APPROXIMATE DRUM AREA
aker
FIGURE 8
POST-REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION
SAMPLE LOCATION MAP
SITE 65 - ENGINEER AREA DUMP
RECORD OF DECISION, CTO - 0130
^MARINES CORPS BASE, CAMP LEJEUNE
NORTH CAROLINA
-------
APPENDIX A
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA CONCURRENCE LETTER
-------
NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AMD NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WASTE MANAGEMENT
MICHAEL F, EASLEV, GoVKBNCUI September 4. 2001
WILLIAM G. Ross, Jit, SECRETARY
DEXTER R. MATTHEWS, INTERIM DIRECTOR
Commander, Atlantic Division
Naval Facilities Engineering Command
1510 Gilbert Street {Building N-26)
Norfolk, Virginia 23511-2699
Attention: Mr, Kirk Stevens
Navy Technical Representative
Commanding General
Marine Corps Base
PSC Box 20004
Camp Lejeune, NC 28542-0004
Attention: AC/S, EMD/IRD
RE; State Conditional Concurrence on the
Record of Decision (ROD)
Operable Unit No. 09 (OU09), Site 63
MCB Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Stevens:
The North Carolina Superfund Section has reviewed the Final ROD for OU09, Site 65 and
concurs with the no action remedy subject to the following conditions:
I. Our concurrence on the ROD and of the selected remedy for the site is based solely on the
information contained in the ROD. Should we receive additional information that significantly
affects the conclusions or remedies contained in the ROD, we may modify or withdraw this
concurrence with written notice to the Navy and MCB Camp Lejeune,
2. Our concurrence on the Interim ROD in no way binds the. State to concur in future decisions
nor commits the State to participate, financially or otherwise, in the cleanup of the Site. The
State reserves the right to review, comment, and make independent assessments of all future
work relating to this Site.
We appreciate the opportunity to review this ROD and look forward to continuing to work with
MCB Camp Lejeune, the Navy, and EPA at Camp Lejeune,
rover Nicholson. Head
'edera! Facilities Branch
uperfund Section
Gena Townsend, US EPA Region IV
Neal Paul, MCB Camp Lejeune
1646 MAIL SERVICE CENTEM, RALEIGH, NORTH i
401 OBERUN ROAD, SUITE ISO, RALWGH, NC 27605
PHONE: 919-733-4996 \ FAX: 919-11&-360S
Aw EQUAL OPPOBTumrv/AJTOuuTivE ACTION EMPLOYES -59% RECYCLED/IOH POST-CJONSCMEHP/WEII
-------
APPENDIX B
PUBLIC MEETING TRANSCRIPT
-------
MARINE CORPS BASE (MCB)
CAMP LEJEUNE, NORTH CAROLINA
PUBLIC MEETING REGARDING
THE
PROPOSED REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN (PRAP)
FOR OPERABLE UNITS (OUs) NO. 9 (SITE 65]
AND NO. 17 (SITES 90, 91 AND 92)
July 18, 2001
Coastal Carolina Community College
Jacksonville, North Carolina
Reported by:
Kathryn F. Kilpatrick
Carolina Court Reporters, Inc.
105 Oakmont Professional Plaza
Greenville, North Carolina 27858
252-355-4700
800-849-8448
Fax: 252-355-4707
-------
MCB CAMP LEJEUNE PUBLIC MEETING Page 2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Meeting convened 3
PRESENTATION ON OU 9, SITE 65 BY MR. RICH BONELLI
INCLUDING QUESTIONS BY ATTENDEES 4
PRESENTATION ON OU 17, SITES 90, 91, AND 92 BY
MS. ELLEN BJERKLIE HANNA INCLUDING QUESTIONS BY ATTENDEES . . 14
Adjournment of Meeting 29
-------
MCB CAMP LEJEUNE PUBLIC MEETING Page 3
MR. RAINES: I want to thank you all for coming out.
Once again, we don't get a whole lot of public participation; kind
of, either the public doesn't have a good deal of trust in the work
we're doing on base or they're just not interested, but I want to
welcome you here tonight. We're here to talk about the proposed
remedial action plan for four sites. These four sites are grouped
under two different Operable Units. One Operable Unit is OU 9,
Site 65. It is an old five-acre dump. It is physically located
out at Courthouse Bay back in the woods. This dump was used mainly
for construction debris, but it also had some liquids disposed
there and some batteries and things like that. The other Operable
Unit is 17, and it includes Sites 90, 91, and 92. These three
sites were old underground storage tanks that, upon removal, it was
discovered that there was some solvent ground water contamination.
We spent a couple of years investigating these sites and, as part
of the CERCLA process, once we have completed our investigation, we
are required to present our findings and our proposed plan to the
public for their comments. We are proposing a no-further-action
record of decision for these sites, based on the fact that there is
very little contamination associated with these sites, and the fact
that there is no human health or environmental risk associated with
these sites. Tonight, we have with us representatives of the EPA,
the State Department of Environment and Natural Resources, and
Baker Environmental, our engineering consultant, on-base
contractor. They will be giving a presentation tonight, explaining
what we have done, what we have found, what we are proposing. If
-------
MCB CAMP LEJEUNE PUBLIC MEETING Page 4
you have any questions, go ahead and just stop them. If you would,
state your name for the court reporter, and then at the end we will
go ahead and have a question-and-answer session so that we can make
sure that we address all your questions. Rich Bonelli is with
Baker, and he will start this off.
MR. BONELLI: Before I begin, I want to introduce some of
the Baker team who came down with me this evening. With me is
Ellen Bjerklie Hanna, who will be presenting on OU 17; Karen Wood,
who is our lead human health risk assessment specialist; and
Heather Governor, who is our lead ecological risk assessor. Please
feel free to ask questions, and I will be speaking this evening on
OU 9. The purpose and objective of our meeting this evening is to
provide the community with the overall understanding of the
investigation, findings and results, to inform the community of the
process used for the selected remedy, and lastly we want to make
sure that the concerns of the community are met in terms of
addressing the selective remedies we will be speaking to tonight.
As far as the topics that I want to cover, I'll be talking a little
bit about the site description and history. I'll then get into an
overview of the investigations and their findings and a summary of
the site risks. I'll then move into the scope and role of the
proposed response actions. Lastly, again, questions and answers.
But feel free to ask questions as I'm going along.
Site 65, OU 9, is located in the southern part of Camp
Lejeune, near Courthouse Bay. Originally, Site 73 was also
included within OU 9 but was removed because of additional studies
-------
MCB CAMP LEJEUNE PUBLIC MEETING Page 5
that will be going on there, so right now, Site OU9 only includes
Site 65.
Site description: As Rick said, the site is very heavily wooded.
Really, the only open space is located just east of the site where
the Engineering School resides. There are two small ponds located
just east of Site 65 we also looked at during our investigation.
Site History: This site operated -- operations occurred there from
1952 to 1972, of which, reportedly, there were two separate
disposal areas, one related to battery acids, the second one
related to POL wastes (or petroleum, oil and lubricants) . In
addition to those areas, through investigations of aerial
photography, we also noted a burn area on the site as well as these
large debris mounds, or piles, which were predominantly there from
the operations of the school. They do a lot of training with
bulldozers. As I show you some of the pictures, you'll see some of
these mounded areas. Here's a site plan of the area. The
investigation boundary, study area, was up in this area here.
You'll notice the debris piles here, the burn area, which we
discovered through review of the aerial photography. To the east,
the heavy equipment training area, and further east we have the two
ponds which I spoke of earlier. This is a panoramic shot we took
during the RI. Again, it's a very heavily wooded site. You'll
notice in the background these mounded areas, again created from
the bulldozing operations from the school. This picture identifies
-------
MCB CAMP LEJEUNE PUBLIC MEETING Page 6
some of the pails, corroded cans, we found as part of the debris.
None of the cans that we found, none of the discarded debris
contained any waste or liquids in them. They're very old and
corroded. This is a shot of Courthouse Bay Pond. Again, notice
the very heavily wooded area. The color of the pond water is very
turbid, and that was created from water in the runoff. There is a
lot of runoff through soils that ended up in the pond here.
Overview of the Investigation and the Findings: For the most part,
there have been three studies conducted at the site, the first one
being the Site Inspection by Baker back in 1991, the Remedial
Investigation conducted by Baker in 1995, report coming out in
1997, and post-RI sampling, which was conducted just recently,
April of this year. The Site Inspection study (the SI) -- and SI
is one of the very early studies done in the CERCLA process.
Predominantly, the SI is done to give us some initial understanding
of the volume of waste that may be there, estimated areas of
contamination, and things like that. It was a very small-scaled
operation we were studying, but we looked at some of the focused
areas. The investigation itself -- we looked at soil, we looked at
ground water, installing some shallow ground water monitoring
wells, and we collected surface water and sediment samples from the
two ponds that I spoke of earlier.
The Results of the SI and the Recommendations: In the soil and
ground water, surface water and sediment, we did find some low
-------
MCB CAMP LEJEUNE PUBLIC MEETING Page 7
levels of organic compounds, as well as some inorganics, being
metals. Probably the most important, I guess, detection, if you
will, from the study are some of the compounds we found in the
soil. The recommendation of the SI recommended the site then move
into what's called the RI process (or Remedial Investigation),
which is the next step in the CERCLA process. The RI, again, was
conducted back in 1995. The Remedial Investigation was a
continuation of the SI, and was expanded to include not just the
immediate area Site 65. We also included some areas to the east in
the Engineering School area. Again, we also looked at the ponds.
The purpose of the RI was to better define the levels of compounds
that we detected, but also to perform a human health and ecological
risk assessment based on the data. The field program itself --
again, we looked at a number of different media from the soil and
the ground water. We installed some additional monitoring wells.
We sampled the surface water and sediment from the ponds. We also
did some exploratory test pits, in which we had a backhoe on site,
and we did some digging around to see if we could find any buried
materials or wastes. And lastly, biological sampling of the ponds,
which included both the fish and benthic organisms. Here is a site
map showing the locations during the Remedial Investigation.
Again, most of our sampling activities were focused in this area
here in the debris piles, in the burn areas, and we expanded the
investigation to also look at some areas to the east. And lastly,
again, we took some samples from the two ponds.
-------
MCB CAMP LEJEUNE PUBLIC MEETING Page 8
RI_Rj6sult.s: I'm not going to go through each and every one of
these in great detail. In general, we did find organic compounds
and inorganics in all the various media. Predominantly, a lot of
the organic compounds -- and when I say organic compounds, I'm
referring to the volatiles and semivolatiles, PCBs and pesticides.
There were a number of these compounds that were either laboratory
contaminants or associated with plasticizers which show up in some
of the sampling equipment. Some of the PAHs, which are a subset of
the semivolatiles, did show up in the area of the burn operation,
which we expect. Anytime you burn materials, you have a residue
that: is left behind. You're going to find some PAHs. In terms of
the fish data, as you see here, we did find some both, organic and
inorganic compounds and metals.. As far as the first number you see
that is kind of large, the problem was a compound called acetone,
which is associated with a laboratory contaminant. By and large,
the inorganics that we found to be in the metals were probably
ubiquitous or naturally occurring in the environment if you find a
lot of metals, such as iron .and manganese that are very common,
both in the ground water as well as the soil. Lastly, in April of
this year, we conducted some post-RI sampling. Early -- I believe
it was January of this year -- near Site 65, they found some
containers not -- you'll see the map next -- not necessarily at
Site 65 but in the general area. It was felt at that time that
sampling needed to be conducted just to confirm or deny whether the
contaminants or anything had leaked from these containers. As far
as where that area was, again, here is the main Site 6.5 area we
-------
MCB CAMP LEJEUNE PUBLIC MEETING Page 9
looked at during the RI. The area where we found the containers is
down in this area here. It is some distance away from the
investigative area.
Post-RI Investigation: We looked at the soil, ground water,
surface water, and sediment in the immediate area of those
containers. We took some soils. Ground water was collected from
some hydropunches to get an idea of the ground water. And there
was a creek that ran very close to the containers themselves, and
we sampled surface water and sediment as well. The results showed
that the area around those areas was not impacted from a leak or
disposal of those containers, which was good. So we didn't really
identify anything that could have come from those containers.
Summary of the Risks: I may have mentioned earlier about the
Remedial Investigation. As part of that process, we will conduct
a human health risk assessment and ecological risk assessment. The
human health risk assessment will look at current situations as
well as future situations for the contaminants of potential
concern. We also look at a number of potential receptors nearby,
and those receptors could be military personnel, children,
construction workers. The information from the sampling data
itself, we take that information, combine it with the different
scenarios, and we try to come up with a risk, or develop a risk
assessment number through various calculations. I followed the EPA
guidelines. Our risk assessment showed that the site was found to
-------
MCB CAMP LEJEUNE PUBLIC MEETING Page 10
be within the acceptable range of the USEPA guidelines. I
mentioned earlier about some of the inorganics found in the fish.
We did find a slight exceedance from the mercury for young children
through the consumption of fish. It is interesting to note that
the other media on the site -- we looked at the ground water,
surface water, and so forth -- did not have mercury. So, we
concluded that the fish were brought in from somewhere else and
basically put in the pond as part of a stocking, I guess, if you
will, of the ponds. So, we believe that the fish themselves did
not come from the site. Thus, we would make the conclusion that
the inorganics found in the fish did not come from activities at
the site. Ecologically, we also conducted a risk assessment there
to look at the endpoints for both aquatic organisms living in the
pond as well as terrestrial organisms -- rabbits, things like that,
that may live in the area. The only thing we found there was a
potential risk -- ecological from the pond itself, predominantly
from the suspended material we noted in the surface water. If you
think of the picture I showed you earlier, it was very turbid. In
the area at the site at the pond, you've seen a lot of runoff from
the area; it was very turbid. So, we believe that the ecological
risk there was created from the suspended material in the water
itself. The conclusions that we reached from the risk assessments
were that there were no releases of the substances on the site that
generated an unacceptable risk both to human health and the
environment; again, a very sophisticated process of going through
a lot of numbers and a lot of calculations to reach those
-------
MCB CAMP LEJEUNE PUBLIC MEETING Page 11
conclusions. The proposed action at the site is no action at all,
which means that the site will be left as is, current conditions.
Again, this recommendation, these conclusions were reached through
a number of sampling rounds we conducted in the SI, in the RI, and
the post-RI, and through our evaluation of site risks. This will
be concluded through a no-action ROD, which will be coming out
sometime in September, but that's going to be our proposed remedy
for this site. That concludes my presentation. If there are any
questions that I can answer or our Baker team here.
MR. SWARTZENBERG: I want to ask you about the fish. You
said there was a slight risk for children if they ate the fish?
MR. BONELLI: Yes. That's based on a - - Heather, you
could probably speak to this better than I can, or Karen, can you
maybe address that? That is Karen Wood from Baker.
MS. WOOD: Can you state your question again?
MR. SWARTZENBERG: I was concerned about the fish. First
of all, how can you be so certain that it came with the fish you
say were stocked there? Did anybody check with fish wildlife to
see if there were any stocking programs there?
MS. WOOD: I believe at the time we did, and then this
data was also reviewed by a toxicologist from the State of North
Carolina, so there were some indepth further studies that addressed
that issue at the time. And it was concluded that the fish were
stocked, and the toxicologist felt those concentrations really
would not pose a human health risk. The equations we use to
calculate risk to humans in that particular scenario are very
-------
MCB CAMP LEJEUNE PUBLIC MEETING Page 12
conservative. That's assuming a child would eat a meal of
something -- I don't remember the exact numbers -- but it's several
grams of fish tissue on a daily basis. We try to look, at the most
conservative exposure-assumptions.
MR, RAINES: Even fish from that pond?
MS, WOOD: Yes.
MS. TOWNSENDt I would like to add -- I'm Gena Townsend
with EPA. When we saw that data in '97, before we even conducted
the risk assessment, we were a little concerned ourselves. Wo sent
that data to the state toxicologist in the Department of Public
Health division, and -- I'm not sure what division •••• and let them
look at the data. We also did, I guess, a little mere detail in
the different type of fish, and the tissue samples were versus a
whole fish, versus the edible part at the fish. And the
recommendation from the State was that it's okay. So, we did have
that concern before we even completed our investigations. And that
all was addressed back in l 37 and '98, so we're pretty confident
that we're pretty clear on that,
MR. SWARTZEHBERG: So, there is no mercury in the water,
is that what you're saying?
MS, TOWNSEND : Right.
MR. SWARTZEHBERG: It's just in the fish.
MS, TOWNSEND: Right, The mercury that we detected we
only detected it in the fish. We did not detect it at the site in
the soils or the water at all.
MR, Okay, So if I wanted to go fishing
-------
MCB CAMP LEJEUNE PUBLIC MEETING Page 13
there, I could go fishing there tomorrow, right? It's not off
limits or anything.
MR. RAINES: You'd just have to check with the game
warden on base, but I would imagine you probably could.
MR. SWARTZENBERG: Okay.
MR. HUMPHRIES: How do you determine where to get your
core or your soil and water samples? Let me paint you a scenario.
That's a training area also, which means that over the years,
engineers, contracts, they've used it for training and what have
you. Anytime you're out in the field, four or five, sometimes a
couple of weeks, the drivers and operators of these various pieces
of equipment, they do first- and, sometimes, second-eschelon
maintenance. From '52 to '72, they had no rules. You dumped oil
right where it fell. You could top off with a tank or something,
you'd have spillage, it goes right into the soil then. That's all
over the place. My question is how do you determine where you get
your soil samples?
MR. BONELLI: One thing we did, Mr. Humphries, was to go
back and look through historical aerial photographs, dating back to
all those years. One of the issues, obviously, is when we get out
there it is so heavily wooded, where do you go? We were able to
find historical photographs that showed us areas that were cleared,
like the burn area that I spoke of earlier. So, we tried to use
aerial photography to position our samples. Obviously, going to
the outside, we sampled an area where we thought that could be
impacted. So that sampling event, we kind of expanded outward
-------
MCB CAMP LEJEUNE PUBLIC MEETING Page 14
using, again, historical photographs. There may have been some
interviews conducted with some people to find out operations, but
they weren't just put on a map. There was some thought process
behind them as far as where to go.
MR. HUMPHRIES: It's a lot of guesswork though.
MR. BON ELL I: Well, it's a very large area, and the
aerial photographs were extremely helpful because they did show,
again, some areas that were cleared that, looked like they could
have been potential disposal operations, and so that was sort of
the basis of where we sampled.
MR, HUMPHRIES: How big is the area, do you know? How
many acres?
ME, BONELLI: I think the dump area itself that I showed
you is five acres in size. And, obviously, that's just the duatp
area. We investigated a lot larger area chan chat. When it goes
out to the Engineering School area and the pond, that's well above
and beyond the five acres. Anybody else chat has some questions?
Thank you very much. I just need a minute to change the slides
over. Ellen will be speaking about OU 17.
MS. HANWA: As Rich said, my name is Ellen Bjerklxe Hanna
with Baker, and I'm presenting today on Operable Unit No. 17, which
Includes three sites. Sites 90, 91 and 92. It's the same format as
Rich went over. We need to present this information to the public
so that we can get feedback from you on what our recommended
response is, I'll be giving you a brief history, talking about the
studies that were done and a summary of the site risks. You can
-------
MCB CAMP LEJEUNE PUBLIC MEETING Page 15
feel free to ask questions as I'm going along, but also at the end.
This is Operable Unit 17 here. It's close to where OU 9 was that
Rich spoke about. These three sites are right off of Courthouse
Bay, and they were grouped together because all three of them were
former UST sites (underground storage tanks). There were several
programs done at these sites. As I said, they were underground
storage tank sites. There were three well site checks done at each
of these sites, and this is in the UST program. They installed
three monitoring wells and took samples of soil and ground water,
and based on the results of that, they may or may not have gone on
to what's called the Leaking Underground Storage Comprehensive Site
Assessment. Then, depending on the results of that, you will see
later, they ended up in the Installation Restoration Program, where
we did a Remedial Investigation and then followed up with Post-RI
Investigations. Site 90, the first site, had three 1,000 gallon
tanks. There also happened to be at this site an above-ground
storage tank (AST), and it's basically used for
industrial/commercial land use. There was a dry cleaning facility
at this site. And here are some photographs. This is after the
tank removal. Here's one of our monitoring wells that was
installed during the three well site check. That's looking at the
site from a different angle. As you can see, it's open, grassy
areas among some buildings. And here is a drawing of the site.
The tank was located approximately between these two buildings.
During the three well site check, which was conducted in 1993, as
I said, three monitoring wells were installed. They sampled
-------
MCB CAMP LEJEUNE PUBLIC MEETING Page 16
subsurface soil and found several contaminants associated with
underground storage tanks, and BTEX, which is benzene, toluene,
ethylbenzene, and xylene in the ground water. Based on that,
because they found those contaminants in the subsurface soil and
ground water, they put that site into -- they did a study called
the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Site Assessment, and they
found two areas of ground water contamination, the northern area
and the southern area, which -- the northern area was around up
here. There was a small plume down here. And we found several
contaminants in the ground water, relatively low levels. In the
subsurface soil, we also found BTEX petroleum which you might find
this at an underground storage tank site. They also found total
chlorinated hydrocarbons and, because of those chlorinated
contaminants, it was put into the Installation Restoration Program,
and we did a Focused Remedial Investigation. They sampled for
subsurface soil and ground water, and we took several samples. We
detected these contaminants in the subsurface soil and several
contaminants in the ground water, including PCE. These are the
sampling locations for the RI. We installed more wells, in
addition to the wells that were already there from that underground
storage tank study. Those were subsurface soils and the samples
and locations, and these were the ground water sample locations.
They were basically the same locations, because as they installed
the monitoring levels, they also took soil samples. Based on the
analytical results that came back during the post-RI, we did a
qualitative risk assessment, and for the qualitative risk
-------
MCB CAMP LEJEUNE PUBLIC MEETING Page 17
assessment, we took those results and screened them against various
levels that were established by the EPA and North Carolina -- for
both the soils and the groundwater, including these listed here.
Risk Based Concentrations and the North Carolina Soil Screening
Levels, we also looked -- compared the concentrations against QA/AC
blanks and naturally occurring levels. At Site 90, no COPCs were
identified in the subsurface soil. A COPC is a contaminant of
potential concern. If one of the concentrations exceeded any of
these screening levels, it was listed as a contaminant of potential
concern. Nothing was identified from the subsurface soil.
However, in the ground water there were a few identified -- some
inorganics and PCE and chloroform. The inorganics were at levels
that were considered naturally occurring. Inorganics occur in the
site -- they are in the earth's crust everywhere, and they were
within these levels of what we consider common around the Camp
Lejeune area. So, there was nothing out of the ordinary, and there
was no reason to suspect why there would be any kind of metals
contamination at this site. Chloroform, we believe, was related to
laboratory contamination or our decontamination procedures. It's
a common contaminant that comes up. Therefore, only the PCE, which
is tetrachloroethene, was considered to be site related. Because
of the PCE detection, which was in one monitoring well at the site,
we decided to do a supplemental ground water investigation, which
was conducted in 1999 just to confirm the PCE concentration and,
also, to make sure that those contaminants we believed were
laboratory or decontamination related were such. Several
-------
MCB CAMP LEJEUNE PUBLIC MEETING Page 18
contaminants were found. Most of them, actually all of them, were
believed to be not site related because we confirmed that they were
laboratory or decontamination procedures. We did not detect
tetrachloroethene, but we detected TCE (trichloroethene), and it
did exceed the risk based concentration. That was out of the same
well that PCE was detected in before, and that was the only well
that it was detected in.
MR. SWARTZENBERG: Was that the well that was the closest
to the above-ground storage tank?
MS. HANNA: It was near a concrete pad, actually, which
was closer to the AST location. The AST contained, at one point,
dry cleaning fluids, and that had been discontinued. Rich, do you
know what year maybe that was discontinued?
MR. BONELLI: It's been a while.
MS. HANNA: Yeah, it was a long time ago. It used to be
a dry cleaning operation, but was stopped, and then it became only
a distribution center. Because of that, we did a Temporary Well
Delineation Study -- because of the TCE. There were no wells
immediately near that particular well, and we wanted to determine
whether it was part of a larger problem, or if it was just in that
one little area. So, three wells were installed. One upgradient
and two downgradient of that well. No TCE was detected in any of
these wells, so we concluded that it was a small area, it was not
a larger problem. The temporary wells were located here, here, and
here. MW04 is right there.
MR. RAINES: Where was the well site with -- or the
-------
MCB CAMP LEJEUNE PUBLIC MEETING Page 19
concrete pad with the AST?
MS. HANNA: The AST, I think, was located, around here.
MR. RAINES: Okay.
MR. SWARTZENBERG: So, it was probably related to the
storage tank that had dry cleaning fluid in it.
MR. HUMPHRIES: Question. Did any of these contaminants
get in the aquifer?
MS. HANNA: These were all in the shallow aquifer. All
these wells were -- there were a couple of intermediate wells, but
the only contaminant -- Oh, MW04, where that contaminant was found,
is a shallow well, which is -- I'd have to look up the depth, but
it was not in the drinking water aquifer. The Castle Hayne is --
Rich, could you answer how deep the Castle Hayne aquifer is?
MR. BONELLI: In this area of the base, it's probably
down around 60 to 70 feet down.
MS. HANNA: Yeah. This well is less than 30 feet for
sure, and the contamination was not within the Castle Hayne
aquifer.
MR. HUMPHRIES: My second question. You mentioned a
large plume and a small plume. An acre, half-acre, or what?
MS. HANNA: That was in the original study. I don't have
an acreage. I don't know.
MR. BONELLI: That was done during the UST study years
ago. They just identified them, I think, as a north and south
plume. I don't think they actually got into the acreage, if I
remember right.
-------
MCB CAMP LEJEUNE PUBLIC MEETING Page 20
MS. HANNA: They didn't give acreage. Conclusions for
this site --we are recommending no action because the PCE was no
longer detected, and TCE was in a very small area. The other
contaminants that were identified as COPCs were not site related.
A ROD will be prepared based on this no action that will be taking
into account public comments and CERCLA process will be concluded
for this site. I guess this site may go back into the UST Program,
but I'm not sure. Rick, could you comment on that? Do you know if
these sites are going back into the UST Program?
MR. RAINES: I see we're going to determine that
tomorrow, but they will be all relevant and applicable
requirements -- regulations that the USTs are subject to. So, we
meet all the requirements that the UST Program sets out to meet,
too. Did that answer the question?
MS. HANNA: It did for me.
MR. SWARTZENBERG: What about the TCE that's still in the
ground water there? You're just going to forget about it, right?
MR. RAINES: We've shown that it's deteriorating, haven't
we?
MS. HANNA: Yes.
MR. RAINES: It's naturally deteriorating. It's going
from PCE to TCE, and it's in one well. We're showing that it's
breaking down, and we have every reason to believe that it will
continue to break down until it goes away.
MS. TOWNSEND: I think, to add to that, it has taken us
about four years to really close out the site. And because it was
-------
MCB CAMP LEJEUNE PUBLIC MEETING Page 21
only a minor problem for the IR Program, being that the TCE was
just a little incidental hit as compared to the UST site, we're
thinking that this is one case where the UST contamination helped
our natural attenuation process; what we're trying to improve in
other parts of the base, and that we've seen the degradation and
plus, I don't have the exact concentration, but the TCE that is
remaining out there are very low levels. We're talking -- what was
it, 17?
MS. HANNA: It's lower than that.
MR. RAINES: It's 2.
MS. TOWNSEND: It's 2? It started out 17, and now it's
2, and it's less than the standards for remediation. So this is
one program where a contaminant may have helped another
contaminant, and it's remediated itself.
MR. SWARTZENBERG: Okay, I just didn't pick that up.
MS. HANNA: The next site is Site 91, also UST sites.
And this one had one 300-gallon tank. There also happened to be
four ASTs removed that contained waste oil, antifreeze, and
kerosene, and it's basically an industrial land use setting. Here
are some photographs. You can see a concrete cover, only tiny
grass patch areas here amongst buildings. There is an open area
there, but it's used for -- is this the Engineering School area?
Site 91?
MR. BONELLI: I believe so.
MS. HANNA: But it's pretty much industrial use. And
here is a drawing of the site and the former ASTs were here. The
-------
MCB CAMP LEJEUNE PUBLIC MEETING Page 22
former UST basin was approximately here. As with Site 90, a three
well site check was done which found oil and grease in the soil,
and toluene in the ground water. Because there were contaminants
detected, they did a leaking underground storage tank assessment,
and again found two areas of contamination, which included the
chlorinated hydrocarbons again. So, that kicked it into the IR
Program. They also found chlorinated hydrocarbons in the
subsurface soil, so it went into the IR Program. And we did a
focused RI, did subsurface soil sampling and ground water sampling.
Again, we found common laboratory contaminants and inorganics in
the subsurface soil at -- the inorganics at levels similar to
naturally occurring levels. In the ground water, there were more
laboratory contaminant type things that we did not consider site
related. These are the subsurface soil sample locations during the
RI, and the groundwater sample locations. And a qualitative risk
assessment was done at this site, based on the post-RI results,
using the same screening criteria as for Site 90. For subsurface
soil, one inorganic was identified as a COPC.
MR. SWARTZENBERG: What is a COPC?
MS. HANNA: Contaminant of potential concern. Because it
exceeded the screening criteria that is established by EPA or the
State. In ground water, these contaminants were identified as
COPCs, and many of them weren't considered site related at all. In
fact, none of these.
MR. SWARTZENBERG: Well, if they're not site related,
what are they?
-------
MCB CAMP LEJEUNE PUBLIC MEETING Page 23
MS. HANNA: Well, the inorganics are naturally occurring.
Chloroform here is considered a common laboratory contaminant. And
when we looked at the concentrations -- the detections at the site,
they were within -- there is a USEPA rule of thumb. When your
concentration is less than 10 times your blank sample -- because we
collect quality control samples -- if it's less than 10 times the
concentration found in that sample, then you can't count it as
being site related.
MR. SWARTZENBERG: Well, how could it be a contaminant of
concern if it's not site related? It sounds like double talk.
MS. HANNA: The contaminant of potential concern -- what
happened during the qualitative risk assessment was you take all
the data and we screened it against the screening criteria which
were not site specific; they are criteria that are established by
EPA or the State, depending -- well, they both establish criteria.
It may exceed one or the other. You often have different numbers.
We took all the results, screened them, and then after that, we
took a look at the QAQC -- some samples, and the naturally
occurring levels of inorganics, and also looked at our
concentration and compared it against those after the COPCs were
identified. That was the second step. So, we took the entire list
of contaminants, identified COPCs, and took only the COPCs that
were identified, and then looked at those concentrations and
compared it against the QAQC or naturally occurring levels. So, it
was like a two-step process.
MR. RAINES: If I can add something to that. Jim,
-------
MCB CAMP LEJEUNE PUBLIC MEETING Page 24
remember when we went to -- we did the field trip and we did the
sampling tests out at the well?
MR. SWARTZENBERG: Yes.
MR. RAINES: And they showed you how they brought out
their own water and how in between sampling events they had to
decontaminate the equipment and all that kind of stuff? They take
a trip blank, use a sample of the water they take out to the site.
They just return with that water, plus they -- but, during these
processes, these contaminants can enter into -- say, they rinse off
their probe and they don't get all the chloroform off. That's
going to show up in the next sampling round. So, some of these
things are introduced through --
MR. SWARTZENBERG: I guess it's just the way you're
presenting it. You call it a contaminant of concern; what's the
"p" for?
MS. HANNA: Potential.
MR. SWARTZENBERG: Then you say, well, it's not a big
deal, because it's chlorinated. How can it be both?
MR. RAINES: Anything that pings high is a potential
contaminant. And then we try and find out how they -- is it site
related, or was it introduced during sampling?
MR. SWARTZENBERT: Okay.
MS. TOWNSEND: One thing that you keep in mind, the
process is designed so you do not eliminate contamination before
you evaluate it. Because that way, you can come up with a lot of
false positives or false negatives. So what you do is you identify
-------
MCB CAMP LEJEUNE PUBLIC MEETING Page 25
whatever you found, then you start looking for the resulting action
that caused that contaminant to be there. And in some of are
cases, you could have chloroform that is an actual contaminant of
the site. But you want to measure it against your blank in your
equipment process before you do delete it from the list.
MR. SWARTZENBERG: Okay.
MS. HANNA: In order to verify just what you're talking
about, whether things were site related or not, we did do a
supplemental ground water investigation. They sampled 11
monitoring wells, and these contaminants came out. All three of
these are considered common laboratory contaminants. We did the
same process. We screened it against our blank samples and
determined that they weren't site related. We did find some
chloroform that were above the 10 times blanks. So, we have to
classify that as site related. And, we also found two detections
of Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, which is a common laboratory
contaminant, but they were above the 10 times rule, so we
classified them as site related. These contaminants were also
detected. Because of that, we put it into our Post-RI Monitoring
Program. We put it into our sampling program just to check on
that. And they sampled eight wells. We did it quarterly, so we
have four rounds of data for this site. Chloroform was detected in
two individual wells, one in July of 2000 and one in October of
2000, but was not detected since then. So, there were two quarters
where it wasn't detected at all anywhere on the site. Arsenic and
iron were detected, but within these naturally occurring levels,
-------
MCB CAMP LEJEUNE PUBLIC MEETING Page 26
and pyrene was detected -- there was one well in October at low
levels and it was never detected again. So, because of the follow-
up studies and analysis, we believe that -- well, we recommend no
action, because we don't believe them to be site contaminants or
site related. So, we've recommended no action. CERCLA process
will be completed at the signing of the ROD, when we take into
account public participation and comments, and the same thing for
this site with the UST Program, as Site 91. Any questions on Site
91? Any other questions?
We'll move on to Site 92. There was one 1000-gallon tank
removed in 1994. During the removal, they found elevated levels of
petroleum hydrocarbons and here is a photograph. There is a pier;
boats are there. It's somewhat of a recreational area; there is a
picnic area. Here is the site. This is the Courthouse Bay here.
Here is the pier, and there is the approximate location of the
former UST. Because it was a UST, they did the three well site
check. There was nothing found in the soil, but they found PCE in
ground water and because of that it went into the IR Program, and
they did a Focused Remedial Investigation on it. They studied
subsurface soil and ground water and found inorganics, acetone,
which is considered a common laboratory contaminant, and the same
with the bis(2(ethylhexyl)phthalate and also, I believe, one
detection of that pesticide in subsurface soil. Chloroform and
inorganics were found in ground water. Here are the subsurface
soil locations from the RI and ground water locations. The
Qualitative Risk Assessment was done at this site as well. These
-------
MCB CAMP LEJEUNE PUBLIC MEETING Page 27
contaminants were found to be -- when screened were identified as
contaminants of potential concern. Inorganics were within
background. The acetone and chloroform, we believe, because they
were below the 10 times rule, were considered laboratory or
decontamination procedures. Because we found these lab
contaminants, we wanted to verify that and also the inorganic
levels, so we did some post-RI monitoring. No VOCs or SVOCs were
ever detected during the course of sampling. There were four rounds
of sampling at this site. We did them on a quarterly basis. The
inorganics were found but, again, these we considered to be -- they
were within naturally occurring levels and we don't believe they
were site related. So, based on these results, all these studies,
over a course of time, we recommend no action. That would conclude
the CERCLA process when the ROD is signed, and again, they may go
back into the UST Program to address that -- close it out under
that program.
MR. SWARTZENBERG: That tank was just gasoline.
MS. HANNA: Yes, it was just gasoline.
MR. SWARTZENBERG: Would any of that gasoline have MTBE
in it?
MS. HANNA: None was detected.
MR. SWARTZENBERG : They did check for it.
MS. HANNA: Rich, do you know if they sampled for that?
MR. BONELLI: It's typically a requirement to look for
that, but I don't know if their methods covered that. Sometimes
they do, sometimes they don't.
-------
MCB CAMP LEJEUNE PUBLIC MEETING Page 28
MR. SWARTZENBERG: Do you know whether this tank was
leaking?
MR. BURTON: I don't think the UST investigation found
significant petroleum contamination. There wasn't any in the
soils, the manganese, with respect to the ground water.
MR. RAINES: There were very little POLs. It was the
chlorinateds that drove it to further investigation. It wasn't the
POLs. Did not appear to be a release.
MR. SWARTZENBERG: I'd just be curious to know if they
even bothered checking for MTBE. It wasn't a big deal until about
a year ago.
MR. RAINES: Well, this is fairly old, too. This might
have been before they even started adding MTBE.
MR. SWARTZENBERG: Well, that's my comment. You can do
what you want with it.
MS. HANNA: I guess that's it. Any other questions on
these three sites?
MR. BONELLI: I'd like to thank everybody for coming this
evening for our presentations. If you have any questions, feel
free to contact me, and we'll turn things back over to Rick and
have him close our presentation for this evening.
MR. RAINES: Once again, we do have copies of the PRAPs
up here. Be sure that everybody gets a copy of these. For your
comments, I guess we will handle them informally. Mr.
Swartzenberg, we'll get back to you with an answer on the MTBE.
Want to make sure you signed in, so we'll have your name, and if
-------
MCB CAMP LEJEUNE PUBLIC MEETING Page 29
there are no more questions -- does anyone have any more questions?
MR. HUMPHRIES: I have one. How is the money situation
for the cleanup?
MR. RAINES: That's a pretty broad question, but Kirk
here is from LANTDIV, and they handle basically the money that
funds the CERCLA program down here.
MR. HUMPHRIES: We're getting our share, right?
MR. RAINES: Yeah.
MR. KIRK: We are. It doesn't really deal with the
(inaudible) action, but Camp Lejeune, in the Atlantic division that
we handle, is the largest customer that we service, and their
program this year was around six and a half million dollars, which
would be again next fiscal year the same amount. We can talk in
more detail right after the meeting to answer specific questions.
MR. HUMPHRIES: Always worried about money.
MR. RAINES: We do get our share and we -- as one of the
larger installations, I don't know if we get first cut off the top,
but basically they're continuing funding our program. Anything
else? We want to thank y'all for coming out. Hopefully, you
learned something, and --
MR. BONELLI: Don't hesitate to call us with your
questions.
The meeting was concluded at 8:05 p.m.
-------
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA )
) C-E-R-T-I-F-I-C-A-T-I-O-N
COUNTY OF LENOIR )
I, KATHRYN F. KILPATRICK, A COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY
PUBLIC IN AMD FOR THE AFORESAID COUNTY AND STATE, DO HEREBY CERTIFY
THAT THE FOREGOING PAGES ARE AN ACCURATE TRANSCRIPT OF THE PUBLIC
MEETING REGARDING THE PROPOSED REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN (PRAP) FOR
OPERABLE UNITS (OUs) NO. 9 (SITE 65) AND NO. 17 (SITES 90, 91 AND
92), HELD ON JULY 18, 2001, IN JACKSONVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA,
TRANSCRIBED BY ME PERSONALLY.
I FURTHER CERTIFY THAT I AM NOT FINANCIALLY INTERESTED IN
THE OUTCOME OF THIS ACTION, A RELATIVE, EMPLOYEE, ATTORNEY OR
COUNSEL OF ANY OF THE PARTIES, NOR A RELATIVE OR EMPLOYEE OF SUCH
ATTORNEY OR COUNSEL.
WITNESS, MY HAND AND SEAL, THIS DATE: SEPTEMBER 18,
2001.
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES MAY 2, 2006.
KATfiRYN "F. ^ILPATRICK ff
COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC
CAROLINA COURT REPORTERS, INC.
105 OAKMONT PROFESSIONAL PLAZA
GREENVILLE, NC 27858
-------
APPENDIX C
LETTER FROM TOXICOLOGIST, NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
-------
North Carolina
Department of Health and Human Services
Division of Epidemiology
P.O. Bo* 29601 • Raleifih, NC 2762fi-OfiQl
8. Hunt Jr., Governor H. Da«id Bruton. MJJ^ Secretary
January 28, 1998
Mr, Aaion BernhardX Environmental Scientist
Baker Environmental, Inc.
Airport Gffie« Park, Building 3
420 Rouser Road
Coraopolis, Pennsylvania 15108
Dear Mr. Bemhardt:
I am writing in response to yottr request for a health risk evaluation of the analytical
results of the fish and crab samples that were collected from Courthouse Pond and Powerline
Pond at Site 65 and Courthouse Bay at Site 73. Based upon my review of these results, I offer
thc following health risk evaluation:
1, Methyknc chloride, acetone, toluene, di-n-butyi phthalate, 2-butanooe, and toluene were
found in the fish and crab sampled from these (wo sites. Although elevated
concentrations of methylcne chloride and acetone were reported, all of these volatile
organic chemicals arc considered to be common laboratory contaminants (USEPA
Decembet 1989 Risk Asstxrment Guidance for Svperjvnd Volume I Human Health
Evaluation Manual (Parr A.). Volatile organic chemicals typically do not triooonccntrate
in fish and crab tissues because of their relatively low bioconccntration factors. Since all
of these chemicals are common laboratory contaminants and volatile organic chemicals
do not typically bioeoneentate in fish and crab tissues, these chemicals were most likely
introduced into the samples in the laboratory. Based upon my review of the Eteraturs and
the sampling data submitted., the concentrations measured for the above-mentioned
chemicals are not likely to be reprcsciitativc of exposure concentrations.
2. The arsenic concentrations reported for fish and crab from these two sites were below the
average levels typically reported for fish aod seafood of 4 to 5 tug/kg (April 1993
Tameatagical Pro/tie far Arsenic, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry).
3, For Site 65, elevated DDD and DDE were reported in the whole body analysis of one
blucgilL However, DDD and DDE were reported as nondeteci oe at very low
concentrations fbr three composites of bluegill (two fillet, I whole), two composites of
Ctvdina: War/ vflktt {999 Special Olympics World Summer
-------
Aaron Bemhardt
January 28, 1991
Page Two
largemouth bass (one fillet, one whole), and three composites of redear simfish (one fillet,
two whole). Compared to fillet samples, higher DDD and DDE concentrations were
found in the whale body samples. Since Ac whole body analysis includes analysis of
both muscle and fatty tissues (wbere DDD and DDE can concentrate), higher levels
would be expected to be reported in the whole body analysis. The DDD and DDE
concentrations reported for all fish were below the average concentrations reported for the
United States in 1984 of 60 ug/kg for DDD and 190 ug/kg for DDE (May 1994
Toxicotogicaf Profile for 4,4'-DDTt 4,4'-DDE, 4t4'-DDD, Agency for Toxic Substances
and Disease. Registry). The DDD and DDE concentrations reported in this one composite
of bluegQ] do not appear to he representative of the &¥erage concentrations present in the
edible portico offish at this site.
4. For Site 65, elevated antimony and beryllium concentrations were found in the whole
body samples for some fish, but were not detected in the fillet samples. Typically, low
levels of antimony and beryllium arc found in fish. According to the September 1992
Toxicologicat Profile far Antimony (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry),
"Antimony docs not appear to accumulate in fish and other aquatic snimaJs", The
antimony and beryllium detected in the whole fish analyses most likely came from the
dirt or sediment that was present on the surface of the fish during analysis or from
rsonmuscular portions of the fish. The antimony and beryllium concentrations reported
do not appear to be representative of the average concentrations present in the edible
portion offish at this site.
5. The remaining anaJyte concentrations were well within normal and acceptable
coneenEraUons.
In summary, the concentrations reported for these two sites rnay not be representative of
the concentrations present in the edible portion of fish and crab found at this site. Based upon
the information submitted by Baker Environmental, Inc., consumption of the fish and crab
should not pose a significant health risk. Please do not hesitate to call me if you have any
questions at 919-715-6429,
Sincerely,
Luanne K. Williams, PhamLD., Toxicoiogist
MediciJ Evaluation and Risk Assessment Branch
Occupational and Environmental Epidemiology Section
LKW/rrn
------- |