SDMS Document

100047

LAKEHURST

RECORD OF DECISIONFOR

SITE 13

NAVAL AIR WARFARE CENTERAIRCRAFT DIVISION

LAKEHURST, NEW JERSEYSeptember 14, 1993

93-09-10

RECORD OF DECISIONDECLARATIONSITE 13

NAVAL AIR WARFARE CENTERAIRCRAFT DIVISION

LAKEHURST, NEW JERSEY

FACILITY NAME AND LOCATION

Naval Air Warfare CenterAircraft DivisionLakehurst, New Jersey 08733

STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE

This decision document presents the selected remedial action forone site (Site 13) , located at the Naval Air Warfare Center,Aircraft Division (NAWCADLKE) in Lakehurst, New Jersey (Figure1). The selected remedial action was chosen in accordance withthe Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation andLiability Act (CERCLA), as amended by the Superfund Amendmentsand Reauthorization Act (SARA), and, to the extent practicable,the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution ContingencyPlan. This decision is based on the Administrative Record forthese sites, which is available for public review at the OceanCounty Library, 101 Washington Street, Toms River, New Jersey.

Both the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA),Region II Acting Administrator, and the Commissioner of the NewJersey Department of Environmental Protection and Energy (NJDEPE)concur with the selected remedy.

DESCRIPTION OF THE SELECTED REMEDY

The United States Department of the Navy, the lead agency forthis Site, has selected In-Situ Vapor Extraction as the selectedremedy for Site 13. Implementation of this 'alternative entailsextracting contaminants from the subsurface soils in vapor phase.The subsurface soil will be remediated to risk based levels,andthe New Jersey soil clean up criteria.

It should be noted that this Record of Decision (ROD) addressesonly Site 13 and it is not intended to represent the remedialaction status for other areas of concern at NAWCADLKE. Eachsite's conditions and concerns have been or will be addressed inseparate RODs. Ground water contamination at this site iscurrently being remediated through an interim action documentedin a previous ROD.

DECLARATION STATEMENT

The United States Department of the Navy has determined thatremedial action is necessary at Site 13 to ensure protection ofhuman health and the environment.

This Record of Decision addresses Site 13. Other areas ofconcern at NAWCADLKE have been or will be the subject of separateRecords.of Decision. The location of this Site within NAWCADLKEis shown in Figures 1 and 2.

/ 3Captain Leroy Farr (Date)Commanding OfficerNaval Air Warfare CenterAircraft DivisionLakehurst, New Jersey

With the concurrence of:

William J./Musayn.?̂ ^ P.E. (Date)'Acting Refgional ̂ JministratorU.S. Environmental Protection Agency,Region II

SITE DESCRIPTION

NAWCADLKE is located in Jackson and Manchester Townships, OceanCounty, New Jersey, approximately 14 miles inland from theAtlantic Ocean (Figure 1). NAWCADLKE is approximately 7,400acres and is bordered by Route 547 to the east, the Fort DixMilitary Reservation to the west, woodland to the north (portionsof which are within Colliers Mills Wildlife Management Area),Lakehurst Borough and woodland, including the Manchester WildlifeManagement Area, to the south. NAWCADLKE and the surroundingarea are located within the Pinelands National Reserve, the mostextensive undeveloped land tract of the Middle Atlantic Seaboard.The groundwater at NAWCADLKE is classified by NJDEPE as Class I-PL (Pinelands). ,

NAWCADLKE lies within the Outer Coastal Plain physiographicprovince, which is characterized by gently rolling terrain withminimal relief. Surface elevations within NAWCADLKE range from alow of approximately 60 feet above mean sea level in the eastcentral part of the base, to a high of approximately .190 feetabove mean sea level in the southwestern part of the base.Maximum relief occurs in the southwestern part of the basebecause of its proximity to the more rolling terrain of the InnerCoastal Plain. Surface slopes are generally less than fivepercent.

NAWCADLKE lies within the Toms River Drainage Basin. The basinis relatively small (191 square miles) and the residence time forsurface drainage waters is short. Drainage from NAWCADLKEdischarges to the Ridgeway Branch to the north and to the Blackand Union Branches to the south. All three streams dischargeinto the Toms River. Several headwater tributaries to thesebranches originate at NAWCADLKE. Northern tributaries to the.Ridgeway Branch include the Elisha, Success, Harris and ObhananRidgeway Branches. The southern tributaries to the Black andUnion Branches include the North Ruckles and Middle RucklesBranches and Manapaqua Brook. The Ridgeway and Union Branchesthen feed Pine Lake; located approximately 2.5 miles east ofNAWCADLKE before joining Toms River. Storm drainage fromNAWCADLKE is divided between the north and south, discharginginto the Ridgeway Branch and Union Branch, respectively. ThePaint Branch, located in the east-central part of the base, is arelatively small stream which feeds the Manapaqua Brook.

Three small water bodies are located in the western portion ofNAWCADLKE: Bass Lake, Clubhouse Lake, and Pickerel Pond.NAWCADLKE also contains over 1,300 acres of flood-prone areas,occurring primarily in the south-central part of the base, andapproximately 1,300 acres of prime agricultural land in thewestern portion of the base.

There are 913 acres on the eastern portion of NAWCADLKE that liewithin Manchester Township and the remaining acreage is inJackson Township. The combined population of Lakehurst Borough,Manchester and Jackson Townships, is approximately 65,400, for anarea of approximately 185 square miles. The average populationdensity of Manchester and Jackson Townships is 169 persons persquare mile.

The areas surrounding NAWCADLKE are, in general, not heavilydeveloped. The closest commercial area is located near thesoutheastern section of the facility in the borough of Lakehurst.This is primarily a residential area with some shops but noindustry. To the north and south are State wildlife managementareas which are essentially undeveloped. Adjacent to and southof NAWCADLKE are commercial cranberry bogs, the drainage fromwhich crosses the southeast section of NAWCADLKE property.

For the combined area of Manchester and Jackson Townships,approximately 41 percent of the land is vacant (undeveloped), 57percent is residential, one percent is commercial and theremaining one percent is industrial or farmed. For LakehurstBorough, 83 percent of the land is residential, 11 percent isvacant, and the remaining 6 percent commercially developed.

In the vicinity of NAWCADLKE, water is generally supplied to thepopulace by municipal supply wells. Some private wells exist,but these are used primarily for irrigation and not as a sourceof drinking water. In Lakehurst Borough there is a well fieldconsisting of seven 50-foot deep wells, located approximatelytwo-thirds of a mile south of the eastern portion of NAWCADLKE.Three of the seven wells (four of the wells are rarely operated)are pumped at an average rate of 70 to 90 gallons per minute andsupply drinking water for a population of approximately 3,000.Jackson Township operates one supply well in the Legler area,approximately one-quarter mile north of NAWCADLKE, which supplieswater to a very small population (probably less than 1,000) inthe immediate vicinity of NAWCADLKE.

The history of the site dates back to 1916, when the EddystoneChemical Company leased from the Manchester Land DevelopmentCompany property to develop an experimental firing range for thetesting of chemical artillery shells. In 1919, the U.S. Armyassumed control of the site and named it Camp Kendrick. CampKendrick was turned over to the Navy and formally commissionedNaval Air Station (NAS) Lakehurst, New Jersey on June 28, 1921.The Naval Air Engineering Center (NAEC) was moved from the NavalBase, Philadelphia to Lakehurst in December 1974. At that time,NAEC became the host activity, thus, the new name NAEC. InJanuary 1992, NAEC was renamed the Naval Air Warfare CenterAircraft Division Lakehurst, due to a reorganization within theDepartment of the Navy.

Currently, NAWCADLKE's mission is to conduct programs oftechnology development, engineering, developmental evaluation andverification, systems integration, limited manufacturing,procurement, integrated logistic support management, and fleetengineering support for Aircraft-Platform Interface (API)systems. This includes terminal guidance, recovery, handling,propulsion support, avionics support, servicing and maintenance,aircraft/weapons/ship compatibility, and takeoff. The Centerprovides, operates, and maintains product evaluation andverification sites, aviation and other facilities, and supportservices (including development of equipment and instrumentation)for API systems and other Department of Defense programs. TheCenter also provides facilities and support services for tenantactivities and units as designed by appropriate authority.

NAWCADLKE and its tenant activities now occupy more than 300buildings, built between 1919 and 1989, totaling over 2,845,000square feet. The command also operates and maintains: two5,000-foot long runways, a 12,000-foot long test runway, one-milelong jet car test track, four one and one-quarter mile long jetcar test tracks, a parachute jump circle, a 79-acre golf course,and a 3,500-acre conservation area.

In the past, the various operations and activities at the Centerrequired the use, handling, storage and occasionally the on-sitedisposal of hazardous substances. During the operational periodof the facility, there have been documented, reported orsuspected releases of these substances into the environment.

INITIAL INVESTIGATIONS

As part of the DOD Installation Restoration Program and the NavyAssessment and Control of Installation Pollutants (NACIP)program, an initial Assessment Study was conducted in 1983 toidentify and assess sites posing a potential threat to humanhealth or the environment due to contamination from pasthazardous materials operations.

Based on information from historical records, aerial photographs,field inspections, and personnel interviews, the study identifieda total of 44 potentially contaminated sites. An additionalsite, Bomarc, was also investigated by NAWCADLKE. The- BomarcSite is the responsibility of the U.S. Air -Force and is locatedon Fort Dix adjacent to the western portion of NAWCADLKE. ARemedial Investigation (RI) was recommended to confirm or denythe existence of the suspected contamination and to quantify theextent of any problems which may exist. Following further reviewof available data by Navy personnel, it was decided that 42 ofthe 44 sites should be included in the Remedial Investigation.Two potentially contaminated sites, an ordnance site (Site 41)and an Advanced Underground Storage Facility (Site 43), weredeleted from the Remedial Investigation because they had already

been addressed. In 1987 NAWCADLKE was designated as a NationalPriorities List (NPL) or Superfund site under the federalComprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and LiabilityAct (CERCLA).

STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS

NJDEPE Soil Cleanup Criteria (SCC) were utilized as guidance forthe cleanup of soil at Site 13. NJDEPE SCC includes soil cleanuplevels for residential and non-residential direct contactscenarios and separate impact to ground water soil cleanupcriteria for the protection of ground water. A brief discussionof the criteria follows. v

NJDEPE SCCs;

The NJDEPE soil cleanup criteria are To Be Considered (TBC)criteria for determining the need for site cleanup. Althoughthe NJDEPE soil cleanup criteria are not promulgatedrequirements, these criteria are considered an appropriate meansby which to assess the risk to human health and the environmentposed by contaminants found in soil. Therefore, NAWCADLKE hasbeen determining the need for site cleanup based upon NJDEPE SCCas well as EPA risk-based levels and other factors, such asaiding the effectiveness and duration of existing groundwaterremediation systems.

The cleanup criteria provide health based levels for residentialuse, non-residential use and impact to groundwater (subsurface)land uses and/or impacts. NAWCADLKE has assumed a non-residential land use due to its mission and facilities is supportof Naval aviation. Due to our location in the Pinelands NationalPreserve (Class I-PL (Pinelands)) and the shallow groundwatertable, the most stringent of the surface and subsurface (impactto groundwater) non-residential cleanup criteria have beenutilized in our site comparisons.

To satisfy the requirement for establishing EPA risk-based clean-up criteria, an Endangerment Assessment was performed in October1992 which included calculated Preliminary Remedial Goals orPRGs. The PRGs are chemical specific criteria which weredeveloped using fate and transport and the exposure equationsassociated with the relevant pathways. The PRGs determined bycalculation the contaminant concentrations in affected media thatwould result in acceptable exposure levels. PRGs were developedfor each site based upon one or more (current or potential) land-use scenarios. Typically the NJDEPE SCC are more stringent thanthe calculated PRGs. With this in mind, the SCC are alsoconsidered preliminary clean-up goals at those sites at theNAWCADLKE facility which are determined to require activeremediation.

ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS

Phase I of the Remedial Investigation (Rl-Phase I) was conductedfrom 1985 to 1987 to (a) confirm or refute the existence ofcontamination at potentially contaminated sites identified duringprevious studies; and (b) develop recommendations for furtherPhase II investigations. The results of the Rl-Phase I werepresented in a report issued in 1987.

Phase II of the RI was initiated in the summer of 1988 to: (a)confirm the results of the Phase I study, specifically thepresence or absence of contamination; (b) identify wherecontamination is located; (c) assess the potential forcontaminant migration; (d) define the sources of contamination;and (e) support a feasibility study and final actions at thesites. Based on the results of the Phase II investigation,several remedial actions were initiated.

Phase III of the RI was initiated in the summer of 1991 to: (a)confirm the presence or absence of contamination at sites wherethe results of previous investigations were not definitive; (b)delineate the lateral and vertical extent of contamination; (c)collect and evaluate data to perform a risk assessment and assessthe need for remedial action at sites.

These investigations indicated that contamination is present atlevels of concern for impact to groundwater at Site 13.

It should be noted that the NJDEPE Soil Cleanup Criteria (SCC),as well as EPA risk based NAWCADLKE Preliminary Remediation Goals(PRGs), were utilized as guidance for the cleanup of soil at Site13. NJDEPE SCC includes cleanup levels for residential and non-residential direct contact scenarios, and separate impact togroundwater soil cleanup criteria for the protection ofgroundwater.

Site 13: site Description and Background

Site 13 includes the former Fuel Farm No. 125 and a former tankfarm located in Area B on the north side of Hangar 1 (Figure 2).Fuel Farm 125 originally contained five 10,000 gallon undergroundfuel tanks which contained AVGAS, JP-4, JP-5, and MOGAS from1930 until their removal in April 1989. This removal wasperformed under the direction of NAWCADLKE. The tanks werefilled via an underground fuel line running from the railroadtracks on the east side of Hangar 1. Fuel lines also ran fromthe fuel farm into Hangar 1 so that blimps could be fueled insidethe hangar. The tanks had one end extended into an observationpit. From 1930 until approximately I960, it was common practiceto drain the condensate from each fuel tank daily, into theobservation pit. This produced an estimated 1.25 gallons ofwaste fluid, which consisted of water and fuel, per day. It is

estimated that 450 gallons of waste fluid was drained from eachof the five tanks each year.

In 1969, a major MOGAS spill occurred in which approximately1,500 to 2,000 gallons were released. According to personnelinterviewed, most of the MOGAS was recovered. The spill wascontained in the observation pit, although an unknown amountdrained into the sump at the pit bottom. Numerous other minorspills have been reported at the site, however no estimate ofthe volume is available.

A second tank farm was located fifty yards to the east of fuelfarm 125. This tank farm consisted of four 10,000 gallongasoline tanks. These tanks were found by accident in 1984during a steam pipe installation. The tanks were subsequentlyremoved and the area was back filled.

Site 13: Summary of Remedial Investigation

During Phase II of the RI, two soil borings were drilled at thesite and two samples were collected from each boring. In bothborings, targeted contaminants were only detected in the deepersamples (S13-2 and S13-4) collected from a depth of 32 to 34feet, and not in the shallower samples (S13-1 and S13-3)collected at 4 to 9 feet (Figure 4). This result is consistentwith the fact that the volume of space that was occupied by thetanks in both the fuel farm 125 and the tank farm were backfilled with clean soil.

Soil contamination in both borings consisted of high levels ofVOCs and minimal levels of PAHs. High levels of petroleumhydrocarbons were only detected in S13-2. During the Phase IIIof the RI, two additional soil borings were drilled at the site,SB13-2, at the location of the former fuel farm 125, and SB13-1,approximately 150 feet east of SB13-2 (Figure 4), at the locationof the former tank farm. The borings were drilled to depths of32 and 40 feet and two samples were collected for analysis fromeach boring. The results from the analysis of boring SB13-2confirmed the findings of Phase II, that the soil at Site 13 iscontaminated with fuel components, at depths from about 25 feetbelow the ground surface to below the water table, at thelocation of fuel farm 125. The findings of SB13-1 did notconfirm the presence of contamination at the former tank farm.The soil above approximately 25 feet does not appear to becontaminated. The lateral extent of the deep soil contaminationappears to be limited to the immediate area of former Fuel Farm125.

8

HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION

The Proposed Plan for Site 13 was issued to interested parties onJune 7, 1993. On June 16 and 17, 1993, a newspaper notificationinviting public comment on the Proposed Plan appeared in TheAsbury Park Press and The Ocean County Observer. On June 18,1993 a notification also appeared in The Air Scoop, the Center'sweekly publication. The comment period was held from June 21,1993 to July 21, 1993. The newspaper notification alsoidentified the Ocean County Library as the location of theInformation Repository.

A Public Meeting was held on June 30, 1993 at the ManchesterBranch of the Ocean County Library at 7:00 p.m. At this meetingrepresentatives from the Navy, USEPA and NJDEPE were available toanswer questions about the Site, and the preferred alternative.A list of attendees is attached to this Record of Decision asAppendix A. Comments received and responses provided during thepublic hearing are included in the Responsiveness Summary, whichis part of this Record of Decision. No written comments werereceived during the public comment period.. A transcript of themeeting is available as part of the Administrative Record.

The decision document presents the selected action (i.e., In SituVapor Extraction) for Site 13 of NAWCADLKE in Ocean County, NewJersey, chosen in accordance with CERCLA, as amended by SARA and,to the extent practicable, the National Contingency Plan (NCP).The decision for the Site is based on the information containedin the Administrative Record, which is available for publicreview at the Ocean County Library, 101 Washington Street, TomsRiver, New Jersey.

SCOPE AND ROLE OF RESPONSE ACTION

The FFS for Site 13 evaluates several possible alternatives forremediating the sites and this ROD identifies the PreferredAlternative for remediating the Site contamination. The RemedialAction Objective (RAO) of the remedy is to prevent furthercontamination of the ground water from leaching of thecontaminants from the soil.

SUMMARIES OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS

The location of the site within NAWCADLKE is shown in Figures 1and 2. A map of the site is provided in Figure 3.

Summaries of the chemicals detected in the analyses of soilsamples collected at the site are provided in Table 1.

The results of the Remedial Investigations, including theanalytical data summarized in Table 1, indicate that soilconditions at Site 13 pose no unacceptable risks to human healthand/or the environment. However in order to expedite remediationof the ground water in Area B, vapor extraction will be completedat this Site.

SUMMARY OF SITE ENDANGERMENT ASSESSMENT

The Endangerment Assessment (EA) process was performed atNAWCADLKE to assess the potential current' and future human healthrisks and potential environmental impacts posed by contaminatedsoil detected during past site investigations.

This is a summary of the Endangerment Assessment for Site 13(Former Fuel Farm No. 125 and former tank farm). The assessmentof this site was conducted using all available data generatedduring previous remedial investigations (R.I) . The media thatwas the subject of the site specific EA is soil.

For Site 13 the EA Findings Summary is a summary of the completeassessment, which is documented in the Endangerment Assessment.The EA is part of the NAWCADLKE Administrative Record.

CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERNFor soil, the organic COCs include total petroleum hydrocarbons(TPHC), xylene, ethylbenzene, and naphthalene. For inorganicparameters, there were no COCs.

LAND USE AND EXPOSURE ASSUMPTIONSFour different scenarios representing current and potentialfuture land uses were evaluated to assess applicability to thesite. Evaluated scenarios included military, light industrial,construction and residential land uses. For each of thesescenarios, human exposure is effected by mechanisms that includedirect contact, inhalation and ingestion.

For soil, data used to calculate human health risk for Site 13were the most contaminated samples which were, collected at depthsof 25 to 40 feet below the ground surface. For this reason, soilexposure scenarios involving direct exposure to surface soil arenot applicable. Rather, a hypothetical construction scenarioinvolving direct exposure to subsurface soils was assumed.

HUMAN HEALTH RISK AND HAZARD FINDINGSFor soil, the results of the EA for contaminated subsurface soilat Site 13 indicate that hazards resulting from noncarcinogensare not elevated for any chemical above EPA's hazard indexcriteria value of 1.0. The hazard index values have a singlecontaminant maximum of 0.00197. Similarly, the overall site soilhazard represented by the hazard quotient or sum of the chemical-specific hazard indices also does not exceed a value of 1.0. The

10

overall hazard quotient estimated for soil is 0.00368. None ofthe soil contaminants of concern at this site are currentlyclassified by EPA as potential human carcinogens and hence,carcinogenic risk estimates are not presented for the site soils.

These risk findings are qualified by noting the absence of EPAapproved indices of toxicity for TPHC. For this reason, TPHCresults do not contribute to the overall noncarcinogenic hazardsposed by the site. Nevertheless, TPHC concentrations of up to8,700 mg/kg (parts per million) were detected in soil at thesite.

SUMMARYIn summary, the EA demonstrates that direct contact withsubsurface soil at Site 13 does not pose elevated carcinogenicrisks or noncarcinogenic hazards. However, in consideration ofthe fact that contaminants detected in soil represent acontinuing source of BTEX contamination in groundwater at, anddown gradient from Site 13, it is prudent to further consider theneed for treatment of soils at Site 13.

Summary of Remedial Alternatives

Under CERCLA the remedial alternative selected must protect bothhuman health and the environment, be cost effective, and complywith statutory requirements. Permanent solutions tocontamination problems are to be achieved wherever possible.All of the remedial alternatives applicable to Site 13, asdiscussed in more detail in the FFS, are summarized below.

ALTERNATIVE 1; No Action

Estimated Construction Cost: $ 0Estimated Net O&M Cost: $ 0

This alternative involves-no additional actions at the site. Nocontaminants would be treated or contained and the existinghealth and environmental risks would remain. No further actionto control the potential release of contaminants into the groundwater would be taken.

ALTERNATIVE 2: Groundwater Monitoring

Estimated Construction Cost: $0Estimated Net O&M Cost: $60,000 per yearEstimated Present Worth: $630,000

This alternative would provide no reduction in risk to humanhealth or the environment or reduce contamination at the site.Long term monitoring of the site can .be accomplished by usingexisting monitoring wells utilizing personnel skilled insampling. This alternative would allow the natural attenuation

11

process to continue. The monitoring would be performed quarterlyfor thirty years. If contamination levels started to rise anactive form of remediation may have to be pursued.

ALTERNATIVE 3: Soil Capping and Ground Water Monitoringi

Estimated Construction Cost: $58,000-178,000Estimated Net O&M Cost: $60,000-70,000Estimated Present Worth: $664,000

This alternative would act as a source control action byminimizing the infiltration of precipitation into thecontaminated soil, thus reducing the amount of leachate. Priorto capping fill would be required to establish a 3- to 5 percentgrade over the area. The fill material can be obtained at thecenter and would be spread and compacted with 6-inch lifts toprovide uniform support for the cap and to minimize settlement.Maintenance and monitoring of this alternative would includeinspection of the cap to detect signs of erosion or settlement.Since the contamination would still be present at the site groundwater monitoring would still have to be performed down gradientof the site. The monitoring would be performed quarterly forthirty years.

ALTERNATIVE 4: In-Situ Vitrification

Estimated Construction Cost: $475,000Estimated Net O&M Cost: $75,000Estimated Present Worth: $1,244,000

This alternative consists of a technology which is a permanentcontrol of the contamination source by destroying or immobilizingcontaminants, and generating a stable crystalline mass usingelectricity. The volume to be vitrified for this site would be126,000 cubic feet. The selected electrode spacing would be thestandard 15 foot by 15 foot square array and the electrodes wouldbe put in using standard drilling techniques.

An off-gas hood would provide confinement for any gases that arereleased during the vitrification process. The systemrequirements would depend on the size of the site and themoisture content of the soil. The two factors that can affectpower draw during vitrification are buried 'metals and water.High soil moisture content significantly increases the powerneeded for this process. Neither of these two conditions existat Site 13.

It is estimated that the run time for the process would be 1500hours or roughly- 63 days. This estimate is based on soilmoisture of 5 percent, low heat loss through the surface and a 15foot electrode spacing.

12

Following vitrification the area would have to be filled withclean soil due to the 25 to 30 percent volume loss due to theincrease of the density of the mass from the process. Inaddition, ground water monitoring would have to be accomplishedto ensure the site would pose no future risks.

ALTERNATIVE 5: In-Situ Vapor Extraction

Estimated Construction Cost: $112,000Estimated Net O&M Cost: $30,000Estimated Present Worth: $256,000

This alternative reduces the volume of contaminants by extractingthe volatile and semi volatile organic compounds from the soil.A secondary benefit of this alternative is the enhancedbiodegradation of contaminants which typically occurs whenadditional oxygen is made available to subsurface microorganisms.The volume of the contaminants will be reduced because they areremoved and collected. The mobility of the contaminants in thesoil is also reduced by their removal. The vapor extractionprocess is as follows: Extraction wells are placed in. a gridtype pattern throughout the site. Air vacuum pumps are attachedto the wells. Air is drawn through the soil into the wells bythe pumps. The discharge of air is blown through activatedcarbon filters to draw off the contaminants. Operation of thissystem should remove the' contaminants within two years based uponestimates for other sites. Maintenance for this system will bebasic pump maintenance and changing of the carbon filters asrequired. Vapor analysis will be conducted, to determine whenthe contamination has been reduced to acceptable levels.

ALTERNATE 6: In-Situ Bioremediation

Estimated Construction Cost: $45,000Estimated Net O&M Cost: $71,000Estimated Present Worth: $786,000

This alternative produces a reduction of volume of contaminantsby the introduction of micro-organisms which use the volatile andsemi-volatile compounds for sustenance. The bacteria wouldsurvive on the pollution compounds alone, producing harmlesswaste products, such as water and CO2. The process is started byinstalling several injection wells. The microbes are theninjected into the ground along with a nutrient rich formula. . Themicrobes are monitored by periodic sampling to ensure theircontinued growth The remediation effort could be enhance byadding a recovery system and continually drawing the microbesthrough the soil.

13

Evaluation of Alternatives

During the detailed evaluation of remedial alternatives, eachalternative is assessed against the nine evaluation criteria,which are summarized below.

Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment draws onthe assessments conducted under the other evaluation criteria andconsiders how the alternative addresses site risks throughtreatment, engineering, or institutional controls.

Compliance with ARARs evaluates the ability of an alternative tomeet Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs),and/or provides the basis for a waiver.

Long Term Effectiveness and Permanence evaluates the ability ofan alternative to provide long term protection of human healthand the environment and the magnitude of residual risk posed byuntreated waste or treatment residuals.

Reduction of Toxicitv, Mobility or Volume Through Treatmentevaluates an alternatives, ability to reduce risks throughtreatment technology.

Short Term Effectiveness addresses the cleanup time frame and anyadverse impacts posed by the alternative during the constructionand implementation phase until cleanup goals are achieved.

Implementabilitv is an evaluation of the technical feasibility,administrative feasibility and availability of services andmaterial required to implement the alternatives.

Cost includes an evaluation of capital costs, annual operationand maintenance (O&M) costs, and net present worth costs.

Agency Acceptance indicates the EPA's and States response to thealternatives in terms of technical and administrative issues andconcerns.

Community Acceptance indicates the response of the community tothe alternatives.

This section will compare all of the alternatives for Site 13using the nine criteria outlined above.

ALTERNATIVE 1: NO ACTIONALTERNATIVE 2: GROUND WATER MONITORINGALTERNATIVE 3: CAPPING AND GROUND WATER MONITORINGALTERNATIVE 4: IN-SITU VITRIFICATIONALTERNATIVE 5: IN-SITU VAPOR EXTRACTIONALTERNATIVE 6: IN-SITU BIOREMEDIATION

14

Overall Protection of Human Health

Alternatives 1 and 2 provide no protection to human health or theenvironment. Alternative 3 would reduce risk at the site; butsince contaminated soil would be left in place, there would stillbe some risk at the site. Alternatives 4 and 5 and 6 provide themost protection because they are in-situ alternatives whicheliminate or immobilize the contamination at the site.

Compliance with ARARsAlternatives 1, 2 and 3 will not reduce the concentration ofcontaminants leaching into ground water and therefore will notaid in reducing contamination concentration in groundwater tobelow chemical specific groundwater ARARs. Alternatives 4, 5,and 6 will achieve chemical specific groundwater protectionARARs.

Long Term Effectiveness and PermanenceAlternatives 1 and 2 offer no effectiveness or permanence.Alternative 3 would provide protection. Alternatives 4 and 5 and6 provide permanent long term protection by totally removing, ordestroying all contaminants at the site.

Reduction of Toxicitv, or Volume through TreatmentAlternatives 1 and 2 do not actively reduce toxicity, or volumeof contamination. Alternative 3 has no effect on toxicity orvolume. Alternative 4 reduces toxicity, and volume by destroyingall contaminants. Alternative 5 reduces volume, and toxicity byremoving the contaminants from the soil in a short amount oftime. Alternative 6 is fair at reducing toxicity and volume ofcontaminants.

Short Term EffectivenessAlternatives 1 and 2 do not change any short term risks that arepresently at the site. Alternative 3 could be implemented ratherquickly therefore rapidly reducing risk at the site. Alternative4 would take some time to implement (1-2 years) therefore havinga low effectiveness over the short term. Alternative 5 could beimplemented quickly and the reduction of risk would startconcurrently with the start of the system. Alternative 6 wouldtake the longest (possibly years) to show some reduction in risksassociated with the contamination and therefore would not haveany short term effective.

ImplementabilityAlternative 2 is easily implemented and would require short set-up time. Alternative 3 would take approximately six months toimplement. Alternative 4 is also a viable alternative, howeverthe time required to complete the remediation will beapproximately one to two years. Alternative 4 would requirepilot studies. Alternative 5 is easily implemented andremediation results will begin to occur immediately. Alternate 6

15

is implementable however the time required for remediation to becompleted may be prohibitive.

CostAlternative 5 has the least expense and will removecontamination. Alternatives 2 and 3 have medium cost but do notremove contamination and must be operated over a thirty yearlife. Alternative 6 has medium cost and removes contamination.Alternative 4 has high cost but will remediate the site.

Alternative 1: $0Alternative 2: $630,000Alternative 3: $665,000Alternative 4: $1,243,000Alternative 5: $256,000Alternative 6: $786,000

State AcceptanceThe State of New Jersey concurs with the selected remedialaction.

Community AcceptanceAll public questions were answered during the public meeting. Nowritten comments were submitted for this Site.

THE SELECTED ALTERNATIVE

The selected action for Site 13 is alternative number 5, In-SituVapor Extraction. Implementing this alternative would entailinstalling several vapor extraction wells at the site. A systemof manifolded piping would connect the wells to a vacuum pump.The vacuum pump would draw air through the soil and into thewells. This air, which would now contain the volatile organiccompounds present in the soil, would be passed through a carbonadsorption unit to remove the volatile compounds.

Based upon the information provided in the RI and FFS , soils atSite 13 do not pose a significant threat to human health and theenvironment. However, contamination present in the soil may be acontinuing source of groundwater contamination if it is notremediated. Groundwater contamination at Site 13 is currentlybeing remediated through an action initiated in late summer,1993. Through the selected remedial action of vapor extraction,the compounds presently impacting ground water quality would beremoved, enhancing the effectiveness of the Areas A & Bgroundwater treatment system, thereby eliminating public healthconcerns.

16

The emissions from the vacuum extraction unit would be addressedby a carbon adsorption treatment system.

This alternative is expected to satisfy the Remedial ActionObjective. This alternative will take approximately one year tocomplete installation. The expected time required to remove thecontamination by this method is approximately two years. Theoperation of the vapor extraction system will be continued untilno further significant contaminant level reduction is achieved.This alternative is the most cost effective of all of the actionalternatives.

17

RECORD OF DECISIONRESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY

SITE 13NAVAL AIR WARFARE CENTER

AIRCRAFT DIVISIONLAKEHURST, NEW JERSEY

The purpose of this responsiveness summary is to review publicresponse to-the Proposed Plan for Site 13. It also documents'NAWCADLKE's consideration of such comments during the decisionmaking process and provides answers to any comments raised duringthe public comment period.

The responsiveness summary for the Site is divided into thefollowing three sections:

Overview - This section briefly describes the processto develop and evaluate the appropriate remedialresponses for the Sites, the alternative recommended inthe Proposed Plan and any impacts on the proposed plandue to public comment.

Background on Community Involvement - This sectiondescribes community relations activities conducted withrespect to the area* of concern.

Summary of Mai or Questions and Comments - This sectionsummarizes verbal and written comments received duringthe Public Meeting and public comment period.

OVERVIEW

Site 13 is located at NAWCADLKE in Ocean County, Lakehurst, NewJersey. The Site has been under investigation for potentialenvironmental contamination. This responsiveness summaryaddresses public response to the Proposed Plan, proposing the"In-Situ Vapor Extraction" alternative for this Site only.

The Proposed Plan and other supporting information are availablefor public review at the information repository located at theOcean County Library, 101 Washington Street, Toms River, NewJersey.

BACKGROUND ON COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT

This section provides a brief history of community participationin the investigation and interim remedial planning activitiesconducted at the Site. Throughout the investigation period, theUSEPA and NJDEPE have been reviewing work plans and reports andhave been providing comments and recommendations which areincorporated into the appropriate documents. A Technical Review

18

Committee (TRC), consisting of representatives of the Navy, theUSEPA, the NJDEPE, the Ocean County Board of Health, the NewJersey Pinelands Commission, other agencies and communitiessurrounding NAWCADLKE, was formed and has been holding periodicmeetings to maintain open lines of communication and to informall parties of current activities.

Prior to public release of site-specific documents, NAWCADLKE'spublic relations staff compiled a list of local public officialswho demonstrated or were expected to have an interest in theinvestigation. Local environmental interest groups were alsoidentified and included on this list. The list is attached asAppendix B to this Record of Decision.

NAWCADLKE mailed the Proposed Plan for the site to concernedparties on the list described above. On June 16 and 17, 1993, anewspaper notification inviting public comment on the ProposedPlan appeared in The Asbury Park Press and The Ocean CountyObserver. On June 18, 1993 a notification also appeared in TheAir Scoop, the Center's weekly publication. The public noticesummarized the Proposed Plan and the preferred alternative. Theannouncement also identified the time and location of a PublicMeeting and specified a public comment period, and the address towhich written comments could be sent. Public comments wereaccepted from June 21, 1993 through July 21, 1993.

A Public Meeting was held on June 30, 1993, at 7:00 p.m. at theManchester Branch of the Ocean County Library, Colonial Drive,Manchester, New Jersey. The Site Investigations, Site evaluationprocess and .the proposed remedial alternative were discussed.NAWCADLKE representatives present included: CAPT Leroy Farr,Commanding Officer; CDR Joseph LoFaso, Public Works Officer;Robert Kirkbright, Engineering Director; Lucy Bottomley,Supervisory Environmental Engineer; Frank Montarelli, PublicAffairs Officer; Larry Lemig, Environmental Engineer; DorothyPeterson, Environmental Engineer; .Jill Sarafin, EnvironmentalEngineer; Catherine Applegate, Environmental Engineer; Greg Bury,Environmental Engineer; Mike Figura, Environmental Engineer, andJoe Rhyner Environmental Engineer. Mr. Jeffrey Gratz,represented the USEPA's Federal Facility Section; Ms. DonnaGaffigan represented the NJDEPE's Bureau of Federal CaseManagement; Mr. Kevin Schick represented NJDEPE's Bureau ofEnvironmental Evaluation and Risk Assessment. The completeattendance list is provided in Appendix A to this Record ofDecision.

19

SUMMARY OF MAJOR QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS

Written Comments

During the public comment period from June 21, 1993 through July21, 1993, no written comments were received pertaining to Site13.

Public Meeting Comments

No specific questions were raised at the Public Meetingconcerning Site 13. However, some general questions were askedby the press. A summary of these questions is provided inAppendix C. A complete transcript of the questions asked and theresponses given during the Public Meeting is provided in theInformation Repository.

20

Table 1 Soil Contaminants of Concern and Related Action LevelsNJDEPE SCC and NAWCADLKE PRGs

Contaminant

2-Hexanone

Toluene

Ethylbenzene

Xylenes

2-Methylnaphthalene

Naphthalene

Fluorene

Phenanthrene

PetroleumHydrocarbons

Level in-situmg/kg

25.000

23.000

11.000

39.000

1.100

14.000

.250

.170

8,700'

NAUCADKE PRGs

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

12700 mg/Kg

12700 mg/Kg

N/A

N/A

NJDEPE SCCs

N/A

500 mg/kg

100 mg/kg

10 mg/kg

N/A

100 mg/kg

100 mg/kg

N/A

10000 mg/kg*

Note: N/A not available* The total for all VOC and SVOC compounds, includingTPHC must be below 10,000 mg/kg.

NJDEPE Soil Cleanup Criteria (SCC) for impact togroundwater.

•Vi. t.

Figure (1)

NAVAL AIR WARFARE CENTER, LAKEHURST

AND NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES

RIDGEWAY BRANCH

MAINENTRANCE

HANGAR No.lNATIONALHISTORICLANDMARK

Site 13

fidlire 2

Mk.iip

Co verecfrtoreaArea

ge

gravel

1/34

85 123

*FH

GR

btk. t>

SITE 13

S13-1.21

O T 1 1 O OSB13-2

FHRHFR TAMK FARM

®

i i f i f r rS13_3- J J O O i

SB13-1 )E

in

HANGER 1

REDFIELD STREET

LEGENB.

MQN1TDR[NG WELL

SDFL BORING <PHASE III)

SITE LOCATION

100 50 0 100 200 300

GRAPHIC SCALE

^

a 3SJ

5°o AREA B

SITE 13

Site 13F I G U R E 4

S13-l,2SB13-2

\ r

FHRMFR TANK FARMi

v

S13-3,4SB13-1

HANGER 1

Appendix AAttendance List for Public Meeting

June 30, 1993

NAVAL AIR WARFARE CENTERAIRCRAFT DIVISION LAKEHURST

PUBLIC MEETINGJUNE 30, 1993

SIGN-IN SHEET

NAME AFFILIATION PHONE NUMBER

8- 3^-3

NAVAL AIR WARFARE CENTERAIRCRAFT DIVISION LAKEHURST

PUBLIC MEETINGJUNE 30, 1993

SIGN-IN SHEET

NAME AFFILIATION PHONE NUMBER

/V/AWo/lQLhE (?aQ)3i? -/a/z

2.

Appendix BList of Interested Parties

LIST OF INTERESTED PARTIES

Naval Air Warfare Center- Lakehurst

Captain L. FarrCommanding OfficerNaval Air Warfare CenterAircraft DivisionLakehurst, NJ 08733-5000

Mr. Frank Montarelli, Public AffairsNaval Air Warfare CenterAircraft DivisionLakehurst, NJ 08733-5000

Commander J.. M. LoFasoPublic Works officerNaval Air Warfare CenterAircraft DivisionLakehurst, NJ 08733-5000

Federal Elected Officials

Senator William Bradley • (908) 688-09601705 Vauxhall RoadP.O. Box 1720Union, NJ 07083

Senator Frank R. Lautenberg (609) 757-5353208 White Horse PikeSuite 18-19Barrington, NJ 08007

Congressman H. James Saxton (609) 261-5800100 High StreetMount Holly, NJ 08060

Congressman Christopher H. Smith . (908) 350-2300100 Lacey RoadSuite 38AWhiting, NJ 08759

Congressman Frank Pallone, Jr. (201) 571-1140540 BroadwayRoom 118 .Long Branch, NJ 07740

State Elected Officials

Senator Leonard T. Connors, Jr. (609) 693-6700620 West Lacey RoadForked River, NJ 08731

Assemblyman Jefferey Moran (609) 693-6700620 West Lacey RoadForked River, NJ 08731

Assemblyman Christopher J. Connors (609) 693-6700620 West Lacey RoadForked River, NJ 08731

Assemblywoman Marlene L. Ford (908) 899-12082611 Spruce StreetPoint Pleasant, NJ 08742

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Officials

Ms. Laura Livingston (212) 264-6723Federal Facilities CoordinatorRoom 1104U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyRegion II26 Federal PlazaNew York, NY 10278

Mr. Steven Katz (212) 264-2515Superfund Community Relations CoordinatorU.S. Environmental Protection AgencyRegion IIExternal Programs Division, Room 90526 Federal PlazaNew York, NY 10278

Other Federal Agencies

Mr. Steve Aoyama (404) 639-6070Agency for Toxic Substances and . . 'Disease Registry1600 Clifton RoadMail Stop E-56Atlanta, GA 30333

Commanding OfficerAttn: Joyce PattersonNEESA Code 112E21001 Lyons St. Suite 1Port Hueneme, CA 93043-4340

t

• New Jersey Pinelands Commission .

Mr. Alan W. Avery, Jr., Commissioner (908) 929-2054Ocean County Planning BoardP.O. Box 2191Toms River, NJ 08754-2191

Mr. Bob Howell (609) 894-9342The Pinelands CommissionP. 0. Box 7New Lisbon, NJ.08064

Ocean County Officials

Mr. Joseph H. Vicari, Director (908) 244-2121Ocean County Board of FreeholdersP.O. Box.2191Toms River, NJ 08754

Mr. Joseph Przywara, Coordinator (908) 341-9700Ocean County Health DepartmentEnvironmental Health2191 Sunset AvenueToms River, NJ 08753

Mr. A. Jerome Walnut, Chairman (908) 505-3671Ocean County Environmental Agency1623 Whitesville RoadToms River, NJ 08755

Dover Township Officials

Hon. J. Mark Mutter (908) 341-1000Mayor of Dover TownshipP.O. Box 72833 Washington StreetToms River, NJ 08754

Ms. Janet Carson . (908) 341-1000Dover Township Environmental CommissionP.O. Box 72833 Washington StreetToms River, NJ 08754

Manchester Township Officials

Hon. Jane Cardo Cameron (908) 657-8121Mayor of Manchester TownshipOne Colonial DriveLakehurst, NJ 08733

Mr. Wynn A. Mauer, ChairmanManchester Township Municipal Utilities AuthorityOne Colonial DriveLakehurst, NJ 08733

Mr. William Jamieson, Jr., ChairmanManchester Township Environmental CommissionOne Colonial DriveLakehurst, NJ 08733

Jackson Township Officials

Mr. Richard Bizub, ChairmanJackson Township Environmental Commission"128 Willow DriveJackson, NJ 08527

(908).928-0900

Borough of Lakehurst Officials

Hon. Alton TiltonMayor of Lakehurst Borough5 Union AvenueLakehurst, NJ 08733

Mr. Robert J. MorrisMunicipal Clerk, Borough of Lakehurst5 Union AvenueLakehurst:, NJ 08733

(908) 657-4141

(908) 657-4141

Plumsted Township Officials

Hon. Ronald S. DancerMayor of Plumsted TownshipP.O. Box 398New Egypt, NJ 08533-0398

(609) 758-2241

Community Groups and Interested Citizens

Pine Lake Park Association1616 Seventh AvenueToms River, NJ 08757

Mr. Holmes Ertley699C Friar CourtLakehurst, NJ 08733

Mr. John Lewis315 Beckerville RoadLakehurst, NJ 08733

(908) 341-3653

(908) 657-4690

(908) 657-1890

Ms. Theresa LettmanPinelands Preservation Alliance120-34B White Bogs RoadBrowns Mills, NJ 08015

(609) 893-4747

Media Organizations

Advance News2048 Route 37 WestLakehurst, NJ 08733

Alyn AckermanAsbury Park Press3601 Highway 66P.O. Box 1550Neptune, NJ 07754-1550

Ms. Debra CoombeNewark Star Ledger44 Washington StreetToms River, NJ 08753

New Egypt Press37 Main StreetP.O. Box.288New Egypt, NJ 08533

Ocean County LeaderP.O. Box 1771Point Pleasant Beach, NJ 08742

Ms. Lisa PetersonOcean County ReviewP.O. Box 8Seaside Heights, NJ 08751

Ocean County Reporter8 Robbins StreetP.O. Box 908Toms River, NJ 08753

Mr. Sam ChristopherOcean County Observer8 Robbins StreetCN 2449Toms River, NJ 08753

(908) 657-8936

1-800-822-9770

(908) 244-7171

(609) 758-2112

(908) 899-1000

(908) 793-0147

(908) 349-1501

(908) 349-3000

"5 '•a

RADIO

Mr. Shawn Marsh (908) 774-7700WJLK RadioPress PlazaAsbury Park, NJ 07712

Ms. Joan Jones (908) 270-5757WJRZ Radio22 West Water StreetP.O. Box 100Toms River, NJ 08754

Mr. Doug Doyle (908) 269-0927WOBM RadioU.S. Highway 9Bayville, NJ 08721

Mr. Gary Myervich (908) 341-8818Adelphia Cable830 Highway 37 WestToms River, NJ 08753

Mr. Abi Montefiore (908) 681-8222Monmouth CableP.O. Box 58Belmar, NJ 07719

Appendix CSUMMARY OF PUBLIC QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS

There were no questions or comments specific toi Site 13 at thePublic Meeting. Carlos Sadovia, a reporter for the Asbury ParkPress, Asked two general questions:

His first question was whether residents have anything to worryabout at this point. The answer is, there is no threat to thepoublic. The purpose of the soil remediation discussed here is toexpedite the groundwater cleanup and to prevent human contactwith soils which exceed cleanup criteria.

The second question was about the expected duration of cleanupactivities 1 The answer was the active soil remediation isexpected to be completed within a year. The groundwater treatmentis planned for three years, and will be re-evaluated at thattime.

A complete transcript of the Public Meeting is provided at theInformation Repository at the Ocean County Library, Toms River,New Jersey.