01715

01715
FINAL
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION
REPORT
OPERABLE UNIT NO. 6
CAMP LEJEUNE,
NORTH CAROLINA
CONTRACT TASK ORDER 0303
TEXT AND FIGURES
AUGUST 22,1996
Prepared For:
’
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
ATLANTIC DIVISION
NAVAL FACILITIES
’
ENGINEERINGCOMMAND
Norfolk, Virginia
Under:
LANTDIV CLEAN Program
Contract N62470-89-D-4814
Prepared by:
EAKER ENVIROh’MENTAL,
Coraopolis, Pennsylvania
INC.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..*...................
ES-1
1.0
. .......
. . ..........................
INTRODUCTION
................
1.1
Report Organization .............................................
Background and Setting of MCB, Camp Lejeune ......................
1.2
1.2.1 Location and Setting ......................................
1.2.2 History ................................................
1.2.3 Operable Unit Description .................................
1.2.4 Topography .............................................
1.2.5 Surface Water Hydrology ..................................
1.2.6 Geology ................................................
1.2.7 Hydrogeology ...........................................
1.2.8 Ecology ................................................
1.2.9 Land Use Demographics ...................................
1.2.10 Meteorology ...........................................
Background
and Setting of Site 44 ................................
1.3
1.3.1 Site Location and Setting .................................
1.3.2 SiteHistory ............................................
1.4
Previous Investigations .........................................
1.4.1 Initial AssessmentStudy .................................
1.4.2 Site Inspection .........................................
Remedial Investigation Objectives ................................
1.5
References ...................................................
1.6
2.0
...........................................
SITE CHARACTERISTICS
Topography and Surface Features ...........................
2.1
2.2
Surface Water Hydrology ...................................
...................................................
Soil
2.3
Geology ................................................
2.4
Hydrogeology ...........................................
2.5
2.5.1 Groundwater Elevation Data .........................
2.5.2 Groundwater Flow Contour Maps .....................
2.5.3 Hydraulic Properties ...............................
2.5.4 Groundwater Flow Velocities ........................
2.5.5 General Groundwater Flow Patterns ...................
Identification of Water Supply Wells .........................
2.6
Ecology ................................................
2.7
References ..............................................
2.8
2-1
2-l
2-l
2-l
2-l
2-3
2-3
2-3
2-4
2-5
2-5
2-6
2-6
2-8
3.0
.....................................
STUDY AREA INVESTIGATIONS
SiteSurvey..
..................................................
3.1
3.2
Soil Investigation ...............................................
3.2.1 Soil Sampling Procedures ..................................
3.2.2 Sampling Locations ......................................
3-l
3-l
3- 1
3-2
3-3
ii
l-l
I- 1
l-2
l-2
l-2
l-2
l-3
l-3
1-3
1-4
l-5
l-9
l-10
l-10
l-10
l-11
l- 11
l-l 1
l-11
1-13
l-13
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
3.2.3 Exploratory Test Pits .....................................
3.2.4 Analytical Program .......................................
3.2.5 Quality Assurance and Quality Control .......................
3.2.6 Air Monitoring and Field Screening ..........................
Groundwater Investigation .......................................
3.3.1 Monitoring Well Installation ...............................
3.3.2 Monitoring Well Development ..............................
3.3.3 Water Level Measurements ................................
3.3.4 Aquifer Testing ..........................................
3.3.5 Sampling Locations ......................................
3.3.6 Sampling Procedures .....................................
3.3.7 Analytical Program .......................................
3.3.8 Quality Assurance and Quality Control .......................
3.3.9 Field Screening and Air Monitoring ..........................
Surface Water and Sediment Investigations ..........................
3.4.1 Sampling Locations .....................................
3.4.2 Sampling Procedures ....................................
3.4.3 Analytical Program ......................................
3.4.4 Quality Assurance and Quality Control ......................
Ecological Investigation ........................................
Decontamination Procedures .....................................
Investigation Derived Waste (IDW) Handling .......................
References ...................................................
3-3
3-4
3-4
3-5
3-5
3-6
3-7
3-7
3-8
3-8
3-8
3-9
3-9
3-9
3-9
3-10
3-10
3-10
3-l 1
3-l 1
3- 11
3- 12
3-12
NATURE AND EXTENT OF CONTAMINATION
........................
4.1
Data Quality ...................................................
4.1.1 Data Management and Tracking .............................
Non-Site Related Analytical Results ................................
4.2
4.2.1 Laboratory Contaminants ..................................
4.2.2 Naturally-Occurring Inorganic Analytes ......................
4.3
Analytical Results ..............................................
4.3.1 Soil Investigation ........................................
4.3.2 Groundwater Investigation .................................
4.3.3 Surface Water Investigation ................................
4.3.4 Sediment Investigation ...................................
Extent of Contamination ........................................
4.4
4.4.1 Extent of Soil Contamination ..............................
4.4.2 Extent of Groundwater Contamination .......................
4.4.3 Extent of Surface Water Contamination .......................
4.4.4 Extent of Sediment Contamination ..........................
4.5
References ...................................................
4-l
4-l
4- 1
4-2
4-2
4-3
4-5
4-5
4-7
4-9
4-10
4-12
4-12
4-13
4- 14
4- 16
4-18
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.8
4.0
...
Ill
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
5.0
CONTAMINANT
FATE AND TRANSPORT .............................
5.1
Chemical and Physical Properties Impacting Fate and Transport ..........
5.2
Contaminant Transport Pathways ..................................
5.2.1 Windblown Dust .........................................
5.2.2 Leaching of Sediment Contaminants to Surface Water ...........
5.2.3 Migration of Contaminants in Surface Water ..................
5.2.4 Leaching of Soil Contaminants to Groundwater ................
5.2.5 Migration of Contaminants in Groundwater to Surface Water .....
5.3
Fate and Transport Summary. .....................................
5.3.1 Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) ........................
5.3.2 Semivolatile Organic Compounds (SVOCs) ...................
5.3.3 Pesticides ..............................................
5.3.4 Metals .................................................
References ....................................................
5.4
6.0
BASELINE HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-1
6.1
Introduction ...................................................
6-l
Hazard Identification ............................................
6-2
6.2
6-2
6.2.1 Data Evaluation and Reduction .............................
6.2.2 Identification of Data Suitable for Use in a Quantitative Risk
Assessment .............................................
6-3
6.2.3 Criteria Used in Selection of COPCs .........................
6-3
6.2.4 Contaminants of Potential Concern (COPCs) ..................
6-8
6- 11
6.3
Exposure Assessment ..........................................
6.3.1 Potential Human Receptors and Adjacent Populations ..........
6- 11
6- 13
6.3.2 Migration and Exposure Pathways . .,........................
6- 15
6.3.3 Quantification of Exposure ................................
6.3.4 Calculation of Chronic Daily Intakes ........................
6- 17
Toxicity Assessment ...........................................
6-27
6.4
6-28
6.4.1 Carcinogenic Slope Factor ................................
6.4.2 Reference Dose .........................................
6-28
6.4.3 Lead .................................................
6-30
6.4.4 Dermal Adjustment of Toxicity Factors ......................
6-30
6-30
6.5
Risk Characterization ...........................................
6-31
6.5.1 Human Health Risks .....................................
Sources of Uncertainty .........................................
6-33
6.6
.........................................
6-33
6.6.1 Analytical Data
6.6.2 Exposure Assessment ....................................
6-34
6-35
6.6.3 Sampling Strategy .......................................
6.6.4 Toxicity Assessment .....................................
6-35
Conclusions
of
the
BRA
for
Site
44
...............................
6-36
6.7
6.7.1 Current Scenario ........................................
6-37
6.7.2 Future Scenario .........................................
6-37
iv
5-1
5-l
5-2
5-3
5-3
5-3
5-4
5-4
5-4
5-4
5-5
5-6
5-6
5-7
TABLE
OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
u
6.8
7.0
ECOLOGICAL
RISK ASSESSMENT
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7- 1
Objectives,
Scope,
and
Organization
of the Ecological Risk Assessment ... 7- 1
7.1
7.2
7.3
7.4
7.5
7.6
7.7
7.8
7.9
7.10
7.11
7.12
7.13
8.0
-
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-37
Problem Formulation ............................................
Contaminants of Potential Concern .................................
7.3.1 Criteria for Selecting Contaminants of Potential Concern .........
7.3.2 Selection of Contaminants of Potential Concern ................
7.3.3 Physical/Chemical Characteristics of COPCs ..................
Ecosystems Potentially at Risk ....................................
Ecological Endpoints ............................................
7.5.1 Aquatic Endpoints ......................................
7.5.2 Terrestrial Endpoints ....................................
Conceptual Model .............................................
7.6.1 Soil Exposure Pathway ...................................
7.6.2 Groundwater Exposure Pathway ...........................
7.6.3 Surface Water and Sediment Exposure Pathway ...............
7.6.4 Air Exposure Pathway ...................................
Exposure Assessment ..........................................
7.7.1 Surface Water, Sediment, and Bioassay Sampling .............
Ecological Effects Characterization ...............................
7.8.1 Surface Water ..........................................
7.8.2 Sediment ..............................................
7.8.4 SurfaceSoil ...........................................
7.8.5 Terrestrial Chronic Daily Intake Model ......................
Risk Characterization ...........................................
7.9.1 Surface Water .........................................
7.9.2 Sediment .............................................
7.9.3 Terrestrial Chronic Daily Intake Model ......................
Ecological Significance .........................................
7.10.1 Aquatic Receptors .......................................
7.10.2 Terrestrial Receptors .....................................
7.10.3 Threatened and Endangered Species ........................
7.10.4 Wetlands ..............................................
Uncertainty Analysis ...........................................
Conclusions ..................................................
7.12.1 Aquatic Receptors .......................................
7.12.2 Terrestrial Receptors .....................................
References ...................................................
..........................
CONCLUSIONS
AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Conclusions
...................................................
8.1
8.2
Recommendations ..............................................
V
7-2
7-2
7-2
7-6
7-8
7-9
7-9
7-10
7-10
7- 10
7-10
7- 11
7- 11
7-12
7- 12
7-12
7- 15
7-15
7-16
7-16
7- 16
7- 18
7-19
7-19
7-20
7-20
7-20
7-21
7-22
7-22
7-22
7-23
7-23
7-24
7-25
8-l
8-l
8- 1
. .
APPENDICES
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
0
P
Q
_I/”
R
S
T
U
V
w
X
Test Boring Records
Test Boring and Well Construction Records
Exploratory Test Pit Records
Chain-of-Custody Forms
Field Well Development Records
Investigation Derived Waste Summary and Recommendations
Sampling Summary
Data and Frequency Summaries
Statistical Summaries
Field Duplicate Summaries
QA/QC Sampling Summary
Grain Size and Permeability Analytical Results
Wet Chemistry Analytical Results
Aquifer Test Results
Aquifer Property Calculations
Base Background Analytical Results and Evaluation Report
Shower Model
Site Conceptual Model
CD1 Calculations
Field Data Sheets
White Oak River Basin Reference Stations
Screening Value and Quotient Index Calculations
Bioassay Testing Results
Terrestrial Reference Values and CD1 Calculations
c
-.
E---
LIST
OF TABLES
ES- 1
Summary of Site Contamination
l-l
l-2
l-3
1-4
l-5
l-6
l-7
1-8
l-9
l-10
l-11
1-12
1-13
Geologic and Hydrogeologic Units of North Carolina’s Coastal Plain
Summary of Hydraulic Properties Unrelated Site Investigations
Hydraulic Property Estimates of the Castle Hayne Aquifer
Protected Species Within MCB, Camp Lejeune
Land Utilization Within Developed Areas of MCB, Camp Lejeune
Climatic Data Summary Marine Corps Air Station, New River
Summary of Well Construction Details Site Inspection
Detected Organic Contaminants in Soil Site Inspection
Detected Inorganic Contaminants in Soil Site Inspection
Groundwater Analytical Results Site Inspection
Surface Water Analytical Results Site Inspection
Sediment Sample Analytical Results Site Inspection
Remedial Investigation Objectives Site 44, Jones Street Dump
2-l
2-2
2-3
2-4
Summary of Soil Physical Properties
Summary of Groundwater and Surface Water Elevations
Hydraulic Prorerties Summary
Summary of Potable Water Supply Wells Within a One-mile Radius
3-1
3-2
3-3
3-4
3-5
3-6
3-7
3-8
3-9
3-10
3-11
3-12
Soil Sampling Summary Test Borings
Soil Sampling Summary Monitoring Well Test Borings
Soil Sampling Summary Test Pit Excavation
Quality Assurance/Quality Control Sampling Program Soil Investigation
Summary of Well Construction Details
Summary of Water Level Measurements
Summary of Groundwater Field Parameters
Groundwater Sampling Summary
Quality Assurance/Quality Control Sampling Program Groundwater Investigation
Summary of Surface Water Field Parameters
Surface Water Sampling Summary
Quality Assurance/Quality Control Sampling Program Surface Water and Sediment
Investigation
4-l
4-2
4-3
4-4
4-5
4-6
4-7
4-8
4-9
4-10
4-11
4-12
Summary of Rejected Data
Summary of Site Contamination
Surface Soil -Positive Detection Summary, TCL Organics
Surface Soil -Positive Detection Summary, TAL Metals
Subsurface Soil -Positive Detection Summary, TCL Organics
Subsurface Soil -Positive Detection Summary, TAL Metals
Groundwater -Positive Detection Summary, TCL Organics
Groundwater -Positive Detection Summary, TAL Metals
Groundwater -Positive Detection Summary, TAL Dissolved Metals
Surface Water -Positive Detection Summary, TCL Organics
Surface Water -Positive Detection Summary, Supplemental Sampling Event, TCL Organics
Surface Water -Positive Detection Summary, Inorganic Analytes
vii
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
4-13
4-14
4-15
Surface Water -Positive Detection Summary, TAL Dissolved Metals
Sediment -Positive Detection Summary, TCL Organics
Sediment -Positive Detection Summary, TAL Metals
5-l
Organic Physical and Chemical Properties
Relative Mobilities of Metals as a Function of Environmental Conditions (Eh, Ph)
5-2
6-l
6-2
6-3
6-4
6-5
6-6
6-7
6-8
6-9
=c”
6-10
6-11
6-12
6-13
6-14
6-15
6-16
6-17
6-18
6-19
7-l
7-2
7-3
7-4
7-5
7-6
7-7
7-8
7-9
7-10
7-11
7-12
Contaminants of Potential Concern Organics in Surface Soil
Contaminants of Potential Concern Inorganics in Surface Soil
Contaminants of Potential Concern Organics in Subsurface Soil
Contaminants of Potential Concern Inorganics in Subsurface Soil
Contaminants of Potential Concern in Groundwater
Contaminants of Potential Concern in Surface Water
Contaminants of Potential Concern in Sediment
Summary of Exposure Dose Input Parameters
Summary of Exposure Pathways
Summary of Health-Based Criteria
Summary of Dermally Adjusted Health-Based Criteria
Summary of Risks for the Military Receptor
Summary of Risks for the Child Trespasser
Summary of Risks for the Future Child Resident
Summary of Risks for the Adult Trespasser
Summary of Risks for the Future Adult Resident
Summary of Risks for the Construction Worker
Summary of Uncertainties in the Results of the Human Health Risk Assessment
Summary of Contaminants Contributing to Site Risks
Frequency and Range of Contaminant Detections Compared to Saltwater Surface Water
Screening Values
Frequency and Range of Dissolved Metals Detections Compared to Saltwater Surface Water
Screening Values
Frequency and Range of Contaminant Detections Compared to Saltwater Sediment
Reference Values
Contaminants of Potential Concern in,Each Media
Physical/Chemical Characteristics of the COPCs
Sampling Station Characterization Summary
Field Chemistry Data
Frequency and Range of Contaminant Detections Compared to Soil Flora and Fauna
Screening Values
Exposure Factors for Terrestrial Chronic Daily Intake Model
Surface Water Quotient Index
Sediment Quotient Index
Terrestrial Intake Model Quotient Index
. ..
VII1
LIST
OF FIGURES
1-2
1-3
1-4
l-5
1-6
Operable Unit No. 6 - Sites 36,43,44, 54, and 86
Operable Units and Site Locations
Locations of Hydrogeologic Cross-Sections
Hydrogeologic Cross-Sections
Site Map, Site 44 - Jones Street Dump
Site Inspection Sampling Locations
2-1
2-2
2-3A
2-3B
2-4
2-5
2-6
2-7
Cross-section Location and Approximate Surface Elevation Map
Geologic Cross-sections A-A’ through E’E’
Groundwater Elevation Trends
Groundwater Elevation Trends
Surficial Groundwater Contour Map
Deep Groundwater Contour Map
Potable Water supply Wells within a One-Mile Radius
Biohabitat Map
3-1
3-2
3-3
3-4
3-5
Soil Sampling Locations
Monitoring Well Locations
Typical Shallow Type II Groundwater Monitoring Well Construction Diagram
Typical Deep Type III Groundwater Monitoring Well Construction Diagram
Surface Water and Sediment Sampling Locations
4-l
4-2
4-3
4-4
4-5
4-6
4-7
4-8
4-9
4-10
Organic Compounds in Surface Soil
Organic Compounds in Subsurface Soil
Selected TAL Metals in Surface Soil
Selected TAL Metals in Subsurface Soil
Organic Compounds in Groundwater
TAL Metals in Groundwater Above Screening Standards
Sampling and Site Location Map
Organic Compounds in Surface Water
Organic Compounds in Sediment
TAL Metals in Sediment Above Screening Values
6-l
Flowchart of Potential Exposure Pathways and Receptors
7-l
7-2
Flowchart of Potential Exposure Pathways and Ecological Receptors
Quotient Indices that Exceeded “1” in Surface Water and Sediment
1-l
ix
LIST
OF ACRONYMS
AND ABBREVIATIONS
AET
AQUIRE
ARAR
AST
ASTM
ATSDR
AWQC
Apparent Effects Threshold
Aquatic Information Retrieval Database
Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirement
Above Ground Storage Tank
American Society for Testing and Materials
Agency for Toxic Substancesand Disease Registry
Ambient Water Quality Criteria
BaB
Baker
Bb
BCF
BEHP
ks
BI
Br
BRA
BTEX
Bv
Baymeade
Baker Environmental, Incorporated
Beef Biotransfer Factor
Bioconcentration Factor
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Below Ground Surface
Biotic Index
Plant Biotransfer Factor (fruit)
Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment
Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, and Xylene
Plant Biotransfer Factor (leaf)
“C
Degrees Celsius
Carcinogenic Effects
Chronic Daily Intake
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act
Camp Lejeune
Contract Laboratory Program
Contaminant of Concern
Contaminant of Potential Concern
Carcinogen Risk Assessment Verification Endeavor
Contract Required Detection Limit
Contract Required Quantitation Limit
Carcinogenic Slope Factor
Cart.
CD1
CERCLA
CLEJ
CLP
cot
COPC
CRAVE
CRDL
CRQL
CSF
DC
DEM
DO
DOD
DON
DQO
EDB
EMD
EPIC
ER-L
ER-M
ERA
Direct Current
Division of Environmental Management
Dissolved Oxygen
Department of the Defense
Department of the Navy
Data Quality Objective
Ethyl Dibromide
Environmental Management Division (Camp Lejeune)
Environmental Photographic Interpretation Center
Effects Range - Low
Effects Range - Median
Ecological Risk Assessment
Environmental Science and Engineering
X
LIST
OF ACRONYMS
AND ABBREVIATIONS
(Continued)
“F
FFA
FID
ft
FWS
Degrees Fahrenheit
Federal Facilities Agreement
Flame Ionization Detector
Feet
Fish and Wildlife Service
gpm
Gallons per Minute
Groundwater Well
GW
H’
H
.
HEAST
HHAG
HI
HPIA
HQ
IAS
ICR
ID
IDW
IRIS
IRP
Species Diversity (Shannon-Wiener)
Species Diversity (Brillouins’)
Health Advisories
Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables
Human Health Assessment Group
Hazard Index
Hadnot Point Industrial Area
Hazard Quotient
Initial Assessment Study
Estimated Incremental Lifetime Cancer Risk
Internal Diameter
Investigation Derived Waste
Integrated Risk Information System
Installation Restoration Program
Organic Carbon Partition Coefficient
Octanol Water Partition Coefficient
.-!
LANTDIV
LOAEL
Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Atlantic Division
Lowest-Observed-Adverse-Effect-Level
MAG
Marine Air Groups
Macroinvertebrate Biotic Index
Marine Corps Air Station
Marine Corps Base
Maximum Contaminant Level
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Modifying Factor
Milligrams per Liter
Milligrams per Kilogram
Mobility Index
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
Matrix Spike and Matrix Spike Duplicate
Mean Sea Level
MB1
MCAS
MCB
MCL
MEK
MF
mg/L
w+g
MI
MIBK
MSIMSD
msl
xi
LIST
OF ACRONYMS
AND ABBREVIATIONS
(Continued)
NC DEHNR
NCP
NCWQS
ND
NEESA
NEHC
NFESC
NOAA
NOAEL
NOEL
Noncarc.
NPL
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
National Contingency Plan
North Carolina Water Quality Standards
Nondetect
Naval Energy and Environmental Support Activity
Navy Environmental Health Center
Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
No-Observed-Adverse-Effect-Level
No-Observed-Effect Level
Noncarcinogenic Effects
National Priorities List
National Wetlands Inventory
O&G
ORNL
OSWER
ou
Oil and Grease
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Operable Unit
PAH
PCB
PID
PPb
PPm
PVC
Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbon
Polychlorinated Biphenyl
Photoionization Detector
Parts per Billion
Parts per Million
Polyvinyl Chloride
QNQC
QI
Quality Assurance/Quality Control
Quotient Index
R
RA
RBC
RCRA
RI/FS
RI
RME
ROD
Retardation Factor
Risk Assessment
Region III Risk-Based Concentration
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
Reference Dose
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
Remedial Investigation
Reasonable Maximum Exposure
Record of Decision
S
SA
SAP
scs
SD
SI
Sj
Solubility
Site Assessment
Sampling and Analysis Plan
Soil Conservation Service
Sediment
Suite Investigation
Jaccard Coefficient
xii
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
(Continued)
SM-SP
SMCL
SOP
SQC
SS
SSL
ssv
sssv
STP
su
svoc
*SW
swsv
Fine Sand and Loamy Fine Sand
Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level
Standard Operating Procedure
Sediment Quality Criteria
[email protected] Index
Sediment Screening Level
Sediment Screening Value
Surface Soil Screening Value
Sewage Treatment Plant
Standard Unit
Semivolatile Organic Compound
Surface Water
Surface Water Screening Value
TAL
TBC
TCE
TCL
TCLP
TDS
TIC
TOC
TOC
TPH
TRV
TSS
Target Analyte List
To Be Considered
Trichloroethylene
Target Compound List
Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure
Total Dissolved Solids
Tentatively Identified Compound
Total Organic Carbon
Top-of-Casing
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon
Terrestrial Reference Value
Total Suspended Solids
P!e
l&g
I&g
Micrograms per Liter
Micrograms per Gram
Micrograms per Kilogram
Uptake/Biokinetics
Upper Confidence Limit
Uncertainty Factor
Unified Soil Classification System
United StatesEnvironmental Protection Agency
United StatesGeological Survey
Underground Storage Tank
voc
Volatile Organic Compound
Vapor Pressure
UBK
UCL
UF
uses
USEPA
USGS
UST
VP
WAR
WOE
WQS
WQSV
Water and Air Research, Incorporated
Weight-of-Evidence
Water Quality Standards
Water Quality Screening Values
...
XIII
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of an RI is to evaluate the nature and extent of the threat to public health and the
environment caused by the release or threatened release of hazardous substances, pollutants, or
contaminants. This RI investigation was conducted through the sampling of several environmental
media (soil, groundwater, surface water, sediment, and fish tissue) at OU No. 6, evaluating the
resultant analytical data, and performing a human health risk assessment(RA) and ecological RA.
This RI report contains the results of all field investigations, the human health RA, and the
ecological RA. Furthermore, the RI report provides information to support the FS and Record of
Decision (ROD) documents.
Operable
Unit Description
OU No. 6 is located within the northwest portion of the facility, to the south and east of Camp
Geiger Development Area. Site 36 is referred to as the “Camp Geiger Area Dump,” Site 43 is the
“Agan Street Dump,” Site 44 is known as the “Jones Street Dump,” Site 54 is the “Crash Crew Fire
Training Burn Pit,” and Site 86 is known as the “Tank Area AS419-AS421 at MCAS.”
Site Description
and Hisotry
The Jones Street Dump (Site 44) encompasses approximately 5 acres and is situated within the
operations area of MCAS New River. Vehicle accessto the site is via Baxter Street, from Curtis
Road. Site 44 is located at the northern terminus of Baxter Street, behind base housing units along
Jones Street.
The site is partially surrounded by a six-foot cyclone fence, a portion of the site lies to the east of
the fenced compound. The site is bordered to the north and west by Edwards Creek, to the south by
base housing units along Jones Street, and to the east by woods and an unnamed tributary to
Edwards Creek. Edwards Creek flows east from the study area toward Site 43, which is located
about 2,000 feet to the east of Site 44.
A majority of the site is comprised of a gently dipping open field that slopes toward Edwards Creek.
The field is covered with high grass, weeds, and small pine trees that are less than two inches in
diameter. Surrounding the open field is a mature wooded area with dense understory.
Site 44 was reportedly in operation during the 1950s. Although the quantity of waste is not known,
the IAS report stated that debris, cloth, lumber, and paint cans were disposed of at the site (WAR,
1983). The IAS report also referred to minor quantities of potentially hazardous waste as having
been disposed of at Site 44, however, the report made no mention of what type of waste that
included.
GEOLOGY
A depositional sequencewas observed in the deep well borings at Site 44 that matchesthe sequence
discussed in the U.S. Geological Survey’s hydrogeologic assessmentof Camp Lejeune (Cardinell,
et al., 1993). The uppermost formation at Site 44 is the undifferentiated formation. The Belgrade
Formation lies below, with the River Bend Formation below that.
ES-l
l
The undifferentiated formation, typically consists of three units of Holocene and Pleistocene ages.
The upper unit is 3 to 8 feet thick and predominantly consistsof silt and clay layers that are medium
stiff to very stiff. The middle unit is predominantly a fine sand with lesser amounts of silt and clay,
and is loose to medium dense. This unit is approximately 12 to 14 feet thick. The lower unit is
generally a fine to medium sand and shell fragments with lesser amounts of silt, or a clayey silt and
shell fragments. These sediments are typically medium dense to very dense, and are approximately
30 feet thick. The undifferentiated formation typically extends to a depth between 45 and 50
feet bgs.
The Belgrade Formation, is predominantly a fine sand and clayey silt of the Miocene age. The top
of this Formation lies 45 to 50 feet bgs, is approximately 5 feet thick, and has a distinct green or
greenish-gray color. These sediments are typically medium dense to dense.
The River Bend Formation is predominantly a fine to medium sand with lesser amounts of silt and
clay of the Oligocene age. This Formation lies 52 to 57 feet bgs at Site 44. The sediments of this
formation are typically medium dense to dense.
HYDROGEOLOGY
There are several aquifers beneath Site 44 and vicinity. The upper two aquifers were investigated
in this study, namely the surficial and Castle Hayne aquifers. The surficial aquifer occurs within the
sediments of the undifferentiated formation. The surficial aquifer, which is under unconfined
conditions (i.e., water table aquifer), typically lies within 10 feet of the surface, and is approximately
43 feet thick in the vicinity of Site 44. The upper portion of the Castle Hayne aquifer lies within the
sediments of the River Bend Formation. The Castle Hayne aquifer lies 52 to 57 feet bgs, and is
approximately 200 feet thick in the vicinity of Camp Gieger and the Air Station (Cardinell et al.,
1993). The Belgrade Formation, situated between the Undifferentiated and River Bend Formations
is also known as the Castle Hayne confining unit. The Castle Hayne confining unit is approximately
5 feet thick in the vicinity of Site 44.
The surficial aquifer hydraulic conductivity values are an order of magnitude lower than the value
presented in the Cardinell’s report. The average hydraulic conductivity at Site 44, based on RI slug
tests is 1.4 feet/day, compared to 50 feet/day presented by Cardinell. Cardinell provided an
estimated hydraulic conductivity value of 50 feet’day based on a general composition of fine sand,
mixed with some silt and clay. The average hydraulic conductivity and transmissivity for the Castle
Hayne at Site 44 is 17.8 feet/day and 3,560 feet2/day, respectively. Cardinell’s report presents
hydraulic conductivities and transmissivities from several studies. Hydraulic conductivities range
from 14 to 91 feet/day and transmissivities range from 820 to 26,000 feet?day. The RI results for
Site 44 bre comparable with other sites throughout Camp Lejeune.
The calculated groundwater flow velocities of the surficial aquifer varied within an order of
magnitude across the site. The velocity values ranged from 0.0 1 at 44-GW05 to 0.05 at 44-GW04.
The variations in groundwater flow velocities acrossthe site are likely due to the heterogeneous soil
conditions at the site. These heterogeneties cause the hydraulic properties to change spatially.
The calculated groundwater flow velocities for the Castle Hayne were 0.36 feet/day at 44-GWOlDW
and 0.35 feet/day at 44-GW06DW. The higher velocities of the Castle Hayne aquifer as compared
to the surficial aquifer are attributable to higher hydraulic conductivity values of the Castle Hayne.
ES-2
Groundwater flow in the surficial aquifer at Site 44 is toward Edwards Creek and the unnamed
tributary, with an average velocity of 0.03 feet per day. Based on groundwater flow direction and
groundwater elevation relative to surface water elevations, the surficial aquifer discharges to
Edwards Creek and the unnamed tributary.
Groundwater flow in the upper Castle Hayne aquifer is east under the site with an average velocity
of 0.36 feet/day. Groundwater elevation data compiled and mapped by Cardinell indicate that
groundwater in the Castle Hayne aquifer flows toward and discharges to the New River and its major
tributaries, including the air station vicinity.
The Castle Hayne confining unit appears to be semi-confining. The groundwater elevations in the
deep and shallow wells respond similarly to precipitation and/or atmospheric changes. The
confining unit is relatively thin, approximately 5 feet thick, with a measured vertical permeability
of 0.04 feet’day. Based on groundwater elevations in shallow and deep well clusters, there appears
to be a consistent upward groundwater flow from the Castle Hayne to the surficial aquifer.
REMEDIAL
INVESTIGATION
ACTIVITIES
The field investigation program at OU No.6, Site 44, was initiated to detect and characterize
potential impacts to human health and the environment resulting from past waste management
activities. This section discusses the site-specific RI field investigation activities that were
conducted to fulfill the objective. The RI field investigation of OU No.6 commenced on
February 20, 1995 and continued through May 10, 1995. The RI field program at Site 44 consisted
of a site survey; a soil investigation, which included drilling and sampling; a groundwater
investigation, which included monitoring well installation, sampling, and aquifer testing; a surface
water and sediment investigation; a habitat evaluation; and a bioassay study. The following sections
detail the various investigation activities carried out during the RI.
A total of 13 borings were advanced to assesssuspectedwaste disposal at Site 44; three of those
borings were utilized for the installation of monitoring wells. Four of the 13 boring locations were
completed in an area immediately surrounding monitoring well 44-GW03, identified in the-Final
RI/FS Work Plan for OU No.6 (Baker, 1994b). The remaining nine soil borings were completed at
the various locations throughout the site.
The analytical program initiated during the soil investigation at Site 44 focused on suspected
contaminants of concern, as indicated by information regarding previous disposal practices and
investigation results. Each of the 13 soil samples were analyzed for TAL metals and full TCL
organics (i.e., volatiles, semivolatiles, pesticides, and PCBs). Samples were prepared and handled
as described in the previous section.
Soil samples from selected exploratory test pits were submitted for laboratory analysis of the
compounds reported as part of TCLP and RCRA hazardous waste characteristics. Laboratory
confirmation analysis of excavated soil was requested when staining was evident or when organic
contamination was indicated by field screening. The TCLP samples were employed to characterize
the nature of the visually contaminated material. Samples were prepared and handled as described
in the previous section.
Groundwater samples were collected from three existing shallow wells (44-GWOl, 44-GW02, and
44-GW03), the three newly installed shallow wells (44-GW04, 44-GW05, and 44-GW06), one
ES-3
.
-
temporary well (44-TWOl), and the two newly installed deep wells (44-GWOlDW and
44-GW04DW) at Site 44. The groundwater sampling round was conducted at Site 44 in April of
1995.
Groundwater samples from three existing shallow wells, three newly installed shallow wells, two
newly installed deep wells, and one temporary well were submitted for laboratory analysis from
Site 44. Samples were analyzed for full TCL organics (i.e., volatiles, semivolatiles, pesticides, and
PCBs), TAL total metals, total suspended solids (TSS), and total dissolved solids (TDS). In
addition, the groundwater sample obtained from 44-GWOl was also analyzed for TAL dissolved
metals. Table 3-8 provides a summary of groundwater samples submitted for laboratory analysis
during the groundwater investigation. The groundwater samples were analyzed using Contract
Laboratory Program (CLP) protocols and Level IV data quality.
A total of 8 surface water and 16 sediment samples were collected at Site 44 during the initial
sampling event in May of 1995. Each sampling station yielding one surface water and two sediment
samples. Five of the sampling stations were located in Edwards Creek and three were located in an
unnamed tributary to Edwards Creek.
An additional eight samples were later collected to more adequately assessthe extent of surface
water contamination in Edwards Creek. The eight samplesfrom Edwards Creek were submitted in
September of 1995 for laboratory analysis of volatile organic compounds only. Based upon- the
results of the initial surface water sampling event, four of the eight additional sampleswere collected
from previously sampled locations (44-EC-SW01 through 44-EC-SW04). The remaining four
additional sample locations were situated upgradient of the initial sampling stations.
The analytical program at Site 44 was intended to assessthe nature and extent of contamination in
surface waters and sediments that may have resulted from past disposal practices. As a result, the
analytical program focused on suspected contaminants of concern, based upon knowledge of
suspected wastes and the overall quality of surface water and sediment. Both surface water and
sediment samples were analyzed for full TCL organics and TAL metals. Surface water samples
were also analyzed for TAL dissolved metals and hardness. In addition to organie and inorganic
analyses, sediment samples were also analyzed for TOC and grain size.
An additional eight surface water samples from Edwards Creek were analyzed for TCL volatiles
only. The additional samples were requested as a result of analytical data gathered during the initial
sampling event. Volatile organic compounds were observed in Edwards Creek surface water
samples with increasing upgradient concentrations.
A two-pronged ecological investigation, consisting of a habitat evaluation and a bioassay study, was
conducted at Site 44. During the habitat evaluation, dominant vegetation types and species were
identified in the field; those plants that could not be readily identified were collected for further
examination in the off&. Amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals were also identified as visual
sightings or evidence allowed. In many cases, the animals themselves were not seen, but scat,
tracks, feeding areas, or remains were noted. From this information, ecological communities were
established and biohabitat maps developed.
-
The bioassay study was conducted in a laboratory environment, using surface water and sediment
samples that were retained from Site 44. A 7-day survival and growth study of fathead minnows
ES-4
was performed with each of the surface water samples.In addition to the surface water test,a lo-day
survival and growth bioassay study was conducted using the sediments retained from Site 44.
EXTENT
OF CONTAMINATION
This section presents a summary of analytical findings from field sampling activities conducted at
Site 44. Table ES-l provides a summary of site contamination for Site 44
A total of four semivolatile contaminants, including two PAH compounds, were identified during
the soil investigation at Site 44. The two PAH compounds were identified in both surface and
subsurface soil samples. As provided in Table ES- 1, each of the semivolatile compounds were
detected at concentrations less than 550 pg/kg.
The pesticides 4,4.-DDE, 4,4’-DDD, and 4,4’-DDT appear to be the most widely distributed
compounds in soil at Site 44. Each of the observed pesticides were detected in at least 5 of the 26
soil samples. The pesticide 4,4’-DDE was the most prevalent, with eight positive detections ranging
from 3.2 to 370 &kg. The highest pesticide concentration was that of 4,4’-DDD at 2,500 ug/kg.
In general, slightly higher concentrations of pesticides were observed in samples obtained from the
central portion of the study area, particularly in samples 44-GWOlDW and OA-SBOS.
Inorganic analytes were detected in both surface and subsurface soil samples throughout the study
area. Arsenic, chromium, and manganese were each detected above twice their average basespecific background levels in 11 of the 13 surface soil samples. Both copper and zinc were detected
at concentrations in excess of ten times the average base-specific background level in a surface
sample obtained from station OA-SB03. In general, however, inorganic analytes in subsurface soils
were detected at concentrations within base-specific background levels.
Groundwater
Inorganics were the most prevalent and widely distributed constituents in groundwater at Site 44.
Concentrations of TAL total metals were generally higher in shallow groundwater samples than in
samples collected from the deeper aquifer. Iron and manganese were the most prevalent inorganic
analytes, detected at concentrations that exceeded standards in each of the groundwater samples.
Positive detections of organic compounds were limited to the temporary monitoring well (44-TWOl)
and an existing shallow monitoring well (44-GW03). Of the eight organic compounds detected in
44-GW03, only tetrachloroethene and naphthalene concentrations exceeded state or federal
screening standards. Only one of the three volatile compounds detected in sample 44-TWO 1, vinyl
chloride, exceeded screening criteria.
ES-5
TABLE
ES-l
SUMMARY
OF SITE CONTAMINATION
SITE 44, JONES STREET DUMP
REMEDIAL
INVESTIGATION,
CTO-0303
MCB, CAMP LEJEUNE, NORTH CAROLINA
Contaminants
TABLE
ES-l (Continued)
SUMMARY
OF SITE CONTAMINATION
SITE 44, JONES STREET DUMP
REMEDIAL
INVESTIGATION,
CTO-0303
MCB, CAMP LEJEUNE, NORTH CAROLINA
Media
jubstuface
soil
Continued)
houndwater
Fraction
detals (1)
Jolatiles
;emivolatiles
‘esticides
‘CBS
:0&l
Aetals
Detected
Contaminants
Arsenic
Copper
Lead
Manganese
Nickel
Zinc
Vinyl Chloride
1,2-Dichloroethene (total)
Trichloroethene
Tetrachloroethene
Naphthalene (PAH)
2-Methylnaphthalene
.Acenaphthene (PAH)
Dibenzofuran
Fluorene (PAH)
Phenanthrene (PAH)
Carbazole
NJ3
ND
Iron
Manganese
Comparison
Standard
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NCWQS - 0.015
MCL - 70
MCL-5
NCWQS - 0.7
NCWQS - 21
NA
NCWQS - 800
NA
NCWQS - 280
NCWQS - 210
NA
NCWQUMCL
NCWQSAKL
NCWQS - 300
NCWQS - 50
Criteria
Base
Backeround
1.9
2.4
8.3
7.9
3.7
6.7
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Site Contamination
Min.
Max.
0.3
0.4
1.4
1.3
1.3
0.8
10
15
1
1
71
4
13
6
7
7
4
2.5
3
9
9.3
15.8
10.8
10
15
1
1
71
4
13
6
7
7
4
285
21.6
72,900
241
WA-SB02
44-GWOlDW
WA-SB04
44-TWO1 1
44-TWO1 1
44-TWO1
44-GW03
44-GW03
44-GW03
44-GW03
44-GW03
44-GW03
44-GW03
44-GW03
44-GW04
44-GW04
13113
6113
12/13
l/9
l/9
l/9
l/9
l/9
l/9
l/9
l/9
l/9
l/9
l/9
o/9
Of9
919
819
2 exceed BB
2 exceed BB
1 exceeds BB. west central
11 exceeds standard, marsh area
Idoes not exceed standard, marsh
does not exceed standard, marsh
1 exceeds standard, southwestern
1 exceeds standard, southwestern
southwestern, near accessroad
does not exceed standard
southwestem, near accessroad
does not exceed standard
does not exceed standard
southwestern, near accessroad
8 exceed standard, scattered
5 exceed standard. scattered
1
“I
.)
“‘I
TABLE
ES-1 (Continued)
SUMMARY
OF SITE CONTAMINATION
SITE 44, JONES STREET DUMP
REMEDIAL
INWWI’IGATION,
CTO-0303
MCB, CAMP LEJEUNE, NORTH CAROLINA
Yb&Ls,CCU
Contaminants
Media
I
ComDarison Criteria
I
Site Contamination
G.&ace
Water (2)
jediment
jemivolatiles
‘esticides
‘CBS
vletals (3)
Jolatiles
jemivolatiles
Trichloroethene
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
Phenol
ND
ND
Lead
Acetone
Pentachlorophenol
Pyrene (PAH)
Butylbenzylphthalate
B(a)anthracene IPAIB
Chrysene (PAH)
B(b)fluoranthene (PAHJ
BO<)fluoranthene (PAL-I)
Benzo ( a)pyrene (PAIL)
Wg,U)perylene @‘AH)
NCWQS - 42
NCWQS - 10.8
NCWQS ,i 300
NCWQSINOAA
NCWOS/NOAA
NCWQS - 25
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
10.4
NA
NA
1
5
1
1
42
1
EC-SW08
EC-SW08
UT-SW01
0.8
15
340
NOAA - 350
NA
NOAA - 230
NOAA - 400
NA
NA
NOAA - 400
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
42
48
50
44
52
49
56
49
11.2
610
740
250
79
740
490
48
170
460
600
200
300
71
EC-SW02
UT-SD0 1
EC-SD0 1
UT-SD03
UT-SD03
UT-SD03
UT-SD03
UT-SD02
UT-SD03
UT-SD03
UT-SD03
UT-SD03
UT-SD03
UT-SD02
l/16
12116
l/8
O/8
Of8
218
11/16
2116
5/16
l/16
6116
7116
l/16
3116
7116
6116
3/16
3116
2116
max. upgradient, decreases by site
upgradient
9 exceed standard, max. upgradient
low detection, UT
1 exceeds BB not standard
1 exceeds blank cont. level (240)
up and downgradient, EC
primarily UT
near confluence with EC, UT
1 exceeds standard, UT
1 exceeds standard, UT
by concrete outflow/culvert, UT
do not exceed standard. UT
1 exceeds standard, UT
UT and downgradient of UT
all detections from UT
do not exceed standard, UT
,ldetectionECandlUT
TABLE
ES-1 (Continued)
SUMMARY
OF SITE CONTAMINATION
SITE 44, JONES STREET DUMP
REMEDIAL
INVESTIGATION,
CTO-0303
MCB, CAMP LEJEUNE, NORTH CAROLINA
.*
Media
Contaminants
D~srnmmon
Sediment
(Continued)
E
\b
Notes:
- Concentrations are presented in pg/L for liquid and @Kg for solids (ppb), metal concentrations for soils and sediments are presented in mgKg @pm).
(1) Metals in both surface and subsurface soils were compared to twice the average base background positive concentrations for priority pollutant metals only
(i.e., antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, selenium, silver, thallium, zinc).
(2) Surface water detections were compared to appropriate NCWQS and NOAA screening values, based upon the observed percentage of saltwater at each sampling location.
(3) Total metals in surface water and sediment were compared to the maximum positive detections in upgradient samples at MCB, Camp Lejeune.
BB - Base background, value equals two times average value for soil and the maximum value for surface water and sediment (refer to Appendix P)
BEHP - bis(2ethylhexyl)phthalate
EC - Edwards Creek
NA - Not applicable
NCWQS - North Carolina Water Quality Standard
ND - Not detected
NOAA - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
MCL - Federal Maximum Contaminant Level
PAH - Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon
UT - Unnamed Tributary
Surface Water
Edwards Creek
A total of 6 VOCs were detected among the 13 surface water samplesobtained from Edwards Creek.
Both 1,Zdichloroethene (total) and trichloroethene were detected in each of the 13 samples obtained
from Edwards Creek. The maximum concentrations of 1,2-dichloroethene (total) and
trichloroethene were 150 and 66 pg/L. Vinyl chloride and 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane were next most
prevalent VOCs detected among Edwards Creek surface water samples. Viny1 chloride was detected
in eight surface water sampleswith a maximum concentration of 38 pg/L. As provided in Table 4-2,
1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane was detected in 12 of the samples obtained from Edwards Creek with a
maximum concentration of 42 pg/L. Nine of the 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane detections exceeded the
NCWQS screening value of 10.8 pg/L. Twelve of the 1,Zdichloroethene (total) detections exceeded
the 7.0 pg/L screening value. None of the other positive VOC detections exceeded applicable
screening values. Lastly, the VQCs 1,I-dichloroethene and l,l,Ztrichloroethane were also detected
among the surface water samples at maximum concentrations of 2 and 1 pg/L, respectively.
Thirteen of 23 TAL total metals were positively identified among the five surface water samples
obtained from Edwards Creek (antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, mercury,
selenium, silver, and thallium were not detected). Positive detections of metals were compared to
screening standards for surface water bodies classified as fresh water (i.e., containing less than five
percent saltwater). Lead was detected in only one of the five surface water samples obtained from
Edwards Creek in excessof the 10.4 pg/L maximum base background concentration. No other total
metal concentrations in the four surface water samples exceeded state of federal screening values.
Unnamed
Tributary
Positive detections of two volatile organic compounds were observed among the three surface water
samples obtained from the unnamed tributary to Edwards Creek. The VQCs 1,Zdichloroethene and
trichloroethene were detected at a concentrations of 5 and 2 pg/L in sample UT-SW03, located
approximately 150 feet upstream of the Edwards Creek confluence. Phenol was the only SVOC
detected among surface water samplessubmitted for laboratory analysis from Site 44. At sampling
location UT-SW01 phenol was detected at a concentration of 1 pg/L. None of the volatile or
semivolatile detections exceeded applicable state or federal screening values.
Laboratory analysesof four surface water samplesretained from the unnamed tributary indicate that
12 of 23 possible total metals were positively detected. None of the total metal concentrations in
the three surface water samples obtained from the unnamed tributary to Edwards Creek exceeded
state or federal screening values.
Sediment
Edwards Creek
Unlike surface water, volatile organic compounds were not detected in any of the ten sediment
samples obtained from Edwards Creek. A total of seven SVOCs were detected, however, among
seven of the ten sediment samples;six of the seven SVQCs detected were PAHs. A majority of the
SVOC detections in Edwards Creek sediment samples were from station EC-SDOS, located
downstream of the unnamed tributary confluence. Pentachlorophenol was positively detected in two
ES-10
of the sediment samples at a maximum concentration of 740 &kg in upstream location EC-SD01 .
The maximum PAH concentration was that of fluoranthene at 120 @kg. Phenanthrene, pyrene,
chrysene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, and benzo(g,h,i)perylene were also detected in at least one of the
ten Edwards Creek samples. None of the positive SVOC detections in samples obtained from
Edwards Creek exceeded applicable NOAA screening values.
The pesticides 4,4’-DDE and 4,4’-DDD were detected in each of the ten sediment samples obtained
from Edwards Creek. Both of these pesticides were detected at their respective maximum
concentrations within a sample obtained from station EC-SDOS,located downstream of the unnamed
tributary confluence. As indicted in Table ES- 1, each of the 4,4’-DDE and 4,4’-DDD detections
were in excess of NOAA Effects Range-Low (ER-L) screening values. Alpha-chlordane and
gamma-chlordane were detected in nine of the ten sediment samples at concentrations in excessof
screening values. Both alpha-chlordane and gamma-chlordane were detected at maximum
concentrations of 14 and 16 @kg in sample EC-SDOS. The pesticide 4,4’-DDT was detected in
eight of the ten Edwards Creek sediment samples, at concentrations exceeding screening values.
The maximum 4,4’-DDT detection, 130 ug/kg, was also observed in one of the samples obtained
from station EC-SDOS. Each of the pesticide detections in sediment samples represented an
exceedance of appropriate NOAA screening criteria.
Twenty of 23 TAL total metals were positively identified among the ten Edwards Creek sediment
samples (antimony, mercury, and thallium were not detected). Lead and zinc were detected at
concentrations in excess of their respective NOAA screening values of 35 and 120 mg/kg. As
provided in Table ES-l, one detection of lead at 43.5 mg/kg and one detection of zinc at 144 mg/kg
exceeded applicable sediment screening values in a sample obtained from station EC-SDOS. Neither
the lead nor the zinc detection in EC-SD05 exceeded base-specific background concentrations.
Unnamed Tributary
Acetone was the only volatile organic compound detected among the six unnamed tributary
sediment samples. No other WC was detected among sediment samplesfrom both Edwards Creek
and the unnamed tributary to Edwards Creek. Acetone was identified at a concentration of
6 10 @kg in a sample obtained from station UT-SD0 1, which exceeded ten times the maximum
QA/QC blank concentration.
A total of 11 semivolatile compounds were identified in sediment samples obtained from the
unnamed tributary to Edwards Creek. As provided in Table ES- 1,9 of the 11 SVQCs detected were
PAH compounds. No semivolatile compounds were detected at location UT-SD0 1, located upstream
of two 36-inch drainage culverts which discharge to the unnamed tributary. The majority of
maximum SVOC detections were observed in samples obtained from location UT-SD03. The
maximum semivolatile concentration among sediment samplesobtained from the unnamed tributary
was that of fluoranthene. As presented in Table ES- 1, four semivolatiles were each detected once
among unnamed tributary samples at concentrations exceeding applicable NOAA screening values.
Fluorantbene, pyrene, and chrysene were detected at their maximum concentrations of 740,490, and
460 @kg in a sample obtained from UT-SD03, approximately 150 feet from the confluence with
Edwards Creek. Benzo(g,h,i)perylene was detected at a maximum concentration of 71 ug/kg in
sample UT-SD02, adjacent to the culvert outfall.
The pesticides 4,4’-DDD, and 4,4.-DDE were detected in each of the six unnamed tributary
sediment samples. As indicated in Table 4-2,4,4’-DDD and 4,4.-DDE were detected at maximum
ES-l 1
concentrations of 3 10 and 770 psn<g in a sample obtained from station UT-SD02. The pesticide
4,4’-DDT was detected in three of the six samplesat a maximum concentration of 3.7 pg/kg. Alphachlordane and gamma-chlordane were detected in four of the six samples at maximum
concentrations of 7.8 and 9.5 ug/kg. Each of the pesticide detections in sediment samples
represented an exceedance of appropriate NOAA screening criteria. The upstream sampling station,
UT-SD0 1, had the fewest detections of pesticide compounds.
Sixteen of 23 TAL total metals were positively identified in the seven sediment samples from the
unnamed tributary (antimony, beryllium, cadmium, cobalt, mercury, silver, and thallium were not
detected). Of the 16 metals detected, only lead was identified at concentrations in excessof NOAA
ER-L screening value of 35 mg/kg. Lead was detected twice among the six sediment samples
obtained from the unnamed tributary at concentrations in excessof the screening value. Lead was
detected at 53 and 56 mg/kg in the two samples obtained from station UT-SD03. All other TAL
metals detected in sediment samples from the unnamed tributary were within base-specific
background concentrations.
HUMAN HEALTH
RISK ASSESSMENT
At Site 44, exposure to surface soil, surface water and sediment was assessedfor the current
receptors. Surface soil, groundwater, surface water, and sediment exposure were evaluated for the
future residents. Subsurface soil exposure was evaluated for the future construction worker.
;A
In the current case, the following receptors were assessed: military persomrel and adult and child
trespassers. Receptor exposure to surface soil, surface water, sediment was examined. The risks
calculated for all exposure pathways and receptors were within acceptable risk ranges.
In the future case, child and adult residents were assessedfor potential exposure to groundwater,
surface soil, surface water, and sediment. A construction worker was evaluated for subsurface soil
exposure. The potential noncarcinogenic and carcinogenic risks for the construction worker at Site
44 were within acceptable levels. The carcinogenic risk for the future child resident was 1.OxlOA.
The carcinog&ric risk for the future adult resident was 2.0x10 -4. Both ICR values are driven by the
presence of vinyl chloride in groundwater.
It should be noted that vinyl chloride was detected in only one groundwater sample from well
location 44-TWOl-01. This well is located approximately 50 feet from the Edwards Creek. Due to
the location of the well, the presence of vinyl chloride appears to be related to creek contaminants
rather than migration of groundwater contaminants. In addition, VOCs were not detected in surface
soil, subsurface soil, and other groundwater samples at Site 44.
The noncarcinogenic risk from groundwater ingestion for the future child resident was 16. The
noncarcinogenic risk from groundwater ingestion for the future adult resident was 7.1. This value
exceeds the acceptable risk value of one. The iron in groundwater is driving this risk.
The iron constitutes 98% of both elevated risk values. Without iron as a COPC, the noncarcinogenic
risk values for future residential adults and children would be 0.15 and 0.35, respectively. The
studies that prompted the addition of a RBC value for iron are provisional only and have not
undergone formal review by the USEPA. Also, iron is considered an essential nutrient.
ES-12
z
Finally, it should be noted that groundwater in the MCB Camp Lejeune area is naturally rich in iron.
In addition, there is no record of any historical use of iron at Site 44. Consequently, it is assumed
that iron is a naturally occurring inorganic analyte in groundwater, and its presence is not
attributable to site operations.
ECOLOGICAL
RISK
ASSESSMENT
Aquatic Recq%xs
As presented earlier in the EPA, the assessmentendpoints for the aquatic receptors are potential
decreases in the survival, growth, and/or reproduction of the aquatic receptor population or
subpopulation that is attributable to site-related contaminants. These assessmentendpoints are
evaluated using a series of measurement endpoints. This section of the ERA examines’each of the
measurement endpoints to determine if the assessmentendpoints are impacted.
The first measurement endpoint is decreased survival and growth of E promeh and c m,
decreased survival and reproduction of Q, m, and decreased survival of H.,aeteca as compared
to controls. The bioassay sampleswere collected at station 44-EC-SW/SD02 in an area of relatively
high pesticide detections (several orders of magnitude greater than the SSSVs). Manganese and
nickel concentrations slightly exceeded the SWSVs at this station. For the surface water bioassay,
adverse survival effects were observed in the 5;. &
bioassay, however, no adverse survival or
growth effects were observed in the E. promela bioassay. Therefore, the metals in the surface water
may be causing a decrease in survival of c. dd&12. No decrease in survival or growth of fl. azteca
or c. tentans was observed in the Site 44 sediment sample.
The second measurement endpoint is determining if the contaminant concentrations in the surface
water and sediment exceed the contaminant-specific surface water and sediment effect
concentrations (i.e., SWSVs, and SSVs). Several metals, SVOCs, and pesticides were detected in
the surface water and/or sediment at concentrations above the SWSVs or SSVs. Based on the
screening value comparison, there is a moderate to high potential for a decrease in the population
of aquatic receptors from pesticides in the sediments. There is only a low potential for a decrease
in the population of aquatic receptors from metals in the surface water and sediment, and SVOCs
in the sediment, since the concentration of these contaminants only slightly exceeded the screening
values or were detected infrequently.
It should be noted that the highest pesticide concentrations were detected at Stations 44-UT-SD02,
44-EC-SD02 and 44-EC-SD05 while elevated lead and SVOC concentrations were detected at
Station 44-UT-SD03. The source of the pesticides is not known since pesticides reportedly were not
stored or disposed at Site 44. In addition, since the high pesticide concentrations were detected in
non-adjacent locations, the pesticides may be due to the periodic pesticide spraying that occurred
on the base. Lead was detected at low concentrations in the groundwater (maximum detection of
1.4 ug/L) and surface soil (maximum detection of 31.7 mg/kg). Therefore, the lead in the surface
water (maximum detection 11.2 ug/L) and sediment (maximum detection 56.3 mg/kg) does not
appear to be site-related. Phenanthrene was the only SVOC in the sediment that was detected in the
groundwater (7 ug/L), and none of the SVOCs in the sediment were detected in the surface soil.
Therefore, it does not appear that the SVOCs in the sediment are site-related, but may be related to
a lift station that discharges into the unnamed tributary.
ES-13
Several VOCs were detected in the surface water. Based on the comparison to screening values
there does not appear to be a risk to aquatic species. It should be noted, however, that the source of
the VOCs originates upstream of Site 44, based on the additional sampling event.
Terrestrial Receptars
As presented earlier in the ERA, the assessmentendpoints for the terrestrial receptors is the potential
reduction of a receptor population or subpopulation that is attributable to contaminants from the site.
This section evaluates this assessmentendpoint using the measurement endpoints.
The first measurement endpoint is determining if there is an exceedancesof contaminant-specific
soil effect concentrations (i.e., SSSVs). Several SVOCs, pesticides, and metals were detected in the
surface soil at concentrations that exceed the SSSVs. Much of the study area at Site 44 is heavily
vegetated with dense understory and trees greater than three inches in diameter. Therefore,
ecological receptors have a high potential for becoming exposed to contaminants in the surface soil.
The second measurement endpoint is determining if the terrestrial CD1 exceeds the TRVs. The
cottontail rabbit and the raccoon are the only terrestrial species with estimated CD1 values that
exceeded the TRV values. However, the COPCs causing the majority of the risk (aluminum, iron,
and/or vanadium) are not related to past site activities, and are common naturally occurring metals.
Therefore, they are not considered to be site-related.
h
Overall, 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 SSSVs. A potential decrease
in the terrestrial vertebrate population from site-related contaminants is not expected based on the
terrestrial intake model.
l
ES-14
. . .
1.0
INTRODUCTION
Marine Corps Base (MCB), Camp Lejeune was placed on the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) National Priorities List (NPL) on October 4,
1989 (54 Federal Register 41015, October 4, 1989). Subsequent to this listing, the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Region IV; the North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health and Natural Resources(NC DEHNR); and the United StatesDepartment of the
Navy (DON) entered into a Federal Facilities Agreement (FFA) for MCB, Camp Lejeune. The FFA
ensures that environmental impacts associated with past and present activities at MCB, Camp
Lejeune are thoroughly investigated and appropriate CERCLA response/ResourceConservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) corrective action alternatives are developed and implemented, as necessary,
to protect public health, welfare, and the environment (FFA, 1989).
The Fiscal Year 1996 Site Management Plan for MCB, Camp Lejeune, the primary document
referenced in the FFA, identifies 33 sites that require Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
(RI/FS) activities. These 33 sites have been divided into 16 operable units to simplify RI/FS
activities. An RI was conducted at Operable Unit (OU) No. 6, Sites 36,43,44,54, and 86, during
February through May of 1995. This report describes the RI conducted at Site 44, the Jones Street
Dump. Four additional reports have been prepared that address each of the other OU No. 6 sites.
Figure l- 1 depicts the location of the five sites that comprise OU No. 6. [Note that all tables and
figures are presented in the back of each section.]
The purpose of an RI is to evaluate the nature and extent of the threat to public health and the
environment caused by the release or threatened release of hazardous substances,pollutants, or
contaminants. This RI investigation was conducted through the sampling of several environmental
media (soil, groundwater, surface water, sediment, and fish tissue) at OU No. 6, evaluating the
resultant analytical data, and performing a human health risk assessment(RA) and ecological RA.
This RI report contains the results of all field investigations, the human health RA, and the
ecological RA. Furthermore, the RI report provides information to support the FS and Record of
Decision (ROD) documents.
This RI Report has been prepared by Baker Environmental, Inc. (Baker) and submitted to the
USEPA Region Iv, the NC DEW, MCB, Camp Lejeune Environmental Management Department
(EMD); the Navy Environmental Health Center (NEHC); the Agency for Toxic Substancesand
Disease Registry; and to the Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Atlantic Division (LANTDIV)
for their review.
The following subsections describe the arrangement of OU No. 6 and the background and setting
of both MCB, Camp Lejeune and Site 44. In addition, Section 1.l provides an overview of the RI
report’s organization.
1.1
Report
.
%3tm&m
.
This RI Report is comprised of one text volume; appendices are provided in an additional volume.
The following section headings are included within this text volume and provide site-specific
investigation findings:
l-1
Study Area Investigation - Section 2.0
Site Physical Characteristics - Section 3.0
Nature and Extent of Contamination - Section 4.0
Contaminant Fate and Transport - Section 5.0
Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment - Section 6.0
Ecological Risk Assessment- Section 7.0
Conclusions - Section 8.0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.2
Bacbround
.
and Settw
of MCB.
Ganu&wm
.
The following section summarizes existing background and setting information that pertains to
MCB, Camp Lejeune. This section specifically addressesthe location and setting of MCB, Camp
Lejeune, its history, topography, geology, hydrogeology, climatology, ecology, land use, and
demography.
1.2.1
Location
and Setting
MCB, Camp Lejeune is located on the coastal plain of North Carolina in Onslow County. The
facility encompassesapproximately 234 square miles and is bisected by the New River. The New
River flows in a southeasterly direction and forms a large estuary before entering the Atlantic Ocean.
The southeasternborder of MCB, Camp Lejeune is the Atlantic Ocean shoreline. The western and
northeastern boundaries of the facility are U.S. Route 17 and State Route 24, respectively. The City
of Jacksonville borders MCB, Camp Lejeune to the north (refer to Figure l-l).
1.2.2
History
Construction of MCB, Camp Lejeune began in April 1941 at the Hadnot Point Industrial Area
(HPIA), where major functions of the base are located today. The facility was designed to be the
“World’s Most Complete Amphibious Training Base.” The MCB, Camp Lejeune complex consists
of five geographical locations under the jurisdiction of the Base Command. These areas include
Camp Geiger, Montford Point, Courthouse Bay, Mainside, and the Rifle Range Area. Site 36 is
located within the Camp Geiger operations area. The remaining four sites that comprise OU No. 6,
Sites 43, 44, 54, and 86, are located within the Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS), New River
operations area. Although MCAS, New River is under the jurisdiction of a separate command
(i.e., MCAS, Cherry Point), environmental compliance issuesand Installation Restoration Program
(IRP) sites are the responsibility of MCB, Camp Lejeune EMD.
1.2.3
Operable
Unit Description
Operable units are formed as an incremental steptoward addressing individual site concerns. There
are currently 33 Installation Restoration Program (IRP) sites at MCB, Camp Lejeune, which have
been grouped into 16 operable units. Due to the similar nature of suspectedwaste and their close
proximity to one another, Sites 36, 43, 44, 54, and 86 were grouped together as OU No. 6.
.Figure l-2 depicts the locations of all 16 operable units at MCB, Camp Lejeune.
-
OU No. 6 is located within the northwest portion of the facility, to the south and east of Camp
Geiger Development Area. Site 36 is referred to as the “Camp Geiger Area Dump,” Site 43 is the
“Agan Street Dump,” Site 44 is known as the “Jones Street Dump,” Site 54 is the “Crash Crew Fire
Training Bum Pit,” and Site 86 is known as the “Above Ground Storage Tank Area.”
1-2
-
1.2.4
Topography
The flat topography of MCB, Camp Lejeune is typical of seaward portions of the North Carolina
coastal plain. Elevations on the base vary from sea level to 72 feet above mean sea level (msl);
however, most of MCB, Camp Lejeune is between 20 and 40 feet above msl.
Drainage at MCB, Camp Lejeune is generally toward the New River, except in areas near the coast
where flow is into the Intracoastal Waterway that lies between the mainland and barrier islands. In
developed areas of the facility, natural drainage has been altered by asphalt cover, storm sewers, and
drainage ditches. Approximately 70 percent of MCB, Camp Lejeune is comprised of broad, flat
interstream areas with poor drainage (WAR, 1983).
1.2.5
Surface Water
Hydrology
The dominant surface water feature at MCB, Camp Lejeune is the New River. It receives drainage
from a majority of the base. The New River is short with a course of approximately 50 miles on the
central Coastal Plain of North Carolina. Over most of its length, the New River is confined to a
relatively narrow channel in Eocene and Oligocene limestones. South of Jacksonville, the river
widens dramatically as it flows across less resistant sands, clays, and marls. At MCB, Camp
Lejeune, the New River flows in a southerly direction into the Atlantic Ocean through the New River
Inlet. Several small coastal creeks drain the area of MCB, Camp Lejeune not associated with the
New River and its tributaries. These creeks flow into the Intracoastal Waterway, which is connected
to the Atlantic Ocean by Bear Inlet, Brown’s Inlet, and the New River Inlet. The New River, the
Intracoastal Waterway, and the Atlantic Ocean converge at the New River Inlet.
Water quality criteria for surface waters in North Carolina have been published under Title 15 of the
North Carolina Administrative Code. At MCB, Camp Lejeune, the New River falls into two
classifications: SC (estuarine waters not suited for body-contact sports or commercial shellfishing);
and SA (estuarine waters suited for commercial shellfishing). The SC classification applies to only
three areas of the New River at MCB, Camp Lejeune; the rest of the New River at MCB, Camp
Lejeune falls into the SA classification @SE, 1990).
1.2.6
Geology
MCB, Camp Lejeune is located within the Atlantic Coastal Plain physiographic province. The
sediments of this province consist primarily of sand, silt, and clay. Other sediments may be present,
including shell beds and gravel. Sediments may be of marine or continental origin. These sediments
are found in interfrngering beds and lenses that gently dip and thicken to the southeast. Sediments
of this type range in age from early Cretaceous to Quatemary time and overlie igneous and
metamorphic rocks of pre-Cretaceous age. Table l-l presents a generalized stratigraphic column
for the Atlantic Coastal Plain of North Carolina (Hamed et al, 1989).
United States Geological Survey (USGS) studies at MCB, Camp Lejeune indicate that the base is
underlain by sand, silt, clay, calcareous clay and partially cemented limestone. The combined
thickness of these sediments beneath the base is approximately 1,500 feet.
l-3
1.2.7
Hydrogeology
The aquifers of primary interest are the surficial aquifer and the aquifer immediately below it, the
Castle Hayne aquifer. Other aquifers that occur beneath the facility include the Beaufort, Peedee,
Black Creek, and upper and lower Cape Fear aquifers. The following summary is a compilation of
information which pertains to aquifer characteristics within the MCB, Camp Lejeune area. A
generalized hydrogeologic cross-section illustrating the relationship between the aquifers in this area
is presented in Figures l-3 and l-4.
The surficial aquifer consists of interfingering beds of sand, clay, sandy clay, and silt that contain
some peat and shells. The thickness of the surficial aquifer ranges from 0 to 73 feet and averages
nearly 25 feet over the MCB, Camp Lejeune area. It is generally thickest in the interstream divide
areas and presumed absent where it is cut by the New River and its tributaries. The beds are thin
and discontinuous, and have limited lateral continuity. This aquifer is not used for water supply at
MCB, Camp Lejeune.
=-
The general lithology of the surficial aquifer and the absenceof any thick, continuous clay beds are
indications of relatively high vertical conductivity within the aquifer. The estimated lateral
hydraulic conductivity of the surficial aquifer in the MCB, Camp Lejeune area is 50 feet per day,
and is based on a general composition of fine sand mixed with some silt and clay (Harned et
al., 1989). However, data from a number of slug tests conducted by Baker at sites near OU No. 6
indicate much lower lateral hydraulic conductivity values. These values range from 7.2 x 1O-’feet
per day to 6.4 feet per day. Table l-2 presents a summary of hydraulic properties compiled during
investigations at other sites located within the developed portion of MCAS, New River.
Between the surficial and the Castle Hayne aquifers lies the Castle Hayne confining unit. This unit
consists of clay, silt, and sandy clay beds. In general, the Castle Hayne confining unit may be
characterized as a group of less permeable beds at the top of the Castle Hayne aquifer that have been
partly eroded or incised in places. The Castle Hayne confining unit is discontinuous, and has a
thickness ranging from 0 to 26 feet, averaging about 9 feet where present. There is no discernable
trend in the thickness of the confining unit seen in these or related investigations, nor is there any
information in the USGS literature regarding any trend of the depth of the confining unit.
Previously recorded data indicate that vertical hydraulic conductivity of the confuting unit ranged
from 0.0014 to 0.41 feet per day (Cardinell et al., 1993). Data obtained from a pump test conducted
by ESE indicated a vertical hydraulic conductivity for this unit ranging from 1.4 x lo5 to 5.1 x lo-’
feet per day (ESE, 1988). Based on the moderate conductivity values and the thin, discontinuous
nature of the confining unit, this unit may only be partly effective in retarding the downward vertical
movement of groundwater from the surficial aquifer.
The Castle Hayne aquifer lies below the surficial aquifer and consists primarily of unconsolidated
sand, shell fragments, and fossiliferous limestone. Clay, silt, silty and sandy clay, and indurated
limestone also occur within the aquifer. The upper part of the aquifer consists primarily of
calcareous sand with some continuous and discontinuous thin clay and silt beds. The calcareous
sand becomes more limey with depth. The lower part of the aquifer consists of consolidated or
poorly consolidated limestone and sandy limestone interbedded with clay and sand.
.-.
The Castle Hayne aquifer is about 150 to 350 feet thick, increasing in thickness toward the ocean.
The top of the aquifer lies approximately 20 to 73 feet below the ground surface. The top of the
l-4
aquifer dips southward and is deepest near the Atlantic coast, east of the New River. The top of the
aquifer also forms a basin in the vicinity of Paradise Point. Estimates of hydraulic conductivity
indicate a wide variation in range, from 14 to 91 feet per day. Table l-3 presents estimates of the
Castle Hayne aquifer and confining unit hydraulic properties in the vicinity of MCB, Camp Lejeune.
Onslow County and MCB, Camp Lejeune lie in an area where the Castle Hayne aquifer generally
contains freshwater; however, the proximity of saltwater in deeper layersjust below the aquifer and
in the New River estuary is of concern in managing water withdrawals. Over-pumping of the deeper
parts of the aquifer could cause encroachment of saltwater. The aquifer generally contains water
having less than 250 milligrams per liter (mg/L) chloride throughout the base, except for one USGS
well in the southern portion of the base that is screenedin the lower portion of the aquifer. Chloride
was measured at 960 mg/L in a sample collected in 1989 from this well.
Rainfall in the MCB, Camp Lejeune area enters the ground in recharge areas, infiltrates the soil, and
moves downward until it reaches the surficial aquifer. Recharge areas at Camp Lejeune are mainly
comprised of interstream areas. In the surficial aquifer, groundwater flows in the direction of lower
hydraulic head until it reaches discharge points or fronts. These discharge areas include the New
River and its tributaries and the ocean. Though most of the rainfall entering the surticial aquifer
discharges to local streams,a relatively small amount infiltrates to the Castle Hayne. The smficial
aquifer supplies the primary recharge to the Castle Hayne aquifer. Like the surficial aquifer, the
Castle Hayne naturally discharges to the New River and major tributaries; however, pumping of the
Castle Hayne may locally influence flow directions.
The potentiometric surface of the surficial aquifer varies seasonally, as seenthrough the observation
of water levels in monitoring wells. The surficial aquifer receives more recharge in the winter than
in the summer when much of the water evaporates or is transpired by plants before it can reach the
water table. As a result, the potentiometric surface is generally highest in the winter months and
lowest in the summer or early fall.
Water levels from wells placed in deeper aquifers, such as the Castle Hayne, were also used to
establish potentiometric surfaces. Because the Castle Hayne is at least partially confined from the
surficial aquifer and is not influenced by rainfall as strongly as the surficial aquifer, the seasonal
variations tend to be slower and smaller than in surficial aquifer.
1.2.8
Ecology
The ecology at MCB Camp Lejeune is discussed in three sections that include ecological
communities, sensitive environments and threatened and endangered species.
1.2.8.1 Ecological Co-
..
MCB, Camp Lejeune is located on North Carolina’s coastal plain. A number of natural ecological
communities are present within this region. In addition, variations of natural communities have
occurred in response to disturbance and intervention (e.g., forest clearing, urbanization). The natural
communities found in the area are summarized as follows:
0
Mixed Hardwood Forest - Found generally on slopes of ravines. Beech, white oak,
tulip, sweetgum, and holly are indicator species.
1-5
/
Southeastern Evergreen Forest - Dominated by pines, especially longleaf pine.
Loblolly Pine/Hardwoods Community - Second growth forest that includes loblolly
pine with a mix of hardwoods (i.e., oak, hickory, sweetgum, sour gum, red maple,
and holly).
Southern Floodplain Forest - Occurs on the floodplains of rivers. Hardwoods
dominate with a variety of species present. Composition of speciesvaries with the
amount of moisture.
Maritime Forest - Develops on the lee side of stable sand dunes protected from the
ocean. Live oak is an indicator species along with pine, cedar, yaupon, holly, and
laurel oak. Deciduous hardwoods may be present where forest is mature.
Pocosins- Lowland forest community that develops on highly organic soils that are
seasonally flooded. Characterized by plants adapted to drought and acidic soils low
in nutrients. Pond pine is the dominant tree with dense layer of evergreen shrubs.
Strongly influenced by fire.
Cypress Tupelo Swamp Forest - Occurs in the lowest and wettest areas of
floodplains. Dominated by bald cypress and tupelo.
Freshwater Marsh - Occurs upstream from tidal marshesand downstream from nontidal freshwater wetlands. Cattails, sedges,and rushes are present.
Salt Marsh - Regularly flooded, tidally influenced areas dominated by salt-tolerant
grasses. Saltwater cordgrass is a characteristic species. Tidal mud flats may be
present during low tide.
Salt Shrub Thicket - High areas of salt marshes and beach areas behind dunes.
Subjected to salt spray and periodic saltwater flooding. Dominated by salt resistant
shrubs.
Dunes/Beaches - Zones from the ocean shore to the maritime forest. Subjected to
sand, salt, wind, and water.
Ponds and Lakes - Low depressional areas where water table reaches the surface or
where ground is impermeable. In ponds rooted plants can grow across the bottom.
Fish populations in these ponds include redear, bluegill, largemouth bass, and
channel catfish.
Open Water - Marine and estuarine waters as well as all underlying bottoms below
the intertidal zone.
MCB, Camp Lejeune covers approximately 150,000 acres or 234 square miles. Marine and
estuarine open water account for 26,000 acres and terrestrial and palustrine land account for 85,000
acres. Forests are predominant as terrestrial cover and pine forest is the dominant habitat type. A
total of 21,000 acres of the pine forest is loblolly pine, 7700 acres are dominated by longleaf pine
l-6
.#==
forest, and 3600 acres are dominated by pond pine forest. These pine forests include natural
subcommunities that are maintained by fire.
In addition to the pine forest, mixed pinehardwood forest is present on MCB, Camp Lejeune and
accounts for 15,900 acres. An additional 12,100 acres are covered by hardwood forest. Of the
wetlands present, estuarine marsh accounts for 700 acres; open freshwater accounts for 200 acres;
and dune, beach, and brackish marsh accounts for 2200 acres. Industrial, infrastructure, and
administrative areas make up 10,000 acres and artillery impact areas and buffer zones account for
11,000 acres (LeBlond, 1994). The base contains 80 miles of tidal streams, 21 miles of marine
shoreline, and 12 freshwater ponds. The soil types range from sandy loams to fine sand and muck,
with the dominant series being sandy loam (USMC, 1987).
The base drains primarily to the New River via its tributaries. These tributaries include Northeast
Creek, Southwest Creek, Cogdels Creek, Wallace Creek, Frenchs Creek, Bear Head Creek, Brinson
Creek, Edwards Creek, and Duck Creek. Site-specific information regarding surface water and
drainage features is presented in Section 2.0.
Forested areas within the military reservation are actively managed for timber. Game species are
also managed for hunting and ponds are maintained for fishing. Game speciesmanaged include wild
turkey, white-tailed deer, black bear, grey and fox squirrels, bobwhite quail, eastern cottontail and
marsh rabbits, raccoons, and wood ducks. About 150 acres are maintained for wildlife food plots,
1.2.8.2 Sensitive Envirom
Two areas on MCB, Camp Lejeune have been registered as designated Natural Areas within the
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. These two areas, which encompass 141 acres, are the
Longleaf Pine Natural Area and the Wallace Creek Swamp Natural Area. In addition, 12 other
Natural Areas have been recommended for inclusion in the registry.
These Natural Areas contain some of the finest examples of natural communities in North Carolina
and support many rare species. A few of these community types are globally rare. The Calcareous
Coastal Fringe Forest on the loo-acre midden at Corn Landing is the only known extant example
of this community type. Camp Lejeune contains some of the best examples of the following
globally-rare, natural community types: Cypress Savanna, Depression Meadow, and Small
Depression Pond. The Maritime Evergreen Forest hammocks between Cedar Point and Shell Point
are connected by shell tombolos and appear to be a very rare geological formation.
The NC DEHNR’s Division of Environmental Management (DEM) has developed guidance
pertaining to activities that may impact wetlands (NC DEHNR, 1992). In addition, certain activities
affecting wetlands are also regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
-- lh.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) has prepared National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) maps
for the MCB, Camp Lejeune area. Through stereoscopicanalysis of high altitude aerial photographs,
wetlands were identified based upon vegetation, visible hydrology, and
. geography in accordance
with Classificationts
of the Umted States (Cowardin, et al.,
1979). The NWI maps are intended for an initial identification of wetland areas and are not meant
to replace an actual wetland delineation survey that may be required by Federal, state and local
regulatory agencies.
l-7
Site-specific wetland delineations were not conducted at Sites 36, 43, 44, 54, and 86; however,
potential wetland areas were noted during the field habitat evaluation. Information regarding
potential wetland areas was transferred to the site-specific biohabitat maps provided in Section 2.0.
Information regarding sensitive natural areas was reviewed during map preparation and has been
transferred to the maps, if applicable.
1.2.8.3 Threatened and Endangered Species
Certain specieshave been granted protection by the FWS under the Federal Endangered SpeciesAct
(16 U.S.C. 153I- 1543), and by the North Carolina Wildlife ResourcesCommission, under the North
Carolina Endangered Species Act (G.S. 113-33 1 to 113-337). The protected species fall into one
of the following statusclassifications: federal or state endangered, threatened or candidate species;
state special concern; state significantly rare; or state watch list. While only the federal or state
threatened or endangered and state special concern species are protected from certain actions, the
other classified species may have protection in the future.
Surveys have been conducted to identify threatened and endangered speciesat MCB, Camp Lejeune
and several programs are underway to manage and protect them. Table l-4 lists federally protected
species present at the base and their protected classification. Of these species, the red-cockaded
woodpecker, American alligator, and sea turtles are protected by specific regulatory programs.
The red-cockaded woodpecker requires a mature, living longleaf or loblolly pine environment. The
birds live in family groups and young are raised cooperatively. At MCB, Camp Lejeune, 2,5 12 acres
of habitat have been identified and marked for protection. Approximately 3,300 acres are in actively
managed red-cockaded woodpecker colonies. Research on the bird at MCB, Camp Lejeune began
in 1985 and information has been collected to determine home ranges, population size and
composition, reproductive success,and habitat use. An annual roost survey is conducted and 36
colonies of birds have been located.
The American alligator is considered a state special concern specie. It is found in freshwater,
estuarine, and saltwater wetlands in MCB, Camp Lejeune. Base wetlands are maintained and
protected for alligators; signs have been posted where alligators are known to live. Annual surveys
of Wallace, Southwest, French, Duck, Mill, and Stone Creeks have been conducted since 1977 to
identify alligators and their habitats on base.
Two protected sea turtles, the Atlantic loggerhead and Atlantic green turtle, nest on Onslow Beach
at MCB, Camp Lejeune. The green turtle was found nesting in 1980; this sighting was the first time
the specieshad been observed nesting north of Georgia. The turtle returned to nest in 1985. Turtle
nests on the beach are surveyed and protected, turtles are tagged, and annual turtle statusreports are
issued.
Three bird species,piping plover, Bachmans sparrow, and peregrine falcon have also been identified
during surveys at MCB, Camp Lejeune. The piping plover is a shore bird. Piping plovers prefer
beaches with broad open sandy flats above the high tide line and feed along the edge of incoming
waves. Like the piping plover, Bachmans sparrows have very specific habitat requirements. The
sparrows live in open stretches of pines with grasses and scattered shrubs for ground cover.
Bachmans sparrows were observed at numerous locations throughout southern portion MCB, Camp
Lejeune.
l-8
In addition to the protected species that breed or forage at MCB, Camp Lejeune, several protected
whales migrate through the coastal waters off the base during spring and fall. These include the
Atlantic right whale, finback whale, sei whale, and sperm whale. Before artillery or bombing
practice is conducted in the area, aerial surveys are made to assure that whales are not present in the
impact areas.
A natural heritage resource study was conducted at MCB, Camp Lejeune (LeBlond, 1994) to identify
threatened or endangered plants and areas of significant natural interest. During the resource study
55 rare plant specieswere documented from Camp Lejeune. These include 1 specie that is classified
as Federal Endangered, 1 specie that is classified as Federally Threatened, 9 that are candidates for
federal listing as Endangered or Threatened, 4 that are listed as Endangered or Threatened in the
State of North Carolina, and 27 speciesthat are State Rare or State Special Concern. These species
are summarized on Table l-4. In addition, speciesthat are candidates for state listing or are on the
North Carolina state watch list were noted.
1.2.9
Land Use Demographics
MCB, Camp Lejeune encompassesan area of approximately 234 square miles. The Installation
border is approximately 70 miles, including 21 miles of ocean front and Intracoastal Waterway.
Recently, MCB, Camp Lejeune acquired approximately 4 1,000 additional acres in the Greater Sandy
Run area. Table l-5 provides a breakdown of land useswithin the developed portion of the facility.
Land use within MCB, Camp Lejeune is influenced by topography and ground cover, environmental
policy, and base operational requirements. Much of the land within MCB, Camp Lejeune consists
of freshwater swamps that are wooded and largely unsuitable for development. In addition, 3,000
acres of sensitive estuary and other areas set aside for the protection of threatened and endangered
species are to remain undeveloped. Operational restrictions and regulations, such as explosive
quantity safety distances, impact-weighted noise thresholds, and aircraft landing and clearance
zones, may also greatly constrain and influence development (Master Plan, 1988).
The combined military and civilian population of the MCB, Camp Lejeune and Jacksonville area
is approximately 112,000. Nearly 90 percent of the surrounding population resides within urbanized
areas. The presence of MCB, Camp Lejeune has been the single greatest factor contributing to the
rapid population growth of Jacksonville and adjacent communities, particularly during the period
from 1940 to 1960.
1.2.9.1 MCAS. New River
MCAS, New River encompasses2,772 acres and is located in the northwestern portion of the MCB,
Camp Lejeune complex. MCAS, New River includes air support activities, troop housing, and
personnel support facilities that surround the aircraft operations and maintenance areas. The air
station primarily functions as a helicopter base, however, an increasing contingent of fixed-wing
aircraft are also supported. Its present mission is to maintain and operate facilities that provide
services and material to sustain operations of Marine Air Groups (MAG) 26 and 29, the two tenant
commands. MCAS, New River also maintains a number of other activities and units as designated
by the Commandant of the Marine Corps and the Chief of Naval Operations.
l-9
12.10
Meteorology
Although coastal North Carolina lacks distinct wet and dry seasons,there is some seasonalvariation
in average precipitation. July tends to receive the most precipitation, and rainfall amounts during
summer are generally the greatest. Daily showers during the summer are not uncommon, nor are
periods of one or two weeks without rain. Convective showers and thunderstorms contribute to the
variability of precipitation during the summer months. October tends to receive the least amount
of precipitation, on average. Throughout the winter and spring precipitation occurs primarily in the
form of migratory low pressure storms. MCB, Camp Lejeune’s average yearly rainfall is
52.4 inches. Table 1-6 presents a climatic summary of data collected during 35 years (January 1955
to December 1990) of observations at MCAS New River.
Coastal Plain temperatures are moderated by the proximity of the Atlantic Ocean, which effectively
reduces the average daily fluctuation of temperature. Lying 50 miles offshore at its nearest point,
the Gulf Stream tends to have little direct effect on coastal temperatures. The southern reaches of
the cold Labrador Current offset any warming effect the Gulf Stream might otherwise provide.
MCB, Camp Lejeune experiences hot and humid summers; however, ocean breezes frequently
produce a cooling effect. The winter months tend to be mild, with occasional brief cold spells.
Average daily temperatures range from 34°F to 54’F in January, the coldest month, and 72°F to
89°F in July, the hottest month. The average relative humidity, between 78 and 89 percent, does
not vary greatly from seasonto season.
Observations of sky conditions indicate yearly averages of approximately 112 days clear, 105 partly
‘cloudy, and 148 cloudy. Measurable amounts of rainfall occur 118 days per year, on the average.
Prevailing winds are generally from the south-southwest 10 months of the year and from the
north-northwest during September and October. The average wind speed at MCAS, New River is
seven miles per hour.
1.3
Bacbround
a nd Settiw
.
of Site 44
The following section provides both the location and setting of Site 44. A brief summary of past
waste disposal activities at Site 44 is also provided within this section.
1.3.1
Site Location
and Setting
The Jones Street Dump (Site 44) encompasses approximately 5 acres and is situated within the
operations area of MCAS New River (see Figure l- 1). Vehicle accessto the site is via Baxter Street,
from Curtis Road. Site 44 is located at the northern terminus of Baxter Street, behind base housing
units along Jones Street.
The site is partially surrounded by a six-foot cyclone fence, a portion of the site lies to the east of
the fenced compound. The site is bordered to the north and west by Edwards Creek, to the south by
base housing units along Jones Street, and to the east by woods and an unnamed tributary to
Edwards Creek. Edwards Creek flows east from the study area toward Site 43, which is located
about 2,000 feet to the east of Site 44. Figure l-5 presents a site map of the Jones Street Dump.
l-10
A majority of the site is comprised of a gently dipping open field that slopes toward Edwards Creek.
The field is covered with high grass, weeds, and small pine trees that are less than two inches in
diameter. Surrounding the open field is a mature wooded area with dense understory.
1.3.2
Site History
Site 44 was reportedly in operation during the 1950s. Although the quantity of waste is not known,
the IAS report stated that debris, cloth, lumber, and paint cans were disposed of at the site (WAR,
1983). The IAS report also referred to minor quantities of potentially hazardous waste as having
been disposed of at Site 44, however, the report made no mention of what type of waste that
included.
1.4
Previous
Invest-
.
.
The following subsections describe previous investigation activities at OU No.6, Site 44. These
investigations include an Initial Assessment Study (IAS), and a Site Inspection (SI).
1.4.1
Initial
Assessment
Study
In 1983, an IAS was conducted at MCB, Camp Lejeune and MCAS, New River by Water and Air
Research, Inc. (WAR). The IAS evaluated the potential hazards at various sites throughout the
facility, including Site 44. The IAS was based upon review of historical records, aerial photographs,
a site visit, and personnel interviews. The IAS report suggested that, due to the negligible quantity
of inert material reportedly disposed at Site 44, further investigations were not warranted.
Therefore, a Confirmation Study was not recommended for the study area.
1.4.2
Site Inspection
In 1991, Baker conducted an SI at Site 44 (Baker, 1994a). The SI consisted of the following field
activities: the installation and sampling of three monitoring wells (44-GWOl, 44-GW02, and
44-GW03); the collection of two soil samples from each monitoring well test boring (one near the
surface and one just above the water table); the collection of two soil samples from six additional
soil borings; and the collection of two surface water and sediment samples from Edwards Creek.
Table l-7 provides well construction details of the three shallow monitoring wells installed during
the SI at Site 44. Figure l-6 identifies the specific SI sampling locations.
The following subsections briefly describe the results and conclusions of the SI at Site 44.
Tables 1-8 through 1-12 present laboratory analytical results from the SI.
1.4.2.1 Soil Investigation
Lead, chromium, manganese, and other heavy metals were detected above twice the average
base-specific background levels at Site 44. Other inorganics such as arsenic were also present at
concentrations greater than twice their average base-specific background levels, The primary
organic contaminants detected on site were polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAI-I) compounds.
The subsurface soil sample from monitoring well test boring 44-GW03 had the highest
concentrations of PAHs among the nine sampling locations. The total PAH concentration in the
subsurface sample at location 44-GW03 was greater than 2,000 pg/kg. The pesticides 4,4’-DDD
and 4,4.-DDE were detected in two separate samples at concentrations of 30 and 48 pg/kg,
l-l 1
?--
respectively. Tables 1-8 and l-9 present positive detections of organic and inorganic soil analytical
results from the SI at Site 44, respectively. None of the organic compounds detected in soils at
Site 44 were widely distributed.
Debris such as metal, cement, brick, wood, and plastic was encountered during soil boring activities
at Site 44. In addition, a dark soil was encountered at one location that had an odor similar to motor
oil (Baker, 1994).
. .
1.4.2.2 Groundwater Investlgatlon
The groundwater sample obtained from monitoring well 44-GWOl exhibited low levels of the
organic compounds carbon disulfide (6 pg/L), toluene (3J ug/L), and ethylbenzene (2J pg/L). Low
levels of organic PAH compounds were detected in the groundwater at 44-GW03, the maximum
PAH concentration was that of naphthalene (62 pg/L). At this same location, the subsurface soil
sample also exhibited PAH contamination. The SI report suggested that PAHs may have adhered
to suspended material in the groundwater sample and then were reflected in the groundwater
analysis. Table l-10 presents a positive detection summary of organic compounds in groundwater
collected during the SI at Site 44.
-
Various inorganics were detected above state and federal drinking water standards in groundwater
samples obtained from the three SI monitoring wells. Elevated levels of aluminum, chromium, iron,
lead, and manganese were detected in all three monitoring wells. However, studies conducted at
several sitesthroughout MCB, Camp Lejeune have also exhibited concentrations of total metals in
excess of water quality standards. These elevated concentrations of total metals have been
correIated with sample turbidity. The results of these analyses tend to reflect the presence of
suspended material in groundwater samples rather than depict true groundwater conditions.
Table l- 10 presents the inorganic groundwater analytical results from the SI at Site 44.
.
.
1.4.2.3 Surface Water & Sedtment Invest-
.
Two surface water samples were collected from Edwards Creek (refer to Figure l-6). The volatile
organic compounds (VOCs) carbon disulfide (18 pg/L) and 1,l ,Ztrichloroethane (3 J pg/L) were
detected in samples 44-SW01 and 44-SW02, respectively. Inorganics were detected in both surface
water samples. Chromium, copper, iron, lead, manganese,and zinc were detected at concentrations
that exceeded surface water quality standards in at least one of the two samples. Table l-l 1 presents
a summary of positive detections for both surface water samples.
Two sediment sampleswere also collected form Edwards Creek, a the surface water stations. The
pesticides 4,4.-DDE and 4’4-DDD were detected in both sediment samples at maximum
concentrations of 1,000 pg/kg. The samples also exhibited positive detections of copper, lead, and
zinc above screening values. Table l- 12 presents the positive analytical results from the sediment
investigation of Edwards Creek.
1.4.2.4 Jtecommendationsofthe.
F-
Based on the findings of the SI, an RI/FS, including a human health and ecological risk assessment,
was recommended to further evaluate the nature and extent of soil, sediment, surface water, and
groundwater contamination. Also, further characterization of upgradient groundwater and
background soil, surface water, and sediment was recommended.
l-12
--
1.5
Remedial
Investigation
Objectives
The purpose of this section is to define the RI objectives intended to characterize past waste disposal
activities at Site 44, assesspotential impacts to public health and environment, and provide feasible
alternatives for consideration during preparation of the ROD. The remedial objectives presented in
this section have been identified through review and evaluation of existing background information,
assessment of potential risks to public health and environment, and consideration of feasible
remediation technologies and alternatives. As part of the remedial investigation at Site 44, soil,
groundwater, surface water, and sediment investigations were conducted. The information gathered
during these investigations was intended to fill previously existing data gaps and employed to
generate human health and ecological risk values. Table l- 13 presents the RI objectives identified
for Site 44. In addition, the table provides a general description of the study or investigation efforts
that were conducted to obtain the requisite information.
1.6
Reference
Atlantic Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command. January 1988. Camp Leieune CoMaster Plan and Capital Improvemer.&Qlan UI&& Prepared for the Commanding General, Marine
Corps Base, Camp Lejeune, North Carolina.
.
Baker Environmental, Inc. January 1994. mection
Report - Site 44. Jones Street Dulnp,
Final. Prepared for the Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Atlantic
Division, Norfolk, Virginia.
Baker Environmental, Inc. December 1994. Remedial Inv&jgation/Feasibilitv
Studv Work Plm
fo Operable Unit No. 6 (Sites 36.43.44. 54. and 86). Marine Cw Base Camp Lejeune. North
CLrolina, Final. Prepared for the Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command,
Atlantic Division, Norfolk, Virginia.
Baker Environmental, Inc. May 1995. Site Management Plan for Marine Corps Base Camp
J,ejeune. North Carolina, Draft. Prepared for the Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities
Engineering Command, Atlantic Division, Norfolk, Virginia.
.
Cardinell, A.P., Berg, S.A., and Lloyd, O.B. 1993. fIvdrogeoloeic Framework of U.S. m
s Base at Camp J,ejeune. North Carolma: U.S. Geologrcal Survey Water Resources
. .
Iavestwtlon Ret>ort. Report No. 93-4049.
Cowardin, Lewis M., Virginia Carter, Francis C. Golet, and Edward T. LaRoe. December 1979.
on of Wetids and Deepwater Habmts of the Umted States, Performed for
U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Biological Services FWSIOBS-7913 1.
Environmental Science and Engineering, Inc. (ESE) 1990. Site Summary ReppI?t. Final. Marine
Corps Base, Camp Lejeune, North Carolina. Prepared for the Department of the Navy, Naval
Facilities Engineering Command, Atlantic Division, Norfolk, Virginia. ESE Project No. 49-02036.
1-13
. .
Environmental Science and Engineering, Inc. (ESE) 1988. Charactertzat1Qor-t
for Hadnot
Point Industrial Area Marine Corps Base, Camp Lejeune, North Carolina. Prepared for the
Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Atlantic Division, Norfolk,
Virginia. ESE Project No. 49-02036-0150.
...
Federal Factlures Agreement (FFA) Between Unites States F.nvi.wmental
Protection Am
Region IV. The North Carob Denartment of Environment. Health.
Natural Resources.and the
United States Department OfNav for Marine Corps Base. QnmL$eune and Marine Corgdk
Station. New River. North Carolma. December 1989.
Hamed, D.A., Lloyd, O.B., Jr., and Treece, M.W., 1989. Assessment of Hvdrologic
Hvdroeemc
Data at C
Water Resources Investigation. Report 89-4096, p. 64.
LeBlond, Richard J., John 0. Fussell, and Alvin L. Broswell. February 1994. Mry
of M
T,eteune Marme Corns Base. North
Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation, Department
of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Raleigh, North Carolina.
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources (NC DEHNR)
.
May 1992. Interim Guidance for Wetlands Protecttoa Division of Environment, Water Quality
Section.
U.S. Department of the Interior (USDI). March 1982. National Wetland Inve&,orv Mw
Lereune. N.C, Fish and Wildlife Service.
Resources
U.S. Marine Corps, MCB, Camp Lejeune (USMC). 1987. Multiple-Use N-al
mement
Plan. Fish and Wildlife Division, Environmental Management Department, Marine
Corps Base, Camp Lejeune, North Carolina.
Water and Air Research, Inc. (WAR) April 1983. WAssessment
Studv of Marine Cm
Camp Leieune. North Carolins Prepared for the Department of the Navy, Naval Energy and
Environmental Support Activity, Port Hueneme, California.
1-14
i
-.
SECTION 1.0 TABLES
TABLE
l-l
GEOLOGIC
AND HYDROGEOLOGIC
UNITS OF
NORTH CAROLINA’S
COASTAL PLAIN
REMEDIAL
INVESTIGATION,
CTO-0303
MCAS, NEW RIVER, NORTH CAROLINA
r
Geologic Units
Formation
System
Quatemary
Hydrogeologic
Units
Aquifer and Confining Unit
-IoloceneiPleistocene
Undifferentiated
I
Surficial aquifer
Pliocene
Yorktown Formation(‘)
I
Yorktown confining unit
I
1
Miocene
Tertiary
-
Oligocene
River Bend Formation
Eocene
Castle Hayne Formation
Paleocene
Beaufort Formation
Upper Cretaceous
Peedee Formation
Castle Hayne Aquifer
Beaufort confuting unite)
I
Beaufort Aquifer
I
Peedee confming unit
Peedee Aquifer
Black Creek and Middendorf
Formations
Cape Fear Formation
Cretaceous
Black Creek confining unit
I
Black Creek Aquifer
Upper Cape Fear confining unit
Upper Cape Fear Aquifer
1 Lower Cape Fear confining unit I
Lower Cape Fear Aquifer
Lower Cretaceous(‘)
Unnamed deposits(‘)
Lower Cretaceous confining unit
Lower Cretaceous Aquifer(‘)
Pre-Cretaceous basement rocks
--
Note:
(I) Geologic and hydrologic units probably not present beneath MCB,. Camp Lejeune.
t2) Constitutes part of the surficial aquifer and Castle Hayne confining unit in the study area.
(I) Estimated to be confined to deposits of Paleocene age in the study area.
Source: Hamed et al., 1989.
TABLE
1-2
SUMMARY
OF HYDRAULIC
PROPERTIES
UNRELATED
SITE INVESTIGATIONS
REMEDIAL
INVESTIGATION,
CTO-0303
MCAS, NEW RIVER, NORTH CAROLINA
Note: All data compiled from unrelated Baker Investigations with the MCAS, New River operations area.
(I) AS 527
Q) Campbell Street Fuel Farm
A = Upper Surficial Aquifer
B = Lower Surficial Aquifer
I,(
‘h
(It
)
TABLE
HYDRAULIC
Hydraulic Properties
Aquifer transmissivity
(cubic foot per day per square foot
times foot of aquifer thickness)
Aquifer hydraulic conductivity
(foot per day)
13
PROPERTY ESTIMATES
OF THE CASTLE HAYNE AQUIFER
REMEDIAL
INVESTIGATION,
CTO-0303
MCAS, NEW RIVER, NORTH CAROLINA
USGS
Phase I Study(‘)
USGS
Aquifer TestcZ)
4,300 to 24,500
average 9,500
1,140 to 1,325
14 to 82
average 35
Aquifer storage coefficient
(dimensionless)
Confming-unit vertical hydraulic
conductivity
(foot per day)
?
--
DEHNR Aquifer
Test”)
RASA Estimate(5)
820 to 1,740
average 1,280
900
10,140 to 26,000
20 to 60
--
18to91
average 54
45 to 80
average 65
0.0002 to 0.00022
0.0005 to 0.001
average 0.0008
0.0019
--
0.03 to 0.41
0.0014 to 0.05 1
average 0.0035
--
--
ESE, Inc. 0)
Note:
(I)
t2)
c3)
c4)
t5)
Analysis of specific capacity data from Hamed and others (1989).
Aquifer test at well HP-708.
Aquifer test at Hadnot Point well HP-462 from Environmental Sciences and Engineering, Inc. (1988).
Unpublished aquifer test data at well X24s2x, from DEHNR well records (1985).
Transmissivities based on range of aquifer thickness and average hydraulic conductivity from Winner and Coble (1989).
Source: Cardinell, et al., 1993.
TABLE
l-4
PROTECTED
SPECIES WITHIN MCB, CAMP LEJEUNE
REMEDIAL
INVESTIGATION,
CTO-0303
MCAS, NEW RIVER, NORTH CAROLINA
Protected
Classification
Species
Animals:
American alligator (m
w)
Bachmans sparrow (Aimonu
aestivalis)
Green (Atlantic) turtle (Chelonia m. a)
Loggerhead turtle (Caret& caretta)
Peregrine falcon (Falco p-s)
Piping plover (Charadrius melodus)
Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis)
Southern Hognose Snake (Heterodon sigmas)
Diamondback Terrapin @IalaclemvS terraDin)
Carolina Gopher Frog m
s;iirrltn !zp&)
Cooper’s Hawk (Accipita co~ii
Eastern Diamondback Rattlesnake (Crotalus adamanteus)
Eastern Coral Snake (Mm
fulvius)
Pigmy Rattlesnake (Sistrurus miliarius)
Black Bear @K% jiglericanu$
I Plants:
1 Rough- leaf loosestrife (Lvsimachia asnerulifolia)
Horsetail Spikerush
Sand Spikerush (E&&u&
SC
F&n, SC
‘-WI, T(s)
T(f), T(s)
JWJ (E(s)
-WI T(s)
E(f), E(s)
FCan, SR
FCan, SC
FCan, SC
SC
SR
SR
SR
SR
I
E(f), E(s)
I
T(f). T(s)
I
montevidensis)
SK
SR
I
TABLE
l-4 (Continued)
PROTECTED
SPECIES WITHIN MCB, CAMP LEJEUNE
REMEDIAL
INVESTIGATION,
CTO- 0303
MCB, CAMP LEJEUNE, NORTH CAROLINA
Species
Flaxleaf Seedbox (LudwiPia linifolia)
Torrey’s Muhley (Muhlenbereia torreyw)
Southeastern Panic Grass (Paniclbm &IUU?$
Spoonflower (Peltandra sapittifolia)
Shadow-witch (Ponthieva m)
West Indies Meadowbeauty @kx& cubensis)
Pale Beakmsh (Rhynchospm pAlid&
Longbeak Baldsedge (RhvnchosDoraa
Tracy’s Beakmsh (m
bzyi)
Canby’s Bulrush (&&Qu Q!xu&&Q)
Slender Nutrush (S&&&I minnr)
Lejeune Goldenrod (S&w
sp.)
Dwarf Bladderwort (Utricularia Q!&u&
Elliott’s Yellow-eyed Grass (X~J& elliottii)
Carolina Dropseed (Sporobolu sp.)
Legend:
E(f) =
T(f) =
Fcan =
E(s) =
T(s) =
SC =
SR =
Federal Endangered
Federal Threatened
Candidate for.Federal Listing
State Endangered
State Threatened
State Special Concern
State Rare
Source: LeBlond, 1994
I
Protected
Classification
SR
E(s)
SR
SR
SR
SR
SR
SR
SR
SR
SR
SR
T(s)
SR
‘W
‘1
)
,
>
TABLE
LAND UTILIZATION
I
1 Training
l-5
WITHIN DEVELOPED AREAS OF MCB, CAMP LEJEUNE
REMEDIAL
INVESTIGATION,
CTO-0303
MCAS, NEW RIVER, NORTH CAROLINA
Administration
122
(11.3)
1
---I-(077)
(027)
(013)
French Creek
(184)
(0:)
73
Courthouse Bay
(Z7)
28
266
(45.6)
Family
Housing
(5)
343
(34)
406
(80)
248
(92.2)
428
(77.4)
Troop
Housing
196
(18.1)
CM
115
(10.7)
(33.:)
(84:)
8
’ (3.0)
(E)
-22
(3.8)
(035)
Onslow Beach
(322)
(1:6)
(322)
(322)
(113)
(653)
(375)
(653)
(12036)
(2;to)
(1?5)
(3T9)
(38572)
(&
548
(10.8)
(1:8)
370
(7.4)
Rifle Range
(1.3)
(878)
(149)
(&)
(&
(2E)
(266)
1
(24085)
(oY9)
(147)
87
Camp Geiger
Montford Point
Base-Wide Misc.
1
TOTAL
(0.8)
1
155
(3.1)
287
(5.7)
Numbers without parentheses represent total acres.
Numbers within parentheses represent percentage of total acres.
Source: Master Plan, 1988
(OTg)
(233)
186
(3.7)
1,523
(30.2)
(:p,)
Recreation
182
(16.9)
(60.4)
610
Utilitv
(3407)
(022)
(l?)
(E)
(1.3)
co
(Of2)
3
(1.1)
(Z2)
4
0.5)
(OT5)
1
(0.4)
&)
(8475)
(184)
Total
1,080
(100)
1,010
(100)
507
(100)
269
ww
553
(100)
‘)
TABLE
1-6
CLIMATIC
DATA SUMMARY
MARINE CORPS AIR STATION, NEW RIVER
REMEDIAL
INVESTIGATION,
CTO-0303
MCAS, NEW RIVER, NORTH CAROLINA
Precipitation
(Inches)
January
Februarv
March
April
May
June
November
December
Maximum
7.5
9.1
8
8.8
8.4
11.8
6.7
6.6
Minimum
1.4
.9
.8
.5
.6
2.2
.6
.4
Mean Number of Days With
Average
4.0
3.9
3.9
3.1
4.0
5.2
3.2
3.7
Note:
* = Mean no. of days less than 0.5 days
Source: Naval Oceanography Command Detachment, Asheville, North Carolina. Measurements obtained from January 1955 to December 1990.
TABLE
1-7
SUMMARY
OF WELL CONSTRUCTION
DETAILS
SITE INSPECTION
SITE 44, JONES STREET DUMP
REMEDIAL
INVESTIGATION,
CTO- 0303
MCAS, NEW RIVER, NORTH CAROLINA
Top of PVC
casing
Elevation
*Ground
Surface
Elevation
(feet, above msl)(‘)
(feet, above msl)
14.68
11.42
I
I
I
Boring
Depth
(feet, below
ground surface)
15
I
I
Well Depth
Screen
Interval
Depth
Sand Pack
Interval
Depth
Bentonite
Interval
Depth
(feet, below
ground surface)
(feet, below
ground surface)
(feef below
ground surface)
(feet, below
ground surface)
14.7
14.7-4.7
3.5-14.7
1.5-3.5
.6-1.4
I
12.90
9.46
12
11.5
11.5-1.5
1.4-11.5
17.34
14.65
15
14.2
4.2-14.2
3-14.2
Horizontal positions are referenced to N.C. State Plane Coordinate System (NAD 27) CF = 0.9999216 from USMC Monument Toney.
Vertical datum NGVD 29.
(0 msl = mean sea level
1.5-3
“,
)
7
.11
TABLE
“I
l-8
DETECTED
ORGANIC CONTAMINANTS
IN SOIL
SITE INSPECTION
SITE 44, JONES STREET DUMP
REMEDIAL
INVESTIGATION,
CTO- 0303
MCAS, NEW RIVER, NORTH CAROLINA
al
44-G;l-06
Volatiles:
Chloromethane
Methvlene Chloride
Carbon Disulfide
Semivolatiles:
Benzoic Acid
2-Methylnaphthalene
Acenaphthylene
Acenaphthene
44-Gc4’3-06
44-SBO l-02
2-4’
44-SB02-00
O-2’
4-SB02-OODUP
o-2
44-SB03-00
O-2’
44-SB03-06
6-8’
ND
ND
ND
IJ
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
17OJ
120 J
120 J
42 J
ND
ND
ND
ND
39J
ND
ND
ND
ND
645
ND
ND
ND
ND
1605
ND
ND
ND
ND
675
ND
ND
ND
ND
I
I
I
Notes:
Concentrations reported in micrograms per kilogram (@kg); or parts per billions (ppb).
ND - Not Detected
J - Estimated Value, reported value may not be accurate or precise
DUP - Duplicate
,
Source: Baker Environmental,
Inc. m
Inspection Repor& 199 1.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
44-SB04-00
o-2
44-SB04-00
o-2
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
” 3)
“J
)
TABLE
l-9
DETECTED
INORGANIC
CONTAMINANTS
IN SOIL
SITE INSPECTION
SITE 44, JONES STREET DUMP
REMEDIAL
INVESTIGATION,
CTO-0303
MCAS, NEW RIVER, NORTH CAROLINA
Sample Number
Sample Depth (feet)
Parameter: Units
wk)
[norganics:
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Calcium
Chromium
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Vanadium
Zinc
44-GWOl-00
O-2'
9,480 J
2.0
14.8
7,500
13.0 J
111 J
7,550 J
7.5
461
11.2
13.9
342
ND
18.0
7.4
44-GWOl-OODUP
o-2
11,100 J
2.3 J
16.7
11,600
13.9 J
44.0 J
7,800 J
7.0
590
12.9
8.2
424
ND
20.5
8.0
44-GWOl-06
6-8'
7,050 J
1.7
17.9
4,730
10.0 J
25.4 J
5,570 J
10.7
367
20.4
5.4
362
ND
14.7
34.9
44-GW02-00
O-2'
9,570 J
3.2 J
11.9
87.2
15.5 J
27.7 J
11,500 J
7.2
371
7.3
3.9
454
0.89
22.9
5.5
Concentrations reported in milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg); or parts per billions (ppb).
ND - Not Detected
J - Estimated Value, reported value may not be accurate or precise
DUP - Duplicate
Source: Baker Environmental,
Inc. Site Insuection Report, 199 1.
44-GW02-03
3.5-5.5'
4,050 J
ND
6.1
ND
5.6 J
6.2 J
1,660 J
5.5
129
3.5
3.1
ND
ND
5.0
3.2
44-GW03-00
O-2'
11,000 J
10.2
18.3
7,270
17.4 J
62.2 J
13,700 J
9.7
490
8.4
10.3
454
ND
27.4
7.0
44-GW03-06
6-8
6,610 J
3.0
22.9
5,660
12.6 J
127 J
8,350 J
44.6
454
31.3
8.7
481
ND
16.0
44.9
44-SBOl-00
o-2
44-SBOl-02
2-4'
13,100 J
3.9
16.0
142
26.2 J
27.6 J
20,500 J
12.0
510
10.7
4.8
757
ND
39.2
10.1
3,930 J
ND
7.4
ND
5.3 J
2.3 J
4,640 J
9.8
128
4.0
ND
ND
ND
9.0
2.8
44-SB02-00
o-2
8,870 J
1.7
16.1
12,200
11.1 J
2.8 J
8,140 J
13.0
414
9.3
2.9
313
ND
22.1
7.1
TABLE
1-9 (Continued)
DETECTED
INORGANIC
CONTAMINANTS
IN SOIL
SITE INSPECTION
SITE 44, JONES STREET DUMP
REMEDIAL
INVESTIGATION,
CTO- 0303
MCAS, NEW RIVER, NORTH CAROLINA
Sample Number
Sample Depth
(feet)
44-SB02OODUP
44-SB02-06
6-8’
44-SB03-00
O-2’
44-SB03-06
6-8’
44-SB04-00
o-2
10,800 J
8,780 J
7,110 J
4,070 J
12,000 J
5,250
2.0
1.6
ND
4.1
ND
4.9
14.8
18.6
14.1
12.8
7.3
Calcium
7,500
3,930
77.6
4,180
Chromium
13.0 J
12.7 J
9.3 J
Copper
111 J
2.7 J
Iron
7,550 J
8,160 J
Lead
7.5
9.4
Magnesium
461
384
Manganese
11.2
8.1
Nickel
13.9
2.5
Potassium
342
304
Parameter:
[email protected] WW
44-GWO l-00
O-2’
O-2’
9,480 J
Arsenic
BarhIll
44-SB04-06
6-8
44-SB05-00
O-2’
44-SB05-07
7-9
44-SB06-00
O-2’
44-SB06-08
8-10’
13,500
2,140
13,400
1,310
ND
3.9
ND
2.7
ND
13.4
12.8
20.2
ND
19.3
ND
763
1,600
ND
9,080
ND
3,550
ND
IOJ
4.9 J
19.1 J
7.9
17.9
4.6
16.8
3.0
1.5 J
2.0 J
‘1.9 J
2.6 J
ND
2.8
4.5
5.1
2.5
3,850 J
7,340 J
2,090 J
16,100 J
2,650
15,500
1,300
8,750
869
Inorganics:
Aluminum
*
Notes:
Concentrations reported in milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg); or parts per billions (ppb).
ND - Not Detected
J - Estimated Value, reported value may not be accurate or precise
DUP - Duplicate
Source: Baker Environmental,
Inc. Site Inspection Repor& 199 1.
1
..,
)
“)
TABLE
l-10
GROUNDWATER
ANALYTICAL
RESULTS
SITE INSPECTION
SITE 44, JONES STREET DUMP
REMEDIAL
INVESTIGATION,
CTO-0303
MCAS, NEW RIVER, NORTH CAROLINA
Sample Number
Sample Depth (feet)
Parameter: Units @g/L)
Standards
MCLs(”
NC WQS(*)
44-GWOl
44-GW02
44-GW03
44-G W03 DUP
-1,000
700
-1,000
29
6
35
2J
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
25
ND
ND
------
-_
-----
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
14
16
8J
24
35
Volatites:
Carbon Disulfide
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
Semivolatiles:
2-Methylnaphthalene
Acenaphthene
Dibenzofuran
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
TABLE
l-10 (Continued)
GROUNDWATER
ANALYTICAL
RESULTS
SITE INSPECTION
SITE 44, JONES STREET DUMP
REMEDIAL
INVESTIGATION,
CTO-0303
MCAS, NEW RIVER, NORTH CAROLINA
Notes:
Concentrations reported in micrograms per liter @g/L); or parts per billion (ppb).
R - Unreliable result, chemical may or may not be present in the sample.
J - Estimated value, reported value may not be accurate or precise.
ND - Not Detected
(--) - Standard or criteria not available.
DUP - Duplicate
(‘1 National Primary Drinking Water Regulations, Primary Maximum Contaminant Levels (EPA, 1994)
c2)North Carolina Water Quality Standards for Groundwater (Title 15A - Subchapter 2L, 1993)
c3)Health Advisories (USEPA, 1993)
Source: Baker Environmental,
Inc. Site Insnection Report, 199 1.
TABLE
l-11
SURFACE
WATER ANALYTICAL
RESULTS
SITE INSPECTION
SITE 44, JONES STREET DUMP
REMEDIAL
INVESTIGATION,
CTO- 0303
MCAS, NEW RIVER, NORTH CAROLINA
I
Zinc
I
50
I
58.91
I
153
I
83.0
Notes:
Concentrations reported in milligrams per liter (mg/L); or parts per billions (ppb).
ND - Not detected.
J - Estimated value, reported value may not be accurate or precise.
(--) - Standard or criteria not available.
(1) North Carolina Surface Water Regulations for freshwater aquatic life is more stringent standard to support
additional uses (NCAC, 1991).
(2) FWSV - Freshwater Water Quality Screening Value (USEPA Region IV, 1993)
(3)
State standard is for total chromium, AWQC and FWSV for the Chromium VI.
Source: Baker Environmental,
Inc., mection
Reparf, 1991.
TABLE
1-12
SEDIMENT
SAMPLE ANALYTICAL
RESULTS
SITE INSPECTION
SITE 44, JONES STREET DUMP
REMEDIAL
INVESTIGATION,
CTO- 0303
MCAS, NEW RIVER, NORTH CAROLINA
Sample Number
Parameter: Units
Semivolatiles
NOAA SSVt’)
I
ER-Lo)
I
ER-MO)
44-SD01
44-SD02
1
-__
1
--
140 J
1,800 J
ND
@g/kg):
4-Methylphenol
Benzoic Acid
2-Methylnaphthalane
Di-n-butylphthalate
Butyl Benzyl Phthalate
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate
Pesticides/PCBs
f-
-_
0.065
--
0.67
__
--
__
-I
__
@g/kg):
1
0.002
1
0.015
4,4’-DDD
I
0.002
I
0.02
I
(mgkg):
Aluminum
__
--
Arsenic
Barium
33
-_
85
__
Calcium
_-
-_
Chromium
80
Copper
Iron
70
-_
145
390
__
Lead
35
-_
__
110
30
_-
50
__
-__
---
Magnesium
Manganese
Nickel
Potassium
Sodium
Vanadium
Zinc
IIOJ
I
4,4’-DDE
Inorganics
1,000 J
ND
I
120
15,700 J
5.3 J
I
10,900 J
ND
1685
1
149J
---
I
270
I
.-
TABLE
SEDIMENT
SAMPLE
1-12 (Continued)
ANALYTICAL
RESULTS
SITE INSPECTION
SITE 44, JONES STREET DUMP
REMEDIAL
INVESTIGATION,
MCAS, NEW RIVER, NORTH
CTO-0303
CAROLINA
Notes:
Organic concentrations reported in micrograms per kilogram @g/kg); or parts per billion (ppb).
Inorganic concentrations reported in milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg); or parts per million (ppm).
J - Estimated value, reported value may not be accurate or precise.
ND - Not Detected
(--) - Standard or criteria not available.
(I) NOAA SSV - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Sediment Screening Values
(USEPA Region IV, 1992)
Q) ER-L - Effects range - low, if contaminant concentrations fall below the ER-L adverse aquatic
effects are considered unlikely.
t3) ER-M - Effects range - median, if contaminant concentrations fall above the ER-M adverse aquatic
effects are considered probable.
If the value falls between ER-L and ER-M adverse aquatic effects are considered possible.
Source: Baker Environmental,
Inc. &e Insuection Repor& 199 1.
“‘t
I
‘I)
TABLE
MARINE
Medium or
Area of Concern
1. Soil
2.
I
Groundwater
I
REMEDIAL
INVESTIGATION
OBJECTIVES
SITE 44, JONES STREET DUMP
REMEDIAL
INVESTIGATION
CTO-0303
CORPS BASE, CAMP LEJEUNE, NORTH CAROLINA
RI/FS Objective
1a. Assess the extent of soil
contamination within the suspected
disposal area.
1b. Assess human health and ecological
risks associated with exposure to
surface soils at the site.
lc. Determine the physical and chemical
nature of buried debris and/or waste.
2a. Determine whether contamination
from soils is migrating to
groundwater.
2b. Assess health risks posed by potential
future usage of the shallow and deep
zroundwater.
2c. Assess nature and extent of shallow
and deep groundwater contamination.
2d. Defme hydrogeologic characteristics
for fate and transport evaluation and
remedial technology evaluation, if
required.
.
I
1-13
Criteria for Meeting Objective
Characterize contaminant levels in surface
1 and subsurface soils at Site 44.
Pronosed InvestizationLStudv
Soil Investigation
Characterize contaminant levels in surface
soils at the study area.
Soil Investigation
Risk Assessment
Characterize the physical and chemical
nature of buried debris and/or waste.
Characterize groundwater quality at Site
44.
Test Pit Investigation
Evaluate groundwater quality and compare
to groundwater criteria and risk-based
I action levels.
Characterize shallow and deep
groundwater quality.
Estimate hydrogeologic characteristics of
the shallow and deep aquifers (flow
direction, transmissivity, permeability,
etc.).
Groundwater Investigation
Groundwater Investigation
Risk Assessment
Groundwater Investigation
Groundwater Investigation
TABLE
MARINE
Medium or
Area of Concern
3. Surface Water
3a.
3b.
4. Sediment
4a.
4b.
4c.
1-13 (Continued)
REMEDIAL
INVESTIGATION
OBJECTIVES
SITE 44, JONES STREET DUMP
REMEDIAL
INVESTIGATION
CTO-0303
CORPS BASE, CAMP LEJEUNE, NORTH CAROLINA
RI/FS Objective
Assess the presence or absence of
surface water contamination in
Edwards Creek, and an unnamed
tributary.
Assess potential ecological impacts
posed by contaminated surface water
in Edwards Creek, and an unnamed
tributary.
Assess human health and ecological
risks associated with exposure to
sediments in Edwards Creek, and an
unnamed tributary.
Assess potential ecological impacts
posed by contaminated sediments in
Edwards Creek, and an unnamed
tributary.
Determine extent of sediment
contamination for purposes of
identifying areas of concern.
Criteria for Meeting Objective
Determine surface water quality in
Edwards Creek, and an unnamed tributary.
Proposed Investigation/Study
Surface Water Investigation
Determine surface water quality in
Edwards Creek, and an unnamed tributary.
Surface Water Investigation
Evaluation of Bioassay Results
Characterize nature and extent of
contamination in sediment.
Sediment Investigation
Risk Assessment
Qualitatively evaluate stress to benthic and
fish communities.
Sediment Investigation
Evaluation of Bioassay Results
Identify extent of sediment contamination
where contaminant levels exceed riskbased action levels or USEPA Region IV
criteria.
Sediment Investigation
Risk Assessment-
=-
-
SECTIQN 1.0 FIGURES
FIGURE 1 - 1
NO. 6
SITES 36,
DIAL INVESTIGATION,
-
MARINE CORPS AIR STATION, NEW RIVER
NORTH CAROLINA
.
VICINITY MAP
DEPARTMENT OF THE
WATER-RESOURCES INVESTIGATIONS REPORT 89-4096
PLATE 6
RIOR
US. GEOLOGICAL SURVE
F
SEA
450
-
I 500
VERTICAL EXAGGERATIONx 25
i
500
EAST
WEST
C'
C
I
FEET
!
FEET
50
SEA LEVEL
i0
x24s2
uaternand MMCBne
undlflefentiated
__- -
IEA LEVEL
50
50
GEOLOGIC TIME LINE
WATER LEVEL, OCTOBER 1BB6
p, denotes pumping water level
I00
100
150
150
HYDROGEOLOGICUNITS
?
200
Eoce
Mldd4
250
\
-
---_
1-
--__
Beaufort confining unlt
300
-----
Beaufort equlier
--
-.
200
Potential wnlining unit Quened
where lateral extent UnCenam
250
Potential aquiferunit
Middle
Eocene
- - - - Paleocene
300
GEOPHYSICAL LOG TRACE
SP. denotes spontaneous potential log
360
350
R
0
40C
45c
50
1.0 MILES
400
0-METERS
iR
VERTICAL EXAGGERATION
R. denotes reslsrrrny loe
IONS LOCATED OH PLATE 4
HYDROGEOLOGIC S
X
25
450
500
MARINE CORPS BASE. CAMP L E J E U N E
NORTH CAROLINA
F:
6
HYDROGEOLOGIC SECTIONS A - 4 B-B;AND C-C'AT CAMP LEJEUN
I
I
F I G U R E 1-4
HYDROGEOLOGIC CROSS-SECTIONS
R E M E D I A L INVESTIGATION, CTO-0303
...
.
.. -
.
,'
/
/
,
LEGEND
4%
44-GWO1
SHALLOW MONITORING WELL (BAKER, 1991)
@
44-SB01
@
SOIL BORING LOCATION (APPROXIMATED)
(BAKER, 1991)
DIRECTION OF SURFACE WATER FLOW
-'-
_
--
@
SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT
SAMPLING LOCATION (APPROXIMATED)
(BAKER, 1991 )
__
' ASPHALT
ROAD
-~ _ - _ - - _ GRAVEL OR DIRT ROAD
EDGE OF CREEK, DRAINAGE DITCH, MARSH
OR POND
-,-
TREE LINE
<
I
,,
\
I
___--
i
!
"SE
-
,
,-.
150
FENCE
__I
I
U-SW/SDOl
-
- -
OVERHEAD ELECTRIC LINE & UTIUlY POLE
i
___-
...&
^,
MARSH
;---cp7-
Qr:
1
I1
BASE HOUSING UNIT
-
0
75
1 hch = 150 f t
I
FIGURE 7-6
SITE INSPECTION SAMPLING LOCATIONS
SITE 44, JONES STREET DUMP
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION, CTO-0303
MARINE CORPS AIR STATION, NEW RIVER
NORTH CAROLINA
--
2.0
SITE
CHARACTERISTICS
Section 2.0 of this report presents information on site-specific physical characteristics. This section
includes a discussion on the topography, surface water hydrology and drainage features, geology,
hydrogeology, ecology.
2.1
Topomaphy
and Surface Features
Site 44 contains a mixture of woods and fields. General surface topography is presented on
Figure 2-1. The site slopes gently from the site entrance (at Baxter Street) to the east, or toward an
unnamed tributary to Edwards Creek. A steep slope is present along the northern portion of the site.
A flat marsh area is present between the foot of the slope and Edwards Creek. The top of the slope
is approximately 12 feet above the marsh area. The elevation of the site ranges from a low of
approximately 3 feet above mean sea level (msl) near the unnamed tributary, to greater than 15 feet
above msl in the vicinity of the site entrance.
2.2
P--
Surface Water
HydroloQ
Surface water movement is limited at Site 44 due to heavy vegetation, and woodlands. Surface
runoff could potentially flow in primary two directions. Runoff could flow north over the steep
slope to the marsh area. Runoff could also flow to the east, toward the marsh area adjacent to the
unnamed tributary. At the time of the investigation, ponded water and saturated soils were observed
in the lower elevations of the site and in the marshy areas bordering the site. Soil in the vicinity of
44-GW03 were observed to be saturated.
According to the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) Soil Survey of Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
(1984), Site 44 is underlain primarily by the Baymeade (BaB) urban land complex. A second unit,
the Muckalee (Mk) soil complex, bounds the site on the north. The Baymeade complex is typically
found in areas where the original soil has been cut, filled, or graded. Soil proper& of this unit have
been altered through slope modification and smoothing. Generally, Baymeade soils are moderately
to strongly acidic and are classified under the SCS as fine sand (SM-SP) and loamy fine sand (SM).
The Muckalee complex soils tend to be poorly drained and found on flood plains. The Muckalee
is frequently flooded for brief periods and is subject to ponding. Muckalee soils are classified by
the SCS as loam (ML). Table 2-l provides a summary of soil physical properties found at Site 44.
2.4
Geoloe
A depositional sequencewas observed in the deep well borings at Site 44 that matchesthe sequence
discussed in the U.S. Geological Survey’s hydrogeologic assessmentof Camp Lejeune (Cardinell,
et al., 1993). The uppermost formation at Site 44 is the undifferentiated formation. The Belgrade
Formation lies below, with the River Bend Formation below that.
The undifferentiated formation, typically consists of three units of Holocene and Pleistocene ages.
The upper unit is 3 to 8 feet thick and predominantly consistsof silt and clay layers that are medium
stiff to very stiff. The middle unit is predominantly a fine sand with lesser amounts of silt and clay,
and is loose to medium dense. This unit is approximately 12 to 14 feet thick. The lower unit is
generally a fine to medium sand and shell fragments with lesser amounts of silt, or a clayey silt and
2-1
shell fragments. These sediments are typically medium dense to very dense, and are approximately
30 feet thick. The undifferentiated formation typically extends to a depth between 45 and 50
feet bgs.
The Belgrade Formation, is predominantly a fine sand and clayey silt of the Miocene age. The top
of this Formation lies 45 to 50 feet bgs, is approximately 5 feet thick, and has a distinct green or
greenish-gray color. These sediments are typically medium dense to dense.
The River Bend Formation is predominantly a tine to medium sand with lesser amounts of silt and
clay of the Oligocene age. This Formation lies 52 to 57 feet bgs at Site 44. The sediments of this
formation are typically medium dense to dense.
Geologic cross-sectionsdepicting the shallow and deep sediment lithologies were developed based
on soils collected during the RI. Soil boring logs are presented in Appendix A, well construction
logs in Appendix B, and test pit records in Appendix C. Figure 2-l shows locations of the crosssections traversing Site 44 and Figure 2-2 depicts lithologies. Most wells and borings at Site 44 are
shallow. Cross-sections A-A’, B-B’, C-C’, and D-D’ depict only the upper portion of the
undifferentiated formation.
Section A-A’ traverses west to eastacross Site 44. This section shows fine-grained soils present at
the surface. Clay is present up to a depth of 8 feet bgs. A silty fine sand to medium to coarse sand
lies below the clay. Groundwater generally occurs below the clay.
Section B-B’ traverses west to east across Site 44. This section shows that silt is present at the
surface on the western end of the section and clay on the eastern end. A silty fine sand is present
beneath the silt and clay, with fine to medium sand at the western end of the section. Groundwater
generally occurs below the silt and clay.
Section C-C’ traverses north to south across Site 44. Clay is present at the surface along the middle
of the section. The clay is only 1 foot thick, however. An 8 foot thick bowl-shaped fine sand and
silty clay is present below the clay. This layer was observed to contain a small amount of debris,
including rock fragments and wood. A silty fine sand to fine sand is predominant in the subsurface
surrounding the debris-containing layer.
Cross-section D-D’ traverses north to south across Site 44. Clay is present at the surface along the
middle of the section. Silt is present at the surface at the northern and southern ends of the section.
A tine to coarse sand is present below the silt and clay along the northern end of the section. A silty
sand is present below the silt and clay along the southern end of the section. Gro.undwater generally
occurs below the silt and clay.
Cross-section E-E’ traverses southwest to northeast acrossthe site 44. This section extends into the
River Bend Formation and typifies the general description discussedat the beginning of the Section.
This section shows an upper unit consisting of silt and clay layers. The second unit is generally a
fine sand, however the sediments become finer with depth. The third unit consistsof sand and shell
fragments. The upper portion of this unit tends to consist of clayey silt rather than sand. The
sediments of the Belgrade Formation were observed to be damp and approximately 5 feet thick.
Groundwater occurs with the middle unit of the upper undifferentiated formation (fine sand), and
then again in the River Bend Formation.
2-2
2.5
Hvd
There are several aquifers beneath Site 44 and vicinity. The upper two aquifers were investigated
in this study, namely the surficial and Castle Hayne aquifers. The surftcial aquifer occurs within the
sediments of the undifferentiated formation. The surficial aquifer, which is unconfined (i.e., water
table aquifer), typically lies within 10 feet of the surface, and is approximately 43 feet thick in the
vicinity of Site 44. The upper portion of the Castle Hayne aquifer lies within the sediments of the
River Bend Formation. The Castle Hayne aquifer lies 52 to 57 feet bgs, and is approximately 200
feet thick in the vicinity of Camp Gieger and the Air Station (Cardinell et al., 1993). The Belgrade
Formation, situated between the Undifferentiated and River Bend Formations is also known as the
Castle Hayne confining unit. The Castle Hayne confining unit is approximately 5 feet thick in the
vicinity of Site 44.
The hydrogeologic conditions were evaluated by installing a network of shallow and deep
monitoring wells. Four staff gauges were located in Edwards Creek and an unnamed tributary to
monitor surface water elevation.
2.5.1
Groundwater
Elevation
Data
Groundwater and surface water elevation data for Site 44 are summarized on Table 2-2. Three
rounds of groundwater level measurementswere collected in March, April, and May of 1995. One
round of water level data is available for the staff gauges because of the installation timing.
The groundwater elevation data from all wells exhibit a downward trend between March and May
(Figure 2-3A and B). The decrease in elevation ranged from approximately 1.2 to 2.1 feet. This
data trend is attributable to the lack of rain during the time period.
Groundwater in the Castle Hayne aquifer exhibits an upward component to flow. An examination
of the elevation differences between the shallow and deep wells (Figure 2-3B) shows that the Castle
Hayne aquifer groundwater elevations are consistently higher than those of the surficial aquifer.
2.5.2
Groundwater
Flow Contour
Maps
Surficial groundwater elevation contour maps were developed from static water level data collected
between March and May of 1995. Excluding May 1995 staff gauge data, the suficial groundwater
flow direction and gradient were consistent between March and May. Greater area1coverage is
provided with the inclusion of the staff gauge data in May. A surficial aquifer groundwater contour
map is presented as Figure 2-4 using May 1995 data.
Castle Hayne groundwater elevation contour maps were developed from static water level data
collected between March and May of 1995. Data from Site 44 and 43 were compiled because only
two deep well were installed at each site. Groundwater flow patterns were consistent between
March and May. A Castle Hayne groundwater contour map is presented as Figure 2-5 using May
1995 data.
Flow gradients were determined by dividing a certain distance of a flow line (or distance between
two wells) into the change in groundwater elevation over that distance (Appendix 0). Flow
gradients may vary slightly from month to month due to changes in groundwater elevations.
2-3
Shallow groundwater flow across Site 44 is semi-radial, following topography. A surficial
groundwater divide is evident between wells 44-GW03 and 44-GW06. This divide is coincident
with a topographic high in that vicinity. The groundwater flow gradient is fairly consistent across
the site; approximately 0.006 to 0.007 feet/foot.
Groundwater flow in the upper portion of the Castle Hayne aquifer is to the eastbetween Site 43 and
44. The flow gradient is approximately 0.00 1 feet/foot to 0.002 feet/foot, toward the New River.
2.5.3
Hydraulic
Properties
Rising and falling head slug testswere conducted at Site 44 on several shallow and deep monitoring
wells. The slug test data were analyzed using the Bower-Rice method on AQTESOLV Version 2.0
software. The solutions are presented in Appendix N and summarized on Table 2-3.
Rising head test data is used in the text discussions. Falling head test data were evaluated as a check
against the rising head test for the deep monitoring wells only. The falling head test data were not
valid for the shallow wells because the static water level wells were within the screened interval.
The sediments of the surficial aquifer tend to be fine grained. These sediments exhibit hydraulic
conductivity values on the order of 0.4 to 2.0 feet/day, typical for such fine grained sediments. The
hydraulic conductivity values varied due to the varying composition of the surficial aquifer.
Hydraulic conductivity values in the Castle Hayne are consistent, 17.5 and 18.1 feet/day. Generally,
sediments in the Castle Hayne are coarser than those of the surficial aquifer. The average hydraulic
conductivity is an order of magnitude higher in the Castle Hayne aquifer than in the surficial aquifer.
Transmissivity is the hydraulic conductivity multiplied by the saturated thickness of the aquifer. The
calculated transmissivity of the Castle Hayne aquifer is nearly two orders of magnitude higher than
the surftcial aquifer. This is because the thickness of the Castle Hayne is 200 feet compared to a
35 foot saturated thickness of the surficial aquifer. Also, the average hydraulic conductivity of the
Castle Hayne is higher than in the surficial aquifer.
The surficial aquifer hydraulic conductivity values are an order of magnitude lower than the value
presented in the Cardinell’s report. The average hydraulic conductivity at Site 44, based on RI slug
tests is 1.4 feet/day, compared to 50 feet/day presented by Cardinell. The Cardinell value was based
on a general composition of fine sand, mixed with some silt and clay. The surficial aquifer at Site
44 may contain more fine-grained sedimentsthan accounted for by Cardinell’s estimate assumptions.
The average hydraulic conductivity and transmissivity for the Castle Hayne at Site 44 is
17.8 feet/day and 3,560 fee&day, respectively. Cardinell’s report presents hydraulic conductivities
and transmissivities from several studies. Hydraulic conductivities range from 14 to 91 feet/day and
transmissivities range from 820 to 26,000 fee&day. The RI results for Site 44 are comparable with
other sites throughout Camp Lejeune.
Geotechnical analyses, including particle size analysis and vertical hydraulic conductivity was
performed on a sample collected via a Shelby tube from the Castle Hayne confining unit
(Appendix L). The sample was taken from 54 to 54.7 feet bgs at well boring 44-GWOlDW. This
sample was determined to be a silty fine to medium sand with a vertical permeability of 1.3~10”
cm/set, or 0.04 feet/day.
2-4
2.5.4
Groundwater
Flow Velocities
Groundwater flow velocities can be estimated using a variation of Darcy’s equations:
V = Kiln,
where;
V = groundwater velocity (feet/day)
K = Hydraulic conductivity (feet/day)
i = horizontal gradient (feet/foot)
n, = effective porosity
“K” values were determined from slug tests conducted at wells 44-GW04,44-GW05,44-GW06,
44-GWOlDW, and 44-GW06DW. Surficial aquifer hydraulic conductivity values ranged from
0.4 feetday at 44-GW05 to 2.0 feet/day at 44-GW04. Castle Hayne aquifer hydraulic conductivity
values were 17.5 feet’day at 44-GW06DW and 18.1 feedday at 44-GWOlDW. Flow gradient values
were determined by using groundwater contours (Section 2.53). An effective porosity value of 30%
was used (Fetter, 1988), based on the silty sands underlying the site. Velocity calculations are
presented in Appendix 0. Velocities may vary slightly from month to month due to changing
gradients.
,-..
The calculated groundwater flow velocities of the surficial aquifer varied slightly across the site.
The velocity values ranged from 0.01 at 44-GW05 to 0.05 at 44-GW04. The variations in
groundwater flow velocities acrossthe site are likely due to the heterogeneous soil conditions at the
site. These heterogeneties cause the hydraulic properties to change spatially.
The calculated groundwater flow velocities for the Castle Hayne were 0.36 feet/day at 44-GWOlDW
and 0.35 feet/day at 44-GW06DW. The higher velocities of the Castle Hayne aquifer as compared
to the surficial aquifer are attributable to higher hydraulic conductivity values of the Castle Hayne.
2.5.5
General
Groundwater
Flow Patterns
Groundwater flow in the surficial aquifer at Site 44 is toward Edwards Creek and the unnamed
tributary, with an average velocity of 0.03 feet per day. Based on groundwater flow direction and
groundwater elevation relative to surface water elevations, the surficial aquifer discharges to
Edwards Creek and the unnamed tributary.
Groundwater flow in the upper Castle Hayne aquifer is east under the site with an average velocity
of 0.36 feet/day. Groundwater elevation data compiled and mapped by Cardinell indicate that
groundwater in the Castle Hayne aquifer flows toward and discharges to the New River and its major
tributaries, including the air station vicinity.
The Castle Hayne confining unit appears to be semi-confining. The groundwater elevations in the
deep and shallow wells respond similarly to precipitation and/or atmospheric changes. The
confining unit is relatively thin, approximately 5 feet thick, with a measured vertical permeability
of 0.04 feetday. Based on groundwater elevations in shallow and deep well clusters, there appears
to be a consistent upward groundwater flow from the Castle Hayne to the surficial aquifer.
-
2-5
2.6
Identification
of Water
Supply Wells
Potable water supply wells within a one-mile radius of the site were identified by reviewing the
Wellhead Management Program Engineering Study (Geophex, Ltd., 1991) document. Eleven water
supply wells were identified within the one-mile radius. Six of the eleven wells were reported to
be operating. Table 2-4 summarizes some well construction details and Figure 2-6 shows the
location of the supply wells. These supply wells are located upgradient of Site 44 based on their
location with respect to easterly groundwater flow direction in the Castle Hayne. Additionally, well
supply wells do not seem to affect natural flow conditions at Site 44.
Eight of the eleven supply wells were sampled in 1992 (Greenhorne & O’Mara, 1992). Detected
compounds are presented on Table 2-4. No organic compounds were detected in any of the wells
listed. Several inorganic analytes were detected. The USEPA has established secondary maximum
concentration limits (SMCLs) for several of the analytes. North Carolina has also established
standards for several of the analytes. The Aluminum SMCL was exceeded in seven of eight wells
sampled. Aluminum was not detected in MCAS- 131. Iron exceeded the SMCWStandard in six of
eight wells, manganese was exceeded in three wells, and TDS was exceeded five wells.
The inorganics detected in the groundwater samples appear to be ubiquitous at Camp Lejeune.
Aluminum, iron, and manganese have been detected in monitoring wells at Site 44 and other OU 6
sites, as well as other supply wells.
2.7
Ecology
Two types of wetlands are present at Site 44. The primary type of wetland is palustrine, forested,
broad-leaved deciduous, partially drained wetland. It is present along Edwards Creek and the
unnamed tributary to Edwards Creek. The treatment plant filter grit pond is classified as a
palustrine, unconsolidated bottom, permanently flooded, diked wetland.
Apart from the wetlands, no sensitive environments were identified at site 44 studied during this
remedial investigation. No endangered specieswere noted during the habitat evaluatiomnor were
endangered species referenced at any of the sites during the endangered species survey (LeBlond,
1994).
Four different habitat types were identified at Site 44 during the habitat evaluation. These include
a mixed forest over much of the site area, an upland forest in areas of higher elevation, a swamp
along the creek and creek tributaries, and an open area on top of the former disposal area. Figure 2-7
shows a biohabitat map for the Site 44 area.
The mixed forest is dominated by loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) mixed with water oak (Ouercus n&&
and sweetgum (I iquid~aciflua).
A variety of shrubs, none of which is dominant, is present
in the understory. Shrubs identified include privit (Lipustrum),
juniper (JuniDerus
m),
blueberry Naccinum sp.), redbay (Persea borboti), and olive (w).
Japanesehoneysuckle (I&J&era Sponica) and greenbriar (s)
are also found in the
understory. Seedlings of Japanesehoneysuckle are dominant in many
areas
of
the
forest floor, while
. . .
other areas are sparsely vegetated. Two species,heartleaf (Hexastvlls
) and geum (Geum sp.)
were identified during the habitat evaluation.
2-6
The mixed forest grades to upland forest in the higher areas farther from the site. Four tree species,
none of which is dominant, are present in the upland forest. These include white oak (Ouercus alba),
tulip poplar (Liriodendron tuliDifera), black cherry (Prunus se otina), and sweetgum (mdamba
@raciflua). Dogwood (Cornus florida) and holly (u)
kake up the understory. No vines are
present. Plants present on the forest floor are typical of upland deciduous forests and include
cranefly orchid (Tinularia discoh), heartleaf (Hexastylis arifolia), Christmas fern (Aspidium
. .
acrostrchQ&&,
and partridgeberry (Mitchella repens).
A swamp or wooded wetland can be found along the creeks and the creek tributaries. The trees in
this swamp include a mix of red maple (Acer rubrum), swamp chestnut oak (Ouercus micm),
ironwood (Quninus caroliniana), and sourgum (fiydendrum arborea. The understory is made
up of a variety of shrubs including rosebay (M&nolia virw),
redbay (Persea bm),
privit
(LiPustrum vulgare), and fetterbush (Lvonia lucid.&. Wetland vegetation is present on the floor of
the swamp and includes the following species:
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
. ..
Sensitive Fern- Onoclea sensrbrlts
Switch Cane- Arundinaria
Mayapple- Podow
Arrow Arum- Peltandra viru
.
Jewelweed- Jmnatiens cw
Hydrocotyl- Hydrocotyl americana
Southern Shield Fern- Dryopteris ludoviciana
Blue Violet- Viola nmonacea
Watercress- Nasturtiumcinale
. .
Water Smartweed- @num
amphtbmm
A small open area is present at the end of the accessroad to the site. Portions of this open area are
covered with stands of young loblolly . pines
(Pinus).
Three vines, Japanese honeysuckle
.
(Lonicera iapon ia), dewberry (Rubus),
and jasmine (Gelsemium sempervirens) are growing
among the pines and along the ground. The area that is not covered by young pines is dominated by
glomeratus). The following forbs are intermixed
grassesincluding bushy beardgrass (a
with the grasses:
White Clover- Trifolium repens
Vetch- && sp.
Dandelion- Uaxacum offici&
Creeping Buttercup- F!us
relend
Peppergrass- Lepidium virglnlcum
Narrow-leaved Plantain-. Plantago lanceoh&
Curly Dock- Rumex crw
Ebony Spleenwort- -euroa
Because of the variety of habitat, a number of birds were observed during the habitat evaluation.
Both resident and migratory birds were identified including the following;
0
0
0
0
Robin- Turdus migratorius
. .
Cardinal- bhmondena card& .
Carolina Chickadee- Par-uscarow
Fish Crow- Corvus ossifragus
2-7
.
0
0
0
0
0
0
. .
Carolina Wren- Thryothorus ludovtcianus
Yellow Warbler- Dendroica netechia
Blue Jay- Cvanocitta cristata
Mourning Dove- Zenaida macr~ura
Red-bellied Woodpecker- Melanernes carol&
Grackle- Ouiscalus auiscula
Although no mammals were observed during the habitat evaluation, mammal sign was noted. Tracks
of whitetail deer (Qdocoileus [email protected], opposum -his
marsur>ialis),and raccoon (procyog
ti)
were all found. A buck rub was also observed, as was feeding sign of a squirrel (sciurus sp.)
The only reptile or amphibian observed was a frog, which was not seen at close enough range for
identification.
2.8
References
*
Bamhill, W.L. 1984. Soil Survey of Camp LeJeune. Nort h Carolina. USDA, Soil Conservation
Service.
Cardinell, A.P., Berg, S.A., and Lloyd O.B. Jr. 1993. -Framework
of U.S. Mar&
Corps Base at Camp I,ejeune. North Carolina. USGS. Water-Resources Investigations Report
93-4049.
Fetter, C.W. 1986. ADDlied
1
. Charles E. Merrill Publishing Co., Columbus, Ohio.
.
.
Geophex, Ltd. 1992. Wellhead Manapement Prog am EnPmeermP Studv 91-36. Prepared for
Marine Corps Base, Camp Lejeune, North Carolina. ‘January 22, 1992.
. .
Greenhome & O’Mara. 1992. Prelimi~port
Wellhead Momng
Studv. Prepared for
the Department of the Navy, Civil Branch. December, 1992.
Hamed, D.A., Lloyd, O.B., Jr., and Treece, M.W., Jr. 1989. Assessment of HydroloPic and
Hyd rogeologic l&a at Camp J,ejeune Marine Corps E&se.North Carolina. USGS. Water-Resources
Investigations Report 89-4096.
LeBlond, Richard. 1991. Critical Species J.ist - Cam-Endangered
s Survev. Principal Investigator.
2-8
Snecies and Snec&-
SECTION
2.0 TABLES
‘8,
)
,,
>
TABLE
2-1
SUMMARY
OF SOIL PHYSICAL
PROPERTIES
AT SITE 44
REMEDIAL
INVESTIGATION
CT0 - 0303
MCAS, NEW RIVER, NORTH CAROLINA
Soil
Symbol
uses
Classification
Depth
(inches)
Moist Bulk
Density
WC>
Baymeade-Urban
BaB
SM, SP-SM
0 - 30
1.60 - 1.75
Muckalee
Mk
ML
0 - 28
__
Soil Name
Soil Reaction
W-O
Shrink-Swell
Potential
Organic
Matter
(percent)
4.2 x 1O-3- 1.37 x 1O-2
4.5 - 6.5
Low
0.5 - 1.0
4.2 x IO-“ - 1.37 x 10”
5.1 - 7.3
Low
0.5 - 2.0
Permeability
(cm
Source: Soil Survey: Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, U. S. Department of Agriculture - Soil Conservation Service, 1984.
Notes:
ML
SM
SP
-SC
-
Loam
Loamy Fine Saud
Fine Saud
Not Estimated
Fine Sandy Loam
p---
TABLE
SUMMARY
OF GROUNDWATER
Casing
r
Static Water Levels (TOC)
3126195
4110195 I 516195
Elevation
44-GWOl
44-GW02
14.68
12.90
17.34
17.55
8.48
6.95
10.45
11.03
14.26
13.13
13.89
13.29
4.08
2.91
2.57
2.82
8.79
4.66
7.58
4.71
NA
NA
NA
NA
44-GW05
44-GW06
44-GWOlDW
44-GW06DW
44-SGO 1
44-SG02
44-SG03
44-SG04
,-.
AND SURFACE WATER
SITE 44
REMEDIAL
INVESTIGATION
CTO-0303
MCAS NEW RIVER, NORTH CAROLINA
Well No.
44-GW03
44-GW04
2-2
T
ELEVATIONS
GI
3126195
9.15
7.63
11.12
11.61
9.28
10.17
8.67
11.99
12.50
10.03
6.20
5.95
6.89
6.52
5.47
5.49
8.11
5.29
NA
NA
NA
NA
6.74
9.00
6.21
1.10
1.10
1.22
1.60
8.47
6.31
8.58
NA
NA
NA
NA
mdwater Ele ations
4/l o/95
516195
5.53
4.51
5.27
6.22
5.94
4.98
7.64
5.78
8.00
NA
NA
NA
4.23
5.35
5.05
4.23
6.39
4.89
NA
1.08
7.08
1.84
0.67
0.45
1
f
TABLE 2-3
HYDRAULIC
PRORJZRTIES SUMMARY
SITE 44
REMEDIAL
INVESTIGATION
CT0 - 0303
MCAS, NEW RIVER, NORTH CAROLINA
Well ID
44-GW04
44-GW05
44GW06
Conductivity
Rising
Falling
Head
Head
@/day)
(R/day)
-2.0
-0.4
ma
1.7
Transmissivity
Falling
Rising
Head
Head
@day)
@Z/day)
Conductivity
Rising
Falling
Head
Head
(cm/day)
(cm/day)
Transmissivity
Rising
Falling
Head
Head
(cnQ/day)
(cnQ/day)
-1.0
-_
0.2
-0.8
90.0
18.0
76.5
----
7.06e-04
1.41e-04
6.00e-04
---
--_-
7.06e-04
1.41e-04
4.82e-04
----
1.0
0.2
0.7
__
-__
48.4
4.9
26.7
MAXIMUM
MINIMUM
2.0
0.4
-_
--
AVERAGE
1.4
--
90.0
18.0
61.5
44-GWOlDW
44-GW06DW
18.1
17.5
22.5
22.7
3,620.O
3,500.o
4,500.o
4,540.o
6.39e-03
6.18e-03
7.94e-03
S.Ole-03
38.9
3.8
AVERAGE
17.8
22.6
3,560.O
4,520.O
6.28e-03
7.98e-03
21.4
Notes:
‘I-’
Falling head slug test not performed as well level was within screened interval.
Transmissivity calculation assumed 45 ft thickness for surficial aquifer
Transmissivity calculation assumed 200 fi thickness for the Castle Hayne aquifer.
General Soil Description
F sand, trace silt w/ silty sand layer
F/M sand & silty sand layers
F sand & silt
.‘.’
. .: . .... ./..
‘.
..’
F sand, trace med. sand, shell frag., & silt
F sand, some shell frag.
.‘.‘.
.‘..‘..,;.:::” ..j :. :, :;.L,‘! ”
,,.,
,I,,,
)
TABLE 2-4
SUMMARY OF POTABLE WATER SUPPLY WELLS
WITHIN A ONE-MILE
RADIUS OF SITE 44
REMEDIAL
INVESTIGATION
CT.O-0303
MCAS NEW RIVER, NORTH CAROLINA
Well
Supply Well Depth
Number 1 (ft)
Screened
Interval
1 (ft)
Chloride Fluoride
WV
LB!!L
160,000 2,200 (6)
NA
NA
l-c-502
184
110-184
NC-52
70
25-66
l-C-600
70
48-70
25,000
300
80
t 86.000
IT-700
76
27.5-76
11,000
NA
170,000
20
80
1200.000
NA
NA
1 NA
500
30
16.000
60,000
1,200
ND 1 5.800
NA
NA
180,000
1,400
NA
ND
1 NA
I 22,000
110,000
400
50
128,000
K-90 1
77
46-56
rc-1251
240
120-140
rc-1253
250
120-135
MCAS-106
NA (2)
NA
MCAS-203 1 173 1 NA
MCAS-131 1 200 1 NA
The analytical data presented in this table represent detected analytes.
(1) Status not available
(2) Not available
(3) Not detected
(4) TC-1254 designated as MCAS-1254 on well location map.
(4) Above USEPA & NC SMCLBtandard (Fe-300 pg/L, Mn=50 ug/L, TDS=500,000 ug/L)
(5) Above USEPA SMCL (Al=200 pg/L)
(6) Above NC Standard (FI=2,000 ug/L)
See Figure 2-6 for well locations.
NA
1 NA
-1
250.000
NA 1
660,000(4)
==I
500.000
NA
1
Et-
-..
SECTION
2.0 FIGURES
Saker
A
B'
A'
WEST
EAST
C'
C
GIST
NORTH
SOUTH
GROUND SURFACE
44-GWO4
-
15
44.
.4-EWOJ
.
44-WA-SBO?
15
1:
105
15
15
10
10
44.
44-OA-5801
~~
U Y , gY mi,
-
10
10
1c
.
==I
~IQTRIQTD
lo
CUY
L
E
-z
0.1. 8.5
L
5
e
0.1
t 5
0.1. 4.8
2
"
RE-
0
CUY
TRLQ C U Y
%
E
i
Y
mw-TRIQ
0
I T -05
2
Y
0.1. -3.5
-
-5
8.T
-5
-c
Y
"
P
5c*
w
2
2
z
3
Y
8.1 -2 4
i
E
-
-5
0
>
-5
-7.2
B T.
S T -94
-
-10
- I
t
ID
I
m
0
21
I
Vertlcsl Scale' 1 Inch
E
-10
m
L
ionla1 Scale 1 inch = 20 11
' -15
I0
5
-10
10
I
II
b - -
-10
UI
I
Horizontal Scale 1 inch = 20 It
-15
-10
-15
?
It
.2
1
a
20
!
10
1
40
-I
Horlzonlr.1 Scale 1 inch = 20 It
u
tical Scale
- -'
-15
-15
L - -
inch = 5 1:
0
--
25
5
Vertical Scale 1 inch
10
i
6
It
D
NORTH
E
E'
SOUTHWEST
il
'
15
NORTHEAST
20
20
44-OW02
44-GWOlDW
44-
10
10
10
5
/
0
0
2
YI
I
t
Y
-10"
I
dii
10
L.-
,
5
z
Y
8 1. -2.4
1;
HormonW Scale
L -Vertlcal
A bale
-
I0
20
I
-20
-20
-10
-30
-30
-15
-
-40
40
1 Inch = PO
I ,
-5
40
fL
I
10
I
I
1 inch = 5 I t
!&w
J-
m i ow
[
-------
--
GROUNDWATER ELEVATION (5/S/B5)
GROUNGWATCR ENCOUNTERED DURING DWWNO
BORING TERumATrD. E u v A T m YSL
WELL SCREEN INTERVAL
PRDJEClID
CSTIMATED
FORYAllON CONTACT
0.1.
1.7
- --
Horlaonlal Scale. 1 Inch = PO I1
5
I
Vertlcal Scale 1 inch
10
a0
1.3
I
10 1L
1
R"s
NORTH
I
S.04
FIOURE
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION, C 1-0303
MARINE CORPS AIR STATION, NE'
NORTH CAROLINA
GEOLOGIC CROSS SECTIONS A-A', B-B',
C-C', D-D' & E-E'
SITE 44, JONES STREET DUMP
RIVER
62470-303-0000-05200
303013RI
II
II
I
II
II
I,
BAKER ENVIRONMENTAL 1c.
CoraoDolis. Pennsvlva a
I
U
I
-
AS SHOWN
DATE
JANUARY 1995
No.
-
85
8
6.5
6
I
0X26/95
4'
I
I
CM/lo/95
Date
.-
FIGURE 2-3 A
GROUNDWATER
ELEVATION TREND
ATSITE
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION
CTO-03C
MCAS NEW RIVER, NORTH CAROLIN
65
6-
4.5”
0326195
Date
FIGURE 2-3B
GROUNDWATER
ELEVATION TRENDS
I
AT SITE 44
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION
CTO-0303
MCAS NEW RIVER, NORTH CAROLINA
.-
,o 44=GWOlDW\
,...I
. . .
,....
. .
---&22-K
Monitoring
well-- locations
and superimposed
inch = SOO-feet).
and contours
on a USES quadrangle
/
/
// /
// \
are estimated
(Scale approx.
l-
. . .
.
. .
. . .
.
,
.
.
. , .
* ,.....
. . .
***
,..
v.
FIGURE 2-5
DEEP GROUNDWATER CONTOUR MAP
AT SITES 43 AND 44
: REMEDIAL . INVESTIGATION CTO-0303
MCAS
* .I. NEW RIVER, ,NORTH CAROLINA
.
3.0
STUDY
AREA
INVESTIGATIONS
The field investigation program at OU No. 6, Site 44, was initiated to detect and characterize
potential impacts to human health and the environment resulting from past waste management
activities. This section discusses the site-specific RI field investigation activities that were
conducted to fulfill the objective. The RI field investigation of OU No. 6 commenced on
February 20, 1995 and continued through May 10, 1995. The RI field program at Site 44 consisted
of a site survey; a soil investigation, which included sampling and test pit excavations; a
groundwater investigation, which included monitoring well installation, sampling, and aquifer
testing; a surface water and sediment investigation; a habitat evaluation; and a bioassay study. The
following sections detail the various investigation activities carried out during the RI.
3.1
Site Survev
The site survey task was performed in two phases: Phase I - Initial Survey of Site Features; and
Phase II - Post Investigation Survey of Monitoring Wells and Sampling Locations. Phase I of the
survey task was conducted at Site 44 during December of 1994. Based upon the Initial Site
AssessmentStudy (WAR, 1983) and Site Inspection Report (Baker, 1994a), surface features within
and surrounding the suspected disposal areas were surveyed. The proposed soil boring and
monitoring well locations identified in the Final RIDS Work Plan for OU No. 6 (Baker, 1994b),
were subsequently located as part of the Phase I survey and marked with wooden stakes. Each
sample location was assigned a unique identification number that corresponded to the site and media
to be sampled.
PhaseII of the site survey task was completed at Site 44 during the week of May 10, 1995. During
Phase II, all existing and newly installed monitoring wells were surveyed. Supplemental or
relocated soil borings and exploratory test pits completed during the investigation were also
surveyed. A number of soil borings were relocated from the locations proposed in the project plans
(i.e., moved more than ten feet from their proposed locations) due to the presence of either
underground or overhead utilities. Soil test borings were also moved from their proposed locations
based upon observed site conditions. Additionally, staff gauges installed in Edwards Creek were
also surveyed during PhaseII. Latitude, longitude, and elevation in feet above mean sea level (msl)
were recorded for each surveyed point.
3.2
Soil Investighcm
The soil investigation performed at Site 44 was intended to:
0
Assess the nature and extent of contamination that may have resulted from
previous disposal practices or site activities;
0
Assess the human health, ecological, and environmental risks associated with
exposure to surface and subsurface soils; and
0
Characterize the geologic setting of the study area.
The subsectionswhich follow describe soil sample collection procedures, soil boring locations, and
the analytical program initiated during the soil investigation at Site 44.
3-l
3.2.1
Soil Sampling
Procedures
Sampling activities at Site 44 commenced on March 8, 1995. Soil collection was performed using
a direct-push (GeoProbeTM) sampling system. Borings were advanced by either a truck-mounted
rig or by a hand sampler unit. The direct-push sampling system employed a stainless steel cutting
shoe and collection tube. A dedicated acetate liner, inserted into the stainless steel collection tube,
was used to collect and then extrude soil samples for field and laboratory analyses. All soil
sampling activities conducted at Site 44 were performed in Level D personnel protection. Soil
cuttings obtained during the soil investigation were collected, handled, and stored according to the
procedures outlined in Section 3.7.
Two types of borings were installed during the soil investigation: exploratory test borings (i.e.,
borings installed for sample collection and description of subsurface units) and borings advanced
for the purpose of monitoring well installation. Selected soil samples from each of the two types
of borings were submitted for laboratory analysis (see Section 3.2.4). Soils obtained from
exploratory borings were collected from the surface (i.e., ground surface to a depth of twelve inches)
and at continuous two-foot intervals starting at one foot below ground surface. Continuous sample
collection proceeded until the boring was terminated at the approximate depth of the water table,
which varied at Site 44 from 3 to 9 feet below ground surface. An additional soil sample was
collected from below the water table to confirm groundwater depth and ensure that the true water
table had been encountered (i.e., not a perched zone).
Samples were collected for soil description from the ground surface and at continuous two-foot
intervals to the water table. Each soil was classified in the field by a geologist using the Unified Soil
Classification System (USCS) in accordance with the visual-manual methods described by the
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM, 1993a). Descriptions were recorded in a field
logbook and later transposed onto boring log records. Soil classification included characterization
of soil type, grain size, color, moisture content, relative density, plasticity, and other pertinent
information such as indications of contamination. Descriptions of site soils are provided on Test
Boring Records in Appendix A and on Test Boring and Well Construction Records in Appendix B.
Surface and selected subsurface (i.e., greater than one foot below ground surface) soil samples were
retained for laboratory analysis from each of the soil borings. Both surface and subsurface samples
were collected to evaluate the nature and extent of potentially impacted soils and to perform the
human health risk assessment;however, only the surface soils were employed for the ecological risk
assessment. A summary of test boring identification numbers, boring depths, sampling intervals,
and laboratory analyses for Site 44 soil samples is provided in Tables 3-l and 3-2.
A minimum of two samples were retained for laboratory analysis from each of the soil boring
locations. Each soil sample was prepared and handled according to USEPA Region IV Standard
Operating Procedures (SOPS). Samples collected for volatile organic analysis were extracted with
a stainless-steel spoon from different sections of the extruded soil core so that the resulting
composite was representative of the entire sampling interval. Precautions were taken not to aerate
the sample, thus minimizing volatilization. Samples retained for other analytical parameters (e.g.,
semivolatiles, pesticides, PCBs, and metals) were thoroughly homogenized prior to being placed in
the appropriate laboratory containers.
Following sample collection, each sample retained for laboratory analysis was stored on ice in a
cooler. Sample preparation also included documentation of sample number, depth, location, date,
3-2
time, and analytical parameters in a field logbook. Chain-of-Custody documentation, copies of
which are provided in Appendix D, included information such as sample number, date, time of
sampling, and sampling personnel, accompanied the samples to the laboratory. Samples were
shipped by overnight courier to the laboratory.
3.2.2
Sampling
Locations
Representative samples from the study area were collected and submitted for laboratory analysis of
target compound list (TCL) organics (i.e., volatiles, semivolatiles, pesticides, and PCBs) and target
analyte list (TAL) metals. A total of 13 test borings were sampled during the soil investigation at
Site 44. Two additional borings, to the west of the study area, were advanced to assessbackground
contaminant concentrations (44-BB-SBOl and 44-BB-SB02).
Soil samples were collected throughout Site 44 as shown on Figure 3- 1. The sampling distribution
employed was intended to identify if contamination was present and, if so, to evaluate the vertical
and horizontal extent within the study area. The soil sampling program at Site 44 focused on known
or suspecteddisposal areas. Previous investigatory data and background reports were used to locate
potential sampling locations.
A total of 13 borings were advanced to assesssuspected waste disposal at Site 44; three of those
borings were utilized for the installation of monitoring wells. Four of the 13 boring locations were
completed in an area immediately surrounding monitoring well 44-GW03, identified in the Final
RI&S Work Plan for OU No. 6 (Baker, 1994b). The remaining nine soil borings were completed
at the various locations throughout the site, as shown on Figure 3- 1.
3.2.3
Exploratory
Test Pits
A total of three exploratory test pits were completed in conjunction with the soil investigation at
Site 44 (refer to Figure 3-l). The exploratory test pit investigation was conducted to assessthe nature
of any buried material within suspected disposal areas. Excavation logs, provided in Appendix C,
describing the contents of each test pit were maintained during field operations. A soil sample from
one test pit, 44-TP03, was submitted for laboratory analysis of compounds associated with toxicity
characteristic leaching procedure (TCLP) and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
hazardous waste characteristics. Laboratory confirmation analysis of excavated soil was necessary
when staining was evident or when organic contamination was indicated through field screening.
Potential test pit locations were identified through visual site inspection and use of a hand-held
magnetometer. The visual site inspection sought to identify signs of contamination or waste disposal
activity such as soil staining, debris, fill areas, or depressions. In conjunction with the visual site
inspection, a magnetometer was employed during the test pit investigation to identify buried metallic
objects. Because of the presence and wide distribution of metallic debris throughout the study area,
only locations with magnetic detections indicating metallic objects greater than three feet in length
were selected for excavation activities.
3-3
-
During the excavation of exploratory test pits by backhoe, Level B personal protective equipment
(e.g., supplied air) was employed. In general, test pit dimensions measured 10 to 15 feet in length
and 2 to 3 feet in width. The depth of each test pit varied according to the depth of the encountered
water table and the total depth of fill material.
3.2.4
Analytical
Program
The analytical program initiated during the soil investigation at Site 44 focused on suspected
contaminants of concern, as indicated by information regarding previous disposal practices and
investigation results. Each of the 13 soil samples were analyzed for TAL metals and full TCL
organics (i.e., volatiles, semivolatiles, pesticides, and PCBs). Samples were prepared and handled
as described in the previous section.
The soil sample from the selected exploratory test pit was submitted for laboratory analysis of the
compounds reported as part of TCLP and RCRA hazardous waste characteristics. Laboratory
confirmation analysis of excavated soil was requested when staining was evident or when organic
contamination was indicated by field screening. The TCLP samples were employed to characterize
the nature of the visually contaminated material. Samples were prepared and handled as described
in the previous section. Tables 3-1 through 3-3 present a summary of requested soil analyses.
In addition to chemical analyses, a thin-walled tube (i.e., Shelby tube) was employed to collect,
according to ASTM D-1587 (ASTM, 1994), an undisturbed sample of the semi-confining layer that
separates the surficial and Castle Hayne aquifers. The sample was tested in accordance with the
following procedures:
l
l
l
ASTM D-422 - Particle Size Analysis of Soils (ASTM, 199Oa)
ASTM D-4418 - Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, and Plasticity Index of Soils (ASTM,
1993b)
ASTM D-5084 - Hydraulic Conductivity of Saturated Porous Materials (ASTM, 199Ob)
Findings from these and USCS soil classification analyses are presented in Appendix L.
3.2.5
Quality
Assurance
and Quality
Control
Field QA/QC samples were collected during the soil investigation. These samples were obtained
to: (1) monitor that decontamination procedures were properly implemented (equipment rinsate
samples); (2) evaluate field methodologies (duplicate samples); (3) establish field background
conditions (field blanks): and (4) evaluate whether cross-contamination occurred during sampling
and shipping (trip blanks). Data Quality Objectives (DQOs) for the QA/QC samples were
implemented in accordance with DQQ Level IV as defined in the Environmental Compliance Branch
SOPS and Quality Assurance Manual, USEPA Region IV (USEPA, 1991). This DQO level is
equivalent to the Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center (NFESC) DQO Level D, as specified
in the “Sampling and Chemical Analysis Quality Assurance Requirements for the Navy Installation
Restoration Programs” document (NEESA, 1988).
Four types of field QA/QC samples were collected and analyzed including: duplicate samples;
equipment rinsates samples; field blanks; and trip blanks. The definition of each is listed below
(USEPA, 199 1):
3-4
0
Duplicate Sample: Two or more samples collected simultaneously into separate
containers from the same source under identical conditions.
0
Equipment Blanks: Equipment field blanks (or rinsate blanks) are defined as
samples which are obtained by running organic free water over/through sample
collection equipment after it has been cleaned. These samples are used to
determine if decontamination procedures were adequate. A minimum of one
equipment blank per sample media was collected daily, however, only every other
blank was analyzed.
0
Field Blanks: Organic-free water is taken to the field in sealed containers and
poured into the appropriate sample containers at designated locations. This is done
to determine if contaminants present in the area may have an affect on the sample
integrity.
0
Trip Blanks: Trip blanks are prepared prior to the sampling event, placed in the
actual sample container, and kept with the investigative samples throughout the
sampling event. They are then packaged for shipment with the other samples and
sent for analysis. At no time after their preparation are the sample containers to be
opened before they return to the laboratory. Field sampling teams utilize volatile
organic trip blanks to determine if samples were contaminated during storage and
transportation back to the laboratory. If samples are to be shipped, trip blanks are
to be provided for each shipment but not necessarily for each cooler (i.e., trip blanks
in coolers with samples for VOC analyses only).
--.
Table 3-4 summarizes field QA/QC sample types, sample frequencies, the number of QNQC
samples, and parameters analyzed. Field QNQC samples were collected at Site 44 according to the
procedures outlined in the USEPA Region IV SOPS.
3.2.6
Air Monitoring
and Field Screening
Several air monitoring and field screening procedures were implemented during soil investigation
activities at Site 44. Ambient air monitoring for volatile contaminants was performed at each open
borehole using a photoionization detector (PID). During exploratory test pit operations, the ambient
air was monitored for volatile organics with both a PID and a flame ionization detector (FID).
Soil samples were field screened for volatile organic contaminants with a PID. Excavated soil from
exploratory test pits was screened with both PID and FID. Measurements obtained in the field were
recorded in a logbook and later transposed onto the Test Boring Records and the Well Construction
Records (provided in Appendices A, B, and C). Prior to daily monitoring, the field instruments were
calibrated and documentation was recorded in a field logbook and on appropriate calibration forms.
3.3
Groundwater
Invest-
.
.
The groundwater investigation performed at Site 44 was intended to:
0
Assessthe nature and extent of contamination that may have resulted from previous
disposal practices or site activities;
3-5
0
Assess human health and environmental risks associated with exposure to
groundwater; and
0
Characterize the hydrogeologic setting of the study area.
The subsections which follow describe well installation procedures, sample collection procedures,
the analytical program, and hydraulic conductivity test procedures employed during the groundwater
investigation at Site 44.
3.3.1
Monitoring
Well Installation
Three shallow Type II monitoring wells (i.e., wells installed without casing to seal off a semiconfining or confining layer) were installed at Site 44 during March of 1995. Locations of the newly
installed monitoring wells are depicted on Figure 3-2. The three shallow monitoring wells were
situated spatially to intercept potentially impacted groundwater from the suspected disposal areas,
and to characterize the nature and horizontal extent of possible contamination. The existing and
newly-installed monitoring wells were also used to evaluate groundwater flow patterns within the
upper portion of the sutfrcial aquifer. In addition to the shallow monitoring wells, two deep Type III
monitoring wells (i.e., wells installed with casing to seal off a confining or semi-confining layer)
were also installed during March of 1995, at Site 44 (refer to Figure 3-2). The two deep monitoring
wells were installed to assessthe nature and vertical extent of contamination and to evaluate the flow
pattern of the deeper aquifer (i.e., the Castle Hayne aquifer). Placement of the newly installed
monitoring wells was based on review of previous investigation analytical data.
Shallow monitoring wells were installed after the pilot hole test boring was advanced to the desired
depth. Each borehole was reamed with 6-l/4-inch internal diameter (ID) hollow stem augers prior
to shallow well installation. Shallow well depths ranged from 18 to 22 feet below ground surface.
In general, the shallow wells were installed approximately 10 feet below the water table encountered
during the pilot hole test boring. Shallow monitoring wells were installed with screened intervals
bi-setting the water table sufftciently to compensate for seasonalvariations in the water table which
is known to fluctuate from two to four feet. The two deep wells were set at depths of 70 and 75 feet
below ground surface. Well construction details are summarized in Table 3-5, and well construction
diagrams are shown on the Test Boring and Well Construction Records provided in Appendix B.
The two deep monitoring wells were installed upon completion of pilot hole test borings which were
advanced using the wash and mud rotary drilling methods. Each borehole was drilled with a 6-inch
wing bit prior to well installation. The two deep monitoring wells were screened at intervals just
below the semi-confining unit in the upper portion of the Castle Hayne aquifer. Screened intervals
for the two deep wells ranged from approximately 65 to 75 feet below ground surface (refer to
Table 3-5 and Appendix B for well construction details).
I
,-.
All of the permanent monitoring wells were constructed of two-inch nominal diameter, Schedule
40, flush-joint and threaded, polyvinyl chloride (PVC) casing. Justification for the use of PVC
casing is provided in Appendix B of the Field Sampling and Analysis Plan for Operable Unit No. 6
(Baker, 1994b). Each shallow well utilized a 15-foot screened interval comprised of a lo- and 5-foot
long No. 10 (i.e., 0.01 inch) slotted screen sections. Deep monitoring wells were constructed with
five-foot No. 10 slotted screen sections. A fine-grained sand pack (i.e., No. 1 silica sand), extending
approximately 2 feet above the top of the screen,was placed in the annulus between the screen and
the borehole wall from inside the augers during shallow well installation. The sand pack was poured
3-6
manually down the borehole during deep well installation and checked continuously with a weighted
tape measure to determine sand pack depth. A two- to three-foot sodium bentonite pellet seal was
placed above the sand pack by dropping pellets down the borehole. The bentonite pellets were
hydrated with potable water after placement. A sodium bentonite slurry was used to backfill the
annular spacefrom above the bentonite pellet seal to the bottom of the steel casing (i.e., above the
semi-confining unit). The remaining annular space was backfilled with a mixture of Portland
cement and five percent powdered bentonite. During construction of the Type III deep wells,
portland cement was used to secure six-inch steel casing to the uppermost portion of the semiconfining layer. A five-foot by five-foot concrete pad was placed around the protective well casing
and four protective bollard posts were installed around the corners of the concrete pad. A four-inch
protective well casing with locking cover was placed over the well and set into the cement. Well
tags, which provide construction information, were installed at the top of each well. Typical shallow
Type II and Type III well construction details are shown on Figures 3-3 and 3-4.
One temporary well was employed to assessgroundwater conditions in a low-lying area adjacent
to the northern boundary and Edwards Creek which was not suited for permanent well construction.
The temporary well was constructed of one-inch nominal diameter, Schedule 40, flush-joint and
threaded PVC casing placed in an open borehole. A filter sock was used to filter fine materials from
the surrounding formation. Immediately following sample acquisition the temporary well was
removed.
3.3.2
Monitoring
Well Development
Following well construction and curing of the bentonite seal and cement grout, each newly installed
monitoring well was developed to remove fine-grained sediment from the screen and sandpack and
to establish interconnection between the well and the surrounding formation. The shallow wells
were developed by a combination of surging and pumping. The deep wells were developed using
a forced air system,equipped with a filter, and “lifting” the water out of the well. Typically, 20 to
40 gallons of water were evacuated from the shallow wells, followed by 10 minutes of surging, then
continued pumping. Between 100 and 250 gallons of water, approximately 3 to 5 borehole volumes,
were evacuated from the deep wells. Groundwater recovered during well development was
temporarily stored in drums, then transferred into on-site storage tanks (refer to Section 3.7).
Pumping hoses,constructed of flexible PVC, were used once and discarded to minimize the potential
for cross contamination.
Three to five borehole volumes were removed from each well, where conditions permitted, until the
groundwater was essentially sediment-free. Measurements of pH, specific conductance, and
temperature were generally recorded after each volume was removed to assist in assessing well
stabilization. Additionally, periodic flow and volume measurements were also recorded during
development to evaluate flow rates of the shallow water-bearing zone. Well Development Forms
that summarize this information are provided in Appendix E.
3.3.3
Water
Level Measurements
Static water level measurements were collected after all well development activities had been
completed. Measurements were recorded from topof-casing (TOC) reference points marked on the
PVC casing at each existing and newly-installed well. Water level measurementswere collected on
March 26, April 10, and May 6, 1995. Groundwater measurementswere recorded using an electric
measuring tape which were recorded to the nearest0.01 foot. Water level data from site monitoring
3-7
wells and staff gauges were collected within a three-hour period. A summary of water level
measurements is provided in Table 3-6.
3.3.4
Aquifer
Testing
Well-head tests (i.e., slug tests) were performed on selected wells at Site 44 as part of the
groundwater investigation. Aquifer testing results, provided in Appendix N. Both falling- and
rising-head tests were performed to approximate individual well characteristics and to provide
generalized information regarding aquifer parameters within the study area.
3.3.5
Sampling
Locations
Groundwater samples were collected from three existing shallow wells (44-GWOl, 44-GW02, and
44-GW03), the three newly installed shallow wells (44-GW04, 44-GWOS, and 44-GW06), one
temporary well (44-TWOl), and the two newly installed deep wells (44-GWOlDW and
44-GW04DW) at Site 44. The locations of the newly installed, temporary, and existing monitoring
wells are shown on Figure 3-2. The groundwater sampling round was conducted at Site 44 in April
of 199.5.
3.3.6
Sampling
Procedures
Groundwater samples were collected to assesswhether contamination was present in the shallow
and deep aquifers resulting from previous disposal practices at Site 44. Based upon previous
investigative results and historical records, the contaminants of concern were volatiles, aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs), and metals. Accordingly, the sampling program initiated at Site 44 focused
on these contaminants.
Prior to groundwater purging, a water level measurement from each well was obtained according
to procedures outlined in Section 3.3.3. The total well depth was also recorded from each well to
the nearest 0.1 foot using a decontaminated steel tape. Water level and well depth measurements
were used to calculate the volume of water in each well and the volume ofwater necessary to purge
the well.
A minimum of three to five well volumes were purged from each well prior to sampling.
Measurements of pH, specific conductance, temperature, and turbidity were taken after each well
volume was purged to ensure that the groundwater characteristics had stabilized before sampling.
These measurements were recorded in a field logbook and are provided in Table 3-7. Purge water
was contained and handled as described in Section 3.7.
.--.
During the groundwater sampling event, a low flow well purging and sampling technique was
employed. The sampling methodology was developed in response to conversations with USEPA
Region IV personnel in Athens, Georgia. A peristaltic pump (GeoPump), with the intake set two
to three feet into the static water column, was used to purge each of the wells. While purging
groundwater from each of the monitoring wells, a flow rate of lessthan 0.25 gpm was maintained.
Samples collected for both organic and metal analyses were obtained directly from the pump
discharge. The Teflon TMtubing was decontaminated with a Liquinox soap solution and thoroughly
rinsed with deionized water (refer to Section 3.6 for decontamination procedures). A dedicated onefoot section of silicon pumphead tubing was used during purge and sampling activities at each well.
3-8
Rinsate blanks were collected from the TeflonTM and silicon tubing to verify that proper
decontamination procedures were being followed.
Preparation of groundwater samples incorporated procedures similar to those described for soil
samples. Sample information, including well number, sample identification, time and date of sample
collection, samplers, analytical parameters, and required laboratory turnaround time, was recorded
in a field logbook and on the sample labels. Chain-of-custody documentation (provided in
Appendix D) accompanied the samples to the laboratory.
3.3.7
Analytical
Program
Groundwater samples from three existing shallow wells, three newly installed shallow wells, two
newly installed deep wells, and one temporary well were submitted for laboratory analysis from
Site 44. Samples were analyzed for full TCL organics (i.e., volatiles, semivolatiles, pesticides, and
PCBs), TAL total metals, total suspended solids (TSS), and total dissolved solids (IDS). In
addition, the groundwater sample obtained from 44-GWOl was also analyzed for TAL dissolved
metals. Table 3-8 provides a summary of groundwater samples submitted for laboratory analysis
during the groundwater investigation. The groundwater samples were analyzed using Contract
Laboratory Program (CLP) protocols and Level IV data quality.
3.3.8
Quality
Assurance
and Quality
Control
Field QA/QC sampleswere also submitted for analysesduring the groundwater investigation. These
samples included trip blanks, equipment rinsates,and duplicates. Equipment rinsateswere collected
from the peristaltic pump and Teflon TMtubing after decontamination was completed and prior to
reuse. Section 3.2.5 provides a summary of QA/QC samples collected during the investigation.
Table 3-9 summarizes the QA/QC sampling program employed for the groundwater investigation
conducted at Site 44.
3.3.9
Field Screening
and Air Monitoring
Air monitoring and field screening procedures for volatile organic vapors implemented at Site 44
included the screening of well heads and the purged groundwater with a PID. Measurements
obtained in the field were recorded in a field logbook. Prior to daily monitoring, the field
instruments were calibrated and documentation was recorded in a field logbook and on calibration
forms.
3.4
.
and Sed:mept
. .
InveWWms
An overview of the surface water and sediment investigations conducted at Site 44 is provided in
this section. Surface water and sediment sampleswere collected at Site 44 during May of 1995. A
supplemental round of surface water samples were collected from Edwards Creek in September of
1995. The subsections which follow describe the surface water and sediment sampling locations,
sampling procedures, analytical program, and quality assurance and quality control program for
Site 44.
I
’
Surface Water
--
3-9
--
3.4.1
Sampling
Locations
A total of 8 surface water and 16 sediment samples were collected at Site 44 during the initial
sampling event in May of 1995. Each sampling station yielding one surface water and two sediment
samples. Five of the sampling stations were located in Edwards Creek and three were located in an
unnamed tributary to Edwards Creek. Surface water samples were assigned the designation “SW’
and “SD” was specified for identification of sediment samples.
An additional eight samples were later collected to more adequately assessthe extent of surface
water contamination in Edwards Creek. The eight samples from Edwards Creek were submitted in
September of 1995 for laboratory analysis of volatile organic compounds only. Based upon the
results of the initial surface water sampling event, four of the eight additional sampleswere collected
from previously sampled locations (44-EC-SW01 through 44-EC-SW04). The remaining four
additional sample locations were situated upgradient of the initial sampling stations. Figure 3-5
depicts the locations of the surface water and sediment sampling locations.
3.4.2
-
Sampling
Procedures
At each of the surface water sampling stations, sampleswere collected by dipping containers directly
into the water. Samples to be analyzed for volatiles were obtained first, samples for additional
analytical fractions collected immediately following. Care was taken to avoid excessive agitation
that could result in loss of VOCs. Water quality readings were taken at each sampling station (i.e.,
pH, dissolved oxygen, salinity, specific conductance, and temperature). The water quality readings
compiled during the surface water and sediment investigation are presented in Table 3-10.
Sediment samples were collected below the aqueous layer by driving a sediment corer, equipped
with a disposable tube, into the sediments. The sediment was extruded from the disposable sampling
tube and placed into the appropriate sample containers. Sampling containers were provided by the
laboratory and certified to be contaminant free. The volatile fraction was collected first, followed
by the remaining analytical parameters. Samples to be analyzed for TCL semivolatiles, pesticides,
PCBs, total organic carbon (TOC), and TAL metals were thoroughly homogenized before the sample
jars were filled. The first 6 inches of sediment at each station were submitted for analyses separately
from sedimentscollected in the 6- to 1Zinch depth range. Surface water and sediment samples were
collected at downstream sampling locations first. All sample locations were marked by placing a
pin flag or wooden stake at the nearest point along the bank.
3.4.3
Analytical
Program
The analytical program at Site 44 was intended to assessthe nature and extent of contamination in
surface waters and sediments that may have resulted from past disposal practices. As a result, the
analytical program focused on suspected contaminants of concern, based upon knowledge of
suspected wastes and the overall quality of surface water and sediment. Both surface water and
sediment samples were analyzed for full TCL organics and TAL metals. Surface water samples
were also analyzed for TAL dissolved metals and hardness. In addition to organic and inorganic
analyses, sediment samples were also analyzed for TOC and grain size.
--.
.=-
An additional eight surface water samples from Edwards Creek were analyzed for TCL volatiles
only. The additional sampleswere requested as a result of analytical data gathered during the initial
sampling event. Volatile organic compounds were observed in Edwards Creek surface water
3-10
samples with increasing upgradient concentrations. A summary of the surface water and sediment
analytical program is provided in Table 3-l 1.
3.4.4
Quality
Assurance
and Quality
Control
Field QA/QC samples were collected during the surface water and sediment investigation at Site 44,
including duplicate samples, equipment rinsate samples, and trip blanks. Table 3-12 provides a
summary of the QA/QC sampling program conducted during the surface water and sediment
investigation. Section 3.2.5 lists the various QA/QC samplescollected during the sampling program
at Site 44 and the frequency at which they were obtained.
3.5
.
Ecolopcal
. .
Investlgatlon
An ecological investigation, consisting of a habitat evaluation and a bioassay study, was conducted
at Site 44. During the habitat evaluation, dominant vegetation types and species were identified in
the field; those plants that could not be readily identified were collected for further examination in
the office. Amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals were also identified as visual sightings or
evidence allowed. In many cases,the animals themselves were not seen, but scat, tracks, feeding
areas, or remains were noted. From this information, ecological communities were established and
biohabitat maps developed (refer to Section 2.0).
The bioassay study was conducted in a laboratory environment, using surface water and sediment
samples that were retained from Site 44. A 7-day survival and growth study of fathead minnows
was performed with each of the surface water samples. The tests were conducted with sample
dilutions of 100 percent, 50 percent, 25 percent, 12.5 percent, and 6.25 percent. A control sample
that consisted of 100 percent dilution water was also tested. Survival of the minnows was recorded
daily and growth of the minnows (i.e., weight gain or loss) was recorded at the end of 7 days.
In addition to the surface water test, a IO-day survival and growth bioassay study was conducted
using the sediments retained from Site 44. During the sediment bioassay tests, the overlying water
was replaced twice daily. The sediment, however, was not replaced or diluted during the tests. A
control sediment sample was also tested in order to statistically correlate sediment findings with the
presence or absence of contamination. The control sample was retained from an area within MCB,
Camp Lejeune that is not known or suspected to have received contamination. The survival and
growth of the introduced amphipods were recorded at the end of the 10 days. Results from the
bioassay study are provided in Appendix W.
3.6
. .
Decontammatlon Procedures
Decontamination procedures performed in the field were initiated in accordance with USEPA
Region IV SOPS. Sampling and drilling equipment were divided into two decontamination groups,
heavy equipment and routine sample collection equipment. Heavy equipment included the drill rig,
hollow-stem augers, and drill and sampling rods. Routine sample collection equipment included
split spoons, stainless steel core barrels (used with the GeoProbeT”), and stainless steel spoons and
bowls, and TeflonTM tubing.
The following procedures were implemented for heavy equipment:
0
Removal of caked-on soil with brush
3-11
0
Steam clean with high-pressure steam
0
Air dry
The following procedures were implemented for routine sample collection equipment:
a
0
0
0
0
Clean with distilled water and laboratory detergent (Liquinox soap solution)
Rinse thoroughly with distilled water
Rinse twice with isopropol alcohol
Air dry
Wrap in aluminum foil, if appropriate
Temporary decontamination pads, constructed of wood and plastic, were constructed to prevent
spillage of fluids onto the ground surface. Decontamination fluids generated during the field
program were containerized and handled according to the procedures outlined in Section 3.8.
3.7
Investigation Derived Waste @W) l&w!hg .
Field investigation activities at Site 44 resulted in the generation of various IDW, This IDW
included drilling mud, soil cuttings, well development and purge water, and solutions used to
decontaminate non-disposable sampling equipment. The general management techniques utilized
for the IDW were:
1.
2.
3.
Collection and containerization of IDW material.
Temporary storage of IDW while awaiting confirmatory analytical data.
Final disposal of aqueous and solid IDW material.
The management of the IDW was performed in accordance with guidelines developed by the
USEPA Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Hazardous Site Control Division (USEPA,
1992). Both the IDW soils and water were returned, based on confirmatory analytical data, to their
respective source areas. Contaminated wastewater was sent off site to a licensed hazardous waste
disposal facility. Appendix F provides information regarding the management and disposal of the
IDW.
3.8
References
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 1990a. hdard
Test Method for Parti&
Size Analysis of Soils, ASTM D-422-63 (Reapproved 1990). American Society for Testing and
Materials, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 1990b. Test Method for m
. .
;
ASTM D-5084-90.
American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
. for Descnl>tlon
. .
1993a. Standard Practice
American Society for
. Testing
* and Materials (ASTM).
*
.
ASTM D-2488-93. American Society for Testing
Identlficabm ofsolls Nlsuall
Prc=hA
and Materials, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
3-12
--.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 1993b. ward
Test Method for Liqd
. .
Limit. Plastic L imit. and Plastrcrtv
Index of Soils. ASTM D-44 1S-93. American Society for Testing
and Materials, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 1994. Standard Practice for Thin-Waw
Tube Geotechnical Sampling of Soils, ASTM D-1587-94. American Society for Testing and
Materials, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Baker Environmental, Inc. 1994a. -Inspection
Report - Site 43. &an Street Dump, Final.
Prepared for the Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Atlantic Division,
Norfolk, Virginia. January 1994.
Baker Environmental, Inc. 1994b. Remedial Investjg&ion/Fe&ilitv
Studv Work Plan for Ooerable
.
unit No. 6 (S&s 43.43.44.54. and 86). Marine Corps Base Camp J,eJeune.North Carolina, Final.
Prepared for the Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Atlantic Division,
Norfolk, Virginia. December 1994.
Naval Energy and Environmental Support Activity (NEESA). 1988. mlinu
and Chemical
.
Analysis 9udldce
Rwu.imnents for the Nav Installationion
Prowm
Department of the Navy, Naval Energy and Environmental Support Activity, Port Hueneme,
California. NEESA 20.2-047B.
United StatesEnvironmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1991. National Functional Guidelines
for Organic Data Review. Draft. USEPA Contract Laboratory Program. June 1991.
United . States
Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1992. Guide to Manwent
of
.
InvestLg&on-Derived Wastes, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response Hazardous Site
Control Division. Washington, D.C. OS-220W. April 1992.
.
Water and Air Research, Inc. (WAR). 1983. I&ial AssessmentStudy of Marme Corps Base Camp
Lejeune. North Carolina . Prepared for the Department of the Navy, Naval Energy and
Environmental Support Activity, Port Hueneme, California. April 1983.
3-13
SECTION 3.0 TABLE’S
TABLE
3-l
SOIL SAMPLING
SUMMARY
TEST BORINGS
SITE 44, JONES STREET DUMP
REMEDIAL
INVESTIGATION,
CTO-0303
MCAS, NEW RIVER, NORTH CAROLINA
Notes:
(I) Background or control sample location.
TABLE
3-2
SOIL SAMPLING
SUMMARY
MONITORING
WELL TEST BORINGS
SITE 44, JONES STREET DUMP
REMEDIAL
INVESTIGATION,
CTO-0303
MCAS, NEW RIVER, NORTH CAROLINA
i4-GW05
9
O-1
5-7
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
TABLE 3-3
r
Sample
Location
I
44-TP03
SOIL SAMPLING SUMMARY
TEST PIT EXCAVATION
SITE 44, JONES STREET DUMP
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION,
CTO-0303
MCAS, NEW RIVER, NORTH CAROLINA
Depth/
Length
of
Excavation
Sampling
Interval
Analytical Parameters
(feet)
(feet, below
ground
surface)
TCL
PestIPCB
TAL
Metals
6125
O-4
X
X
TCLVOC
X
TCL
SVOC
Duplicate
Sample
MS/MSD
X
Notes:
RCRA - Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
Hazardous Waste Characteristics
TCLP
- Full Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure Analysis (Volatiles, Semivolatiles, Pesticides, PCBs,
and Metals).
TABLE
QUALITY
QAjQC Sample(‘)
Trip Blanks(*)
Field [email protected]
3-4
ASSURANCE/QUALITY
CONTROL
SAMPLING
SOIL INVESTIGATION
SITE 44, JONES STREET DUMP
REMEDIAL
INVESTIGATION,
CTO-0303
MCAS, NEW RIVER, NORTH CAROLINA
Frequency
of Collection
Number of
Samples
One per cooler
2
3
10% of sample frequence
PROGRAM
Analytical Parameters
TCL Volatiles
TCL VOA, TCL SVOA,
TCL PESTKB.
TAL Metals
Notes:
(I) QA/QC sample types defined in Section 3.2.5 in text.
@) Trip blanks submitted with coolers which contained samples for volatile analysis. Samples analyzed for TCL
Volatiles only.
(9 Field duplicate samples presented in Appendix J.
“I,,
.I
“‘I)
‘)
TABLE
3-5
SUMMARY
OF WELL CONSTRUCTION
DETAILS
SITE 44, JONES STREET DUMP
REMEDIAL
INVESTIGATION,
CTO- 0303
MCAS, NEW RIVER, NORTH CAROLINA
Well No.
Date
Installed
Top of PVC
Casing Elevation
(feet, above msl)(‘)
Ground Surface
Elevation
(feet, above msl)
Boring Depth
(feet, below
ground surface)
Well Depth
(feet, below
ground surface)
Screen Interval
Depth
(feet, below
ground surface)
Sand Pack
Interval Depth
(feet, below
ground surface)
3l22l95
13.89
11.74
86
70
65-70
62-7 1
Bentonite
Interval Depth
(feet, below
ground surface)
I~
57-62
I
44-GW06DW
3f22195
17.55
15.78
23
22
7-22
3/23/95
14.26
12.55
22
21
6-2 1
3/21/95
13.13
11.10
19
18
3-18
2-19
I
o-2
2l27/95
13.29
11.20
76
75
70-75
66.5-76
I
63-66.5
Notes:
(0 msl = mean sea level
Horizontal positions are referenced to N.C. State Plane Coordinate System (NAD 27) CF = 0.9999216 from USMC Monument Toney.
Vertical datum NGVD 29.
TABLE
3-6
SUMMARY
OF WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS
SITE 44, JONES STREET DUMP
REMEDIAL
INVESTIGATION,
CTO-0303
MCAS, NEW RIVER, NORTH CAROLINA
.
feet above msl
Notes:
(1)
(2)
(3)
NA
msl = mean sea level
Deep monitoring well
Staff gauge
- Not applicable
._
TABLE
3-7
SUMMARY
OF GROUNDWATER
FIELD PARAMETERS
SITE 44, JONES STREET DUMP
REMEDIAL
INVESTIGATION,
CTO-0303
MCAS, NEW RIVER, NORTH CAROLINA
Well No.
Date of
Measurement
44-GWO 1
419195
44-GWOlDW
419195
44-GW02
4110195
d Parameters
Depth of
Well
(fit.)
18.07
Purge
Volume
(gals.)
4.35
71.6
30.51
15.05
Conductance at
Temperature
pH
(“0
I (S.U.)
I
1.0
2.5
3.0
1.0
I
I
Turbidity
(T.U.)
672.0
690.0
672.0
NA
18.0
19.0
NA
44-GW03
4/10/95
-
7.45
7.56
NA
4.6
4.0
NA
TABLE
SUMMARY
3-7 (Continued)
OF GROUNDWATER
FIELD PARAMETERS
SITE 44, JONES STREET DUMP
REMEDIAL
INVESTIGATION,
CTO-0303
MCB, NEW RIVER, NORTH CAROLINA
Well No.
Date of
Measurement
44-GW04
4/8/95
44-GW05
419195
44-GW06
4/8/95
44-GW-06DW
418195
-
Depth of
Well
(fiJ
24.26
23.22
TABLE
3-7 (Continued)
SUMMARY
OF GROUNDWATER
FIELD PARAMETERS
SITE 44, JONES STREET DUMP
REMEDIAL
INVESTIGATION,
CTO-0303
MCB, NEW RIVER, NORTH CAROLINA
Well No.
Date of
Measurement
Notes:
S.U. - Standard Units
T.U. - Turbidity Units
--.
T
I
Depth of
Well
(ft.)
4.0
Purge
Volume
(gals.)
NA
Well
Volume
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Field Parameters
Specific
Conductance at
Temperature
25°C
(micromhoskm)
(“C)
529.0
14.0
396.0
14.0
334.0
15.0
344.0
15.0
341.0
15.5
350.0
15.0
pH
(S.U.)
Turbidity
(T.U.)
6.40
6.02
6.07
6.13
6.21
NA
B200.0
156.4
64.8
36.3
26.6
8.20
n
TABLE 3-8
GROUNDWATER SAMPLING SUMMARY
SITE 44, JONES STREET DUMP
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION,
CTO-0303
MCAS, NEW RIVER, NORTH CAROLINA
Notes:
TDS - Total Dissolved Solids
TSS - Total Suspended Solids
TABLE 3-9
QUALITY
QAfQC Sample(‘)
Trip Blanks
[email protected]
Field Duplicates”)
ASSURANCE/QUALITY
CONTROL
SAMPLING
GROUNDWATER
INVESTIGATION
SITE 44, JONES STREET DUMP
REMEDIAL
INVESTIGATION,
CTO- 0303
MCAS, NEW RIVER, NORTH CAROLINA
PROGRAM
Frequency
of Collection
Number of
Samples
Analytical Parameters
One per cooler
2
TCL Volatiles
One per day
2
10% of sample frequence
1
TCL VOA, TCL SVOA,
TCL PESTIPCB, TAL Metals,
Dissolved TAL Metals
TCL VOA, TCL SVOA,
TCL PEST/PCB, TAL Metals,
Dissolved TAL Metals, TSS, & TDS
Notes:
(‘) QA/QC sample types defined in Section 3.2.5 in text.
c2) Trip blanks submitted with coolers which contained samples for volatile analysis. Samples analyzed for TCL
Volatiles only.
0) Equipment rinsates collected from various sampling equipment (e.g., peristaltic pump).
c4) Field duplicate samples presented in Appendix J.
-
TABLE
3-10
SUMMARY
OF SURFACE WATER FIELD PARAMETERS
SITE 44, JONES STREET DUMP
REMEDIAL
INVESTIGATION,
CTO-0303
MCAS, NEW RIVER, NORTH CAROLINA
Station
4CEC-SW/SD0
Dissolved
Oxygen
(mg/L)
Temperature
(“C)
1
18.1
I
3.58
I
Conductivity
(umhos/cm)
Salinity
(Ppt)
2.9
6.84
I
O
950-5,400
I
0.9-4.1
750-2,020
1
0.5-2.1
44EC-SW/SD02
44-EC-SW/SD03
44-EC-SW/SD04
44-EC-SW/SD05
44-UT-SW/SD0
1
17.7-18.5
7.16-7.32
4.3-5.1
16.3-16.6
6.87
3.0
44-UT-SW/SD02
15.5-15.9
44-UT-SW/SD03
15.5-16.5
mg/L - Milligrams per Liter
S.U. - Standard Units
umhos/cm - Micromhos per centimeter
ppt - Parts Per Thousand
EC - Edwards Creek
UT - Unnamed Tributary
I
1
6.93
6.78-6.93
I
1
8.2
0.7-1.7
TABLE 3- 11
SURFACE
I
I
WATER AND SEDIMENT SAMPLING SUMMARY
SITE 44, JONES STREET DUMP
REMEDIAL
INVESTIGATION,
CTO-0303
MCAS, NEW RIVER, NORTH CAROLINA
I
Analytical Parameters
44-EC-SW/SD02
,
SD
44-EC-SW/SD03
44-EC-SW/SD04
1
I
6-12
1
X
X
SW
SD
NA
O-6
X
SD
6-12
X
NA
X
SW
SD
I
O-6
I
x
I
I
I
X
X
I
I
I
X
I
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
I
I
6-12
X
X
X
X
SW
SD
NA
X
X
X
X
O-6
6-12
X
X
X
X
X
SD
X
X
SD
44-UT-SW/SD02
1
X
I
I
X
X
X
X
I
I
X
X
TABLE
SURFACE
3-11 (Continued)
WATER AND SEDIMENT SAMPLING
SUMMARY
SITE 44, JONES STREET DUMP
REMEDIAL
INVESTIGATION,
CTO-0303
MCAS, NEW RIVER, NORTH CAROLINA
Analytical Parameters
Sample
Matrix
SW
SD
SD
Sample
Depth(‘)
TCL
voc
TCL
svoc
TCL
Pest/PCB
TAL
Metals
NA
O-6
6-12
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Notes:
0) NA - Not applicable for surface water samples
SW - Surface Water
SD - Sediment
TOC - Total Organic Carbon
Diss.
TAL
Metals
Hardness
X
X
TOC
Grain
Size
Duplicate
Sample
MS/MSD
TABLE
QUALITY
QA/QC Sample(‘)
Trip Blanksc2)
Equipment”)
Field Duplicates(4)
Notes:
3-12
ASSURANCE/QUALITY
CONTROL
SAMPLING
PROGRAM
SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT INVESTIGATION
SITE 44, JONES STREET DUMP
REMEDIAL
INVESTIGATION,
CTO- 0303
MCAS, NEW RIVER, NORTH CAROLINA
Frequency
of Collection
Number of
Samples
Analytical Parameters
One per cooler
2
TCL Volatiles
One per day
1
TCL VOA, TCL SVOA, TCL
PESTKB,
TAL Metals
10% of sample frequency
3
TCL VOA, TCL SVOA, TCL
PEST/PCB, TAL Metals, TOC
0) QA/QC sample types defined in Section 3.1.5 in text.
@) Trip blanks submitted with coolers which contained samples for volatile analysis. Samples analyzed
for TCL Volatiles only.
c3) Equipment rinsates collected from various sampling equipmnet.
c4) Field duplicate samples presented in Appendix J.
--
SECTION 3.0 FIGURES
LEGEND
44-Gwo6
tD
*
44-GW06DW
SHALLOW MONITORING WELL
DEEP MONITORING WELL
..
..
OVERHEAD ELECTRIC UNE & UTIUTY POLE
EE-
@
TEMPORARY MONITORING WELL
Q
STAFF GAUGE
44-TWo1
-
___-___
-_---__
- _ - _
ASPHALT ROAD
GRAVEL OR DIRT ROAD
EDGE OF CREEK, DRAINAGE DITCH, MARSH
OR POND
TREE LINE
r 1
I
HSE
o
FENCE
++-++-
I
BASE HOUSING UNIT
1 inch = 150 ft
FIGURE 3-2
M0 N IT0RI NG WELL LOCATIONS
SITE 44, JONES STREET DUMP
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION, CTO-0303
MARINE CORPS AIR STATION, NEW RIVER
NORTH CAROLINA
m
303106RI
CONCRETE
PROTECTIVE
STEEL
SLEEVE WITH
LOCKING
CAP
GROUND
PAD
4 PROTECTIVE
STEEL
BOLLARDS
(TYP.)
Ir
SURFACE,
\I
\
CEMENT/BENTONITE
GROUT
BENTONITE
SEAL
\
\
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
THREADED
CASING
PVC
/
/
/
PELLET
_:
:
.:., ;:..,
,.
:
.; ‘.
GROUND
WATER-..LEVEL
v
--
:. ;
..‘.
-
.C~.
.’
-
‘i
.:
FILTER SAND
PACK
(No. 1 SAND)
:
;I
..:
“,
:
1.
. :
,... __
,:.; .::I,., -;’ -
,. ..I
.:.. .:.:.
;.‘...,’
, ..;
: ~
TWO-INCH
THREADED
PVC WELL
SCREEN-W/O.01
IN. SLOT
(15 FEET LONG)
THREADED
BOTTOM
OF
BOREHOLE
PVC WELL
..
*
N
T
.C
FIGURE 3-3
TYPICAL SHALLOW TYPE II GROUNDWATER
MONITORING
WELL CONSTRUCTION
DIAGRAM
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION
CTO-0303
MARINE
CORPS BASE, CAMP
NORTH CAROLINA
LEJEUNE
PLUG
3c!310881
CONCRETE
--
PROTECTIVE
STEEL
SLEEVE WITH
LOCKING
CAP
GROUND
PAD
4 PROTECTIVE
STEEL
BOLLARDS
(TYP.)
SURFAC
GROUND
WATER
PROTECTIVE
STEEL CASING
BENTONITE
SEAL
THREADED
PVC
-
PELLET
SCREEN-W/O.01
(5 FEET LONG)
THREADED
PVC
FIGURE 3-4
TYPICAL
DEEP TYPE III GROUNDWATER
MONITORING
WELL CONSTRUCTION
DIAGRAM
REMEDIAL
INVESTIGATION
CTO-0303
MARINE
CORPS BASE, CAMP
NORTH CAROLINA
WELL
SLOT
PLUG
m
mk*krtaunWr
N. T. S.
--
IN.
LEJEUNE
aEC-SWO9
1200' UPSTREAM
*
L
/
DRAINAGE
CULVtRT
LEGEND
d
EC-SW
SDOl SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT
@ L!'f=w/%w:
OVERHEAD ELECTRIC LINE & UTILITY POLE
-EE-
SAMPLING LOCATION
jt--jt
SURFACE WATER SAMPLING
EC-&wo6
-b
&
LOCATION ONLY
DIRECTION OF SURFACE WATER FLOW
_---___
----_-_
_ _- - -
MARSH
I
- \\
HSE
I
FENCE
ASPHALT ROAD
GRAVEL OR DIRT ROAD
EDGE OF CREEK, DRAINAGE DITCH, MARSH
OR POND
TREE LINE
BASE HOUSING UNIT
1 inch = 160 ft.
k
FIGURE 3-5
SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT
SAMPLING LOCATIONS
SITE 44, JONES STREET DUMP
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION, CTO-0303
MARINE CORPS AIR STATION, NEW RIVER
NORTH CAROLINA
4.0
NATURE AND EXTENT OF CONTAMINATION
This section presents the nature and extent of contamination at OU No. 6, Site 44. The objective of
this section is to characterize the nature and extent of any contamination which may be present as
a result of past waste management activities. The characterization of contaminants at Site 44 was
performed by sampling and laboratory analysis of soil, groundwater, surface water, and sediment
environmental media. Appendices G through M present the Sampling Summaries; Data and
Frequency Summaries; Statistical Summaries; Field Duplicate Summaries; Quality Assurance and
Quality Control Summaries; TCLP, RCRA, and TPH Results; and Engineering Parameter Results
for the various media at Site 44.
4.1
Data Ouality
The majority of data generated during the RI was submitted for third-party validation; wet
chemistry, TCLP, RCRA, grain size, and permeability results were not validated. The usability of
the data was determined by the third party data validator, Heartland Environmental Services, Inc.
Procedures stipulated by the National Functional Guidelines for Organic (USEPA, 1991) and
Inorganic (USEPA, 1988) Analyses were observed during the validation process. Validation of the
analytical data serves to reduce the inherent uncertainties associated with its usability. Data
qualified as “J” were retained as estimated. Estimated analytical results within a data set are
common and considered to be usable by the USEPA (USEPA, 1989). Data may be qualified as
estimated for several reasons including an exceedance of holding times, high or low surrogate
recovery or intra-sample variability. In addition, values may be assigned an estimated “J” qualifier
if the reported value is below the Contract Required Detection Limit (CRDL) or the Contract
Required Quantitation Limit (CRQL). Data assigned a rejected “R” qualifier was excluded from the
usable data set. Under these conditions estimated positive results were designated with “J” qualifiers
and all rejected were assigned the “R” qualifiers. Table 4-l provides a summary of all rejected Site
44 data.
Additional qualifiers were employed during the validation of data. The “NJ” qualifier denotes that
a compound was tentatively identified, but the reported value may not be accurate or precise.
Compounds that were not detected and had inaccurate or imprecise quantitation limits were assigned
the “UJ” qualifier.
4.1.1
Data Management and Tracking
The management and tracking of data, from time of field collection to receipt of validation report,
is of primary importance to the overall quality of laboratory analytical results. Field samples and
their corresponding analyses were recorded on chain-of-custody forms, provided in Appendix D.
Chain-of-custody forms were compared to the Field Sampling and Analysis Plan (Baker, 1994); this
comparison was used to verify that appropriate laboratory analyses had been requested. Upon
receipt of laboratory analytical results, a further comparison was performed to verify that each
sample received by the laboratory was analyzed for the correct parameters. Finally, the validation
report was compared to the requested laboratory analyses.
The management and tracking of data was used to determine the following items:
0
0
Identify and correct chain-of-custody discrepancies prior to laboratory analysis
Verify the receipt of all samples by the laboratory
4-l
-
Confirm that requested sample analyses and validation were performed
Ensure the delivery of a complete data set
l
l
4.2
Non-Site
Relatedtlcal
.
ResulQ
Many of the organic compounds and inorganic analytesdetected in environmental media at Site 44
may be attributable to non-site related conditions or activities. Two primary sources of non-site
related analytical results include laboratory contaminants and naturally-occurring inorganic species.
In addition, non-site related operational activities and conditions may contribute to “on-site”
contamination (e.g., pesticides). A discussion of non-site related analytical results for Site 44 is
provided in the subsections which follow.
4.2.1
Laboratory
Contaminants
Field blank and trip blank samplesprovide a measure of contamination that has been introduced into
a sample set during the collection, transportation, preparation, or analysis of samples. To remove
non-site related constituents from further consideration, the concentrations of chemicals detected
in blanks were compared with concentrations of the same chemicals detected in environmental
samples.
.=-
Common laboratory contaminants (i.e., acetone, 2-butanone, chloroform, methylene chloride,
toluene, and phthalate esters) were retained for use in interpreting site conditions only when
observed concentrations in any environmental sample exceeded ten times the maximum
concentration detected in any blank. If the concentration of a common laboratory contaminant was
lessthan ten times the maximum blank concentration, its presence among the data set was attributed
to laboratory contamination in that particular sample (USEPA, 1989) and excluded from further
evaluation. The maximum concentrations of detected common laboratory contaminants in blanks
were as follows:
0
0
0
l
Acetone
Chloroform
2-Butanone
bis-(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate
24~~5
13 lm
32 ~gn
280 J pg/L
Blanks containing organic constituents that were not considered common laboratory contaminants
(i.e., all other TCL compounds) were retained in the site analytical database only when observed
concentrations exceeded five times the maximum concentration detected in any QA/QC blank
(USEPA, 1989). All TCL compounds detected at less than five times the maximum level of
contamination noted in any QA/QC blank were attributed to blank contamination and excluded from
further evaluation. The maximum concentrations of all other detected blank contaminants were as
follows:
0
0
Bromodichloromethane
Dibromochloromethane
13 Pgn
lOPgn,
A limited number of environmental samples that exhibited high concentrations of tentatively
identified compounds (TICS) were subjected to an additional sample preparation. Medium level
sample preparation provides a corrected Contract Required Quantitation Limit (CRQL) based on the
volume of sample used for analysis. The corrected CRQL produces higher detection limits than the
4-2
low level sample preparation. A comparison to laboratory blanks used in the medium level
preparation was used to evaluate the relative amount of contamination within these samples.
4.2.2
Naturally-Occurring
Inorganic
Analytes
In order to differentiate between inorganic contamination due to site operations and naturallyoccurring inorganic analytes in site media, the results of the sample analyses were compared to
information regarding background conditions at MCB, Camp Lejeune. The following guidelines
were used for each media:
Soil:
Groundwater:
Surface Water:
Sediment:
MCB,
MCB,
MCB,
MCB,
Camp Lejeune
Camp Lejeune
Camp Lejeune
Camp Lejeune
Background
Background
Background
Background
Soil Samples
Groundwater Samples
Surface Water Samples
Sediment Samples
The following subsections address the various comparison criteria used to evaluate soil,
groundwater, surface water, and sediment analytical results from samples collected at Site 44.
4.2.2.1 m
In general, applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs) are not available for
specific contaminants in soil. As a result, base-specific background concentrations have been
compiled from a number of locations throughout MCB, Camp Lejeune to evaluate reference levels
of inorganic analytes in the surface and subsurface soil.
Typical background concentration values for inorganic analytes in soils at MCB, Camp Lejeune are
presented in Appendix P. These ranges are based on analytical results of background samples
collected in areas not known to have been impacted by operations or disposal activities adjacent to
Sites 1,2,6,7, 16,28,30,35,36,41,43,44,
54,69,74,78, 80, and 86 (refer to Figure l-2 for site
locations throughout MCB, Camp Lejeune). Subsequent discussions of the analytical results from
samples collected during the soil investigation only consider those inorganic analytes with
concentrations exceeding twice the average base-specific background concentration, as
recommended by USEPA Region IV.
In general, background soil samples have been collected outside the known boundaries of those sites
listed above in areas with similar soil types. According to the SCS Soil Survey, the greatest portion
of MCB, Camp Lejeune is underlain by a number of similar soil units. Soils found on this portion
of the coastal plain are moderately to strongly acidic in nature and are classified under the USCS as
SM, SM-SP (i.e., fine sand or loamy fine sand). Section 3.0 provides the locations of background
soil borings completed at Site 44 during this investigation.
4.2.2.2 Groundwatet
Chemical-specific ARARs are available for evaluation of analytical results from groundwater
samples. In the subsequentsectionswhich addressthe analytical results of samples collected during
the groundwater investigation, only those inorganic parameters with concentrations exceeding
applicable state or federal regulations will be discussed.
4-3
Groundwater sampleswere analyzed for total inorganic parameters. In addition, a limited number
of selected groundwater samples were submitted for dissolved (i.e., “filtered”) inorganic analyses.
Concentrations of dissolved inorganics were found to be generally lower than total inorganic
concentrations, particularly for metals such as chromium, iron, lead, and manganese. A 0.45-micron
filter was used in the field to remove small particles of silt and clay that would otherwise be
dissolved during sample preservation, resulting in higher concentrations of inorganic analytes. The
total metal analysesfrom unfiltered samples is considered to reflect the concentrations of inorganics
in the natural lithology and inorganic analytes dissolved in the groundwater.
Higher concentrations of certain metals in unfiltered groundwater samples collected at MCB, Camp
Lejeune are not considered atypical based on experience gained during other studies. The difference
between the two analytical results (i.e., total and filtered) is important in terms of understanding and
separating naturally-occurring elements (e.g., lead) from contamination by site operations (e.g., lead
in gasoline). An evaluation report which pertains to naturally occurring metals in groundwater at
MCB, Camp Lejeune is provided in Appendix P.
USEPA Region IV requires that unfiltered inorganic concentrations be used in evaluating ARARs
and risk to human health and the environment. In the subsequent sections, which discuss the
groundwater sample analytical results, both total and dissolved inorganics (which exceed applicable
state or federal limits) will be presented and discussed for comparison purposes.
Groundwater in the MCB, Camp Lejeune area is naturally rich in iron and manganese. Iron and
manganese concentrations, both for total and filtered samples, in groundwater at MCB, Camp
Lejeune often exceed the North Carolina Water Quality Standards (NCWQS) of 300 and 50 pg/L,
respectively. Elevated levels of iron and manganese, at concentrations above the NCWQS, were
reported in samples collected from a number of base potable water supply wells which are installed
at depths greater than 162 feet below ground surface (Greenhome and O’Mara, 1992). Iron and
manganese concentrations from several wells at Site 44 exceeded the NCWQS but fell within the
range of concentrations for samples collected elsewhere at MCB, Camp Lejeune. There is no record
of any historical use of iron or manganese at Site 44. In light of this, it is assumed that iron and
manganese are naturally-occurring inorganic analytes in groundwater, and their presence is not
attributable to site operations.
4.2.2.3 Surface Water
In the sections which address the analytical results of samples collected during the surface water
investigation, only those inorganic parameters with concentrations exceeding applicable state or
federal regulatory limits will be discussed. Base-specific background concentrations have been
compiled from a number of locations throughout MCB, Camp Lejeune to supplement the evaluation
of detected inorganic analytes in surface water. Typical inorganic background concentration values
for surface waters at MCB, Camp Lejeune are presented in Appendix P. These values are based on
analytical results of background samples collected upgradient of areas known or suspected to have
been impacted by operations or disposal activities. Inorganic parameters detected below these levels
are assumed to be naturally-occurring elements.
4.2.2.4 &dhsai
Base-specific inorganic background concentrations have been compiled from a number of locations
throughout MCB, Camp Lejeune to supplement the evaluation of detected inorganic analytes in
4-4
sediment. Those inorganic analytes that exceed applicable state or federal regulatory limits are
compared to base-specific background concentrations in subsequent sections. Typical inorganic
background concentration values for sediments at MCB, Camp Lejeune are presented in Appendix P.
These values are based on analytical results of background samples collected upgradient of areas
known or suspectedto have been impacted by operations or disposal activities. Inorganic parameters
detected below these levels are assumed to be naturally-occurring elements.
4.3
Analytical
Results
This section presents the results of the soil, groundwater, surface water, and sediment investigations
performed at Site 44. A summary of site contamination, by media, is provided in Table 4-2.
4.3.1
Soil Investigation
Unique sample notations were employed to identify soil sampling locations and sample depths at
Site 44. Samples designated by “WA” and “OA” were collected from specific portions of the site
(as described in Section 3.0). Samples designated with the prefix “GW” were collected from
monitoring well pilot test borings. The suffix “DW” after the monitoring well number indicates that
the sample was obtained from a deep monitoring well test boring. The following sufftx designations
refer to the depth at which a sample was obtained:
00 01 02
03
04
-
05
-
ground surface to 12 inches bgs
1 to 3 feet bgs
3 to 5 feet bgs
5 to 7 feet bgs
7 to 9 feet bgs
9 to 11 feet bgs
Surface soil positive detection summaries for organic compounds and inorganic analytes are
presented in Tables 4-3 and 4-4. A positive detection summary of organic compounds in subsurface
soil is presented in Table 4-5; a summary of inorganic analytes is provided in Table 4-6. The
majority of soil samples collected at Site 44 were analyzed for full TCL organics and TAL
inorganics using CLP protocols and Level IV data quality (refer to Section 3.0). Soil samples
obtained from monitoring well test borings were also analyzed for full TCL organics and TAL
inorganics.
4.3.1.1 Surface Soil
A total of 13 surface soil samples were collected at Site 44; each of the samples were analyzed for
full TCL organics and TAL inorganics. As indicated in Table 4-2, only semivolatile and pesticide
organic compounds were detected in surface soils at Site 44.
Four semivolatile compounds were detected in 4 of the 13 surface soil samples that were submitted
for laboratory analyses. Semivolatile concentrations ranged from 57 pg/kg of benzo(g,h,i)perylene
to 550 pg/kg of bis(2-chloroethyl)ether. As presented in Table 4-2, two of the four SVOCs were
polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) compounds. The four borings with positive semivolatile
detections were located in separate portions of the study area.
4-5
The pesticides 4,4.-DDE, 4,4’-DDD, and 4,4’-DDT were detected in surface soil samples that were
submitted for analysis from Site 44. Detectable concentrations of organic pesticide compounds
were identified in 4 of the 13 surface soil samples. Three of the four surface sampleswith pesticide
compounds also had positive SVOC detections. As indicated in Table 4-2, the compounds 4,4.-DDE
and 4,4’-DDT were each detected four times among surface soil samples. Pesticide concentrations
ranged from 4.6 &kg of 4,4’-DDT to 140 pg/kg of 4,4’-DDE. 4,4’-DDD was detected once at a
concentration of 7.4 pg/kg at sample station OA-SB03.
Seventeen of 23 TAL inorganics were detected among the 13 surface soil samples obtained from
Site 44 (antimony, beryllium, cadmium, mercury, silver, and thallium were not detected). Table 4-2
provides a summary of the priority pollutant metals found within soil samples at Site 44. Priority
pollutant metals are a subset of TAL metals that include antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium,
chromium, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, selenium, silver, thallium, and zinc. Arsenic, chromium,
and manganese were each detected at concentrations exceeding twice the average base-specific
background levels among 11 of the 13 surface soil samples. Both copper and zinc were detected at
concentrations greater than one order of magnitude above the appropriate base-specific background
level in sample OA-SB03 (refer to Appendix P for base-specific inorganic background
concentrations). Lead and manganese were also detected at their respective maximum
concentrations in sample OA-SB03.
4.3.1.2 S&surface Soil
A total of 13 subsurface (i.e., greater than one-foot below ground surface) soil samplesfrom Site 44
were submitted for laboratory analyses; each sample was analyzed for full TCL organics and TAL
inorganics. No volatile or PCB compounds were detected among the 13 samples obtained from
Site 44.
Semivolatile compounds were detected among 3 of the 13 subsurface soil samples (refer to
Table 4-2). Only two SVOCs were detected, indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene and benzo(g,h,i)perylene. Both
compounds were detected at maximum concentrations in a sample obtained from OA-SBOS. In all,
SVOC detections ranged from 40 to 130 ug/kg.
Three pesticide compounds were detected in subsurface soils at Site 44. A total of four subsurface
samples had detectable concentrations of organic pesticides. The pesticide 4,4’-DDT was detected
once among the 13 subsurface samples; 4,4’-DDE and 4,4’-DDD were each detected four times. As
presented in Table 4-2, pesticide concentrations ranged from 3.2 pg/kg of 4,4’-DDE to 2,500 pg/kg
of 4,4’-DDD in sample 44-GWO 1DW. Concentrations of the three organic pesticides were highest
in a sample obtained from monitoring well test boring 44-GWOlDW.
Fifteen of 23 TAL inorganics were detected in subsurface soils at Site 44 (antimony, beryllium,
cadmium, cobalt, mercury, selenium, silver, and thallium were not detected). As presented in
Table 4-2, arsenic, copper, lead, manganese, nickel, and zinc were each detected at concentrations
which exceeded twice their average base-specific background concentration. However, none of the
analytes were detected at concentrations greater than one order of magnitude above their respective
base-specific background levels for subsurface soil (refer to Appendix P).
4-6
4.3.1.3 Summary
A total of four semivolatile contaminants, including two PAH compounds, were identified during
the soil investigation at Site 44. The two PAH compounds were identified in both surface and
subsurface soil samples. As provided in Table 4-2, each of the semivolatile compounds were
detected at concentrations less than 550 &kg.
The pesticides 4,4’-DDE, 4,4’-DDD, and 4,4’-DDT appear to be the most widely distributed
compounds in soil at Site 44. Each of the observed pesticides were detected in at least 5 of the 26
soil samples. The pesticide 4,4’-DDE was the most prevalent, with eight positive detections ranging
from 3.2 to 370 pg/kg. The highest pesticide concentration was that of 4,4’-DDD at 2,500 @kg.
In general, slightly higher concentrations of pesticides were observed in samples obtained from the
central portion of the study area, particularly in samples 44-GWO 1DW and OA-SBOS.
Inorganic analytes were detected in both surface and subsurface soil samples throughout the study
area. Arsenic, chromium, and manganese were each detected above twice their average basespecific background levels in 11 of the 13 surface soil samples. Both copper and zinc were detected
at concentrations in excess of ten times the average base-specific background level in a surface
sample obtained from station OA-SB03. In general, however, inorganic analytes in subsurface soils
were detected at concentrations within base-specific background levels.
4.3.2
Groundwater
Investigation
The groundwater investigation at Site 44 entailed the collection of samples from three existing
shallow wells (44-GWOl, 44-GW02, and 44-GW03), three newly installed shallow wells (44-GW04,
44-GW05, and 44-GW06), one temporary well (44-TWOl), and two newly installed deep wells
(44-GWOlDW and 44-GW06DW). Each of the groundwater samples collected at Site 44 were
analyzed for full TCL organics and TAL total metals using CLP protocols and Level IV data quality.
In addition, one of the groundwater samples was submitted for dissolved TAL metal analyses.
(Dissolved or filtered TAL inorganic results are presented in this report for comparative purposes
only. These results were not used to evaluate site-related risks or to determine compliance with
groundwater standards.)
Analytical results from the groundwater investigation at Site 44 are provided in subsections which
follow. A positive detection summary of organic compounds is provided in Table 4-7. Total and
dissolved metal results are presented in Tables 4-8 and 4-9.
4.3.2.1 Shallow
Groundwater conditions within the upper portion of the surficial aquifer were evaluated through
collection and analysis of samples from both shallow and temporary monitoring wells (refer to
Section 3.O and Appendix B for well construction details).
A total of seven shallow groundwater samples from Site 44 were submitted for laboratory analysis.
As indicated in Table 4-2, the detections of volatiles was limited to one of the existing shallow
monitoring wells and the temporary monitoring well. Total 1,Zdichloroethene and trichloroethene
were detected in the sample obtained from temporary well 44-TWO1 at concentrations of 15 and
1 pg/L, respectively. Vinyl chloride was detected at a concentration of 10 pg/L, which exceeded
the NCWQS of 0.0 15 pg/L. Tetrachloroethene was detected at a concentration of 1 pg/L in existing
4-7
well 44-GW03, which exceeded the 0.7 pg/L water quality standard. No other VQCs were detected
among the seven groundwater samples submitted for analyses from the shallow aquifer; nor were
pesticide and PCB contaminants detected.
Seven semivolatile compounds were detected in the groundwater sample obtained from existing well
44-GW03; the same monitoring well that exhibited tetrachloroethene contamination. Four of the
seven semivolatiles detected were PAH compounds. Semivolatile concentrations ranged from
4 pg/L of 2-methylnaphthalene and carbazole to 71 pg/L of naphthalene. Acenaphthene,
dibenzofuran, fluorene, and phenanthrene were also detected in the same groundwater sample.
TAL total metals were detected in each of the temporary and shallow monitoring wells at Site 44.
Dissolved metals were also detected the groundwater sample submitted for filtered analysis.
Complete positive detection summaries for total and dissolved metals are provided in Tables 4-8 and
4-9. Fourteen of the 23 TAL total metals were detected within at least one groundwater sample at
Site 44 (antimony, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, copper, mercury, silver, and thallium).
Only seven of 23 TAL dissolved metals were detected within the one groundwater sample submitted
for analysis. Iron and manganese were detected with the greatest frequency among groundwater
samples and at concentrations in excessof NCWQS levels, as depicted in Table 4-2. Iron exceeded
the NCWQS of 300 pg/L in each of the seven shallow groundwater samples, with a maximum
concentration of 72,900 pg/L. Manganese was detected at concentrations exceeding the NCWQS
of 50 pg/L in groundwater samples from four of the seven monitoring wells, with a maximum
concentration of 24 1 pg/L.
4.3.2.2 Qeep Grw
Two groundwater sampleswere obtained from the deep aquifer at Site 44; one from an upgradient
location and the other from the central portion of the study area. Deep monitoring wells were
screened at intervals just below a semi-confining unit, into the upper portion of the Castle Hayne
aquifer. Volatile, semivolatile, pesticide, and PCB organic compounds were not detected in either
of the samples obtained from the deep aquifer.
TAL total metals were detected in hoth of the deep monitoring wells at Site 44. Six of the 23 TAL
total metals were detected in both of the deep groundwater samples. Neither of the deep aquifer
samples were submitted for dissolved metal analyses. Manganese was detected in well
44-GWOlDW at a concentration of 60.6 pg/L that exceeded the NCWQS of 50 pg/L. Iron was
detected at a concentration of 743 pg/L in upgradient well 44-GW06DW, which exceededthe North
Carolina screening standard of 300 pg/L. None of the other TAL total metals that were detected in
the two samples obtained from the deep aquifer exceeded MCL or NCWQS levels.
4.3.2.3 Su.u.wy
Inorganics were the most prevalent and widely distributed constituents in groundwater at Site 44.
Concentrations of TAL total metals were generally higher in shallow groundwater samples than in
samples collected from the deeper aquifer. Iron and manganese were the most prevalent inorganic
analytes, detected at concentrations that exceeded standards in each of the groundwater samples.
Table 4-2 presents a summary of inorganic analytes in excess of applicable state standards.
Positive detections of organic compounds were limited to the temporary monitoring well (44-TWOl)
and an existing shallow monitoring well (44-GW03). Of the eight organic compounds detected in
4-8
44-GW03, only tetrachloroethene and naphthalene concentrations exceeded state or federal
screening standards. Only one of the three volatile compounds detected in sample 44-TWO 1, vinyl
chloride, exceeded screening criteria.
4.3.3
Surface Water
Investigation
Environmental samples were collected from Edwards Creek and an unnamed tributary to Edwards
Creek as part of the surface water investigation at Site 44. A total of eight surface water samples
were collected at Site 44 during the initial sampling event in May of 1995. Five of the sampling
stations were located in Edwards Creek and three were located in an unnamed tributary to Edwards
Creek. Each of the eight surface water samples were analyzed for full TCL organics and TAL
inorganics (both total and dissolved fractions), using CLP protocols and Level IV data quality.
An additional eight samples were later collected to more adequately assessthe extent of surface
water contamination in Edwards Creek. The eight samplesfrom Edwards Creek were submitted in
September of 1995 for laboratory analysis of volatile organic compounds only. Based upon the
results of the initial surface water sampling event, four of the eight additional sampleswere collected
from previously sampled locations (44-EC-SW01 through 44-EC-SW04). The remaining four
additional samples were obtained locations upgradient of the initial sampling stations, toward the
southeastern portion of Camp Geiger.
Analytical results from the surface water investigation at Site 44 are provided in the subsections
which follow. Table 4-2 provides a summary of surface water contamination. A positive detection
summary of organic compounds found in surface water samples is provided in Table 4-10.
Analytical results from supplemental samples obtained from Edwards Creek are presented in
Table 4- 11. Total and dissolved metal results from both surface water bodies at Site 44 are
presented in Tables 4- 12 and 4- 13. Pesticide and PCB organic compounds were not detected in any
of the eight surface water samples submitted for those analysesand, therefore, will not be considered
further. Semivolatile organic compounds were not detected in any of the surface water samples
obtained from Edwards Creek and, correspondingly, will not be addressed.
4.3.3.1 Edwards Creek
A total of 6 VQCs were detected among the 13 surface water samplesobtained from Edwards Creek.
As provided in Tables 4-10 and 4-l 1, both 1,2-dichloroethene (total) and trichloroethene were
detected in each of the 13 samples obtained from Edwards Creek. The maximum concentrations of
1,2-dichloroethene (total) and trichloroethene were 150 and 66 pg/L. Vinyl chloride and
1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane were next most prevalent VOCs detected among Edwards Creek surface
water samples. Vinyl chloride was detected in eight surface water samples with a maximum
concentration of 38 pg/L. As provided in Table 4-2, 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane was detected in 12
of the samples obtained from Edwards Creek with a maximum concentration of 42 pg/L. Nine of
the 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane detections exceeded the NCWQS screening value of 10.8 pg/L.
Twelve of the 1,Zdichloroethene (total) detections exceeded the NCWQS (15A NCAC 2B)
screening value of 7.0 pg/L. None of the other positive VOC detections exceeded applicable
screening values. Lastly, the VQCs 1,I-dichloroethene and 1,l ,Ztrichloroethane were also detected
among the surface water samples at maximum concentrations of 2 and 1 pg/L, respectively.
As presented in Table 4- 12, thirteen of 23 TAL total metals were positively identified among the
five surface water samples obtained from Edwards Creek (antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium,
4-9
chromium, cobalt, mercury, selenium, silver, and thallium were not detected). Positive detections
of metals were compared to screening standards for surface water bodies classified as fresh water
(i.e., containing lessthan five percent saltwater). Lead was detected in only one of the five surface
water samples obtained from Edwards Creek in excessof the 10.4 pg/L maximum base background
value. None of the total metal concentrations among the surface water samples exceeded state of
federal screening values.
4.3.3.2 &named Tributary
Positive detections of two volatile organic compounds were observed among the three surface water
samples obtained from the unnamed tributary to Edwards Creek. The VOCs 1,Zdichloroethene and
trichloroethene were detected at a concentrations of 5 and 2 pg/L in sample UT-SW03, located
approximately 150 feet upstream of the Edwards Creek confluence. Phenol was the only SVOC
detected among surface water samples submitted for laboratory analysis from Site 44. At sampling
location UT-SW01 phenol was detected at a concentration of 1 pg/L. None of the volatile or
semivolatile detections exceeded applicable state or federal screening values.
Laboratory analysesof four surface water samplesretained from the unnamed tributary indicate that
12 of 23 possible total metals were positively detected. As indicated in Table 4-2, none of the total
metal concentrations in the three surface water samples obtained from the unnamed tributary to
Edwards Creek exceeded state or federal screening values.
4.3.4
Sediment Investigation
Environmental samples were collected from Edwards Creek and an unnamed tributary to Edwards
Creek as part of the sediment investigation at Site 44. A total of 16 sediment sampleswere collected
at Site 44; 2 samples were collected from each of the 8 sampling stations. Samples were collected
from zero to six inches and also from six to twelve inches into the sediment. Ten of the 16 samples
were retained from Edwards Creek and the remaining 6 samples were obtained from the unnamed
tributary to Edwards Creek that lies beyond the southeast portion of the site. Each of the 16
sediment samples was analyzed for full TCL organics and TAL inorganics, using CLP protocols and
Level IV data quality.
Analytical results from the sediment investigation at Site 44 are provided in the subsections which
follow. Table 4-2 provides a summary of sediment contamination. A positive detection summary
of organic compounds found in Edwards Creek and the unnamed tributary to Edwards Creek are
provided in Table 4-14. Total metal results from sediment samples obtained as part of the Site 44
investigation are presented in Table 4-15. PCB compounds were not detected in any of 16 sediment
samples and therefore will not be addressed.
4.3.4.1 E&X&&&
Unlike surface water, volatile organic compounds were not detected in any of the ten sediment
samples obtained from Edwards Creek. A total of seven SVOCs were detected, however, among
seven of the ten sediment samples;six of the seven SVOCs detected were PAHs. A majority of the
SVOC detections in Edwards Creek sediment samples were from station EC-SDOS, located
downstream of the unnamed tributary confluence. Pentachlorophenol was positively detected in two
of the sediment samples at a maximum concentration of 740 pg/kg in upstream location EC-SD01 .
As indicted in Table 4-14, the maximum PAH concentration was that of fluoranthene at 120 pg/kg.
4-10
Phenanthrene, pyrene, chrysene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, and benzo(g,h,i)perylene were also detected
in at least one of the ten Edwards Creek samples. None of the positive SVOC detections in samples
obtained from Edwards Creek exceeded applicable NOAA screening values.
The pesticides 4,4’-DDE and 4,4’-DDD were detected in each of the ten sediment samples obtained
from Edwards Creek. Both of these pesticides were detected at their respective maximum
concentrations within a sample obtained from station EC-SDOS,located downstream of the umnuned
tributary confluence. As indicted in Table 4-2, each of the 4,4’-DDE and 4,4’-DDD detections were
in excess of NOAA Effects Range-Low (ER-L) screening values. Alpha-chlordane and gammachlordane were detected in nine of the ten sediment samplesat concentrations in excessof screening
values. Both alpha-chlordane and gamma-chlordane were detected at maximum concentrations of
14 and 16 pg/kg in sample EC-SDOS. The pesticide 4,4’-DDT was detected in eight of the ten
Edwards Creek sediment samples, at concentrations exceeding screening values. The maximum
4,4’-DDT detection, 130 @kg, was also observed in one of the samples obtained from station
EC-SDOS. Each of the pesticide detections in sediment samples represented an exceedance of
appropriate NOAA screening criteria.
Twenty of 23 TAL total metals were positively identified among the ten Edwards Creek sediment
samples (antimony, mercury, and thallium were not detected). Lead and zinc were detected at
concentrations in excess of their respective NOAA screening values of 35 and 120 mg/kg. As
provided in Table 4-15, one detection of lead at 43.5 mg/kg and one detection of zinc at 144 mg/kg
exceeded applicable sediment screening values in a sample obtained from station EC-SDOS. Neither
the lead nor the zinc detection in EC-SD05 exceededbase-specific background concentrations (refer
to Appendix P).
4.3.4.2 Unnamed Tribw
Acetone was the only volatile organic compound detected among the six unnamed tributary
sediment samples. No other VQC was detected among sediment samples from both Edwards Creek
and the unnamed tributary to Edwards Creek. Acetone was identified at a concentration of
6 10 ug/kg in a sample obtained from station UT-SDOl, which exceeded ten times the maximum
QA/QC blank concentration.
A total of 11 semivolatile compounds were identified in sediment samples obtained from the
unnamed tributary to Edwards Creek. As provided in Table 4- 14,9 of the 11 SVQCs detected were
PAH compounds. No semivolatile compounds were detectedat location UT-SDOl, located upstream
of two 36-inch drainage culverts which discharge to the unnamed tributary. The majority of
maximum SVOC detections were observed in samples obtained from location UT-SD03. The
maximum semivolatile concentration among sediment samplesobtained from the unnamed tributary
was that of fluoranthene. As presented in Table 4-2, four semivolatiles were each detected once
among unnamed tributary samples at concentrations exceeding applicable NOAA screening values.
Fluoranthene, pyrene, and chrysene were detected at their maximum concentrations of 740,490, and
460 pg/kg in a sample obtained from UT-SD03, approximately 150 feet from the confluence with
Edwards Creek. Benzo(g,h,i)perylene was detected at a maximum concentration of 71 &kg in
sample UT-SD02, adjacent to the culvert outfall.
The pesticides 4,4’-DDD, and 4,4’-DDE were detected in each of the six unnamed tributary
sediment samples. As indicated in Table 4-2,4,4’-DDD and 4,4.-DDE were detected at maximum
concentrations of 3 10 and 770 pg/kg in a sample obtained from station UT-SD02. The pesticide
4-11
--/“.
4,4’-DDT was detected in three of the six samplesat a maximum concentration of 3.7 &kg. Alphachlordane and gamma-chlordane were detected in four of the six samples at maximum
concentrations of 7.8 and 9.5 &kg.
Each of the pesticide detections in sediment samples
represented an exceedanceof appropriate NOAA screening criteria. The upstream sampling station,
UT-SD0 1, had the fewest detections of pesticide compounds.
Sixteen of 23 TAL total metals were positively identified in the seven sediment samples from the
unnamed tributary (antimony, beryllium, cadmium, cobalt, mercury, silver, and thallium were not
detected). Of the 16 metals detected, only lead was identified at concentrations in excessof NOAA
ER-L screening value of 35 mg/kg. As provided in Table 4- 15, lead was detected twice among the
six sediment samples obtained from the unnamed tributary at concentrations in excess of the
screening value. Lead was detected at 53 and 56 mg/kg in the two samples obtained from station
UT-SD03.
All other TAL metals detected in sediment samples from the unnamed tributary were
within base-specific background concentrations.
4.4
Extent
.
of Contmumhm
.
This section addresses the extent of contamination within soil, groundwater, surface water, and
sediment at Site 44.
4.4.1
Extent
of Soil Contamination
Positive detections of organic compounds in both surface and subsurface soil samples at Site 44 are
depicted on Figures 4- 1 and 4-2. Selected TAL metal detections among soil samples are depicted
on Figures 4-3 and 4-4. The following.subsections detail the presence of both organic compounds
and inorganic analytes in soil samples at Site 44. As addressed in Section 4.3.1, volatile and PCB
organic contaminants were not detected in any of the soil samples submitted for laboratory analyses.
As a result of those analyses, the extent of volatile and PCB contamination in soil will not be
addressed.
4.4.1.1 Semivolatiles
The presence and dispersion of SVOCs in soil, particularly the two PAH compounds, are most likely
the result of former operations at Site 44. Concentrations of PAH compounds in soil samples are
consistent with the historical use of the site as a dump and indicative of waste or refuse disposal.
Semivolatile compounds were identified in both surface and subsurface soil samples obtained from
the eastern portion of the site. As depicted on Figures 4- 1 and 4-2, concentrations of SVOCs were
typically higher in surface samples obtained at Site 44. In general, soil analytical results correspond
directly to the visual identification of fill or graded soil material observed during the field
investigation (see Appendices A, B, and C for soil descriptions).
4.4.1.3 Pesti&
,-.
Positive detections of pesticides were observed in both surface and subsurface soil samples
throughout Site 44. As Figures 4-l and 4-2 depict, the detected pesticide levels were generally low
and most likely the result of former base-wide application and use of pesticides. However, soils
samples obtained from the eastern portion of the study area had a majority of the pesticide
concentrations. As described in Section 2.0, the eastern and central portions of the study may have
been graded during site operations; the reworked soil may have also included residual concentrations
4-12
of pesticides. However, the frequency and overall concentration of pesticides in soil does not
suggest pesticide disposal activities.
4.4.1.4 Metals
As addressed in Section 4.3.1 and depicted in Tables 4-4 and 4-6, only two of the 26 samples
submitted for analyses had TAL metal concentrations greater than one order of magnitude above
twice the average base-specific background levels. The metals copper and zinc were detected at
concentrations greater than one order of magnitude above base-specific background levels in a
monitoring well test boring located within the central portion of the study area. Inorganic analytes
were detected in both surface and subsurface soil samples from the study area, as depicted on
Figures 4-3 and 4-4. Findings from the analytical program are consistent with visual observations
of buried metallic objects and graded surface material recorded during the field investigation (see
Appendices A, B, and C). The concentrations of metals which exceeded base-specific background
levels were in samples obtained from portions of the study area that coincide directly with graded
areas and buried material. Elevated concentrations of metal analytes are most probably the result
of buried material, in the presence of naturally-occurring acidic soils.
4.42
Extent
of Groundwater
Contamination
Positive detections of organic compounds in groundwater samples collected at Site 44 are depicted
on Figure 4-5. Figure 4-6 presents TAL metal groundwater sampling results in excess of either
Federal MCL or North Carolina WQS levels. As addressed in Section 4.3.2, organic pesticide and
PCB compounds were not detected in any of the shallow or deep aquifer samples submitted for
analysis from Site 44. As a result of those analyses, the extent of pesticides and PCBs in
groundwater will not be addressed.
4.4.2.1 Volatiles
Positive detections of volatile compounds were limited to samples obtained from the shallow
aquifer. The lack of positive VOC detections in samples obtained from the deep aquifer suggests
that these contaminants have not migrated from the surticial aquifer.
Tetrachloroethene was detected at an estimated concentration of 1 pg/L in the groundwater sample
obtained from existing well 44-GW03. No other volatile contaminants were detected at this
location; however, six semivolatile compounds were detected. The concentration of
tetrachloroethene in well 44-GW03 represents an exceedanceof the NCWQS of 0.7 pg/L. The lack
of positive detections in other permanent wells which are hydraulically downgradient to well
44-GW03, indicates that the extent of volatile contamination in groundwater is limited to that
location. Moreover, the relatively low VOC concentration suggest that its presence may be the
result of unintentional spillage or limited disposal rather than from long-term disposal or buried
containers.
Vinyl chloride, 1,Zdichloroethene (total), and trichloroethene were detected at concentrations of 10,
15, and 1 pg/L in the sample obtained from temporary well 44-TWOl. None of these volatile
compounds were detected in any of the other Site 44 monitoring wells; however, the same
compounds were detected in a majority of surface water samples from nearby Edwards Creek.
Temporary well 44-TWO1 was installed in a low lying area, within 50 feet of Edwards Creek.
During periods of seasonalflooding the same volatile compounds detected in surface water samples
4-13
most probably migrated from surface water to groundwater in areas immediately adjacent to
Edwards Creek. The ground surface elevation at temporary well location 44-TWO1 is approximately
2 feet above the Edwards Creek stream channel.
4.4.2.2 Semiv&tiles
Semivolatile organic compounds were detected in only one of the nine groundwater samples from
Site 44. No SVOCs were detected in the two samplesobtained from the deep aquifer (i.e., the Castle
Hayne aquifer), which suggests that contamination has not migrated to depths greater than 70 feet
below ground surface.
A total of seven semivolatile compounds were detected in the sample obtained from shallow
monitoring well 44-GW03, located near the main site accessroute (see Figure 4-5). Five of the six
SVOCs were detected at concentrations of less than 15 Pg/L, naphthalene was detected at a
concentration of 71 pg&. Previous soil and groundwater analytical results from the same location,
collected during the 1991 Site Inspection (refer to Section 1.4), also exhibited similar concentrations
of semivolatile compounds. No semivolatile compounds were detected in the four soil samples
(WA-SBOl through WA-SB04) collected within 15 feet of monitoring well 44-GW03 during the RI.
As in the caseof volatile organics, the limited occurrence of semivolatile compounds in groundwater
at this location suggeststhat they may be the result of spillage or limited disposal rather than from
long-term disposal or buried containers.
4.4.2.3 Metals
Inorganic analytes were detected in each of the nine groundwater samples submitted for analyses
from Site 44. Iron and manganese were the only TAL total metals detected at levels in excess of
either Federal MCL or North Carolina WQS (refer to Figure 4-6). Positive detections of both iron
and manganese were distributed throughout the site, indicative of natural site conditions rather than
disposal activities. Generally, concentrations of TAL metals in groundwater at Site 44 were higher
in samples obtained from the shallow aquifer.
Elevated total metal observations have been recorded at other MCB, Camp Lejeune sites and have
been attributed as the likely consequenceof loose surficial soils. During sampling, a low flow purge
method was utilized to minimize the presence suspended solids or colloids in samples that are
associated with the surficial soils. The DON is currently evaluating the presence and distribution
of total and dissolved metals in groundwater throughout the facility. The draft report entitled
“Evaluation of Metals in Groundwater at MCB, Camp Lejeune, North Carolina,“ (provided as
Appendix P) addressesthe pervasiveness of total metals in groundwater and identifies a number of
potential causes. Preliminary conclusions of the study support the opinion that total metal
concentrations in groundwater are due more to geologic conditions (i.e., naturally occurring
concentrations and unconsolidated soils) and sample acquisition methods than to mobile metal
concentrations in the surficial aquifer.
4.4.3
I
-- -”
Extent
of Surface Water
Contamination
Figure 4-7 depicts the study area relative to IR Sites 93 and 89, which are situated upgradient of
Site 44. Positive detections of organic compounds in surface water samples collected at Site 44 are
depicted on Figure 4-8. A summary of site contamination is presented in Table 4-2. As addressed
in Section 4.3.3, pesticide and PCB contaminants were not detected in any of the surface water
4-14
samples submitted for analysis from Site 44. As a result of those analyses, the extent of pesticides
and PCBs in surface water will not be addressed. Semivolatile organic compounds were not
detected among surface water samples obtained from Edwards Creek, correspondingly, the extent
of semivolatile contamination in Edwards Creek will not be addressed.
4.4.3.1 VolatileS
mwards Creek
As depicted on Figure 4-8, the following VOCs were detected at least once among the 13 surface
water samples obtained from Edwards Creek (the maximum concentration of each VOC is
provided):
0
0
0
0
0
0
Vinyl chloride
1,I-Dichloroethene
1,ZDichloroethene (total)
Trichloroethene
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
38 IN-L
2Pg/L
150 P.gn
66 Pgn
1 PLg/L
42 Pg/L
Trichloroethene, 1,Zdichloroethene (total), and 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane were detected in at least
12 of the 13 surface water samples obtained from Edwards Creek. Vinyl chloride and
1,I-Dichloroethene were detected eight and three times, respectively, among the surface water
samples. Lastly, l,l,Ztrichloroetha.ne was detected in only one Edwards Creek surface water
sample.
Several VOC concentrations were detected in samplesobtained from portions of Edwards Creek that
are upgradient of Site 44. As depicted on Figure 4-8, results from both the initial and supplemental
sampling events illustrate a reduction in total VOC concentrations from upgradient to downgradient
sampling stations. Volatile analytical results from the September of 1995 sampling event were
generally lower than results from the initial sampling event, conducted in May of 1995; however,
the same trend of relatively higher upgradient and lower downgradient VOC concentrations is
evident on Figure 4-8.
During the September 1995 sampling event an additional four sampling stations were added to the
Edwards Creek surface water investigation. As shown on Figure 4-7, the additional sampling
stations were placed several hundred feet upstream of Site 44, beyond the initial sampling stations.
The analytical data from Edwards Creek suggeststhat a possible VOC source lies somewhere in the
southeastern portion of Camp Geiger. Several storage and maintenance facilities are located in this
genera1area of Camp Geiger. Two former waste oil underground storage tanks, Sites 89 and 93, are
also situated in this general vicinity.
Tributaa
Two volatile contaminants, 1,Zdichloroethene and trichloroethene, were detected at concentrations
of 5 and 2 pg/L in a sample obtained from the unnamed tributary to Edwards Creek. The same two
contaminants were identified among each of the Edwards Creek surface water samples. As depicted
on Figure 4-7, sampling station UT-SW03 is located approximately 150 feet upstream of the
Edwards Creek confluence. The downstream portions of both Edwards Creek and its tributary are
4-15
of lesser hydraulic gradient in this area. It is possible that VOCs at this location migrated from
Edwards Creek, given that the same contaminants were not detected in samples obtained from
upstream sampling stations.
4.4.3.3 Semivolatiles
Unnamed Tributary
One semivolatile compound was detected among the three samples submitted for analysis from the
unnamed tributary to Edwards Creek. Phenol was detected at a concentration of 1 pg/L in sample
UT-SWOl, located near the headwaters of the tributary. The trace concentration and lack of other
corroborating semivolatile detections make it difficult to suggest a possible source of phenol at this
location.
4.4.3.3
I&&&
Lead was the only TAL metals identified among five samples obtained from the Edwards Creek that
exceeded base background levels. None of the metal detections exceeded state screening values.
At location EC-SW03 lead was detected at a concentration of 11.2 pg/L, which slightly exceeded
the 10.4 pg5 background concentration.
,n
Unnamed Trlbutarv
None of the TAL metals identified in the three surface water samples obtained from the unnamed
tributary to Edwards Creek were detected at concentrations in excessof chronic screening values.
Positive detections of metals were compared to standardsfor surface water bodies classified as fresh
(i.e., containing less than five percent saltwater).
4.4.4
Extent
of Sediment
.I
Contamination
Positive detections of organic compounds in sediment samples collected at Site 44 are depicted on
Figure 4-9. Figure 4-10 presents TAL metal sampling results in excess of federal sediment
screening values. A summary of site contamination is presented in Table 4-2. As addressed in
Section 4.3.4, PCB contaminants were not detected in any of the 16 sediment samples submitted for
analyses from Site 44. As a result of those analyses, the extent of PCBs in sediment will not be
addressed.
4.4.4.1 Vol&
llnnamed Tribw
Only one VOC was detected among the 16 sediment samples obtained from Edwards Creek and the
unnamed tributary to Edwards Creek. Acetone was identified at a concentration of 6 10 pg/kg in a
sample collected from a slightly upstream location to the southeast of the study area. Sampling
station UT-SD0 1 was positioned in a separatedrainage basin from the two other unnamed tributary
sampling stations. The limited occurrence of acetone suggests that its presence may be the result
of laboratory contamination since there is no history of usage at this site.
4-16
-
4.4.4.2 Semivolatiles
Edwards Creek and the Unnamed Tributag
A total of 12 semivolatile compounds were detected within the 16 sediment samples obtained from
Edwards Creek and an unnamed tributary which lies to the southeast of Site 44. As Figure 4-9
suggests, the highest concentrations of SVOCs were detected at two sampling stations from the
unnamed tributary. The maximum PAH concentration was that of fluoranthene, 740 pg/kg, in a
sample obtained from the unnamed tributary. Concentrations of SVOCs in the two samples located
immediately downstream of a drainage culvert in the unnamed tributary were higher than those
detections observed upstream and adjacent to the study area. Excess liquid discharge from a lift
station flows through the drainage culvert and into Edwards Creek via the unnamed tributary.
Edwards Creek serves as a main drainage basin for the northern portion of MCAS New River and
the southeastern portion of Camp Geiger. Surface water runoff from residential, light industrial, and
maintenance areas flows to the New River via the Edwards Creek and its tributaries. Given the low
concentration of semivolatile compounds among sediment samples and the lack of similar soil
analytical data at Site 44, suggests that contaminants may have migrated to nearby surface water
bodies from various off-site sources such as roadways, maintenance facilities, and residential areas.
4.4.4.3 Pesticides
Edwards Creek and the Unnamed Trrbw
The pesticides aldrin, heptachlor epoxide, 4,4.-DDE, 4,4’-DDD, 4,4’-DDT, alpha-chlordane, and
gamma-chlordane were detected in sediment samples retained for analysis from Edwards Creek and
an unnamed tributary to the southeast of Site 44. As depicted on Figure 4-9, the maximum
concentrations of pesticides were obtained from samples located downstream of the study area.
Higher detections of pesticides at this downstream location may be the result of particles settling out
of suspension as they reach this area of lesser hydraulic gradient. In general, pesticides were
observed throughout Edwards Creek at low and varying concentrations. These positive detections
in Edwards Creek are typical of concentrations observed in sediments throughout MCB, Camp
Lejeune and are most likely the result of former base-wide pesticide application.
4.4.4.4 Metals
Lead and zinc were each identified at concentrations in excessof NOAA ER-L screening values.
As depicted on Figure 4-10, lead was detected in excessof the 35 mg/kg screening value in three
samples obtained from Edwards Creek and the unnamed tributary to Edwards Creek. Lead was
detected at 53 and 56 mg/kg in the two samples obtained from a single station, UT-SD03, located
on the unnamed tributary. One detection of lead at 43.5 mg/kg also exceededthe sediment screening
value in a sample obtained from Edwards Creek, downstream of the unnamed tributary confluence.
Zinc was detected at 144 mg/kg in the same sample obtained from Edwards Creek in excess of the
120 mg/kg screening value. Neither the lead nor the zinc detections in samplesobtained from Site 44
exceeded maximum base-specific background concentrations (refer to Appendix P). The observed
concentrations of metals among sediment samples obtained from Site 44 are not indicative of
disposal activities.
4-17
4.5
References
Baker Environmental, Inc. December 1994. Remedial Inve&g&Qn/Feasibility Study Work Plan
for Onerable Umt No. 6 !Sltes 36.43.44. 54. and 86). Mmne Corps Base GUJ.P Le!eune. North
Carohm Final. Prepared for the Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command,
Atlantic Division, Norfolk, Virginia.
. .
Greenhorne & O’Mara, Inc. 1992. Wellhead?
Study h&ine Corps Base. Camn Teieurlle,
Prepared
for
Department
of the Navy, Naval Facilities
North Carom
Preliminary Draft.
Engineering Command, Atlantic Division, Norfolk, Virginia.
. .
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1988. J,aboratory Gutd&nes for
Prepared for: Hazardous Site Evaluation Division,
Evaluating Inorganics Analysis.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Compiled by: Ruth Bleyler. Prepared by: The USEPA
Data Review Work Group.
.
USEPA. 1989. United States
Asses. J&k
.
. Environmental Protection Agency.
SuperfunduII.1
1nWidm.l . Offke of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response. Washington, D.C. EPA/540/i-89-001. May 1989.
USEPA. 1991. National Functional Guidelines for Orpmata
Laboratory Program.
4-18
Review. Draft. USEPA Contract
SECTION 4.0 TABLES
/-
TABLE
4-1
SUMMARY
OF REJECTED
DATA
SITE 44, JONES STREET DUMP
REMEDIAL
INVESTIGATION,
CTO-0303
MCAS, NEW RIVER, NORTH CAROLINA
Media
ioils
Sample Number
44-OA-SB06-OORE
44-OA-SB04-00
Comment
vocs
1
svocs
2
4,4’-DDE
3
44-WA-SB02-00
44-WA-SB02-03
44-WA-SB03-00
44-WA-SB03-03
44-OA-SB03-00
44-OA-SB03-0 1
44-OA-SB06-00
44-OA-SB06-02
Lead
4
86-GW19DW-00
vocs
1
44-GWOIDW-03
4,4’-DDE
4,4’-DDD
3
44-WA-SB02-00
44-WA-SB02-03
44-WA-SB03-00
44-WA-SB03-03
44-OA-SB03-00
44-OA-SB03-01
44-OA-SB06-00
44-OA-SB06-02
44-OA-SB03-00
44-OA-SB05-00
Sroundwater
ChemicalKategorv
Comments:
1.
Reject all results for the re-analyzed sample(s) in favor of the original sample(s) due to noncompliant
internal standard areas.
2.
Reject results in favor of the re-extracted sample results due to non compliant surrogate recoveries.
3.
For the specified compounds, reject results in favor of the diluted analysis for the sample. Results for
all other compounds are from the undiluted analysis.
4.
Reject all nondetect results because the matrix spike recovery was below 30%.
TABLE
4-2
SUMMARY
OF SITE CONTAMINATION
SITE 44, JONES STREET DUMP
REMEDIAL
INVESTIGATION,
CTO-0303
MCB, CAM? LEJEUNE, NORTH CAROLINA
Media
Mace Soil
hbsurface
Soil
Fraction
Detected
Contaminants
Site Contamination
Distribution
‘h
)
‘0,
.)
TABLE
4-2 (Continued)
SUMMARY
OF SITE CONTAMINATION
SITE 44, JONES STREET DUMP
REMEDIAL
INVESTIGATION,
CTO-0303
MCB, CAMP LEJEUNE, NORTH CAROLINA
Media
I
Fraction
Subsurface
Soil
(Continued)
Metals (1)
Groundwater
Volatiles
Semivolatiles
Detected
Contaminants
Comparison
Criteria
Base
Background
Arsenic
NA
1.9
Cotter
NA
2.4
NA
Lead
8.3
Manganese
NA
7.9
Nickel
NA
3.7
Zinc
NA
6.7
Vinyl Chloride
NCWQS - 0.015
NA
1,2-Dichloroethene (total)
MCL - 70
NA
Trichloroethene
MCL-5
NA
Tetrachloroethene
NCWQS - 0.7
NA
NA
INaphthalene (PAH)
1 NCWQS-21
1
2-Methylnaphthalene
NA
I
NA
Acenaphthene (F’AH)
1 NCWQS - 800 1
NA
Standard
Site Contamin dion
Min.
0.3
0.4
1.4
1.3
1.3
0.8
10
15
1
1
1 71
1 4
/ 13
MaX.
Detection
Location
Frequency
10/13
2.5
WA-SB04
3
44-GWOlDW
9/13
9
44-GWOlDW
1 l/13
9.3
WA-SBO2
13/13
15.8 44-GWOlDW
6113
10.8
WA-SB04
12/13
10
44-TWO 1
l/9
15
44-TWO1
l/9
1
44-TWO 1
l/9
1 1 44-GW03 1
l/9
Max.
6
7
7
4
72,900
241
1 44-GW03
1 44-GW03
44-GW03
44-GW03
44-GW04
44-GW04
1
t
l/9
l/9
l/9
l/9
Of9
o/9
919
819
I
Distribution
1 exceeds BB, west central
1 exceeds BB, central
2 exceed BB, central
2 exceed BB
2 exceed BB
1 exceeds BB, west central
1 exceeds standard, marsh area
does not exceed standard, marsh
does not exceed standard. marsh
does not exceed standard
8 exceed standard, scattered
5 exceed standard. scattered
TABLE 4-2 (Continued)
SUMMARY
OF SITE CONTAMINATION
SITE 44, JONES STREET DUMP
REMEDIAL
INVESTIGATION,
CTO-0303
MCB, CAMP LEJEUNE, NORTH CAROLINA
Media
U-face
Mater (2)
Fraction
Volatiles
Detected
Contaminants
Comparison
- - ------_-----\m
RfhMlmmnthene
(
B(k)fluoranthene (PAH)
Benzo(a)pyrene (BAH)
BkWperylene
@‘AH)
Criteria
Base
Background
- 525
NA
- 3.2
NA
- 7.0
NA
- 92.4 1
NA
- 42 1
NA
NA
I
NOAA -600 1
NOAA - 350
NA
NOAA - 230
1 NOAA-400
1
NA
NA
NOAA - 400
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Site Contamination
I
Standard
Vinyl Chloride
NCWQS
1,l -Dichloroethene
NCWQS
1,2-Dichloroethene (total) NCWQS
I
Trichloroethene
1 NCWQS
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
1 NCWQS
Carbazole
Fluoranthene (PAI-l)
Pyrene (PAH)
Butylbenzylphthalate
B(a)anthracene (PAH)
Chrysene (PAH)
L
I
Min.
1
1
7
1
2
2
1
1 95
42
48
50
1 44
52
49
56
49
Max.
Detection
Location
Frequency
38
EC-SW08
8116
2
EC-SW06
3116
150
EC-SW0 1
14/16
1 66 1 EC-SW01 I
14/16
max. upgradient, decreases by site
each detection upgradient
12 exceed standard, max. upgradien
Imax. upgradient, decreases by site
UT-SD03
79
1 740
UT-SD03
490
UT-SD03
48
UT-SD02
170
UT-SD03
1 460 1 UT-SD03
600
UT-SD03
200
UT-SD03
300
UT-SD03
71
UT-SD02
near confluence with EC, UT
1 exceeds standard, UT
1 exceeds standard, UT
by concrete outflow/culvert, UT
do not exceed standard, UT
1 exceeds standard, UT
UT and downgradient of UT
all detections from UT
do not exceed standard, UT
1 detection EC and 1 UT
Max.
1
1
1
l/16
6116
7116
l/16
3116
7/16
6116
3116
3/16
2116
Distribution
1
“I
)
‘)
TABLE
4-2 (Continued)
SUMMARY
OF SITE CONTAMINATION
SITE 44, JONES STREET DUMP
REMEDIAL
INVESTIGATION,
CTO-0303
MCB, CAM7 LEJEUNE, NORTH CAROLINA
Site
Sediment 12.6 Pesticides
(Continued)
Aldrin
Heptachlor Epoxide
4,4’-DDE
4,4’-DDD
4,4’-DDT
nlnh.--PhlnriI~nc.
PCBs
Metals (3)
5.2
310
770
NA
*
,&-
5.2
9.3
5.5
35
-*2
2.7
14
16
UT-SD03
UT-SD03
UT-SD02
UT-SD02
EC-SD05
EC-SD05
EC-SD05
NA
314
926
8.4
6.3
56.3
144
UT-SD03
EC-SD05
NA
NA
NOAA-2
NOAA-2
NOAA-l
, NnAA-l-l5
A.VIY. V.”
,
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
. .--
i
i
1
NnAA-f-I<
I.VAUL
V.”
NOAA
NOAA- 35
1 NOAA-120
l?O
^--
Cnntamination
l/14
l/14
16/16
16/16
10114
13/16
13/16
o/13
16/16
16/16
UT
UT
16 exceed standard
16 exceed standard
10 exceed standard, prevalent
13 exceed standard, prevalent
13 exceed standard, prevalent
3 exceed standard, not BB
1 exceeds standard, not BB
Notes:
- Concentrations are presented in pg/L for liquid and @Kg for solids (ppb), metal concentrations for soils and sediments are presented in mgKg (ppm).
(1) Metals in both surface and subsurface soils were compared to twice the average base background positive concentrations for priority pollutant metals only
(i.e., antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, selenium, silver, thallium, zinc).
(2) Surface water detections were compared to appropriate NCWQS and NOAA screening values, based upon the observed percentage of saltwater at each sampling location.
(3) Total metals in surface water and sediment were compared to the maximum positive detections in upgradient samples at MCB, Camp Lejeune.
BB - Base background, value equals two times average value for soil and the maximum value for surface water and sediment (refer to Appendix P)
BEHP - bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
EC - Edwards Creek
NA - Not applicable
NCWQS - North Carolina Water Quality Standard
ND - Not detected
NOAA - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
MCL - Federal Maximum Contaminant Level
PAH - Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon
UT - Unnamed Tributary
TABLE
4-3
SOIL - POSITIVE
DETECTION
SUMMARY
SITE 44, JONES STREET DUMP
REMEDIAL
INVESTIGATION,
Cl-O-0303
MCAS, NEW RIVER,
NORTH
CAROLINA
TCL ORGANICS
SURFACE
LOCATION
DATE SAMPLED
DEF’TH
UNITS
VOLATILES
ACETONE
SEMIVOLATILES
BIS(2CHLoROETHYL)ETHER
2,CDINITROTOLUENE
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)PHTHALATE
INDENO(l,2,3CD)PYRENE
BENZO(G,H,I)PERYLENE
PESTICIDE’PCBS
4,4’-DDE
4,4’-DDD
4.4’-DDT
44-GWOlDW-00
03/13/95
0-12”
UG/KG
44-GWO4-00
03/13/95
O-12”
UG/KG
44-Gwo5-00
03/14/95
O-12”
UG/KG
13
u
430
430
430
430
430
u
u
u
u
u
390
390
390
390
390
4.3
4.3
4.3
u
u
u
3.9 UJ
3.9 UJ
3.9 UJ
44-OA-SBO l-00
03/08/95
O-12”
UGiKG
13 u
12 u
u
u
u
u
u
400
400
400
400
400
UG/KG
u
u
u
u
u
4u
4u
4u
- microgram per kilogram
J - value is estimated
U - not detected
UJ - not de&cted, value is estimated
09126/95
44SS.WK4
44-OA-SB02-00
03/08/95
O-12”
UG/KG
12 u
390
390
390
390
390
4u
4u
4u
u
u
u
u
u
44-OA-SB03-00
03/14/95
O-12”
UG/‘KG
12 u
390
380
260
390
390
4u
4u
4u
u
J
J
u
u
13 u
430
430
430
430
430
u
u
u
u
u
80
1.4 J
45 J
“)
‘)
TABLE 4-3
SOIL - POSITIVE
DETECTION
SUMMARY
SITE 44, JONES STREET DUMP
REMEDIAL
INVESTIGATION,
CTO-0303
MCAS, NEW RIVER, NORTH
CAROLINA
TCL ORGANICS
SURFACE
LOCATION
DATE SAMPLED
DEPTH
UNITS
VOLATILES
ACETONi
SEMIVOLATILES
BIS(2-CHLoROETHYL)ETHER
2,6-DINITROTOLUENE
BIS(2.ETHYLHEXYL)PHTHALATE
INDENG(l,2,3CD)PYRENE
BEN.ZO(G,H,I)PERYLENE
PESTICIDE/PCBS
4,4’-DDE
4,4’-DDD
4,4’-DDT
44-OA-SB04-00
03/14/95
0-12”
UG/KG
44-OA-SBOS-OO
03/14/95
O-12”
UG/KG
13 u
420
420
420
420
57
U
U
U
U
J
50 J
4.1 UJ
19 J
44-GA-SB06-00
03/14/95
O-12”
UGiKG
19 UJ
400
400
400
220
200
44-WA-SBO I-00
03/13/95
O-12”
UGiKG
13 u
u
u
u
J
J
550
420
420
420
420
140
4 UJ
25 J
J
U
U
U
U
10 J
4.2 UJ
4.6 J
UG/KG
- microgram per kilogram
J - value is estimated
U - not detected
UJ -not detected, value is estimated
09/26/95
44SS.WK4
2
44-WA-SB02-00
03/l 3195
O-12”
UG/KG
12 u
390
390
390
390
390
u
u
u
u
u
3.9 UJ
3.9 UJ
3.9 UJ
44-WA-SB03-00
03/13/95
O-12”
UG/KG
12 u
410
410
410
410
410
u
u
u
u
u
4.1 u
4.1 u
4.1 u
24 U
390
390
390
390
390
u
u
u
u
u
3.9 u
3.9 u
3.9 u
“1
:
‘)
TABLE 4-3
SOIL - POSITIVE
DETECTION
SUMMARY
SITE 44, JONES STREET DUMP
REMEDIAL
INVESTIGATION,
CTO-0303
MCAS, NEW RIVER, NORTH
CAROLINA
TCL ORGANICS
SURFACE
LOCATION
DATE SAMPLED
DEPTH
UNITS
VOLATILE.5
ACETONE
SEMIVOLATILES
BIS(2-CHLOROETHYL)ETHER
2,CDINITROTOLUENE
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)PHTHALATE
INDENO(l,PJCD)PYRENE
BENZO(G,H,I)PERYLENE
PESTICIDEIPCBS
4,4’-DDE
4,4’-DDD
4,4’-DDT
44-WA-SB04-00
03/13/95
0.12”
UG/KG
13 J
400
400
400
400
400
u
u
u
u
u
4u
4u
4u
UGKG
- microgram per kilogram
J - value is estimated
U - not detected
UJ - not detected, value is estimated
09/26/95
44SS.WK4
3
,,
1
“)
TABLE 4-4
SOIL - POSITIVE
DETECTION
SUMMARY
SITE 44, JONES STREET DUMP
REMEDIAL
INVESTIGATION,
Cf O-0303
MCAS, NEW RIVER, NORTH
CAROLINA
TAL METALS
SURFACE
LOCATION
DATE SAMPLED
DEPTH
UNITS
ANALYTEs
ALUMINUM,
TOTAL
ARSENIC,
TOTAL
BARIUM,
TOTAL
CALCIUM,
TOTAL
CHROMIUM,
TOTAL
COBALT,
TOTAL
COPPER, TOTAL
IRON, TOTAL
LEAD, TOTAL
MAGNESIUM,
TOTAL
MANGANESE,
TOTAL
NICKEL, TOTAL
POTASSIUM,
TOTAL
SELENIUM,
TOTAL
SODIUM.
TOTAL
VANADIUM,
TOTAL
ZINC, TOTAL
44-GWOlDW-00
03/13/95
O-12”
MG/‘RG
10100
2.1 J
21.7
2390
13.2
0.59 u
2.6
15400
10.7
343
6.2
1.3
227
0.52 UJ
32.4
23.3
3.5
44-GWO5-00
03/14/95
O-12"
MGiKG
44-Gwo4-00
03/13/95
O-12"
MG/KG
14100
1.4 J
18.1
111
16.4
1.2
1.1
13100
8.5
401
6.9
2.5 U
292
0.72
34.6
27
4.5
11300
4.6 J
18.7
1390
14.5
0.61
2.3
12000
13.9
399
9
1.6
293
0.55 UJ
17.2
28.6
4.3
MG/KG
- rnillignun per kilogram
J - value is estimated
U - not detected
UJ - not detected, value is estimated
1
44-OA-SB01-00
03/08/95
O-12"
MG/KG
11800
3.4
19.9
5800 J
16.4
1.3
3
11300 J
10.3 u
546
8.7
1.9
339
0.41
44.5
24.3
5.2
44-OA-SB02-00
03/08/95
O-12"
MG/KG
3520
0.84
8.3
343
4.4
0.62
0.81
2430
5.7
115
8.2
1.3
109
0.28
7.3
7
2.8
44-OA-SB03-00
03/14/95
O-12”
MGiKG
J
u
U
U
J
u
U
u
4780
1.9 J
26.2
2360
6.7
1u
910
4590
31.7 J
230
44.2
2.8
187
0.43 u
22.7
11.1
156
TABLE
4-4
SOIL - POSITIVE
DETECITON
SUMMARY
SITE 44, JONES STREET DUMP
REMEDIAL
INVESTIGATION,
CTO-0303
MCAS, NEW RIVER, NORTH
CAROLINA
TAL METALS
SURFACE
LQCATION
DATE SAMPLED
DEPTH
UNlTS
ANALYTJls
ALUMINUM,
TOTAL
ARSENIC,
TOTAL
BARIUM,
TOTAL
Ci%LCIUM,
TOTAL
CHROh4lUM,
TOTAL
COBALT,
TOTAL
COPPER. TOTAL
IRON, TOTAL
LEAD, TOTAL
MAGNESIUh4,
TOTAL
MANGANESE,
TOTAL
NICKEL, TOTAL
POTASSIUM,
TOTAL
SELENIUM,
TOTAL
SODW
TOTAL
VANADIUM,
TOTAL
ZINC, TOTAL
44-OA-SB04-00
03/14/95
O-12”
MG/KG
5900
2.6
15.7
245
8.7
0.49 u
2.8
5420
14.9
215
5.1
1.3
286
0.3 u
15 u
14.9
7.4
44-GA-SBO6-00
03/14/95
O-12”
MGIKG
44.OA-SB05-00
03114195
O-12”
MGIKG
5470
0.79
11.7
163
4.2
0.69
0.86
2660
12.5
143
6
2.5
156
0.44
16.6
9.7
4.5
7990
1.4
20.9
2160
10.8
0.71
2.3
9060
8.3
289
31
1.4
258
0.43
24.2 U
16.4
22.4
MG/KG
44-WA-SBOl-00
03/13/95
O-12”
MG/KG
J
U
J
U
U
u
-milligram
per kilogram
J -value is estimated
U - not detected
UJ - not detected, value is estimated
09/26l95 44SSIN.WK4
2
6610
2J
12.7
1550
8.8
0.38 U
1.9
7410
5.9
212
4.9
0.97
170
0.42 UJ
17.6 U
15.5
2.7
44-WA-SB02-00
03/13/95
O-12”
MG/KG
8740
4.9
20.5
2150
12.3
0.55
1.2
10500
13.6
297
5.3
1.9
197
0.31
31.3
20.9
3.7
44-WA-SB03-00
03113195
O-12”
MG/KG
J
u
J
u
7110
1.7
14
5130
10
0.69
1
7300
7.2
317
8.1
2.5
208
0.31
48.3
14.6
2.8
J
U
J
U
J
TABLE 4-4
SOIL - POSITIVE
DETECTION
SUMMARY
SITE 44, JONES STREET DUMP
REMEDIAL
INVESTIGATION,
CTO-0303
MCAS, NEW RIVER, NORTH
CAROLINA
TAL METALS
SURFACE
LOCATION
DATE SAMPLED
DEPTH
UNlTS
ANALYTES
ALUMINUM,
TOTAL
ARSENIC,
TOTAL
BARIUM,
TOTAL
CALCIUM,
TOTAL
CHROMIUM,
TOTAL
COBALT,
TOTAL
COPPER. TOTAL
IRON, TOTAL
LEAD, TOTAL
MAGNESIUM,
TOTAL
MANGANESE,
TOTAL
NICKEL,
TOTAL
POTASSIUM,
TOTAL
SELEW
TOTAL
SODIUM,
TOTAL
VANADIUM,
TOTAL
ZlNC, TOTAL
44-WA-SBQ4-00
03/13/95
O-12”
MGKG
13100
2.9
20.4
2620
15.5
0.57
2.1
9670
12.5
482
6.4
2.1
315
0.33
57.1
25.5
4.4
MG/KG
- milligram per kilogram
J -value is estimated
U-notdetected
UJ - not detected, value is estimated
09l2W95
44SSIN.WK4
3
TABLE 4-5
SOIL - POSITIVE
DETECI’ION
SUMMARY
SITE 44, JONES STREET DUMP
REMEDIAL
INVESTIGATION,
CTO-0303
MCAS, NEW RIVER, NORTH
CAROLINA
TCL ORGANICS
SUBSURFACE
LOCATION
DATE SAMPLED
DEPTH
UNITS
VOLATILES
ACETONE
SEMIVOLATILES
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)PHTHALATE
INDENO(l,2,3-CD)PYRENE
BENZO(G,H,I)PERYLENE
PESTICIDE’I’CBS
4,4’-DDE
4.4’-DDD
4,4’-DDT
44-GWOlDW-03
03/13/95
5-r
UG/KG
44-GWO5-03
03114195
5-T
UG/‘KG
44-GW04-04
03/13/95
7-9'
UG/KG
12 u
12 u
430 u
430 u
430 u
390 u
390 u
390 u
380 U
55 J
62 J
3.9 UJ
3.9 UJ
3.9 UJ
3.7 UJ
3.7 UJ
3.7 UJ
370 J
2500
150 J
13 UJ
UG/KG
- microgram per kilogram
J - value is estimated
U-notdeteckd
UJ - not detected, value is estimated
09/26/9544SB.WK4
1
44-OA-SBOl-04
03/08/95
7-9'
UG/KG
44-OA-SB02-03
03/08/95
5-T
UGKG
44-OA-SB03-0
1
03114195
1-3'
UG/KG
12 u
11 u
410 u
410 u
410 u
83 J
390 u
390 u
380 U
'380 U
380 U
4
5.6
4u
3.9 u
3.9 u
3.9 u
61
3.7 UJ
3.7 UJ
3.7 UJ
TABLE 4-5
SOIL - POSITlVE
DETECTION
SUMMARY
SITE 44, JONES STREET DUMP
REMEDIAL
INVESTIGATION,
CTO-0303
MCAS, NEW RIVER, NORTH
CAROLINA
TCL ORGANICS
SUBSURFACE
LOCATION
DATE SAMPLED
DEPTH
UNlTS
VOLATILES
ACETONE
SEMIVOLATILES
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)PHTHALATE
INDENO(1,2,3-CD)PYRENE
BENZO(G,H,l)PERYLENE
PESTICIDE/PCBS
4,4’-DDE
4,4’-DDD
4,4’-DDT
44-OA-SB04-02
03/14/95
3-5'
UG/KG
20 UJ
44-OA-SB05-02
03/14/95
3-5'
UGiKG
44-GA-SB06-02
03/14/95
3-5'
UG/KG
18 UJ
390 u
390 u
40 J
370 u
130 J
120 J
3.9 UJ
3.9 UJ
3.9 UJ
3.7 UJ
3.7 UJ
3.7 UJ
44.WA-SB01-03
03/13/95
5-T
UGlKG
12 u
53 u
390 u
390 u
390 u
390 u
390 u
390 u
4 UJ
4 UJ
4 UJ
UG/KG
- microgram per kilogram
J - value is estimated
U - not detected
UJ - not detected, value is estimated
09/26/95
44SB.WK4
2
3.8 UJ
3.8 UJ
3.8 UJ
44-WA-SB02-03
03113195
5-T
UGKG
NA
44-WA-SB03-03
03/13/95
5-7
UG/KG
33 u
370 u
370 u
370 u
400 u
400 u
400 u
3.8 U
3.8 U
3.8 U
3.2 J
8
4u
TABLE 4-5
SOIL - POSITIVE
DETECTION
SUMMARY
SITE 44, JONES STREET DUMP
REMEDIAL
INVESTIGATION,
Cl-O-0303
MCAS, NEW RIVER, NORTH
CAROLINA
TCL ORGANICS
SUBSURFACE
LOCATION
DATE SAMPLED
DEPTH
UNlTS
VOLATILES
ACETONE
SEMIVOLATILES
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)PHTHALATE
MDENO(l,2,3CD)PYRENE
BENZG(G,Z/I)PERYLENE
PESTICIDE/PCBS
4,4’-DDE
4,4’-DDD
4,4’-DDT
44-WA-SB04-03
03/13/95
5-7’
UG/KG
92 UJ
390 u
390 u
390 u
3.9 J
21 J
3.9 UJ
UG/KG
- microgram per kilogram
J - value is estimated
U -not detected
UJ - not detected, value is estimated
09126i95
44SB.WK4
3
TABLE 4-6
SUBSURFACE SOIL - POSITIVE DETECTION SUMMARY
SITE 44, JONES STREET DUMP
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION, CTO-0303
MCAS, NEW RIVER, NORTH CAROLINA
TAL METALS
LOCATION
DATE SAMPLED
DEF’TH
UNITS
ANALYTES
ALUMINUM,
TOTAL
ARSENIC,
TOTAL
BARIUh4, TOTAL
CALCIUM,
TOTAL
CHROMIUM,
TOTAL
COPPER, TOTAL
IRON, TOTAL
LEAD, TOTAL
MAGNESIUM,
TOTAL
MANGANESE,
TOTAL
NICKEL,
TOTAL
POTASSIUM,
TOTAL
SODIUM,
TOTAL
VANADIUM,
TOTAL
ZINC, TOTAL
44-GWOlDW-03
03/13/95
S-T
MG/KG
6020
1.3 J
11.9
3880
9.2
2.9
8270
9.1
236
7.2
IS.8
221
28
19.2
4.7
44-GWOS-03
03/14/9s
S-T
MG/KG
44-Gwo4-04
03/13/9s
7-9'
MG/KG
4300
0.51
6.8
268
5.3
0.93
4810
7
87.9
1.9
0.97
77
10.4
8.4
2240
0.32 U
5.7
15.6
2.4
0.7
1480
4.3
57.1
1.3
0.71 u
53
6.3 U
3.5
1.5
J
u
u
u
MG/‘KG
- milligram per kilogram
J - value is estimated
U-notdetected
UJ - not detected, value is estimated
09/26/9!544SBIN.WK4
1
44-OA-SBOl-04
03/08/9S
7-9'
MG/‘KG
7300
1.2
10.7
702
8.3
1.1
4790
8.5
254
9.1
1.3
261
20.3
11.6
2.7
44-GA-SB02-03
03/08/9S
S-7'
MG/KG
J
J
U
U
9940
1.1
10.5
40.7
9.1
0.94
4200
7.4
250
4.2
1.7
173
15.4
12.2
2.5
44-OA-SB03-01
03/14/9s
1-3'
MG/KG
J
u
J
u
u
1850
0.31
2.6
93.9
2.5
0.42
2690
4.5
43.2
1.s
1.8
113
5.3
3.6
0.94
J
U
J
U
u
‘>
“)
“1
TABLE 4-6
SOIL - POSITIVE
DETECITON
SUMMARY
SITE 44, JONES STREET DUMP
REMEDIAL
INVESTIGATION,
CTO-0303
MCAS, NEW RIVER, NORTH
CAROLINA
TAL METALS
SUBSURFACE
LOCATION
DATE SAMPLED
DEPTH
UNITS
ANALYTES
ALUMINUM,
TOTAL
ARSENIC,
TOTAL
BARIUM,
TOTAL
CALClUh4,
TOTAL
CHROMIUM,
TOTAL
COPPER, TOTAL
IRON, TOTAL
LEAD, TOTAL
MAGNESIUM,
TOTAL
MANGANESE,
TOTAL
NICKEL, TOTAL
PGTASSIUM,
TOTAL
SODIUM,
TOTAL
VANADIUM,
TOTAL
ZINC, TOTAL
44-OA-SB04-02
03114195
3-5’
MG/KG
3330
0.36
5
31.1
3.3
0.66
1900
3.7
70.3
1.5
0.7
91.4
12.1
3.8
0.79
44-GA.SBO5-02
03114195
3-5’
MG/KG
U
u
u
u
44-WA-SB01-03
03/13/95
5-7
MO/KG
44-OA-SB06-02
03114195
3-5’
MGiKG
5030
0.48
9.4
309
5.8
0.9
1870
2.9
181
5.3
3.1
176
12.8 U
7.3
2.3
5550
1.3
8.7
22.4
9.1
0.56
4040
8.5
117
1.7
2.5
168
32
8.4
0.88
MG/KG
J
J
U
u
- milligram per kilogram
J -value is estimated
U - not detected
UJ - not detected, value is estimated
09/26/95
44SBIN.WK4
2
1520
0.4 UJ
3.4
161
2.1
0.82 U
389
1.4
65.9
2.7
0.86 u
104
3.9
3.2
0.76
44-WA-SB02-03
03113195
5-r
MG/KG
6790
0.41 J
13.7
379
6.2
0.78
3690
5.9 J
194
9.3
2.2 u
233
31.4
10.1
1.8
44-WA-SB03-03
03/13/95
5-T
MGKG
6500
1J
13.3
168
9.5
0.78
5680
5.9 J
218
6.1
4.9
151 u
30.5
14.2
2.6
TABLE 4-6
SOIL - POSITIVE
DETECTION
SUMMARY
SITE 44, JONES STREET DUMP
REMEDIAL
INVESTIGATION,
Cl-O-0303
MCAS, NEW RIVER, NORTH
CAROLINA
TAL METALS
SUBSURFACE
LOCATION
DATE SAMPLED
DEPTH
UNITS
ANALYTES
ALUMINUM,
TOTAL
ARSENIC, TOTAL
BARIUM,
TOTAL
CALCIUM,
TOTAL
CHROMIUM,
TOTAL.
COPPER, TOTAL
IRON, TOTAL
LEAD, TOTAL
MAGNESlUM,
TOTAL
MANGANESE,
TOTAL
NICKEL, TOTAL
POTASSIUM,
TOTAL
SODNM,
TOTAL
VANADIUM,
TOTAL
ZINC, TOTAL
44-WA-SBO4-03
03/13/95
5-T
MG/KG
6210
2.5
11.9
1080
6.2
1.1
3210
7
231
7.6
2.3
203
22 u
9.4
10.8
MG/KG
- milligram per kilogram
J - value is es&ted
U-notdetected
UJ - not detected, value is estimated
09EW95
44SBIN.WK4
3
GROUNDWATER
SITE 44,
REMEDIAL
MCAS, NEW
LOCATION
DATE SAMPLED
UNITS
VOLATILES
VINYL CHLORIDE
1,2-DICHLOROETHENE
(TOTAL)
TRICHLOROETHENE
TETRACXKOROETHENE
SEMIVOLATILES
NAPHTHALENE
2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE
ACENAPHTHENE
DIBENZ0FUM.N
FLUORENE
PHENANTHRENE
CARBAZOLE
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)PHTHALATE
44-GWOi-01
04/09/95
UG/L.
44-GWOlDW-01
04/09/95
UG/L
TABLE 4-7
POSITIVE
DETECTION
SUMMARY
JONES STREET DUMP
INVESTIGATION,
Cl’O-0303
RIVER, NORTH
CAROLINA
TCL ORGANICS
44-GWO2-0 1
04llOl95
UG/L
44-Gwo3-0
1
04/10/95
UG/‘L
44GW.WK4
44-Gwo5-01
04/09/95
UGiL
10
10
10
10
u
u
u
u
10
10
10
10
u
u
u
u
10
10
10
10
u
u
u
u
10 u
10 u
10 u
1J
10
10
10
10
u
u
u
u
10
10
10
10
u
u
u
u
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
10 u
10 u
10 u
10 u
10 u
10 u
10 u
25
71
45
13
6J
7J
7J
45
10 u
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
UG/L - microgram per liter
J - value is estimated
U - not detected
09LXl95
440w04-01
04/08/95
UG/L
1
“‘5
‘)
TABLE 4-7
- POSITIVE
DETECTION
SUMMARY
SITE 44, JONES STREET DUMP
REMEDIAL
INVESTIGATION,
CT O-0303
MCAS, NEW RIVER, NORTH
CAROLINA
TCL ORGANICS
GROUNDWATER
LOCATION
DATE SAMPLED
UNITS
VOLATILES
VINYL CHLORIDE
1,2-DICHLOROETHENE
(TOTAL)
TRICHLGROETHENE
TETRACHLOROETHENE
SEMIVOLATILES
NAPHTHALENE
2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE
ACENAF’HTHENE
DIBENZOFURAN
FLUORENE
PHENANTHRENE
CARBAZOLE
BIS(2-ETIIYLHEXYL)PHTHALATE
44-GW06DW-01
04/08/95
UG/L
44-GW06-01
04108195
UGiL.
44-TWO1-01
04/10/95
UG/L
10
10
10
10
u
u
u
u
10
10
10
10
u
u
u
u
10 J
15
1J
10 u
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
10
10
10
IO
10
10
10
10
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
UGiL -microgram
per liter
J - value is estimated
U - not detected
09/26i95
44GW.WK4
2
“8I,
)
1
TABLE 4-8
- POSITIVE
DETECTION
SUMMARY
SITE 44, JONES STREET DUMP
REMEDIAL
INVESTIGATION,
Cl.O-0303
MCAS, NEW RIVER, NORTH
CAROLIHA
TAL METALS
GROUNDWATER
LOCATION
DATE SAMPLED
UNITS
ANALYTES
ALUMINUM,
TOTAL
ARSENIC, TOTAL
BARIUM,
TOTAL
CALCIUM,
TOTAL
CHROMIUM,
TOTAL
COBALT, TOTAL
IRON, TOTAL
LEAD, TOTAL
MAGNESIUM,
TOTAL
MANGANESE,
TOTAL
F’OTASSIUM,
TOTAL
SELENIUM,
TOTAL
SODIUM,
TOTAL
ZINC, TOTAL
44-Gw01-01
oyo9l95
UGiL
25.9 U
1.7
62.5 J
4.1 u
3.4 u
65500
0.6 U
8720
192
2930
1.8 U
5370
6U
44-GWOlDW-01
04/09/95
UG/L
21.2 u
1.7 u
7.4 u
48200
4.1 u
3.4 u
285
0.6 U
4370
60.6
5850
1.8 U
74100
6U
44-Gwo2-01
04/10/95
UG/L
2820
1.7
19.3
1290
6.9
3.4
3160
1.4
880
12.6
2840
1.8
4890
7
44-GW03-01
04/10/95
UGiL
u
u
u
U
U
UG/L - microgram per liter
J - value is estimated
U - not detected
09/26/95
44GWIN.WK4
26.1
1.7
100
98300
3.8
2.6
42000
0.8
11900
217
8160
1.8
7220
2.2
44-GWO4-0 1
04/08/95
UG/L
U
u
U
U
U
U
u
169
2.8
56.6
92600
4.1
3.5
72900
0.6
7510
241
2620
1.8
5260
16.4
44-GW05-01
04fO9l95
UG/L
U
J
u
U
U
147
1.7
15.6
29900
4.1
3.4
1400
0.6
2410
65.2
2480
2
u
u
U
u
u
U
‘I
)
>
TABLE
4-8
GROUNDWATER
- POSITIVE
DETECTION
SUMMARY
SITE 44, JONES STREET DUMP
REMEDIAL
INVESTIGATION,
Cl-O-0303
MCAS, NEW RIVER, NORTH
CAROLINA
TAL METALS
LOCATION
DATE SAMPLED
UNITS
ANALYTES
ALIJMNUA&
TOTAL
ARSENIC,
TOTAL
BARIUM,
TOTAL
CALCIUM,
TOTAL
CHROMIUM,
TOTAL
COBALT,
TOTAL
IRON, TOTAL
LEAD, TOTAL
MAGNESIUM,
TOTAL
MANGANESE,
TOTAL
POTASSIUM,
TOTAL
SELENJUM,
TOTAL
SODIUM,
TOTAL
ZINC, TOTAL
44-GWO6-01
04/08/95
UGiL
374
1.7
49.9
23300
4.1
3.4
1100
0.6
3140
44.5
1340
1.8
14700
11.7
44-GW06DW-01
04/08/95
UG/L
u
J
u
u
U
U
44-TWo1-01
04/10/95
UG/L
21.2 u
1.7 u
4.4 u
57000
4.1 u
3.4 u
743
0.6 U
4060
32.7
6590
1.8 U
49100
6U
668
1.7 u
30.8 J
44500
4.1 u
3.4 u
1060
1.3
2510
21.6
1790
1.8 U
21800
6U
UG/L. - microgram per liter
J-value is estimated
U - not detected
2
TABLE 4-9
- POSITIVE
DETECTION
SUMMARY
SITE 44, JONES STREET DUMP
REMEDIAL
INVESTIGATION,
(X0-0303
MCAS, NEW RIVER, NORTH
CAROLINA
TAL DISSOLVED
METALS
GROUNDWATER
LOCATION
DATE SAMPLED
DEPTH
UNITS
ANALYTES
BARIUh4, SOLUBLE
CALCIUh4,
SOLUBLE
IRON, SOLUBLE
MAGNESIUM,
SOLUBLE
MANGANESE,
SOLUBLE
P~TAWUM, SOLUBLE
SODIUM,
SOLUBLE
44-GWOlD-01
04/09/95
N/A
UG/L
64.9 J
74000
68400
8980
198
3170
5460
UG/‘L - microgram per liter
J - value is estimated
Q9/26l95
44GWDS.WK4
SURFACE
LOCATION
DATE SAMPLED
UNITS
VOLATILES
VINYL CHLORIDE
ACETONE
1,2-DICHLOROETHENE
(TOTAL)
TRICHLOROETHENE
1,1,2,2=TETR4CHLOROETHANE
SEMIVOLATILES
PHENOL
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)PHTHALATE
44-EC-SW0 1
05/03/95
UG/L
24
13
150
66
32
11 u
1 J
TABLE 4-10
WATER - POSITIVE
DETECI’ION
SUMMARY
SITE 44, JONES STREET DUMP
REMEDIAL
INVESTIGATION,
C-TO-0303
MCAS, NEW RIVER, NORTH
CAROLINA
TCL ORGANICS
44-EC-SW02
05/03/95
UGiL
44-EC-SW03
05/03/95
UG/L
44-EC-SW04
05103/95
UG/L
44SW-OR.WK4
44-UT-SW01
05/03/95
UG/‘L
15
10 u
100
54
32
8J
10 u
59
34
34
10 u
10 u
24
12
75
10 u
10
18
75
5J
10
10
10
10
10
10 u
10 u
10 u
1J
10 u
1 J
10 u
35
IJ
10 u
UGlL - microgram per liter
J - value is estimated
U - not detected
0 l/03/96
44-EC-SW05
05/03/95
UG/‘L
u
u
u
u
u
‘I
“I
)
SURFACE
LOCATION
DATE SAMPLED
UNITS
VOLATILES
VINYL CHLORIDE
ACETONE
1,2-DICHLOROETHENE
(TOTAL)
TRICHLOROETHENE
1,1,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
SEMIVOLATILES
PHENOL
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)PHTHALATE
44-UT-SW02
05/03/95
UG/L
TABLE 4-10
WATER - POSITIVE
DETECTION
SUMMARY
SITE 44, JONES STREET DUMP
REMEDIAL
INVESTIGATION,
CTO-0303
MCAS, NEW RIVER, NORTH
CAROLINA
TCL ORGANICS
44-UT-SW03
05/03/95
UGiL
10 u
IO u
10
10
10
IO
u
u
u
u
11
5J
2J
IO u
10 u
10 u
1 J
1 J
UG/L - microgram per liter
J - value is estimated
U - not detected
01/03/96
44SW-ORWK4
2
SURFACE
LOCATION
DATE SAMPLED
UNITS
VOLATILES
VINYL CHLORIDE
111-DICHLOROETHENE
1,2-DICHLOROETHENE
(TOTAL)
TRICHLGROETHENE
1,1,2-TRICHLOROETHANE
1,1,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
44-EC-SWOI-02
09/28/95
UG/L
TABLE 4-l 1
WATER - POSITIVE
DETECTION
SUMMARY
SUPPLEMENTAL
SAMPLING
EVENT
SITE 44, JONES STREET
DUMP
REMEDIAL
INVESTIGATION,
CTO-0303
RICAS, NEW RIVER, NORTH
CAROLINA
TCL VOLATILES
44-EC-SW02-02
09128195
UG/L
16
1 J
93 J
22
10 u
26
44-EC-SW03-02
09/28/95
UGiL
75
10 u
51 J
11
10 u
19
10
10
42
10
10
16
44-EC-SW04-02
09/28/95
UG/L
u
u
J
u
UG/L - microgram per liter
J - value is estimated
U -not detected
01/03/96/44SWECVO.WK4
10 u
10 u
21 J
5J
10 u
8J
44-EC-SW06-01
09128195
UG/‘L
25
2J
110 J
22
10 u
32
44-EC-SW07-0
1
0912x/95
UG/L
15
10 u
68 J
4J
10 u
32
“b
“)
>
SURFACE
LOCATION
DATE SAMPLED
UNITS
VOLATILES
VINYL CHLORIDE
1, I-DICHLOROETHENE
1,2-DICHLOROETHENE
(TOTAL)
TRICHLOROETHENE
1,1,2-TRICHLOROETHANE
1,1,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
44-EC-SW08-0
1
09128195
UG/‘L
38
1 J
120 J
7J
1J
42
TABLE 4-l 1
WATER - POSITIVE
DETECTION
SUMMARY
SUPPLEMENTAL
SAMPLING
EVENT
SITE 44, JONES STREET DUMP
REMEDIAL
INVESTIGATION,
CTO-0303
MCAS, NEW RIVER, NORTH
CAROLINA
TCL VOLATILES
44-EC-SW09-0
1
09128195
UGiL
10 u
10 u
^LJ .
45
10 u
10 u
UG/L - microgram per liter
J - value is estimated
U - not detected
01/03/96/44SWECVO.WK4
2
TABLE 4-12
WATER
- POSITIVE
DETECTION
SUMMARY
SITE 44, JONES STREET DUMP
REMEDIAL
INVESTIGATION,
CTO-0303
MCB, CAMP LEJEUNE,
NORTH
CAROLINA
TAL METALS
SURFACE
LOCATION
DATE SAMPLED
UNITS
ANALYTES
ALUMINUM,
TOTAL
BARIUM,
TOTAL
CALCIUM,
TOTAL
COPPER, TOTAL
IRON, TOTAL
LEAD, TOTAL
MAGNESIUM,
TOTAL
MANGANESE,
TOTAL
NICKEL, TOTAL
POTASSIUM,
TOTAL
SODIUM,
TOTAL
VANADIUM,
TOTAL
ZINC, TOTAL
44-EC-SW01
05/03/95
UGiL
353
26.2
54700
1.8 U
1940
5.7 u
2710
231
21.1
3950
17600
29.9
41.9 J
44-EC-S W02
05/03/95
UGiLz
416
24.4
54000
2.2
1840
6.2 U
2550
74.9
15.3
3560
16200
20
61.3 J
44-EC-SW03
05lO3195
UGA.
206
23.7
53400
1.9
1700
11.2
2530
74.7
7.7
3390
16800
12.7
17.3 J
UG/L - microgram per liter
J - value is estimated
U - not detected
01/18/96
44SW-M.WK4
44-EC-SW04
05103195
UG/L
509
27.1
54600
1.9
1980
8.6
11300
89.8
5.4
6170
90500
7.4
26.5
44-EC-SW05
05103195
UG/L
u
u
u
J
232
25.5
55500
2.3
1320
3.4
23300
80
5.4
10000
195000
6
16.8
44-UT-SW01
05103/95
UG/Z
u
u
U
J
132
16.5
36500
2.3
1280
0.83
5890
47.2
10.9
5210
51200
2
12
U
U
J
J
u
J
u
u
TABLE 4-12
WATER
- POSITIVE
DETECTION
SUMMARY
SITE 44, JONES STREET DUMP
REMEDIAL
INVESTIGATION,
CTO-0303
MCB, CAMP LEJEUNE,
NORTH CAROLINA
TAL METALS
SURFACE
LOCATION
DATE SAMPLED
UNITS
AN‘4LYTJIs
ALUMINUM,
TOTAL
BARIUh4, TOTAL
CALCIUM,
TOTAL
COPPER TOTAL
IRON, TOTAL
LEAD, TOTAL
MAGNESIUM,
TOTAL
MANGANESE,
TOTAL
NICKEL,, TOTAL
POTASSIUM,
TOTAL
SODIUM
TOTAL
VANADIUM,
TOTAL
ZINC, TOTAL
44-UT-S W02
05/03/95
UG5
122
14.5
33500
2.2
1400
2.2
4120
38.8
5.4
4590
43000
9.4
55.8
44-UT-SW03
05103/95
UG5
u
u
u
J
140
18.2
39300
2.3
1170
3.1 u
9420
74.2
5.4 u
6020
81000
11.7
42.4 J
UG/L - microgram per liter
J - value is estimated
U - not detected
01/18/96
44SW-IN.WK4
2
SURFACE
LOCATION
DATE SAMPLED
UNITS
ANALYTES
ALUMINUM,
SOLUBLE
BARIUM,
SOLUBLE
CALCIUM,
SOLUBLE
COPPER, SOLUBLE
IRON, SOLUBLE
LEAD, SOLUBLE
MAGNESIUM,
SOLUBLE
MANGANESE,
SOLUBLE
NICKEL,
SOLUBLE
POTASSIUM,
SOLUBLE
SODIUM,
SOLUBLE
VANADIUM,
SOLUBLE
ZINC, SOLUBLE
44-EC-DSWOl
05/03/95
UG/L
21.9
21.2
53800
1.8 U
454
1.1 u
2650
11
19.8
3840
17600
11.6
17.7 J
TABLE 4-13
WATER - POSITIVE
DETECTION
SUMMARY
SITE 44, JONES STREET DUMP
REMEDIAL
INVESTIGATION,
CTO-0303
MCAS, NEW RIVER, NORTH
CAROLINA
TAL DISSOLVED
METALS
44-EC-DSW02
05/03/95
UGiL
25.2
21.2
52100
1.9
493
0.81 U
2470
17.2
12.1
3490
16200
8.4 U
12.2 J
44-EC-DSW03
05lO3195
UGiL
15.7 u
21.3
52300
1.9
501
1.1 u
2490
20.9
6.2
3420
16900
SU
8.4 J
UG/L - microgram per liter
J - value is estimated
U - not detected
01/03/96
44SWDIS.WK4
44-EC-DSW04
05/03/95
UGiL
15.7 u
21
51200
1.8 U
326
0.8 U
11500
20.8
5.4 u
6020
92300
2u
7.3 J
44-EC-DSW05
05103195
UG/L
15.7 u
22.4
55500
1.8 U
268
0.8 U
24400
33.3
5.4 u
10300
205000
3.5 u
85
44-UT-DSWO
1
05/03/95
UGiL
21.2 u
15 u
37400
1.8 U
654 J
0.8 UJ
6030
26.3
10.9 u
4820 J
52500
2.5
6U
SURFACE
LOCATION
DATE SAMPLED
UNITS
ANALYTES
ALUMINUM,
SOLUBLE
BARIUM
SOLUBLE
CALCIUM,
SOLUBLE
COPPER, SOLUBLE
IRON, SOLUBLE
LEAD, SOLUBLE
MAGNESIUM,
SOLUBLE
MANGANESE,
SOLUBLE
NICKEL,
SOLUBLE
POTASSIUM
SOLUBLE
SODIUM,
SOLUBLE
VANADIUM,
SOLUBLE
ZINC, SOLUBLE
44-UT-DSW02
05/03/95
UG/L
15.7 u
12.7
33200
3.7
352
41.8
4080
6.5
5.4 u
4550
42800
5.8 U
85
TABLE 4-13
WATER - POSITIVE
DETECTION
SUMMARY
SITE 44, JONES STREET DUMP
REMEDIAL
INVESTIGATION,
CTO-0303
MCAS, NEW RIVER, NORTH
CAROLINA
TAL DISSOLVED
METALS
44-UT-DSW03
05/03/95
UG/L
25.9
16
39700
3
418
0.8
9590
29.7
5.4
6070
83400
7.7
24.3
U
u
u
J
UG/L - microgram per liter
J - value is estimated
U - not detected
01/03/96
44SWDIS.WK4
2
“,
)
‘3I,
1
TABLE 4-14
- POSITIVE
DETECTION
SUMMARY
SITE 44, JONES STREET DUMP
REMEDIAL
INVESTIGATION,
(X0-0303
MCAS, NEW RIVER, NORTH
CAROLINA
TCL ORGANICS
SEDIMENT
LOCATION
DATE SAMPLED
DEPTH
UNITS
VOLATILES
ACETONE
Z-BUTANONE
SEMIVOLATILES
PENTACHLOROPHENOL
PHENANTHRENE
CARBAZOLE
FLUORANTHENE
PYR$NE
BUTYLBENZYLPHTHALATE
BENZO(A)ANTHRACENE
CHRYSENE
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)PHTHALATE
BENZO(B)FLUORANTHENE
BENZO(K)FLUORANTHENE
BENZO(A)PYRENE
BENZO(G,H,I)PERYLENE
PESTICIDE/PCBS
ALDRIN
HEPTACHLOR
EPOXIDE
4,4’-DDE
4,4’-DDD
4,4’-DDT
ALPHA-CHLORDANE
GAMMA-CHLORDANE
44-EC-SD0
l-06
44-EC-SDOl-612
44-EC-SD02-06
44-EC-SD02-6
44-EC-SD03-06
44-EC-SD03-612
.
05/04/95
6-12"
05/04/95
O-6"
05/04/95
6-12"
05/04/95
O-6"
05104195
6-12"
UG/KG
UGIKG
UG/KG
UGiKG
UGiKG
UGiKG
12 u
12 u
12 u
12 u
12 u
33
12 u
12 u
13 u
12 u
1000 u
1100 u
420 U
420 U
95 J
81 J
420 U
420 U
50 J
1000 u
980
390
390
u
u
u
740
J
390
390
u
u
390
390
390
u
u
u
390
390
390
u
u
u
390 u
44 J
390 u
400
400
400
u
u
u
400
400
u
u
u
u
u
u
400
400
400
400
u
u
u
u
u
u
66
390
390
J
390
390
390
390
u
u
390
390
u
u
400
400
390
u
390
u
400u
1.9 UJ
1.9 UJ
1.9 UJ
30 J
81
9J
2.3 J
2.7 J
1.9 UJ
21 J
34 J
3.1 J
2.7 J
2.7 J
2u
2u
24 J
66
4.4 J
2
2.8
UG/KG
- microgram per kilogram
J - value is estimated
NJ - estimated/tentative
identification
R - rejected
U - not detected
UJ - not detected, value is estimated
01103196 44SDOR.WK4
12
05/04/95
O-6"
1
420
u
52 J
420 U
420 U
420
U
UJ
2.1 UJ
58 J
2.1
120
3.8
3.3
4.2
J
J
J
29
12 u
340
390
J
390
390
390
u
u
u
390
390
u
u
u
u
u
390
160
390
u
400
400
u
u
400
u
390
390
390
u
u
u
400
u
400
400
u
u
400
400
400
u
u
u
400
400
400
u
J
u
2 UJ
2 UJ
2 UJ
2 UJ
J
J
4.1 UJ
2 UJ
2 UJ
17 J
J
4 UJ
2.4 J
2.8 J
9.3
23
35
TABLE 4-14
- POSITIVE
DETECTION
SUMMARY
SITE 44, JONES STREET DUMP
REMEDIAL
INVESTIGATION,
Cl-O-0303
MCAS, NEW RIVER, NORTH
CAROLINA
TCL ORGANICS
SEDIMENT
LOCATION
DATE SAMPLED
DEPTH
LhITS
VOLATILES
ACETONE
z-BUTANONE
SEMIVOLATILES
PENTACHLOROPHENOL
PHENANTHRENE
CARBAZOLE
FLUORANTHENE
PYRENE
BUTYLBENZYLPHTHALATE
BENZO(A)ANTHRACENE
CHRYSENE
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)PHTHALATE
BENZO(B)FLUORANTHENE
BENZO(K)FLUORANTHENE
BENZO(A)PYRENE
BENZO(G,H,l)PERYLENE
PESTICIDEiPCBS
ALDRIN
HEPTACHMR
EPOXIDE
4,4’-DDE
4,4’-DDD
4,4’-DDT
ALPHA-CHLORDANE
GAMMA-CHLORDANE
44-EC-SDO4-06
05/04/95
O-6”
UGiKG
44-EC-SD04-6
12
05104195
6-12”
UG/KG
13 u
13 u
1100
430
430
430
430
430
430
430
430
430
430
430
430
44-EC-SD05-06
05/04/95
O-6”
UGiKG
61
13 u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
1000
420
420
420
42
420
420
420
420
420
420
420
420
2.2 R
2.2 R
20 J
33 J
2.6 J
2.6 J
35
2.1
2.1
21
43
2.5
2.9
3.3
44-EC-SD05-612
05/04/95
6-12”
UGiKG
160
14 u
1200
470
470
120
100
470
470
84
470
99
470
470
49
u
u
u
J
J
u
u
J
u
J
u
u
J
1200
77
480
100
100
480
480
61
530
480
480
480
480
u
J
U
J
J
U
U
J
UJ
UJ
J
J
J
J
J
2.3
2.3
56
140
6.5
6.1
6.5
UJ
UJ
J
2.4
2.4
150
370
130
14
16
UJ
UJ
J
J
J
J
- microgram per kilogram
J - value is estimated
NJ - estimated/tentative
identification
R - rejected
U - not detected
UJ - not detected, value is estimated
44SDOR.WK4
72
14 u
u
U
U
U
J
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
UG/KG
01/03/96
44-LT-SD0
l-06
05!04/95
O-6”
UG/KG
2
U
U
U
U
J
J
44-UT-SD0 l-6 12
05/04/95
6-12”
UG/‘KG
610 J
200
1700
680
680
680
680
680
680
680
680
680
680
680
680
3.5
3.5
20
5.5
6.9
3.5
3.5
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
J
J
UJ
u
u
220
51
1900
750
750
750
750
750
750
750
750
750
750
750
750
u
u
u
u
L’
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
I-’
3.7
3.7
25
13
7.5
3.7
3.7
u
u
J
J
UJ
u
u
TABLE 4-14
- POSITIVE
DETECTION
SUMMARY
SITE 44, JONES STREET DUMP
REMEDIAL
INVESTIGATION,
CTO-0303
MCAS, NEW RIVER, NORTH
CAROLINA
TCL ORGANICS
SEDIMENT
LOCATION
DATE SAMPLED
DEPTH
UNITS
44-UT-SD02-06
05/04/95
O-6”
UG/KG
VOLATILES
ACETONE
Z-BUTANONE
SEMIVOLATILES
PENTACHLOROPHENOL
PHENANTHRENE
CARBAZOLE
FLUORANTHENE
PYRENE
BUTYLBENZYLPHTHALATE
BENZO(A)ANTHRACENE
CHRYSENE
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)PHTHALATE
BENZO(B)FLUORANTHENE
BENZO(K)FLUORANTHENE
BENZO(A)PYRENE
BENZO(G,xI)PERYLENE
PESTICIDEmCBS
ALDRIN
HEPTACHLOR
EPOXlDE
4,4’-DDE
4,4’-DDD
4,4’-DDT
ALPHA-CHLORDANE
GAMMA-CHLORDANE
44-UT-SD02-612
05/04/95
6-12”
UG/‘KG
38
14 u
1200
65
460
170
120
48
50
99
570
110
49
56
71
u
J
U
J
J
J
J
J
2.3
2.3
110
85
3.7
5.1
5.1
UJ
UJ
J
J
J
J
J
J
NJ
J
44-UT-SD03-06
05/04/95
O-6”
UGiKG
44
16 U
44-UT-SD03-612
05/04/95
6-12”
UG/KG
15
13 u
1300
69
510
510
510
510
510
510
510
510
510
510
510
u
J
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
2.6
2.6
310
770
3.1
2.6
3.6
UJ
UJ
J
J
NJ
J
UG/KG
1100
49
430
210
150
430
59
130
560
160
160
89
430
u
J
u
J
J
u
J
J
2.1
2.1
9.9
14
4.3
5.6
6.9
u
J
J
J
J
J
u
1100
250
79
740
490
440
170
460
870
600
200
300J
440
R
R
J
J
R
J
J
2.6
5.2
15
21
4.3
7.8
9.5
J
J
J
J
R
J
J
- microgram per kilogram
J - value is estimated
NJ - estimated/tentative
identification
R -rejected
U - not detected
UJ - not detected, value is estimated
0 l/03/96
44SDOR
WK4
3
37
13 u
u
J
J
,
u
TABLE 4-15
- POSITIVF,
DETECTION
SUMMARY
SITE 44, JONES STREET DUMP
REMEDIAL
INVESTIGATION,
C-TO-0303
MCAS, NEW RIVER,
NORTH
CAROLINA
TAL METALS
SEDIMENT
LOCATION
DATE SAMPLED
DEPTH
ANALYTES
t.MG/KG)
.kLUMINCM,
TOTAL
ARSENIC, TOTAL
BARIUM,
TOTAL
BERYLLIUM,
TOTAL
CADMIUM,
TOTAL
CALCIL~Al, TOTAL
CHROMIUM,
TOTAL
COBALT,
TOTAL
COPPER, TOTAL
IRON, TOTAL
LEAD, TOTAL
MAGNESIUM,
TOTAL
MANGANESE,
TOTAL
NICKEL
TOTAL
POTASSIUM
TOTAL
SELENIUM,
TOTAL
SILVER, TOTAL
SODIUM,
TOTAL
VANADIUM
TOTAL
ZINC, TOTAL
44-EC-SDOI-06
05/04/95
O-6”
1420 J
0.8 J
0.11
0.7
40000
3.9
0.59
2.2
3380
15.2
637
10.1
1.7
49.5
0.3
0.34
90
7.8
25
44-EC-SD02-06
05/04/95
O-6”
44-EC-SD0 l-6 12
05/04./95
6-12”
U
u
L’
J
u
u
u
787
0.45
5.1
0.11
0.71
33500
3.2
0.26
2.4
1320
13.6
534
811
0.32
7.7
0.1
0.79
15600
3.1
0.95
2.9
1100
9.3
288
4.5
2.1
71.5
0.33
0.38
58.7
3.4
21.6
J
J
U
U
J
1.1
53.5 u
0.28 U
0.35 u
96.1
5.3
19.2
MG/KG
01124196 44SDM.WK4
44-EC-SD02-612
05/04/95
6-12”
J
I!
u
u
u
J
u
u
u
- milligram per kilogram
J - value is estimated
U - not detected
1020
0.59
7.1
0.07
0.91
9910
3
0.54
5.5
1340
24.9
171
3.3
1.9
58.2
0.34
0.44
35.6
4.4
26
44-EC-SD03-06
05/04/95
O-6”
J
J
u
U
u
J
U
u
u
556
0.29
4.9
0.07
0.85
4190
2.6
0.56
2
613
8.4
95.8
2
1.2
56.3
0.31
0.42
34.2
I.9
18.4
44-EC-SD03-612
05/04/95
6-12”
J
U
u
U
U
J
U
u
U
795
0.36
5.5
0.06
0.83
7850
2.8
0.48
2.2
1040
14.2
156
3.4
1.2
60.2
0.38
0.41
42.7
3.2
23.3
U
U
U
u
U
U
“I
1
_-
“I,
,)
TABLE 4-15
- POSITIVE
DETECTION
SUMMARY
SITE 44, JONES STREET DUMP
REMEDIAL
INVESTIGATION,
CTO-0303
MCAS, NEW RIVER, NORTH CAROLINA
TAL METALS
SEDIMENT
LOCATION
DATE SAMPLED
DEPTH
ANALYTES
(MWKG)
ALLJMUWM,
TOTAL
ARSENIC,
TOTAL
BARIUM,
TOTAL
BERYLLIUh4,
TOTAL
CADMIUM,
TOTAL
CALCIUh4,
TOTAL
CHROMIUM,
TOTAL
COBALT,
TOTAL
COPPER, TOTAL
IRON, TOTAL
LEAD, TOTAL
MAGNESIIAl,
TOTAL
MANGANESE,
TOTAL
NICKEL,
TOTAL
POTASSIUM,
TOTAL
SELENIUhl,
TOTAL
SILVER, TOTAL
SODIUM,
TOTAL
VANADIUh4,
TOTAL
ZINC, TOTAL
44-EC-SD04-06
05;04/95
o-6”
934
0.29
6.9
0.06
0.8
3140
3.9
0.7
3.8
1540
25.4
116
2.9
2.6
55.9
0.3
0.39
34.4
4.3
30.2
44-EC-SD04-612
05104195
6-12”
J
U
U
u
u
J
u
u
u
841
0.33
8.9
0.07
0.96
4650
2.8
0.58
3.7
1490
16.3
124
2.6
2.1
53.9
0.35
0.47
30.3
4.3
28.6
44-EC-SDO5-06
05/04/95
O-6”
J
u
1420
0.75
9
0.08
0.99
3540
4.5
0.88
4.9
1940
43.5
246
5.5
2.6
96.8
0.38
0.5 1
185
6
144
I-’
U
L’
J
u
u
u
MGiKG
01/24/96
44SDM.WK4
44-EC-SD05-6
12
05!04!95
6-12”
J
J
U
u
L’
J
U
U
- milligram per kilogram
J - value is estimated
U - not detected
2
2650
0.83
13
0.17
1.2
5490
8.8
0.94
7.7
5290
34.6
250
15.3
4
123
0.47
0.53
71.8
9.2
41.7
44-UT-SD0 l-06
05/04/95
0*
J
J
u
J
u
10700
1.1
41.5
0.22
1.4
5140
10
0.69
1.9
5340
14.7
383
15.9
2.8
275
44-L’T-SD0 l-6 12
05/04/95
6-12”
J
u
u
Ll
J
0.7 u
107
13.7
9
12200
1.1
49.5
0.25
1.6
5840
11.1
0.93
2.8
5830
14.1
588
15.1
3.9
299
1.4
0.8
224
15.1
6.3
J
U
L’
L’
J
U
”,
)
” I(
)
TABLE 4-15
- POSITIVE
DETECTION
SUMMARY
SITE 44, JONES STREET DUMP
REMEDIAL
INVESTIGATION,
CTO-0303
MCAS, NEW RIVER, NORTH
CAROLINA
TAL METALS
SEDIMENT
LOCATION
DATE SAMPLED
DEPTH
ANiLYTES
(MG/KG)
ALUMINUM,
TOTAL
ARSENIC,
TOTAL
BARIUM,
TOTAL
BERYLLIUM,
TOTAL
CADMIUM,
TOTAL
CALCIUM,
TOTAL
CHROMIUM,
TOTAL
COBALT,
TOTAL
COPPER, TOTAL
IRON, TOTAL
LEAD, TOTAL
MAGNESIUM,
TOTAL
hlANGANESE,
TOTAL
NICKEL, TOTAL
POTASSIUM,
TOTAL
SELENIUM
TOTAL
SILVER TOTAL
SODIUM.
TOTAL
VANADIUM,
TOTAL
ZINC, TOTAL
44-UT-SD02-06
05/04/95
O-6”
2670 J
1.4
8.3
0.08 U
1U
6400
5
0.64 U
3.4
2950
15.9 J
194
4.8
2.3
91.2 U
0.38 U
0.5 u
59.4
6.8
46.6
44-UT-SD03-06
05/04/95
O-6”
44-UT-SD02-612
05104195
6-12”
7830
0.8
16
0.17
1.1
2610
7.8
0.9
2.2
5150
11
205
5.5
2.3
173
0.79
0.52
48.1
9.9
9
J
1070
0.38
6.4
0.06
0.64
16100
4
0.44
2.7
1240
53
348
5.3
1.4
75.7
0.31
0.31
98.7
5.5
70.9
I-’
U
u
J
u
MG/KG
01/24/96
44SDIN.WK4
44-UT-SD03-6
12
05/04/95
6-12”
J
U
U
u
J
u
u
u
- milligram per kilogram
J - value is estimated
U - not detected
1110
0.34
5.5
0.6
0.83
7540
3.4
0.57
2.8
1340
56.3
283
5.3
1.6
96.4
0.31
0.41
155
5.4
67.8
J
U
U
u
J
U
u
u
SECTION
4.0 FIGURES
..
Baker
I
.~
.
.
.
.
.
.. .
.. .
...
.. .
NORTH CAROLINA
.
.
..
. .
. ~.
.. . .
.~
. . .. .
..
.
.
. ....
.....
..:
.. . . .
. ..:. .
. ..
.~
.
.. . . .
...
...
.~
..: .~~
~~
. .. . .. .
. . ...:
. .
~
~~
~~
~
.. . . .
. . .. . .
..
5.0
CONTAMINANT
FATE AND TRANSPORT
The potential for a contaminant to migrate and persist in an environmental medium is critical when
evaluating the potential for a chemical to elicit an adverse human health or ecological effect. The
environmental mobility of a chemical is influenced by its physical and chemical properties, the
physical characteristics of the site, and the site chemistry. This section presents a discussion of the
various physical and chemical properties of significant contaminants in Site 44 media discussed in
Section 4.0, and their fate and transport in the environment.
5.1
.
.
. Fate and Transnort
Chemical and Phpslcal PropertIes ImDactlnp
Table 5-l presents the physical and chemical properties associated with the organic compounds
detected during this investigation. These properties determine the inherent environmental mobility
and fate of a contaminant. The properties of interest include:
0
0
0
0
0
0
Vapor pressure
Water solubility
OctanoVwater partition coefficient
Organic carbon adsorption coefficient (sediment partition)
Specific gravity
Henry’s Law constant
A discussion of the environmental significance of each of these properties follows.
r ~ressu~
provides an indication of the rate at which a chemical may volatilize. It is of primary
significance at environmental interfaces such as surface soil/air and surface water/air. Volatilization
can be important when evaluating groundwater and subsurface soils, particularly when selecting
remedial technologies. Vapor pressure for monocyclic aromatics is generally higher than vapor
pressures for PAHs. Contaminants with higher vapor pressures (e.g., VOCs) will enter the
atmosphere at a quicker rate than the contaminants with low vapor pressures (e.g., PCBs).
The rate at which a contaminant is leached from soil by infiltrating precipitation is proportional to
..
its water solubrhty. More soluble contaminants are usually more readily leached than less soluble
contaminants. The water solubilities indicate that the volatile organic contaminants, including
monocyclic aromatics, are usually several orders-of-magnitude more soluble than PAHs.
Consequently, highly soluble compounds such as the chlorinated VOCs will go into solution faster
and possibly in greater concentrations than less soluble compounds. The solubility of a specific
compound is dependent on the chemistry of the groundwater and aquifer material. Factors such as
groundwater pH, Eh (redox potential), temperature, and the presence of other compounds can affect
solubility.
..
,
The octanol/water -ion
coefficient & J is the ratio of the chemical concentration in octanol
divided by the concentration in water. The octanoVwater partition coefficient has been shown to
correlate well with bioconcentration factors in aquatic organisms and adsorption to soil or sediment.
Specifically, a linear relationship between octanol/water partition coefficients and the uptake of
chemicals by fatty tissues of animal and human receptors (the bioconcentration factor - BCF) has
been established (Lyman et al., 1982). The coefficient is also useful in characterizing the sorption
of compounds by organic soils where experimental values are not available.
5-l
The orpanic carbon adsorption coefficient (I&J indicates the tendency of a chemical to adhere to the
organic carbon in soil particles. The solubility of a chemical in water is inversely proportional to
the K,. Contaminants with high soil/sediment adsorption coefficients generally have low water
solubilities. For example, contaminants such as PAHs are relatively immobile in the environment,
are preferentially bound to the soil, and have a higher &value. These compounds are not subject
to aqueous transport to the extent of compounds with higher water solubilities. Mechanical activities
(e.g., erosion) and the physical characteristics of surface soils may, however, increase the mobility
of these bound soil contaminants.
Snecific gravi& is the ratio of a given volume of pure chemical at a specified temperature to the
weight of the same volume of water at a specified temperature. Its primary use is to determine
whether a contaminant will have a tendency to “float” or “sink” (as an immiscible liquid) in water
if it exceeds its corresponding water solubility.
Vapor pressure and water solubility are of use in determining volatilization rates from surface water
bodies and from groundwater. These two parameters can be used to estimate an equilibrium
concentration of a contaminant in the water phase and in the air directly above the water. This
relationship is expressed as Henry’s 1.aw Constant.
A quantitative assessment of mobility has been developed that uses water solubility (S), vapor
pressure (VP), and organic carbon partition coefficient (&) (Laskowski, 1983). This value is
referred to as the Mobility Index (MI). It is defined as:
MI = log((s*VP)&J
A scale to evaluate MI as presented by Ford and Gurba (1984) is:
..
. .
ob&tv Descrint&2n
Relative MI
>5
0 to 5
-5 to 0
-10 to -5
c-10
extremely mobile
very mobile
slightly mobile
immobile
very immobile
The mobility index for each organic analyte detected at Site 44 is presented on Table 5- 1.
5.2
Based on the evaluation of existing conditions at Site 44, the following potential contaminant
transport pathways have been identified.
0
0
a
0
0
Windblown dust
Leaching of sediment contaminants to surface water
Migration of contaminants in surface water
Leaching of soil contaminants to groundwater
Migration of contaminants in groundwater to surface water
5-2
--
Contaminant concentrations may be affected by one or more mechanisms during transport.
Contaminants may be physically transformed by volatilization or precipitation. Contaminants may
be chemically transformed through photolysis, hydrolysis, oxidation/reduction. Contaminants may
be biologically transformed by biodegradation. Additionally, contaminants may accumulate in one
or more media. Because different transformation mechanisms are important for different
contaminants, mechanisms are discussed as necessary in Section 5.3.
The paragraphs which follow describe the potential transport pathways listed above with respect to
significant compound concentrations. Significant compound concentrations refer to those
compounds discussed in Section 4.0 frequently occurring above criteria comparisons. Specific fate
and transport concerns are discussed in Section 5.3.
5.2.1
Windblown
Dust
The compounds detected in surface soil sampleswere primarily metals, pesticides and PAHs. These
compounds were detected generally in low concentrations at a few, scatteredlocations acrossSite 44
(Figure 4-l). The pesticides and PAHs tend to be immobile and adhere to soil particles. Under
certain geochemical conditions, metals also can be immobile. Physical movement of these soil
particles may be the only mechanism by which these compounds can migrate.
Wind serves as a contaminant transport pathway agent by eroding exposed soil and exposed
sediment. This effect is influenced by wind velocity, the grain size/density of the soil/sediment
particles, moisture conditions, and the amount of vegetative cover over the soil or sediment.
A majority of the surface area of Site 44 is vegetated. This vegetation reduces the likelihood of
fugitive dust generation.
5.2.2
Leaching
of Sediment
Contaminants
to Surface Water
At Site 44, there are two surface water bodies of concern, Edwards Creek and an unnamed tributary
to Edwards Creek. The compounds detected in sediment samples were primarily pesticides and
PAHs. These compounds were detected in a number of sediment samples collected from both
streams (Figures 4-7 and 4-8).
When in contact with surface.water, contaminants attached to sediment particles can disassociate
from the particle into surface water. This is primarily influenced by the physical and chemical
properties of the contaminant (i.e., water solubility, &) and the physical and chemical properties
of the sediment particle (i.e., grain size, f,>.
5.2.3
Migration
of Contaminants
in Surface Water
The compounds detected in surface water samples were primarily chlorinated VOCs. These
compounds were detected in surface water samples from Edwards Creek (Figures 4-5 and 4-6) and
form a distinct trend in the creek, which is discussedin Section 5.3.1. Lead and nickel also appeared
in multiple surface water samples.
-
Releases of VOCs to streams are expected to rapidly volatilize to the atmosphere as a result of high
vapor pressures(USHHS, 1991). The portion of a release not evaporating, may dissolve into surface
waters as a result of high water solubilities. For larger releases,evaporation may not be a significant
5-3
--
pathway. Additionally, pools of immiscble product may form on the bottom of the surface water
body (USHHS, 1991). VOCs tend to have low K, values and will not readily absorb to sediments
with low organic content. Once released to a stream,VOC solute and/or immiscble liquid transport
will be dependent on stream flow conditions.
The chlorinated VOCs detected in surface water samplesare either primariy compounds or daughter
products of the primary compounds. According to USDHHS toxological profile manuals,
1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane will degrade to trichloroethene. Trichloroethene will degrade primarily
to cis- 1,Zdichloroethene, and to a lesser extent, trans- 1,Zdichloroethene. cis- 1,2-Dichloroethene
will degrade to chloroethane and, to a lesser extent, vinyl chloride. trans-1,ZDichloroethene will
degrade to vinyl chloride.
A considerable fraction of metals in water is associatedwith suspended particles. The extent of this
association varies greatly with the compound, the properties of the particles, and the type of water.
Metals in surface water carried on particles of different types will settle in areas of active
sedimentation and will be deposited in the sediments. The metals may be released again through
microbial activity and changes in various physical and chemical factors, including pH and Eh.
5.2.4
Leaching of Soil Contaminants to Groundwater
The contaminants present in soil samplesat Site 44 are primarily pesticides. These compounds were
detected in a limited number of soil samples. Other compounds such as heavy metals and PAHs
were also detected, but in a more limited extent than pesticides.
Contaminants that adhere to soil particles or have accumulated in soil pore spaces can leach and
migrate vertically to the groundwater as a result of infiltration of precipitation. The rate and extent
of leaching is influenced by the depth to the water table, amount of precipitation, rate of infiltration,
and the physical and chemical properties of the soil and contaminant.
A qualitative comparison between soil and groundwater analytical data indicates groundwater
contamination at Site 44 resultant of contaminants leaching from soil is not evident. This conclusion
is supported by facts presented in Section 5.3
5.2.5
Migration of Contaminants in Groundwater to Surface Water
As shown in Section 2.0, shallow groundwater appears to discharge to Edwards Creek. Thus, the
potential exists for any contaminants present in groundwater to migrate to surface water; however,
as shown in Section 5.3, this pathway is not apparent at this time.
5.3
Fate
The paragraphs which follow summarize the site-specific fate and transport data for contaminants
detected in media collected at Site 44.
53.1
)?
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)
VOCs tend to be mobile in environmental media as indicated by their presence in surface water and
their corresponding MI values. Their environmental mobility is a function of high water solubilities,
high vapor pressures, low K,,, and K, values, and high mobility indices.
5-4
In surface media, VOCs will readily volatilize into the atmosphere. VOCs will not partition
significantly from the water column to sediment. In natural water and soil systems,VOCs will be
slowly biodegraded. Hydrolysis and oxidation are not important fate processes for VOCs in water.
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane, trichloroethene, 1,Zdichloroethene, and vinyl chloride were detected in
surface water samples from Edwards Creek. The data and information from this investigation
suggeststhat there is a continuing, upstream source. The source appears to be upstream becausethe
analytical data show a decreasing concentration trend at progressively downstream sampling points,
with the highest concentrations located upstream of Site 44. This trend is especially noted with the
compound trichloroethene. The trichloroethene concentration in Edwards Creek is highest at
Stations 44-EC-SW01 and 44-EC-SW06, located immediately upstream of Site 44. Downstream
of these stations,trichloroethene concentrations decreaseat stations located adjacent to Site 44. The
source appears to be continuing for two reasons. The first reason is the persistence of these
compounds throughout the creek, given their volatility. The second reason is that the data are at
similar concentrations between the two sampling events.
Two potential upstream sources were noted during a site walk-through in early January, 1996: the
d DRh40 storage facility and Site 89 (former waste oil UST). These two sites are identified on
Figure 4-7. A ditch with flowing surface water originating from Site 89 and migrating through the
eastern portion of the DRMO facility was observed discharging into Edwards Creek in the vicinity
where the VOCs were at their highest concentration. Groundwater at Site 89 is known to have
elevated levels of VGCs, (trichloroethene [80 to 1,500 @L]; 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane [240 to 4,300
pg/L]; tetrachloroethene [35 to 38 pg/L]) similar to those identified in Edwards Creek. This site,
as well as the DRMO facility, are scheduled to be investigated by Baker in late 1996.
Similar chlorinated VOCs detected in one groundwater sample collected from temporary well 44TWO 1. The occurrence of VGCs in groundwater appears to be limited to this area since VGCs were
not detected in the permanent wells located within the suspected disposal area. It appears that the
presence of VOCs in this well is related to surface water contaminants rather than the migration of
groundwater contaminants from within the suspected disposal area. Well 44-TWO1 is
approximately 50 feet from Edwards Creek, within the flood plain of the stream (i.e., swantpy
conditions). This area floods during periods of heavy rain events causing surface water to overflow
its banks onto the flood plain. Surface water will infiltrate through the soil into the groundwater.
A probable source of the presence of VGCs in well 44-TWO1 appears to be infiltration of
contaminated surface water. VOCs were not detected in surface soil, subsurface soil, and other
groundwater samples at Site 44.
5.3.2
Semivolatile
Organic
Compounds
(SVOCs)
The SVOCs detected were primarily PAH compounds. PAH contamination was encountered
primarily in sediment samples, but also in a few surface and subsurface soil samples. Low water
solubilities and high K, and K, values indicate a strong tendency for PAHs to adsorb to soils, and
remain immobile. PAHs have not been detected in groundwater or surface water samples at Site 44,
indicating that PAHs are not migrating via these media.
Several other SVOCs were detected in one groundwater sample collected from well 44-GW03.
These SVOCs are only slighlty more mobile than PAHs. Low water solubilities, and high K, values
indicate a tendency for these SVOCs to adsorb to soils, and be only slightly mobile. These
5-5
compounds were not detected in any wells downgradient of 44-GW03, and do not appear to be
migrating at this time.
5.3.3
Pesticides
Pesticides have been detected in surface soil, subsurface soil, and sediment samples at a few,
scattered locations at Site 44. The pattern of distribution and concentration suggests routine
application for insect control rather than product disposal are the source of the pesticides. Table 5-l
shows that pesticides are immobile, mainly due to their affinity for soil surfaces. Pesticides likely
have migrated to stream sediment possibly through soil erosion and/or direct deposition from
pesticide application at mosquito breeding areas. Pesticides will likely continue to accumulate in
sediment as erosion of soils continues. Routine pesticide application is no longer practiced;
therefore, the rate of accumulation should diminish with time due to the diminishing availability of
pesticides.
5.3.4
Metals
The presence of metals in soil and sediment above criteria levels is limited. Given the limited extent
and heavy vegetation, wind transport is not a significant migration pathway. Furthermore, the
dissolution of these metals from sediment to surface water, or soils to groundwater has not resulted
in concentrations exceeding Federal MCLs, state drinking water standards or other ARARs.
-
Only iron and manganese occur in groundwater samples exceeding comparison criteria. The
paragraphs which follow discuss the occurrence of these metals in groundwater. Table 5-2 presents
the relative mobilities of metals as a function of environmental conditions.
Iron and manganese were detected in nearly all groundwater samples from Site 44, and are
ubiquitous in all media at MCB, Camp Lejeune. These compounds often exceed comparison criteria
and can be contaminants-of-potential-concern for human health and/or ecological risk assessments.
Previous studies at Camp Lejeune show that concentrations of iron and manganese are variable and
can occur in sediments, surface water, and groundwater at levels exceeding ARARs. It appears that
iron and manganese in a particular media may not be associated with waste disposal, but rather be
representative of natural conditions.
In a study of trace elements in a coastal plain estuary (Cross, et.al., 1970), iron, manganese,and zinc
were found in sediments, surface water, and worm tissue. The study was conducted over a two year
period in a river estuary near Morehead City, North Carolina (approximately 40 miles northeast of
Camp Lejeune). Multiple samples of surface water, sediment, and worms were collected monthly.
Analysis was performed on an extract of the sediments. This study found that iron and manganese
levels varied temporally. Levels decreasedin samples collected at or near the Atlantic Ocean. The
highest concentrations of iron, manganese, and zinc occurred inland, in a station in the Newport
River. At this station, the mean levels of iron in sediment extract were reported to range from 380
p&/L to 1,800 pg/L, while manganese ranged from 12 @L to 71 pg/L. Median level of iron in
surface water was 300 pg/L, while manganese was 22 pg/L. The study found that iron was most
abundant, followed by manganese.
According to a study of chemical characteristics of natural waters (Hem, 1992), iron and manganese
can occur in water through natural effects. Hem cited a report that observed manganeseat 1.Omg/L
small streams due to low dissolved oxygen levels. Hem also reported that manganese can occur in
5-6
.=-
groundwater above 1.O mg/L. Manganese can dissolve into groundwater from manganese oxide
coatings on soil/sediment particles. Manganese is a significant constituent of many igneous and
metamorphic rocks. Small amounts of manganeseare commonly present in limestone and dolomite,
substituting for calcium. Partially cemented limestone and calcareous sediments are common in the
Camp Lejeune area, and were observed at Site 43.
Hem observed iron in surface water at 1.4 mg/L due to organic complexing. Typically, iron in
surface water is on the order of 10 pg/L. Iron can occur in groundwater at levels as high as 50 mg/L
given certain chemical conditions (a pH between 6 and 8 SU and a bicarbonate activity less than 6 1
mg/L). A high level of dissolved iron can occur with oxidation of ferrous sulfides. Sulfur is altered
to sulfate releasing ferrous iron. Metallic sulfides are common in sedimentary and igneous rocks,
or soils/sediments with those source rocks. Hem reported, “The availability of iron for aqueous
solutions is strikingly affected by environmental conditions, especially changes in degree or intensity
of oxidation or reduction.”
Iron and manganese were detected at significant levels only in groundwater at Site 44. The average
concentration of iron and manganese in groundwater samples is 20.9 mg/L and 0.1 mg/L,
respectively. These cqncentrations appear to be within natural conditions described by Hem.
5.4
References
Cross, Ford A., Duke, Thomas W., and James N. Willis. 1970. “Biogeochemistry of Trace
Elements in a Coastal Plain Estuary: Distribution of Manganese, Iron, and Zinc in Sediments,
Water, and Polychaetous Worms.” Chesapeake Science, Vol. 11, No. 4,221-234. December 1970.
Feenstra S., Cherry, J.A., and B.L. Parker. 1995. Dense Chlokted
Backpround History of the Problem, July 1995.
Solvents in Grollflclwater;
Fetter, C.W. 1986. Applied HydroeeolQgy, Charles E. Merrill Publishing Co., Columbus, Ohio.
. .
Ford and Gruba. 1984. Methods of Determmme Relative P-ont&ant
Pathwavs UslngPhvsical-Chemical Data,
...
Mob&es
. .
and Mtgratton
. .
Hem. 1992. Study of Interpret&ion of the Chemical Characterlstscs of N&ural Waters, USGS
Water-Supply Paper 22254.
Howard, Philip H. 1989. Handbook of Environmental Fate and uure
. *
s - Pesttctdes.
Lewis Publishers. Chelsea, Michigan.
Data for O&
.
Howard, Philip H. 1990. &&book . .of Envtronmental Fate and Exposure Data for Organic
Chemicals - [email protected] PoMmb Lewis Publishers. Chelsea, Michigan.
Howard, Philip H. 1991. &ndbook of Environmental Fate and l&ps!.sure Data for Or&
Chemicals - Solvents. Lewis Publishers. Chelsea, Michigan.
Laskowski, D.A., Goring, C.A., McCall, P.J., and R.L. Swann. 1983. “Terrestrial
Environment in
.
Environmental Risk Analysis for Chemicals.” -Risk
M
for Chemicz& R.A.
Conways, ed., Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, New York, New York.
5-7
Lyman, W.J., Rechl, W.F. and D.H. Rosenblatt. 1982. Handbook of Chemical Property Estimation
Methods, McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York,.
Super-fund Chemical Data Matrix (SCDM). 1991. United StatesEnvironmental Protection Agency
Hazardous Site Evaluation Division. December 1991.
Swartbaugh, et al. “Remediating Sites Contaminated with Heavy Metals.” Hazardous Materials
Control. November/December 1992.
United States Department of Human and Health Services (USHHS). 1991. Toxicological Profile
for Trichloroethene. U.S. Department of Human and Health Services.
United States Department of Human and Health Services (USHHS). 1990. Toxicological Profile
for l.l-Dichloroetti.
U.S. Department of Human and Health Services.
5-8
SECTION 5.0 TABLES
“I
$
“1
TABLE
5-1
ORGANIC
PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL
PROPERTIES
SITE 44, JONES STREET DUMP
REMEDIAL
INVESTIGATION,
CTO-0303
MCB, CAMP LEJEUNE, NORTH CAROLINA
Contaminants of
Potential Concern
Volatiles
Acetone
2-Butanone
I,1 -Dichloroethene
1,ZDichloroethene
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
Trichloroethene
Vinyl Chloride
Semivolatiles
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
[email protected])fluoranthene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Pyrene
Vapor Pressure
(mm J&d
Water
Solubility
([email protected]
Log kv
Log L
270
77.5
600
200
30
5
57.9
2660
1.ooE+o6
2.68E+05
2250
600
4500
2900
1100
2670
-0.24
0.26
1.84
1.48
2.47
2.39
2.38
1.38
5.OE-09
5.OE-09
lE-06 to lE-07
0
9.6E- 11
0.014
0.0038
0.009
0
0.0016
6.8E-04
3.4lE-01
6.85
1.29
9.30E+04
0.14
Specific
Gravity
(g/cm’)
Henry’s Law
Constant
(atm-m’/mole)
Mobility
Index
Comments
0.34
0.65
1.81
2.26
1.75
118
126
1.8
NA
NA
NA
1.22
1.44
1.6
1.46
0.91
2.06E-05
2.74E-05
3.40E-02
1.90E-0 1
l.l7E-03
3.81E-04
9.1E-03
8.19E-02
8.1
6.67
4.3
3.00
3.4
2.2
2.8
5
Extremely Mobile
Very Mobile
Very Mobile
Very Mobile
Very Mobile
Very Mobile
Very Mobile
Very Mobile
5.61
6.04
6.57
6.51
6.84
5.34
5.72
6.26
NA
6.22
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.OOE-06
4.90E-07
1.22E-06
1.21E-07
3.87E-05
-15.50
-16.40
-14.00
NA
-19.00
Very Immobile
Very Immobile
Very Immobile
NA
Very Immobile
4.46
1.46
5.32
4.1
1.2
4.91
1.025
NA
NA
2.25E-04
4.54E-07
5.lOE-06
NA
3.3
-11.90
NA
Very Mobile
Very Immobile
“I
$
“)
TABLE
5-l (Continued)
ORGANIC
PHYSICAL
AND CHEMICAL
PROPERTIES
SITE 44, JONES STREET DUMP
REMEDIAL
INVESTIGATION,
CTO-0303
MCB, CAMP LEJEUNE, NORTH CAROLINA
Contaminants of
Potential Concern
1 Vayomr-;y
Notes:
NA = Not Available
References:
Howard, 1989-1991
Montgomery, 1990
Sax and Lewis, 1987
SCDM, 1991
USEPA, 1986
USEPA, 1986a
Verscheuren, 1983
/ Logs,
Log L
Pesticides
Aldriu
4,4’-DDD
4,4’-DDE
4,4’-DDT
Heptachlor epoxide
alpha-Chlordane
gamma-Chlordane
1 SF$i
I
I
6.00E-06
1.SOE-01
1.OE-06
0.0000065
1.9E-07
1,95E-05
4.6E-04
4.6E-04
0.09
0.04
0.0034
0.200
1.OE-0 1
1 l.OE-01 1
5.30
5.99
4.28
6.19
5.40
5.54
5.54
5
4.47
3.66
4.89
NA
NA
NA
I
Specific
Gravity
(g/cm’)
I
Henry’s Law
Constant
(atm-m’/mole)
Mobility
I Index
NA
1.60E-05
-11.00
NA
2.20E-08
-12.00
NA
6.80E-05
-10.00
NA
1.58E-05
-14.00
NA
NA
NA
3.20E-05
4.85E-05
4.85E-05
NA
NA
NA
I
Comments
Very Immobile
Very Immobile
Immobile
Very Immobile
NA
NA
NA
TABLE
5-2
RELATIVE
MOBILITIES
OF METALS AS A FUNCTION
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONDITIONS
(Eh, pII)
SITE 44, JONES STREET DUMP
REMEDIAL
INVESTIGATION,
CTO-0303
MCB, CAMP LEJEUNE, NORTH CAROLINA
Environmental
Relative Mobility
Reducing
I
Very Low
--.
Conditions
,,,.
Se, Zn, Cu,
Ni, Hg, 4s
As, Cd
Fe, Cr
OF
Se
As, Cd
Cr, Se, Zn, Cu,
Ni, Hg, Pb, Ba,
Be, AR
Notes:
Se
Zn
Cu
Ni
Hg
&
As
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
Source:
Selenium
Zinc
Copper
Nickel
Mercury
Silver
Arsenic
Cd
Ba
Pb
Fe
Cr
Be
Zn
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
Cadmium
Barium
Lead
Iron
Chromium
Beryllium
Zinc
Swartzbaugh, et al. “Remediating Sites Contaminated with Heavy Metals.”
Hazardous Materials Control, November/December 1992.
6.0
BASELINE
HUMAN
HEALTH
RISK
ASSESSMENT
The following subsectionspresent the baseline human health risk assessment(BRA) conducted for
Site 44, Jones Street Dump. This assessmentwas performed in accordance with the USEPA
. Part A
document Risk AssessmentGuidance for Sup-Human
Health Eval-1.
(USEPA, 1989). The purpose of the BRA is to assesswhether the contaminants of potential concern
(COPCs) at the site pose a current or future risk to human health in the absence of remedial action.
COPCs are site-related contaminants used to quantitatively estimate human exposuresand associated
potential health effects. Becausethe purpose of the risk assessmentis to estimate the degree of risk
to human health and to be protective of human health, the approach of the USEPA guidance is
designed to be conservative. This protectiveness is achieved by the use of assumptions and models
that result in upper bound estimates of risk, i.e., the true or actual risk is expected to fall between
the estimated value and zero. As a result, the actual site risks are unlikely to exceed the estimated
upper bound values and are probably lower than these values. The following paragraphs present a
brief overview of the risk assessmentprocess and how the assessmentaffects further activity at the
sites.
For the BRA, both current and future land use exposure scenarios were assumed for the site. The
current scenario reflects potential human exposure pathways to the COPCs that presently exist at
the site (i.e., exposure pathways currently available). Likewise, the future use scenario represents
exposure pathways that are conceivable in the future (e.g., residential development). The future use
is typically determined by zoning and the environmental setting of the site. The development of
current and future use exposure scenarios is consistent with the methodology for baseline risk
assessment,as specified by USEPA.
The National Contingency Plan (NCP) stipulates a range of acceptable cancer risk levels of 1x1OA
to 1~10~ for total risk at a hazardouswaste site (USEPA, 1990). These cancer risk levels represent
the probability of an individual developing cancer over his or her lifetime if exposed to the COPCs
at the site. For example, a risk level of 1~10~ is the probability that one person in l,OOO,OOO
exposed
persons will develop cancer in a lifetime. The total noncarcinogenic acceptable risk level is a hazard
index of less than or equal to 1.0. This noncancer risk level depicts a level at or below which
adverse systemic effects are not expected in the exposed population.
A remedial action is recommended when either the total cancer or noncancer risks are above the
criteria established by the NCP. Some form of remedial action also is necessary when either the
current or future exposure point concentrations at the site are above the applicable or suitable
analogous standards (e.g., maximum contaminant levels [MCLs] for drinking water) for those
COPCs for which standardsexist. When a remedial action is necessary, applicable or relevant and
appropriate requirements (ARARs) and/or risk-based cleanup levels are used in determining
acceptable concentrations in the environmental media. No remedial response is required when the
cancer and noncancer criteria and the ARARs are not exceeded.
6.1
=-
Jntroductiog
The BRA investigates the potential for COPCs to affect human health and/or the environment, both
now and in the future, under a “no further remedial action scenario.” The BRA process evaluates
the data generated during the sampling and analytical phase of the RI, identifying areas of interest
and COPCs with respect to geographical, demographic, and physical and biological characteristics
of the study area. These, combined with the current understanding of physical and chemical
6-l
y-
.
properties of the site-associated constituents (with respect to environmental fate and transport
processes),are then used to estimate the concentrations of contaminants at the end points of logical
exposure pathways. Finally, contaminant intakes by hypothetical receptors are determined and
combined with the toxicological properties of the contaminants to estimate (inferentially) the
potential public health impacts posed by constituents detected at the site.
The BRA for the site was conducted in accordance with current USEPA Risk AssessmentGuidance
(USEPA, 1989 and USEPA, 1991), and USEPA Region IV Supplemental Risk Guidance (USEPA,
1992d).
The components of the BRA include the following:
0
Hazard Identification: determination as to whether a substancehas the potential to
elicit an adverse effect (toxicity) upon exposure to humans
0
Exposure Assessment: identification of the human population(s) likely to be
exposed and the development of specific exposure pathways for the population
0
Toxicity Assessment: quantification of the relationship between the human
exposure and the probability of occurrence (risk) of a toxic response
0
Risk Characterization: development of a quantitative estimation of the potential
risk from a combination of information collected during the exposure and toxicity
assessment
0
Uncertainty Analysis: identification and qualitative discussion of any major sources
of uncertainty pertaining to the finding of the BRA
0
Conclusions: summarization and conclusion of the results of the BRA relating to
the total site risk are drawn
Each of these components of the BRA is discussed and addressed for the site. Introductory text is
presented first, followed by a site-specific discussion. Referenced tables and figures are presented
after the text portion of this section.
6.2
.
.
zard Ident&atrna
Data generated during the remedial investigation and previous studies at the site were used to draw
conclusions and to identify data gaps in the BRA. The data were evaluated to assesswhich data
were of sufftcient quality to include in the risk assessment. The objective when selecting data to
include in the risk assessmentwas to provide accurateand precise data to characterizecontamination
and evaluate exposure pathways.
6.2.1
Data Evaluation
and Reduction
The initial hazard identification step entailed the validation and evaluation of the site data to
determine its usability in the risk assessment.This process resulted in the identification of COPCs
for the site. During this validation and evaluation, data that would result in inaccurate conclusions
(e.g., data that were rejected or attributed to blank contamination, as qualified by the validator) were
6-2
reduced within the data set. Data reduction entailed the removal of unreliable data from the original
data set based on the guidelines established by USEPA. A summary of the data quality was
presented in Section 5.0.
6.2.2
Identification
of Data Suitable
for Use in a Quantitative
Risk Assessment
To provide for accurate conclusions to be drawn from sampling results, analytical data were
reviewed and evaluated. During this review and evaluation, data that would lead to inaccurate
conclusions were reduced within each data set. This section presents the criteria that were used to
review, reduce, and summarize the analytical data. These criteria are consistent with USEPA
guidance for data reduction.
Five environmental media were investigated at the site during this RI: surface soils, subsurface
soils, groundwater, surface water, and sediment. For Site 44, these media were assessedfor potential
risk to human receptors. Specifically, surface water and sediment samples were collected from the
two surface water bodies of concern at the site: Edwards Creek and an unnamed tributary to Edwards
Creek. For a more detailed discussion on sampling procedure, refer to Section 3.0.
In addition, the shallow and deep groundwater at Site 44 were evaluated as a single exposure source.
Although shallow groundwater is not used potably at the sites, it has been shown that there is a
potential interconnection between the shallow and deep aquifers (see Section 3.0). Consequently,
exposure to both sources of groundwater were evaluated. Current receptors (military personnel,
military dependents, and civilian base personnel) are exposed via ingestion, dermal contact, and
inhalation to groundwater drawn from the deep zone. Hence, assessingcurrent risks to contaminants
detected in the shallow aquifer for current receptors is unnecessary and, if estimated, may present
an unlikely risk. Therefore, groundwater exposure to current receptors was not estimated for this
investigation.
Information relating to the nature and extent of contamination at the site is provided in Section 4.0
of this report. The discussion provided in Section 4.0 also was utilized in the selection of COPCs
at the site. The reduced data setsfor all media of concern at the site are provided in Appendices H
and I of this report.
6.2.3
Criteria
Used in Selection
of COPCs
This section presents the criteria used in the selection of COPCs for the evaluation of potential
human health risk. As exemplified by the data summary tables in Appendices H and I, the number
of constituents positively detected at least once during the field investigation is large. Quantifying
risk for all positively identified parameters may distract from the dominant risks presented by the
site. Therefore, the data set (resulting data set after applying the criteria listed in the previous
section) was reduced to a list of COPCs. As stated previously, COPCs are site-related contaminants
used to quantitatively estimate human exposures and associated potential health effects.
,
Ih
The selection of the COPCs was based on a combination of detected concentrations; toxicity;
frequency of detection; comparison to background values, including site-specific, base-specific and
published ranges; and comparison of physiochemical properties, including mobility, persistence,and
toxicity. In addition, historical information pertaining to past site activities was considered. USEPA
guidance states that a contaminant may not be retained for quantitative evaluation in the BRA
if: (1) it is detected infrequently in an environmental medium (e.g., equal to or less than 5 percent
6-3
for at least 20 samples per data set), (2) it is absent or detected at low concentrations in other media,
or (3) site history does not provide evidence the contaminant to be present (USEPA, 1989). TO
qualitatively assessthe COPCs, comparisons of results to Federal and state criteria and Region III
Contaminant of Concern (COC) Screening Values (USEPA, 1995) were used. A brief description
of the selection criteria used in choosing final COPCs is presented below. A contaminant did not
need to meet the criteria of all of these three categories in order to be retained as a COPC.
6.2.3.1 Site Setting and Histnqi
The Jones Street Dump (Site 44) encompassesapproximately 5 acres and is situated within the
operations area of Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) New River, two miles east of the main
entrance. There is vehicle accessto the site via Baxter Street,behind base housing units along Jones
Street. The site lies to the east of the fenced compound. The site is bordered to the north and west
by Edwards Creek, to the south by base housing units along Jones Street, and to the east by woods
and an unnamed tributary to Edwards Creek. Edwards Creek flows east from the study area toward
Site 43, which is located about 2,000 feet to the east of Site 44.
A majority of the site is comprised of a gently dipping open field that slopes toward Edwards Creek.
The field is covered with high grass, weeds, and small pine trees that are less than two inches in
diameter. Surrounding the open field is a mature wooded area with dense understory. Presently,
accessto Site 44 is unrestricted.
The Jones Street Dump was offtcially in operation during the 1950s. Reportedly, Site 44 served as
a dump for municipal waste and various debris. It has also been reported that some potentially
hazardous materials may have been disposed at this site. The particular types and quantities of these
wastes, however, are not known. WAR conducted an IAS at Site 44 in 1983. This study produced
evidence that construction debris and small quantities of potentially hazardouswaste were disposed
of at the dump
Baker conducted an SI at Site 44 in 1991. Soil samples obtained at Site 44 contained low levels of
PAHs and specific pesticides (i.e., 4,4’-DDE and 4,4’-DDD). Inorganics were detected in soil
samples at concentrations exceeding twice the base-specific background levels. Groundwater
samples contained inorganics at concentrations exceeding state and Federal criteria. Low
concentrations of PAHs were detected in one well, and toluene and ethylbenzene were detected in
another well at concentrations below state and Federal standards. Surface water samples contained
inorganics at low levels. Sediment samples contained trace levels of pesticides and semivolatiles,
as well as slightly elevated concentrations of copper, lead, and zinc.
6.2.3.2 Frequency of Detection
In general, constituents that were detected infrequently (e.g., equal to or less than 5 percent, when
at least 20 samples of a medium are available) may be anomalies due to sampling or analytical errors
or may be present simply in the environment due to past or current site activities. It should be noted,
however, that detected constituents were individually evaluated prior to exclusion from the BRA.
6-4
Physiochemical properties (i.e., fate and transport) and toxicological properties for each detected
constituent were evaluated (see following sections).
6.2.3.3 Comparison to Background
Sample concentrations were compared to site-specific (i.e., twice the base-specific average
concentration) background levels. Background information was available for all media of concern
at the site, except groundwater. The results of these comparisons are presented in Tables 6-l
through 6-7.
6.2.3.4 Physiochemicalerties
Mobility
The physical and chemical properties of a contaminant are responsible for its transport in the
environment. These properties, in conjunction with site conditions, determine whether a
contaminant will tend to volatilize into the air from surface soils or surface waters or be transported
via advection or diffusion through soils, groundwaters, and surface waters. Physical and chemical
properties also describe a contaminant’s tendency to adsorb onto soil/sediment particles.
Environmental mobility can correspond to either an increased or decreasedpotential to affect human
health and/or the environment.
tence
The persistence of a contaminant in the environment depends on factors such as the microbial
content of soil and water, organic carbon content, the concentration of the contaminant, climate, and
the ability of the microbes to degrade the contaminant under site conditions. In addition, chemical
degradation (i.e., hydrolysis), photochemical degradation, and certain fate processessuch as sorption
may contribute to the elimination or retention of a particular compound in a given medium.
6.2.3.5
ll&jQ
The potential toxicity of a contaminant is an important consideration when selecting COPCs for
further evaluation in the human health assessment. For example the weight-of-evidence (WOE)
classification should be considered in conjunction with concentrations detected at the site. Some
effects considered in the selection of COPCs include carcinogenicity, mutagenicity, teratogenicity,
systemic effects, and reproductive toxicity. Bioaccumulation and bioconcentration properties may
affect the severity of the toxic response in an organism and/or subsequent receptors and are
evaluated if relevant data exist.
Despite their inherent toxicity, certain inorganic contaminants are essential nutrients. Essential
nutrients need not be considered for further consideration in the quantitative risk assessmentif they
are present in relatively low concentrations (i.e., below twice the average base-specific background
levels or slightly elevated above naturally occurring levels) or if the contaminant is toxic at doses
much higher than those which could be assimilated through exposures at the site. Due to the
difficulty of determining nutrient levels that were within acceptable dietary levels, only essential
nutrients present at low concentrations (i.e., only slightly elevated above background) were
eliminated from the BRA. Essential nutrients, however, were included in the ecological risk
evaluation.
6-5
6.2.3.6 Contaminant
.
.
Sample concentrations were compared quantitatively to investigation-related blank concentrations.
Sample concentrations of parameters that are typical laboratory or field contaminants (i.e., acetone,
2-butanone, methylene chloride, toluene, and phthalate esters) that exceeded blank concentrations
by a factor of 10 and other parameter concentrations that exceeded blank concentrations by a factor
of five were considered to be site related. Parameters not meeting this criteria were considered
artifacts from field or laboratory practices and treated as non-detects.
For Site 44, the following contaminants were found in the blanks: chloroform (4 pg/l), 2-butanone
(29 pg/l), 1,2-dichloroethene (4 pg/l), trichloroethene (1 pg/l) and bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
(2 Nm
. .
6.2.3.7 Federal and State Crltm and Stan&&
Contaminants detected at the site were compared to state and Federal standards, criteria, and/or To
Be Considered levels (TBCs). These comparisons may provide some qualitative information as to
the relative potential for health impacts resulting from the site. It should be noted that COPC
concentration ranges were directly compared to each standard/criteria/TBC. This comparison did
not take into account the additive or synergistic effects of those constituents without standards or
criteria. Consequently, conclusions regarding potential risk posed by each site cannot be inferred
from this comparison. A brief explanation of the standards/criteria/TBCs used for the evaluation
of COPCs is presented in Section 6.2.3.
North Carolina Water Quality Standards (NCWQSs) - Groundwater - NCWQSs are the
maximum allowable concentrations resulting from any discharge of contaminants to the land or
waters of the state, which may be tolerated without creating a threat to human health or which
otherwise render the groundwater unsuitable for its intended purpose.
Maximum Contaminant Levels (MC&s) - Federal Groundwater Standards - 40 CFR 161 MCLs are enforceable standards for public water supplies promulgated under the Safe Drinking
Water Act and are designed for the protection of human health. MCLs are based on laboratory or
epidemiological studies and apply to drinking water supplies consumed by a minimum of
25 persons. They are designed for prevention of human health effects associated with a lifetime
exposure (70-year lifetime) of an average adult (70 kg) consuming 2 liters of water per day. MCLs
also consider the technical feasibility of removing the contaminant from the public water supply.
North Carolina Water Quality Standards (Surface Water) - The NCWQSs for surface water are
the standard concentrations that, either alone or in conjunction with other wastes in surface waters,
will neither render waters injurious to aquatic life, wildlife, or public health, nor impair the waters
for any designated use.
Ambient Water Quality Criteria - AWQCs are non-enforceable regulatory guidelines and are of
primary utility in assessing acute and chronic toxic effects in aquatic systems. They may also be
used for identifying the potential for human health risks. AWQCs consider acute and chronic effects
in both freshwater and saltwater aquatic life, and potential carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic health
effects in humans from ingestion of both water (2 liters/day) and aquatic organisms (6.5 grams/day),
or from ingestion of water alone (2 liters/day). The human health AWQCs for potential carcinogenic
6-6
substancesare based on the USEPA’s specified incremental cancer risk range of one additional case
of cancer in an exposed population of 10,000,000 to 100,000 (i.e. the lOE-7 to lOE-5 range).
Region
IV Sediment
Screening
Values - Currently, Federal sediment quality criteria for the
protection of aquatic life are being developed. In the interim, the USEPA Region IV Waste
Management Division recommends using sediment values, compiled by the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), as screening values for evaluating the potential for chemical
constituents in sediments to cause adverse biological effects. NOAA developed this screening
method through evaluating biological effects data for marine and freshwater organisms obtained
through equilibrium partitioning calculations, spiked-sediment bioassays,and concurrent biological
and chemical field surveys. For each constituent having sufficient data available, the concentrations
causing adverse biological effects were arrayed, and the lower 10 percentile (called an Effects
Range-Low, or ER-L) and the median (called an Effects Range-Median, or ER-M) were determined.
If sediment contaminant concentrations are above the ER-M, adverse effects on the biota are
considered probable. If contaminant concentrations are between the ER-L and the ER-M, adverse
effects are considered possible, and the USEPA recommends conducting sediment toxicity tests as
a follow-up. If contaminant concentrations are below the ER-L, adverse effects are considered
unlikely.
Advisories (HAS) - HAS are guidelines developed by the USEPA Office of Drinking Water
for nonregulated constituents in drinking water. These guidelines are designed to consider both
acute and chronic toxic effects in children (assumed body weight 10 kg) who consume 1 liter of
water per day or in adults (assumed body weight 70 kg) who consume 2 liters of water per day. HAS
are generally available for acute (1 day), subchronic (10 days), and chronic (longer-term) exposure
scenarios. These guidelines are designed to consider only threshold effects and, as such, are not
used to set acceptable levels of potential human carcinogens.
Health
Region III COC Screening Values - CCC screening values are derived using conservative
USEPA promulgated default values and the most recent toxicological criteria available. COC
screening values for potentially carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic chemicals are individually
derived based on a target incremental lifetime cancer risk (ILCR) of 1 x 10” and a target hazard
quotient of 0.1, respectively. For potential carcinogens, the toxicity criteria applicable to the
derivation of COC screening values are oral and inhalation cancer slope factors; for non carcinogens,
they are chronic oral and inhalation reference doses. These toxicity criteria are subject to change
as more updated information and results from the most recent toxicologicaVepidemiologica1 studies
become available. Therefore, the use of toxicity criteria in the derivation of COC screening values
requires that the screening concentrations be updated periodically to reflect changes in the toxicity
criteria.
USEPA
Since the most recent COC screening values table was issued by USEPA in March 1995, the values
from these tables can be updated by incorporating information from another set of tables containing
risk-based concentrations (REKs) that are issued by USEPA Region III on a quarterly basis. The
RE3Csare derived using the same equations and USEPA promulgated default exposure assumptions
that were used by Region III to derive the COC screening values. In addition, the quarterly RBCs
for potentially carcinogenic chemicals are based on a target ILCR of 1 x 104. The only difference
in the derivation methodologies for the COC screening values and the RBCs is that the REKs for
noncarcinogens are based on a target hazard quotient of 1.O rather than 0.1. The COC screening
values for noncarcinogens are to be derived based on a target hazard quotient of 0.1, to account for
6-7
cumulative risk from multiple chemicals in a medium. Re-derivation of the quarterly
noncarcinogenic RBCs based on a target hazard quotient of 0.1, while using the most recent
toxicological criteria available, results in a setof values that can be used, as a COC screening values.
In other words, an updated set of COC screening values can be attained each quarter by using the
carcinogenic RBCs issued quarterly by USEPA Region III and dividing the accompanying
noncarcinogenic RBCs by a factor of 10.
As stated previously, COPCs in all media of concern at the site were compared these aforementioned
criteria. The results of the standards/criteria/TBC comparison for the site are presented in Tables 7- 1
through 6-6.
6.2.4
Contaminants
of Potential
Concern
(COPCs)
The following sections present an overview of the analytical data obtained for each medium and the
subsequent retention or elimination of chemicals as COPCs using the aforementioned criteria for
selection of COPCs.
.
6.2.4.1 Surface SolI
Thirteen surface soil samples were analyzed for VOCs. Acetone was detected at a maximum
concentration less than the residential soil screening value. For that reason, it is not retained as a
COPC.
Thirteen surface soil samples were analyzed for SVOCs. The following contaminants were detected
at maximum concentrations below respective residential soil screening values: bis(Z
chloroethyl)ether, 2,6-dinitrotoluene, bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, indeno( 1,2,3-cd)pyrene and
benzo(g,h,i)perylene. For this reason, these contaminants are not retained as COPCs.
Thirteen surface soil sampleswere analyzed for pesticide/PCBs. 4,4’-DDE, 4,4’-DDD and 4,4’-DDT
were detected at maximum concentrations less than respective residential soil RBC values. For this
reason, these contaminants are not retained as COPCs.
Thirteen surface soil samples were analyzed for inorganic contaminants. Cobalt, nickel, selenium,
and sodium are not retained as COPCs because maximum concentrations are less than respective
background levels. The following contaminants were detected at maximum concentrations less than
respective residential soil screening values: barium, chromium, copper, lead, manganese,vanadium,
and zinc. For this reason, these contaminants are not retained as COPCs. Calcium, magnesium, and
potassium are not retained as COPCs becausethese analytes are considered essential nutrients.
Aluminum (lOO%), arsenic (lOO%), copper (92%), and iron (100%) are retained as surface soil
COPCs since they were detected frequently and maximum detected concentrations exceed
corresponding residential soil screening values. Organic and inorganic results are summarized in
Tables 6- 1 and 6-2, respectively.
6.2.4.2 Subsurface Soil
Twelve subsurface soil samples were analyzed for VOCs. Acetone was detected at a maximum
concentration less than the residential soil screening value. For this reason, it is not retained as a
COPC.
6-8
Thirteen subsurface soil samples were analyzed for SVOCs. The following contaminants were
detected at maximum concentrations less than respective residential soil screening values: bis(2ethylhexyl)phthalate, indeno( 1,2,3-cd)pyrene, and benzo(g,h,i)perylene. For this reason, these
contaminants are not retained as COPCs.
Thirteen subsurface soil sampleswere analyzed for pesticide&CBS. 4,4’-DDE, 4,4’-DDD, and 4,4’DDT were detected at concentrations lessthan respective residential soil screening values. For this
reason, these contaminants are not retained as COPCs.
Thirteen subsurface soil samples were analyzed for inorganic contaminants. The following
inorganics were detected at concentrations less than respective residential soil screening values:
copper, lead, manganese,nickel, vanadium, and zinc. Barium, chromium, magnesium, potassium,
and sodium were detected at maximum concentrations less than respective background levels.
Consequently, these contaminants are not retained as COPCs. Calcium is not retained as COPCs
because these contaminants are considered essential nutrients.
Aluminum (lOO%), arsenic (77%), and iron (100%) were detected at maximum concentrations
exceeding their respective residential soil screening values. As a result, these analytes are retained
as subsurface soil COPCs. Organic and inorganic results are presented in Tables 6-3 and 6-4,
respectively.
6.2.4.3 Shallow and Deep Groundwater
Nine groundwater samples were analyzed for VOCs. Trichloroethene and tetrachloroethene were
detected at maximum concentrations less than respective tap water screening values. For this
reason, these contaminants are not retained as COPCs. 1,2-Dichloroethene was detected in
groundwater at a maximum concentration less than five times the concentration detected in the
blanks (15 ug/l vs. 20 pg/l). For this reason, this VOC was not retained as a ground water COPC.
Vinyl chloride was detected in one of nine groundwater samples at a maximum concentration greater
than its tap water screening value. Therefore, this VOCs are retained as groundwater COPCs.
Nine groundwater samples were analyzed for SVOCs. The following contaminants were detected
at maximum concentrations less than respective tap water screening levels: naphthalene, 2methylnaphthalene, acenaphthene, dibenzofuran, fluorene, phenanthrene, and bis(2ethylhexyl)phthalate. For this reason, these contaminants are not retained as COPCs.
Carbazole, a potentially carcinogenic PAH, was detected in one of nine groundwater samples at a
concentration exceeding its tap water screening value. As a result, this SVOC is retained as a
groundwater COPC.
No pesticide&CBS were detected in groundwater samples. Therefore, no pesticide/PCBs are
retained as groundwater COPCs.
Nine groundwater samples were analyzed for inorganic contaminants. The following inorganics
were detected at maximum concentrations lessthan respective tap water screening levels: aluminum,
barium, chromium, cobalt, manganese, selenium, and zinc. Lead was detected at a maximum
concentration lessthan it action level of 15 &I. For this reason, these contaminants are not retained
6-9
&+-
as COPCs. Calcium, magnesium, potassium, and sodium are not retained as COPCs because these
inorganic contaminants are considered essential nutrients.
Arsenic and iron were detected at maximum concentrations exceeding their respective tap water
screening values. Therefore, they were retained as groundwater COPCs. These results are shown
in Table 6-5.
6.2.4.4 Surface Water
Sixteen surface water samples were analyzed for VOCs. Vinyl chloride, acetone, l,ldichloroethene, 1,Zdichloroethene (total), trichloroethene, 1, l,Ztrichloroethane, and 1,1,2,2tetrachloroethane were detected frequently in Site 44 surface water. These VOCs were retained as
surface water COPCs.
Eight surface water sampleswere analyzed for SVOCs. Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate and phenol were
detected in surface water. Therefore, these SVOCs are retained as COPCs.
No pesticideNIBs were detected in Site 44 surface water. Therefore, no pesticide/PCBs are
retained as COPCs.
Eight surface water samples were analyzed for inorganic contaminants. Calcium, magnesium,
potassium, and sodium are not retained as COPCs since these contaminants are considered essential
nutrients.
Aluminum, barium, copper, iron, lead, manganese, nickel, vanadium and zinc were detected
frequently in surface water samples. Aluminum, barium, and iron were detected at concentrations
that exceed background levels. Thus, aluminum and barium are retained as surface water COPCs.
Copper, lead, manganese, nickel, vanadium, and zinc were not detected in background samples.
These analytes are also retained as surface water COPCs. A summary of these results is shown in
Table 6-6.
6.2.4.5 Sediment
Sixteen sediment samples were analyzed for VOCs. Acetone and 2-butanone were detected in
eleven of sixteen and two of sixteen samples,respectively. 2-Butanone was detected at a maximum
concentration less than ten times the concentration detected in blanks (200 pg/l vs. 290 pg/l).
Acetone was not detected in blanks. Therefore, acetone is retained as a sediment COPC while 2butanone was eliminated.
Sixteen sediment samples were analyzed for SVOCs. The following contaminants are retained as
sediment COPCs due to their frequency and/or toxicity: pentachlorophenol, phenanthrene,
carbazole, fluroanthene, pyrene, butylbenzylphthalate, benzo(a)anthracene, chrysene, bis(Z
ethylhexyl)phthalate,
benzo(b)fluoranthene, benzo(k)fluoranthene, benzo(a)pyrene, and
benzo(g,h,i)perylene.
Sixteen sediment sampleswere analyzed for pesticide/PCBs. Aldrin, heptachlor epoxide, 4,4’-DDE,
4,4’-DDD, 4,4’-DDT, alpha-chlordane, and gamma-chlordane were detected frequently and above
background levels. Thus, these contaminants are retained as sediment COPCs.
6-10
Sixteen sediment samples were analyzed for inorganic contaminants. Calcium, magnesium,
potassium, and sodium are not retained as COPCs because these analytes are considered essential
nutrients.
Aluminum, arsenic, barium, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, copper, iron, lead, manganese,
selenium, silver, vanadium, and zinc were detected frequently and at concentrations exceeding
background levels. Cobalt and nickel were also detected frequently but were not detected in
background samples. Therefore, these inorganic contaminants are retained as sediment COPCs.
These results are presented in Table 6-7.
6.3
Exposure Assessment
The exposure assessment addresses each potential exposure pathway via soil (surface and
subsurface), groundwater, surface water, sediment, biota, and air. To determine the likelihood of
human exposure via these pathways in the absence of remedial action, an analysis including the
identification and characterization of exposure pathways was conducted. The following four
elements were examined to determine if a complete exposure pathway was present:
1)
2)
3)
4)
a source and mechanism of chemical release
an environmental transport medium
a feasible receptor exposure route
a receptor exposure point
The exposure scenarios presented in the following sections are used to estimate individual risks.
Unless otherwise noted, all the statistical data associatedwith the factors used in the dose evaluation
equations for assessing exposure were obtained from the -book
(USEPA,
1989b) and the accompanying guidance manuals. A reasonable maximum exposure @ME) scenario
was utilized in this assessment,which is consistent with USEPA Region IV recommendations
regarding human health risk assessment.As a result, the exposure scenariospresented include RME
assumptions for the input parameters in the dose evaluation equations. These values are summarized
in Table 6-8.
A mathematical model was used to estimate exposure from the inhalation of volatile contaminants
in groundwater while showering, the “Integrated Household Exposure Model for Use of Tap Water
Contaminated with Volatile Organic Chemicals,” developed by S.A. Foster and P.C. Chrostowski,
was applied. This model is presented in Appendix Q.
6.3.1
Potential Human Receptors and Adjacent Populations
The following sections provide a discussion of the potential exposure pathways and receptors at
Site 44.
6.3.1.1 Site Cowtual
Model for Site 44
A site conceptual model of potential sources, migration pathways and human receptors was
developed to encompass all current and future potential routes of exposure at the site. This
document is presented in Appendix R. Figure 6-1 presents the potential exposure pathways and
receptors for Site 44. Qualitative descriptions of current and future land use patterns in the vicinity
6-11
of OU No. 6 were provided in the model. All available analytical data and meteorological data were
considered in addition to general understanding of the demographics of surrounding communities.
From this information, the following general list of potential receptors was developed for inclusion
in the quantitative health risk analysis for Site 44:
0
a
0
0
Current military personnel
Current trespassers(young child and adult)
Future on-site residents (young child and adult)
Future construction worker
The following sections present a discussion of the potential exposure pathways and receptors at
Site 44.
6.3.1.2 Current and Future Scenarios
Site 44 no longer serves as a municipal waste dump. Currently, Site 44 has no official use.
Receptors exposed to surface soil include: future residents (i.e., young children and adults), current
military personnel, and current trespassers(i.e., young children and adults) from adjacent, off-site
residences. These residences are base housing units along Jones Street that border the site to the
south. The young child receptor is one to six years of age. Surface soil exposure pathways for these
receptors include incidental ingestion, derrnal contact, and inhalation of fugitive dust.
Future construction workers are the only receptors exposed to subsurface soil. Exposure to
subsurface soil may occur during ground excavation for on-site construction activities. Exposure
pathways include incidental ingestion of subsurface soil, derrnal contact with subsurface soil and
inhalation of fugitive dust.
Presently, Site 44 groundwater is not used as a potable supply. For this reason, current groundwater
exposure is not evaluated. In a future scenario, it is possible that residential developments may be
constructed at Site 44. Consequently, future groundwater exposure was assessedfor residential
children and adults. Groundwater exposure was not evaluated for future military personnel.
Groundwater exposure pathways include ingestion, derrnal contact with groundwater and inhalation
of volatilized constituents while showering.
In addition, the shallow and deep groundwater at Site 44 were evaluated as a single exposure source.
Although shallow groundwater is not used potably at the sites, it has been shown that there is a
potential interconnection between the shallow and deep aquifers (see Section 3.0). Consequently,
exposure to both sources of groundwater were evaluated as one unit.
Receptors exposed to surface water and sediment are current on-site trespassers and future
residents(i.e., child and adult). It should be noted that the two water bodies at Site 44, Edwards
Creek and the unnamed tributary, were evaluated as one source because the tributary flows into
Edwards Creek. Exposure pathways for these receptors are incidental ingestion of surface
water/sediment and dermal contact with surface water/sediment. For evaluation purposes, a wading
scenario is assumed.
Figure 6-l presents a flowchart of the potential exposure pathways and receptors at Site 44.
6-12
.
I /L?
6.3.2
Migration
and Exposure
Pathways
In general, the migration of COP& from site soil sources could potentially occur by the following
routes:
Vertical migration of potential contaminants from suficial soils to subsurface soils.
Leaching of potential contaminants from subsurface soils to the water-bearing
zones.
Vertical migration from shallow water-bearing zones to deeper flow systems.
Horizontal migration in groundwater in the direction of groundwater flow.
Groundwater discharge into local streams.
Wind erosion and subsequent deposition of windblown dust.
0
0
0
0
0
0
The potential for a constituent to migrate spatially and persist in environmental media is important
in the estimation of potential exposure. This section describes the potential exposure pathways
presented on Figure 6- 1 associatedwith each medium and each potential human receptor group, then
qualitatively evaluates each pathway for further consideration in the quantitative risk analysis.
Table 6-9 presents the potential human exposure scenarios for this site.
6.3.2.1 Surface Soil
f-
The potential release source considered in the soil pathway was the chemical residuals in the surface
soils. The release mechanisms considered were volatilization, fugitive dust generation/deposition,
leaching, and surface runoff. The transport media were the surface soils and air. The routes for
human exposure to the contaminated soils included inhalation, ingestion, and dermal contact.
Potential exposure points from the site were areas of human activity on and adjacent to the site.
Soil Ingestion and Dermal Contact
Incidental ingestion and dermal contact with surface soil in the current case are complete exposure
pathways at Site 44. These exposure pathways were evaluated for current military personnel, current
adult and child trespassers,and future adult and child residents.
.
Soil Inhalatron
.. .
.
Via VolatdlzatlorZ
Surface soil represents a potential source of exposure at the site via volatilization of organic COPCs.
The potentially exposed populations included current military personnel, current trespassers,future
residents. Future construction workers may inhale volatilized COPCs emanating from excavated
subsurface soil. However, no VOCs were identified as COPCs in either surface or subsurface soil
at the site. As a result, this pathway was not considered to be significant for the site and was not
evaluated for soils.
Soi1 Id&tzon
.
.
. .
Vza [email protected]
Dust Generation
The surface soils in the current caseand the subsurface soils in the future case represent a potential
source of exposure at the site via fugitive dust generation from wind erosion and vehicular trafEc
on surface soils. Current military personnel, trespassers,future residents, and future construction
workers (subsurface soil) may inadvertently inhale the contaminated particulates as dust while
engaging in outdoor activities.
6-13
6.3.2.2 Subsurface Soil
The potential release source considered in the subsurface soil pathway was the chemical residuals
in the contaminated soils. The release mechanism considered is leaching to groundwater. The
transport medium was the groundwater infiltrating the subsurface soil. Therefore, exposure to
subsurface soils would be indirect (i.e., leaching of contaminants to groundwater). As such,
subsurface soil exposure was addressed in the groundwater pathway analysis. Additionally,
subsurface soil exposure was mentioned as part of the soil medium. It is assumed that the
subsurface soil would be excavated and used as surface grading, landscaping, etc., in the foreseeable
future. As a result, exposure to subsurface soil via ingestion, dermal contact, and inhalation was
evaluated for the construction worker receptor. It was assumedthat this exposure would result from
outdoor construction activities.
6.3.2.3 Groundwater
The potential release source considered in evaluating the groundwater pathway was contaminated
soils. The release mechanism considered was soil leaching. The transport medium was the
groundwater. The routes considered for human exposure to the groundwater were direct ingestion
of groundwater, dermal contact during showering, and inhalation of volatilized contaminants during
showering.
Residences located on-site in the future scenario were considered to be potential exposure points.
At present, on-site groundwater is not potable. As a result, groundwater exposure from on-site
sources is not significant and was not evaluated for potential risk in the current scenario. In the
future scenario, it is conservatively assumedthat a potable well will be installed on-site. However,
as stated previously, it is not expected that this residential scenario will be implemented in the future
at these military sites. However, future groundwater risks on-site were assessedconservatively in
accordance with guidance.
6.3.2.4 Surface Water
Potential release sources considered in evaluating the surface water pathway were the contaminated
soils and groundwater. The release mechanisms considered were surface runoff and groundwater
seepage. The transport medium was the surface water. The potential routes considered for human
exposure to the contaminated surface water were incidental ingestion and dermal contact. Potential
exposure points were areas of human activity on and adjacent to the site. At Site 44 children and
adults were evaluated for exposure to surface water during wading activities from Edwards Creek
and an unnamed tributary to Edwards Creek.
6.3.2.5 Sediment
The chemical residuals in the contaminated soils and groundwater were the potential release sources
to be considered in the sediment pathway. The routes for human exposure to the contaminated
sediments by the sediment pathway included ingestion and dermal contact. Potential exposure
points from the site were areas of human activity adjacent to the site.
The receptors previously described for evaluation of surface water exposure pathways were assumed
to also come in contact with the underlying sediment while engaging in outdoor activities.
6-14
Consequently, the receptors identified for the surface water exposure pathway were also evaluated
for exposure to sediment in the current and future scenarios.
6.3.2.6 air:
There are two potential release mechanisms to be considered in evaluating the atmospheric
pathway: release of contaminated particulates (i.e., fugitive dust generation) and volatilization of
contaminants from soil and groundwater. The transport mechanism is the air, and the potential
exposure points are the areas of human activity on and adjacent to the site.
..
umtwe
Dust Generation
This air pathway was evaluated as a source of exposure outdoors at the site via fugitive dust
generation of contaminants. Air exposure may occur when surface soils become airborne due to
wind erosion or vehicular traffic. It is assumed that military personnel, child and adult receptors,
and the construction worker may inhale soil particulates while engaging in outdoor activities. This
is applicable for both the current and future cases. This exposure pathway is further assessedin
Section 6.3.2.
Volatilization
The air pathway, specifically, volatilization of contaminants from groundwater, is a potential source
of contaminant exposure. It is assumed in the future scenario that an adult and child receptor will
inhale volatilized contaminants present in groundwater while showering. This pathway is further
discussedin Section 6.3.2, Exposure Pathways, under Groundwater. Also, seethe section on Surface
Soil for a discussion of the volatilization of contaminants from surface soil.
6.3.2.7 Biota
The potential release sources to be considered in evaluating exposure via biota (such as fish and
crab) consumption are contaminated surface water and sediments. Biota can uptake contaminants
present in these media by bioaccumulation and biomagnification. The exposure route for human
receptors is ingestion.
At Site 44, collection of biota samples was not in the scope of work. Consequently, biota
consumption was not evaluated as an exposure pathway for Site 44.
6.3.3
Quantification
of Exposure
The concentrations used in the estimation of chronic daily intakes (CDIs) must be representative of
the type of exposure being considered. Exposure to groundwater, sediments,and surface waters can
occur discretely or at a number of sampling locations. These media are transitory in that
concentrations change frequently over time. Averaging transitory data obtained from multiple
locations is difftcult and requires many more data points at discrete locations than exist within this
site. As a result, the best way to represent groundwater, sediment, and surface water contaminants
from an exposure standpoint is to use a representative exposure concentration. Soils are less
transitory than the aforementioned media and in most cases,exposure occurs over a wider area
(i.e., residential exposure). Therefore, an upper confidence interval was used to represent a soil
exposure concentration. Soil data collected from each of these areas was used separately in
6-15
.
s-
estimating the potential human health risks under current and future exposure scenarios. The human
health assessmentfor future groundwater use considered groundwater data collected from all of the
monitoring wells within a site and estimated risks to individuals per area of concern.
The manner in which environmental data are represented depends on the number of samples and
sampling locations available for a given area and a given medium. Ninety-fifth percent (95%) upper
confidence limit (UCL) values of the arithmetic mean for a lognormal distribution were used as
exposure point concentrations for surface, subsurface soil, groundwater, surface water, and sediment.
For the sake of conservatism, the 95 percent UCL for the lognormal distribution was used for each
contaminant in a given data set for quantifying potential exposure. For exposure areas with limited
amounts of data or extreme variability in measured data, the 95 percent UCL can be greater than the
maximum measured concentration; therefore, in caseswhere the 95 percent UCL for a contaminant
exceeds the maximum detected value in a given data set, the maximum result was used in the
estimate of exposure of the 95 percent UCL However, the true mean may still be higher than this
maximum value (i.e., the 95 percent UCL indicates a higher mean is possible), especially if the most
contaminated portion of the site has not been sampled.
The 95 % UCL of the lognormal distribution was calculated using the following equation (USEPA,
1992b):
UCL
= exp( x + sHI&?)
where:
UCL
exp
fz
;
n
=
=
=
=
=
=
upper confidence limit
constant (base of the natural log, equal to 2.718)
mean of the transformed data
standard deviation of the transformed data
H-statistic
number of samples
The following criteria were used to calculate media-specific average concentrations for each
parameter that was detected at least once:
0
For results reported as “non-detect” (e.g., ND, U, etc.), a value of one-half of the
sample-specific detection limit was used to calculate the mean. The use of one-half
the detection limit commonly is assigned to non-detects when averaging data for
risk assessmentpurposes, since the actual value could be between zero and a value
just below the detection limit.
0
Reported concentrations that were less than the detection limit were used to
calculate the mean. Typically, these values are qualified with a “J” meaning that
the value was estimated.
0
The organic analytical results qualified with a “B” were not retained in the data set.
The “B” qualifier means that the detected concentration was less than either five
times or ten times the blank concentration (i.e., the 5-10 rule), depending upon the
parameter. Common laboratory contaminants, such as phthalate esters, toluene,
6-16
methylene chloride, methyl ethyl ketone, and acetone, follow the five times rule,
while all other parameters follow the ten times rule (USEPA, 1989).
0
Reported concentrations qualified with “R” were excluded from the data set. The
data flag “R” means that the QA/QC data indicated that analytical results were not
usable for quantitative purposes.
The reduced data were summarized by medium and analytical parameter type (i.e., organics and
inorganics) for the site. For each parameter detected during the sampling programs, the frequency
of detection, maximum concentration, minimum concentration, average (arithmetic mean)
concentration, and both the normal and lognormal upper 95 percent level for the arithmetic average
were summarized. It should be noted that the number of times analyzed may differ per parameter
per media per area of concern. This is primarily due to data rejected due to QA/QC problems and
excluded from the data set. Consequently, these data are not reflected in the number of times
analyzed. Data and frequency summaries and statistical summaries are presented in Appendices H
and I, respectively.
6.3.4
Calculation
of Chronic
Daily Intakes
In order to numerically estimate the risks for current and future human receptors at Site 44, a CD1
must be estimated for each COPC in every retained exposure pathway. Appendix S contains the
specific CD1 equations for each exposure scenario of interest. These equations were obtained from
USEPA guidance (USEPA, 1989).
The following paragraphs present the general equations and input parameters used in the calculation
of CDIs for each potential exposure pathway. Input parameters were taken from USEPA’s default
exposure factors guidelines where available and applicable. All inputs not defined by USEPA were
derived from USEPA documents concerning exposure or from best professional judgment. All
exposure assessmentsincorporate the representative contaminant concentrations in the estimation
of intakes. Therefore, only one exposure scenario was developed for each exposure route/receptor
combiriation.
CDIs calculated for carcinogens incorporate terms to represent the exposure duration (years) over
the course of a lifetime (70 years, or 25,550 days). CDIs for noncarcinogens, on the other hand,
were estimated using the concept of an average annual exposure. The intake incorporates terms
describing the exposure time and/or frequency representing the number of hours per day and the
number of days per year that exposure occurs. In general, noncarcinogenic risks for many exposure
routes (e.g., soil ingestion) are greater for children than adults because of the differences in body
weights, similar exposure frequencies, and higher ingestion rates.
Future residential exposure scenarios consider 1 to 6 year old children weighing 15 kg and adults
weighing 70 kg on average (USEPA, 1989). For current military personnel, an exposure duration
of 4 years was used to estimate a military residence. A one-year duration was used for future
construction worker exposure scenarios.
6.3.4.1 mn
of Soil
The CDIs for COPCs detected in soil was estimated for all potential human receptors and was
expressed as:
6-17
CDI
=
C x IR x CF x Fi x EF x ED
BWxAT
Where:
c
IR
CF
Fi
EF
ED
BW
AT
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
Contaminant concentration in soil (mg/kg)
Ingestion rate (mg/day)
Conversion factor (lx 1O&kg/mg)
Fraction ingested from source (dimensionless)
Exposure frequency (days/year)
Exposure duration (years)
Body weight (kg)
Averaging time (days)
The following paragraphs discuss the exposure assumptions used in the estimation of exposure to
COPCs associated with the potential ingestion of soils.
During the course of daily activities at Site 44, military personnel could potentially be exposed to
COPCs by the incidental ingestion of surface soils. The IR for military personnel exposed to
surficial soils was assumedto be 100 mg/day (USEPA, 1989), and the fraction ingested was assumed
to be 100 percent. An exposure frequency (EF) of 250 days per year (USEPA, 1991) was used in
conjunction with an exposure duration of 4 years. An averaging time (AT) of 70 years or
25,550 days was used for exposure to potentially carcinogenic compounds while an averaging time
of 1,460 (4 years x 365 days/year) days was used for noncarcinogenic exposures. An adult average
body weight (BW) of 70 kg was used (USEPA, 1989).
Tresvassers
Current trespassers could potentially be exposed to COPCs in the surficial soils while outdoors.
Children and adults could potentially be exposed to COPCs in soils by incidental ingestion via hand
to mouth contact. Ingestion rates (IR) for adults and children in this scenario were assumed to be
100 mg/day and 200 mg/day, respectively (USEPA, 1991). EFs for the receptor groups were
assumed to be 130 days per year (child) and 43 days/year (adult) (USEPA, 1992). These values
represent exposure frequencies of individuals who spend a limited amount of time on-site. The
exposure duration (ED) was 6 years (child) and 30 years (adult) (USEPA, 1991). Averaging times
of 25,550 days for potential carcinogens and 10,950 days (30 years x 365 days/year) for
noncarcinogenic constituents were used for estimating potential CDIs for adults. An AT of
2,190 days (6 years x 365 days/year) was used to estimate potential CDIs for children potentially
exposed to noncarcinogens.
Future On-SiteResidents
Future on-site residents could potentially be exposed to COPCs in the surficial soils during
recreational or landscaping activities around their homes. Children and adults could potentially be
exposed to COPCs in soils by incidental ingestion via hand to mouth contact. Ingestion rates (IR)
for adults and children in this scenario were assumed to be 100 mg/day and 200 mg/day,
respectively. EFs for both receptor groups were assumed to be 350 days per year (USEPA, 1991).
6-18
The residential exposure duration (ED) was divided into two parts. First, a six-year exposure
duration was evaluated for young children which accounts for the period of highest soil ingestion
(200 mg/day), and second a 30-year exposure was assessedfor older children and adults by using
a lower soil ingestion rate (100 mg/day) (USEPA, 1991). The BW for a resident child was assumed
to be 15 kg, representing younger individuals. The rationale was that the younger child (1 to
6 years), as a resident, will have accessto affected on-site soils. The body weight for the future
resident adult is assumedto be 70 kg. Averaging times of 25,550 days for potential carcinogens and
10,950 days (30 years x 365 days/year) for noncarcinogenic constituents was used for estimating
potential CDIs for adults. An AT of 2,190 days (6 years x 365 days/year) was used to estimate
potential CDIs for children potentially exposed to noncarcinogens.
Constru&m
Worker
During excavation activities, construction workers may be exposed to COPCs through the incidental
ingestion of subsurface soil. The IR for future construction workers exposed to subsurface soils was
assumedto be 480 mg/day (USEPA, 1991). An exposure frequency of 90 days per year was used
in conjunction with an exposure duration of one year (USEPA, 1991). An adult BW of 70 kg was
used.
A summary of the exposure factors used in the estimation of soil CDIs associated with incidental
ingestion is presented in Table 6-8.
6.3.4.2 Dermal Contact with Soil
CDIs associatedwith potential dermal contact of soils containing COPCs were expressed using the
following equation:
CDI
=
C x CF x SA x AF x ABS x EF x ED
BWxAT
Where:
c
CF
SA
AF
ABS
=
=
=
=
=
EF
ED
BW
AT
=
=
=
=
Contaminant concentration in soil (mg/kg)
Conversion factor (kg/mg)
Skin surface available for contact (cm’)
Soil to skin adherence factor (1 .Omg/cm2)
Absorption factor (dimensionless) - 0.01 for organics, 0.001 inorganics
(USEPA, Region IV, 1992d)
Exposure frequency (days/year)
Exposure duration (years)
Body weight (kg)
Averaging time (days)
The following paragraphs discuss the exposure assumptions used in the estimation of exposure to
COPCs from dermal contact with soils.
6-19
Militarv Personnel
There is a potential for base personnel to absorb COPCs by dermal contact. The exposed skin
surface area (4,300 cm’) was limited to the head (1,180 cm’), arms (2,280 cm*), and hands (840 cm3
(USEPA, 1992). Values for exposure duration (ED), exposure frequency (EF), body weight (BW),
and averaging time (AT) were the same as those used for the incidental ingestion of soil scenario.
The values for AF and ABS were provided above and are in accordance with USEPA and Region IV
guidance.
Trespassers
Current trespasserscould be potentially exposed to COPCs in on-site soil through dermal contact
experienced during activities near their homes. Skin surface areas (SA) used in this exposure
scenario were developed for a reasonable worse case scenario for an individual wearing a shortsleeved shirt, shorts, and shoes. The exposed skin surface area was limited to the head, hands,
forearms, and lower legs. Thus, applying 25 percent of the average total body surface area results
in a default of 5,000 cm2 for adults. The exposed skin surface for a child (2,000 cm*) was estimated
using an average of the 50th (0.866 m*) percentile body surface for a six year old child multiplied
by 25 percent (USEPA, 1992). The mean is used due to the more limited exposure a trespasser
would have as compared to a resident. Exposure duration, exposure frequencies, body weights, and
averaging times were the same as those discussed for the incidental ingestion scenario presented
previously. The values for AF and ABS were provided above and are in accordance with USEPA
and Region IV guidance.
Future On-Site Residents
Future on-site residents could also be potentially exposed to COPCs in on-site soil through dermal
contact experienced during activities near their homes. It was assumed that residents would spend
more recreational time in contact with site media than trespassersand, consequently, would make
more skin surface area available for exposure. Thus, applying 25 percent of the total body surface
area results in a default of 5,800 cm2 for adults. The exposed skin surface for a child (2,300 cm*)
was estimated using an average of the 50th (0.866 m*) and the 95th (1.06 m*) percentile body surface
for a six year old child multiplied by 25 percent (USEPA, 1992). Exposure duration, exposure
frequencies, body weights, and averaging times were the same as those discussed for the incidental
ingestion scenario presented previously. The values for AF and ABS were provided above and are
in accordance with USEPA and Region IV guidance.
Construction Work
Dermal contact with subsurface soil COPCs could potentially occur during excavation activities.
Skin surface area (SA) used for the construction worker exposure scenario were developed for an
individual wear a short-sleeved shirt, long pants, and boots. The exposed skin surface area
(4,300 cm’) was limited to the head (1,180 cm*), arms (2,280 cm*), and hands (840 cm*) (USEPA,
1992). The exposure frequency and exposure duration are the same as those discussedfor incidental
ingestion of subsurface soil. The values for AF and ABS were provided above and are in accordance
with USEPA and Region IV guidance.
A summary of the soil exposure assessmentinput parameters for dermal contact is presented in
Table 6-8.
6-20
. .
6.3.4.3 Jnhalation of Fugitive Particulates
Exposure to fugitive particulates was estimated for future residents, base personnel, trespassers,and
construction workers. These populations may be exposed during daily recreational or work-related
activities. The CDIs of contaminants associated with the inhalation of particulates was estimated
using the following equation:
CDZ =
C x ZR x ET x EF x ED x IIPEF
BWxAT
Where:
c
IR
EF
ED
PEF
BW
AT
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
Contaminant concentration in soil (mg/kg)
Inhalation rate (m3/day)
Exposure frequency (days/year)
Exposure duration (years)
Particulate emission factor (1 .32x109 m3/kg)
Body weight (kg)
Averaging time (days)
The PEF relates the concentration in soil with the concentration of respirable particles in the air from
fugitive dust emission. This relationship is derived by Cowherd (1985). The particulate emissions
from contaminated sites are caused by wind erosion, and, therefore, depend on erodibility of the
surface material. The value of 1.32E+O9 m3/kg that is used was obtained from the final &il
Screening Jevel Gutdance to be published by the USEPA in 1996 (USEPA, 199%).
The following paragraphs discuss the exposure assumptions used in the estimation of exposure to
COPCs from the inhalation of particulates.
. .
&fditarv
Personnel
During work related activities, military personnel may inhale surface soil COPCs emitted as fugitive
dust. An inhalation rate 30 m3/day was used for military personnel (USEPA, 1991). Values for
exposure duration, exposure frequency, body weight, and averaging time were the same as those
used for the incidental ingestion scenario.
Trespassers may also inhale surface soil particulates. Inhalation rates (IR) used in this exposure
scenario were 20 m3/day (USEPA, 1989) and 15 m3/day (USEPA, 1995d) for adults and children,
respectively. Exposure frequencies, duration, body weights, and averaging time were the same as
those used for the incidental ingestion scenario. Table 6-8 presents the exposure factors used to
estimate CDIs associated with the particulate inhalation scenario.
re On&e
Resdu&
Future on-site residents may also inhale surface soil particulates. Inhalation rates (IR) used in
the on-site resident exposure scenario were 20 m3/day(USEPA, 1989) and 15 m3/day (USEPA,
1995d) for adults and children, respectively. Exposure frequencies, duration, body weights, and
averaging time were the same as those used for the incidental ingestion scenario. Table 6-8
,
6-21
f-.
presents the exposure factors used to estimate CDIs associated with the particulate inhalation
scenario.
Construction Worker
Construction workers could become exposed to subsurface soil particulates during excavation
activities. The inhalation rate (IR) used was 20 m3/day (USEPA, 1989). Exposure frequencies,
duration, body weight, and averaging time were the same as those used for the soil incidental
ingestion scenario. Table 6-8 presents the exposure factors used to estimate CDIs associated with
the particulate inhalation scenario.
6.3.4.4 InFestion of Groundwater
As stated previously, shallow groundwater is not currently being used as a potable supply at Site 44.
Development of the shallow aquifer for potable use is unlikely because of its general water quality
and poor flow rates. However, residential housing could be constructed in the future, and
groundwater may be used for potable purposes.
The CDIs of contaminants associated with the future potential consumption of groundwater was
estimated using the following general equation:
CDI =
C x IR x EF x ED
BWxAT
Where:
1
c
=
IR
EF
ED
BW
AT
=
=
=
=
=
Contaminant concentration is groundwater (mg/L)
Ingestion rate (L/day)
Exposure frequency (days/year)
Exposure duration (years)
Body weight (kg)
Averaging time (days)
The following paragraphs discuss the exposure assumptions used in the estimation of exposure to
COPCs from the ingestion of groundwater.
c-
Exposure to COPCs via ingestion of groundwater was retained as a potential future exposure
pathway for both children and adults. An IR of 1.0 L/day was used for the amount of water
consumed by a 1 to 6 year old child weighing 15 kg. This ingestion rate provides a conservative
exposure estimate (for systemic,noncarcinogenic toxicants) designed to protect young children who
may be more affected than adolescents, or adults. This value assumesthat children obtain all the
tap water they drink from the same source for 350 days/year (which represents the exposure
frequency [EF]). An averaging time (AT) of 2,190 days (6 years x 365 days/year) is used for
noncarcinogenic compound exposure. The ingestion rate (IR) for adults was 2 liters/day (USEPA,
1989a). The ED used for the estimation of adult CDIs was 30 years (USEPA, 1989), which
represents the national upper-bound (90th percentile) time at one residence. The averaging time for
An averaging time (AT) of 25,550 days
noncarcinogens was 10,950 days.
(70 years x 365 days/year) was used to evaluate exposure for both children and adults to potential
6-22
carcinogenic compounds. Table 6-8 presents a summary of the input parameters for the ingestion
of groundwater scenarios.
6.3.4.5 Dermal Contact with Groundwater
The CDIs associated with dermal contact with groundwater COPCs was estimated using the
following general equation:
CDZ =
C x SA x PC x ET x EF x ED x CF
BWxAT
Where:
c
SA
PC
ET
EF
ED
CF
BW
AT
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
Contaminant concentration is groundwater (mg/L)
Surface area available for contact (cm’)
Dermal permeability constant (cm/hr)
Exposure time (hour/day)
Exposure frequency (days/year)
Exposure duration (years)
Conversion factor (1 L/l000 cm3)
Body weight (kg)
Averaging time (days)
The following paragraphs discuss the exposure assumptions used in the estimation of exposure to
COP& from dermal contact with groundwater.
Future
&-site
Residents
Children and adults could contact COPCs through dermal contact with groundwater while bathing
or showering. It was assumedthat bathing would take place 350 days/year using site groundwater
as the sole source. The whole body skin surface area (SA) available for dermal absorption was
estimated to be 10,000 cm2for children and 23,000 cm2for adults (USEPA, 1992). The permeability
constant (PC) reflects the movement of a chemical across the skin and into the blood stream. The
permeability of a chemical is an important property in evaluating actual absorbed dose, yet many
compounds do not have literature PC values. For contaminants in which a PC value has not been
established, the permeability constant was calculated (see Appendix Q) . An exposure time (ET)
of 0.25 hour/day was used to conservatively estimate the duration of bathing or showering. The
exposure duration, body weight, and averaging time were the same as those used for the ingestion
of groundwater scenario. Table 6-8 presentsthe exposure factors used to estimate CDIs associated
with the future dermal contact with COPCs in groundwater.
6.3.4.6
Jnhalation
.
In order to quantitatively assessthe inhalation of contaminants volatilized from shower water, the
model developed by Foster and Chrostowski (1986) was utilized (see Appendix Q). Contaminant
concentrations in air were modeled by estimating the following: the rate of chemical releases into
air (generation rate), the buildup of VQCs in the shower room air while the shower was on, the
decay of VOCs in the shower room after the shower was turned off, and the quantity of airborne
VOCs inhaled while the shower was both on and off. The contaminant concentrations calculated
to be in the air were then used as the concentration term.
6-23
The CDIs associated with the inhalation of airborne (vapor phase) VOCs from groundwater while
showering were estimated using the following general equation:
CDI
=
C x IR x ET x EF x ED
BWxAT
Where:
Future
c
IR
ET
EF
ED
BW
AT,
AT,,,
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
&-site
Residents
Contaminant concentration in air (mg/m3)
Inhalation rate (m3/hr)
Exposure time (hr/day)
Exposure frequency (days/year)
Exposure duration (years)
Body weight (kg)
Averaging time carcinogen (days)
Averaging time noncarcinogen (days)
Both children and adults may inhale vaporized volatile organic COPCs while showering. It was
assumedthat showering would take place 350 days/year, using site groundwater as the sole source,
for children weighing 15 kg, and adults weighing 70 kg (USEPA, 1989). An inhalation rate of
0.6 m3/hr was used for both receptors (USEPA, 1989). An exposure time of 0.25 hrs/day was used
for both receptors (USEPA, 1989). The exposure duration and averaging times remained the same
as for groundwater ingestion. Table 6-8 presents the exposure factors used to estimate CDIs
associated with the inhalation of VOCs from groundwater while showering.
.
6.3.4.7 Incidental Innestron of Surface Water:
The CDIs for contaminants associated with incidental ingestion of surface water were expressed
using the following equation:
CDI
=
C x IR x ET x EF x ED
BWxAT
Where:
c
IR
ET
EF
ED
BW
AT
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
Contaminant concentration in surface water (mg/L)
Ingestion rate (L/day)
Exposure time (hours/day)
Exposure frequency (days/year)
Exposure duration (years)
Body weight (kg)
Averaging time (days)
The following paragraphs discuss the exposure assumptions used in the estimation of exposure to
COPCs from the incidental ingestion of surface water.
6-24
Current
Trespassers and Future Rem&.&
Adults and children who may potentially come into contact with the surface water were assumed to
conservatively ingest surface water at a rate of 0.005 L/hour (USEPA, 1989). In addition, an
exposure frequency (EF) of 45 days/year (9 days/month x 5 months), an ET of 2.6 hours/day and an
exposure duration (ED) of 6 years (age l-6) for a child, and 30 years for an adult were used
(USEPA, 1989).
A summary of the surface water exposure factors associated with incidental ingestion of surface
water is presented in Table 6-8.
6.3.4.8 Dermal Contact with Surface Water
The CDIs of contaminants associated with dermal contact of surface water were determined using
the following general equation:
CDI
=
C x CF x SA x PC x ET x EF x ED
BWxAT
Where:
C
CF
SA
PC
ET
EF
ED
BW
AT
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
Contaminant concentration in surface water (mg/L)
Conversion factor (0.00 1L/cm3)
Surface area available for contact (cm2)
Chemical-specific dermal permeability constant (cm/hr)
Exposure time (hour/day)
Exposure frequency (days/year)
Exposure duration (years)
Body weight (kg)
Averaging time (days)
The following paragraphs discuss the exposure assumptions used in the estimation of exposure to
COPCs from dermal contact with surface water.
ers and Future Residents
The SA values for adults and children who may potentially come into contact with the surface water
while wading were assumedto be 5,800 and 2,300 cm’, respectively, as previously described in the
soil exposure scenario. In the case of the adult and child trespasser, the exposed SA values were
assumed to be 5,000 cm2 and 2,000 cm2, respectively. In addition, an exposure frequency (EF) of
45 days/year (9 days/month x 5 months) and an exposure duration (ED) of 6 years (age l-6) for a
child, and 30 years for an adult were used (USEPA, 1989). It was conservatively assumed that 2.6
hours/day would be the exposure time for these receptors. The values for PC were chemicalspecific. For COPCs with no PC values available, the values were calculated (see Appendix Q).
The exposure factors for this potential exposure pathway are summarized in Table 6-8.
6-25
6.3.4.9 Incidental Inpestion of Sediment
The CDIs of COPCs associated with the incidental ingestion of sediment was expressed using the
following general equation:
CDI
=
C x CF x IR x EF x ED
BWxAT
Where:
c
CF
IR
EF
ED
BW
AT
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
Contaminant concentration in sediment (mg/kg)
Conversion factor ( 1x 10” kg/mg)
Ingestion rate of sediment (mg/day)
Exposure frequency (days/year)
Exposure duration (years)
Body weight (kg)
Averaging time (days)
The following paragraphs discuss the exposure assumptions used in the estimation of exposure to
COPCs from incidental ingestion of sediments.
Current
Tresvassers and&&we
Residents
Incidental ingestion of COPCs in sediments is also possible during activities occurring in the surface
water bodies at Site 44, specifically Strawhorn Creek and Edwards Creek. Ingestion rates (IR) of
200 mg/day and 100 mg/day, respectively, were used in calculating the chronic daily intake for
children and adults. The exposure frequency (EF) of 45 days/year (9 days/month x 5 months) was
used as a conservative site-specific assumption. An exposure duration (ED) of 6 years and 30 years
was used in the estimation of potential COPCs for a child and adult, respectively. A summary of
exposure factors for this scenario is presented in Table 6-8.
6.3.4.10 Dermal Contact with Qdiment
The CDIs of contaminants associatedwith the dermal contact of site sedimentswas expressedusing
the following general equation:
cDI
= C x CF x SA x AF x ABS x EF x ED
BWxAT
Where:
c
CF
SA
AF
ABS
=
=
=
=
=
EF
ED
=
=
Contaminant concentration in sediment (mg/kg)
Conversion factor (1~10~ kg/mg)
Surface area available for contact (cm*/day)
Adherence factor (1 .Omg/cm*)
Absorption factor (dimensionless) - 0.0 1 organics, 0.00 1 inorganics
(USEPA, Region IV, 1992d)
Exposure frequency (days/year)
Exposure duration (years)
6-26
BW
AT
=
=
Body weight (kg)
Averaging time (days)
The following paragraphs discuss the exposure assumptions used in the estimation of exposure to
COPCs from dermal contact with sediment.
Current
Tresvmers
and Future Residents
Future on-site residents and current trespasserscould also be potentially exposed to COPCs in
sediment via dermal contact while wading. As in the surface water exposure scenario, the total
body surface area was 5,800 cm’ for adult residents and 2,300 cm’ for child residents. Also, the SA
values for the adult and child trespassers were assumed to be 5,000 cm2 and 2,000 cm f
respectively. Exposure duration, exposure frequencies, body weights, and averaging times were the
same as those discussedfor the surface water exposure scenario presented previously. The values
for AF and ABS were provided with the equation and are in accordance with USEPA and Region IV
guidance. Table 6-8 provides a complete summary of the input parameters used in the estimation
of CDIs for this scenario.
6.4
Toxicity Assessment
The purpose of this section is to define the.toxicological values used to evaluate the exposure to the
COPCs identified in Section 6.2. A toxicological evaluation characterizes the inherent toxicity of
a compound. It consists of the review of scientific data to determine the nature and extent of the
potential human health and environmental effects associatedwith exposure to various contaminants.
Human data from occupational exposures are often insufficient for determining quantitative indices
of toxicity because of uncertainties in exposure estimates and inherent difftculties in determining
causal relationships established by epidemiological studies. For this reason, animal bioassays are
conducted under controlled conditions and their results are extrapolated to humans. There are
several stagesto this extrapolation. First, to account for species differences, conversion factors are
used to extrapolate from test animals to humans. Second, the relatively high doses administered to
test animals must be extrapolated to the lower dosesmore typical of human exposures. For potential
noncarcinogens, safety factors and modifying factors are applied to animal results when developing
acceptable human doses. For potential carcinogens, mathematical models are used to extrapolate
effects at high doses to effects at lower doses. Epidemiological data can be used for inferential
purposes to establish the credibility of the experimentally derived indices.
The available toxicological information indicates that many of the COPCs have both potential
carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic health effects in humans and/or experimental animals. Although
the COPCs may cause adverse health and environmental impacts, dose-response relationships and
the potential for exposure must be evaluated before the risk to receptors can be determined.
Dose-response relationships correlate the magnitude of the dose with the probability of toxic effects,
as discussed in the following section.
An important component of the risk assessmentis the relationship between the dose of a compound
(amountto which an individual or population is potentially exposed) and the potential for adverse
health effects resulting from the exposure to that dose. Dose-responserelationships provide a means
by which potential public health impacts may be evaluated. The published information on doses and
6-27
responses is used in conjunction with information on the nature and magnitude of exposure to
develop an estimate of risk.
Standard carcinogenic slope factors (CSFs) and/or reference doses (RtDs) have been developed for
many of the COPCs. This section provides a brief description of these parameters.
6.4.1
Carcinogenic
Slope Factor
CSFs are used to estimate an upper-bound lifetime probability of an individual developing cancer
as a result of exposure to a particular level of a potential carcinogen (USEPA, 1989). This factor
is generally reported in units of (mg/kg/day)-’ and is derived through an assumed low-dosage linear
multistage model and an extrapolation from high to low dose-responses determined from animal
studies. The value used in reporting the slope factor is the upper 95th percent confidence limit.
These slope factors are also accompanied by USEPA weight-of-evidence (WOE) classifications,
which designate the strength of the evidence that the COPC is a potential human carcinogen.
In assessingthe carcinogenic potential of a chemical, the Human Health AssessmentGroup (HI-LAG)
of USEPA classifies the chemical into one of the following groups, according to the weight of
evidence from epidemiologic and animal studies:
Group
Group
A B -
Human Carcinogen (sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in humans)
Probable Human Carcinogen (B 1 - limited evidence of carcinogenicity in
humans; B2 - sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in animals with
inadequate or lack of evidence in humans)
Group C - Possible Human Carcinogen (limited evidence of carcinogenicity in animals
and inadequate or lack of human data)
GroupD
- Not Classifiable as to Human Carcinogenicity
(inadequate or no evidence)
of Noncarcinogenicity
for Humans
(no evidence of
GroupE
- Evidence
carcinogenicity in adequate studies)
6.4.2
Reference
Dose
The RfD is developed for chronic and/or subchronic human exposure to chemicals and is based
solely on the noncarcinogenic effects of chemical substances. It is defined as an estimate of a daily
exposure level for the human population, including sensitive populations, that is not likely to cause
an appreciable risk of adverse effects during a lifetime. The RfD is usually expressed as dose (mg)
per unit body weight (kg) per unit time (day). It is generally derived by dividing a
no-observed-(adverse)-effect-level (NOAEL or NOEL) or a lowest observed-adverse-effect-level
(LOAEL) for the critical toxic effect by an appropriate uncertainty factor (UF). Effect levels are
determined from laboratory or epidemiological studies. The UF is based on the availability of
toxicity data.
UFs usually consist of multiples of 10, where each factor represents a specific area of uncertainty
naturally present in the extrapolation process. These UFs are presented below and were taken from
the Q,& Assessment Guidance Dowent for Superfund. Volume
Health Evalu&m
-1
(Part A) (USEPA, 1989):
6-28
0
A UF of 10 is to account for variation in the general population and is intended to
protect sensitive populations (e.g., elderly, children).
0
A UF of 10 is used when extrapolating from animals to humans. This factor is
intended to account for the interspecies variability between humans and other
mammals.
0
A UF of 10 is used when a NOAEL derived from a subchronic instead of a chronic
study is used as the basis for a chronic RfD.
0
A UF of 10 is used when a LOAEL is used instead of a NOAEL. This factor is
intended to account for the uncertainty associatedwith extrapolating from LOAELs
to NOAELs.
In addition to UFs, a modifying factor (MF) is applied to each relference dose and is defined as:
0
A MF ranging from >O to 10 is included to reflect a qualitative professional
assessmentof additional uncertainties in the critical study and in the entire data
base for the chemical not explicitly addressedby the preceding uncertainty factors.
The default for the MF is 1.
Thus, the RfD incorporates the uncertainty of the evidence for chronic human health effects. Even
if applicable human data exist, the RID still maintains a margin of safety so that chronic human
health effects are not underestimated.
Toxicity factors and the USEPA WOE classifications are presented in Table 6-10. The hierarchy
(USEPA, 1989) for choosing these values was as follows:
0
l
Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS, 1995)
Health Effects Assessment Summary Table (HEAST, 1995)
The IRIS data base is updated monthly and contains both verified CSFs and RfDs. The USEPA has
formed the Carcinogen Risk AssessmentVerification Endeavor (CRAVE) Workgroup to review and
validate toxicity values used in developing CSFs. Once the slope factors have been verified via
extensive peer review, they appear in the IRIS data base. Like the CSF Workgroup, the USEPA has
formed a RfD Workgroup to review existing data used to derive RIDS. Once the reference doses has
been verified, they also appear in IRIS.
HEAST on the other hand, provides both interim (unverified) and verified CSFs and RFDs. This
document is published quarterly and incorporates any applicable changes to its data base.
Toxicity values will be obtained primarily from the Region III Risk-Based Concentration Table,
which is based on IRIS, I-IEAST and provisional and/or recommended USEPA toxicity values, in
accordance with Region IV recommendations.
For some chemicals, there are no USEPA-verified toxicity values (i.e., RfDs and CSFs) available
for risk quantitation. This is the case for lead. The following section provides a discussion of how
lead health effects were quantified for this assessment.
6-29
For other chemicals, the toxicity values of similarly structured compounds were substituted. For this
site, the chemical substitutes were as follows: naphthalene for 2-methylnaphthalene, pyrene for
benzo(g,h,i)perylene and phenanthrene, and chlordane for alpha-chlordane and gamma-chlordane.
In addition, there are some chemicals with different toxicity values associated with the medium in
which they are detected. For example, the oral RfD for cadmium differs when found in food or
water. Consequently, the oral RfD associatedwith food was applied for assessingsoil exposure, and
the oral RfD associated with water was used accordingly.
6.4.3
Lead
Lead was identified as a COPC in the surface water and sediment at Site 44. Currently, health-based
criteria are not available for evaluating either the noncarcinogenic or carcinogenic effects of lead
exposure. The USEPA has not developed health-based criteria because a threshold level for many
noncancer health effects has not been identified in infants and younger children (i.e., the most
sensitive populations). Consequently, risk from lead in surface water and sediment was not
calculated for the site.
6.4.4
Dermal
Adjustment
of Toxicity
Factors
Because there are few toxicity reference values for dermal exposure, oral values are frequently used
to assessrisk from dermal exposure. Most RtDs and some slope factors are expressedas the amount
of substance administered per unit time and unit body weight, while exposure estimates for the
derrnal route are expressed as absorbed dose. Consequently, it may be necessaryto adjust an oral
toxicity value from an administered dose to an absorbed dose.
Region IV provides absorption efficiency values for each class of chemicals. They are as follows:
vocs
svocs
Inorganics
Pesticides/PCBs
=
=
=
=
0.80
0.50
0.20
0.50
An adjusted oral RfD is the product of the absorption efficiency and the oral toxicity reference value.
The adjusted oral CSF is the ratio of the oral toxicity value and the absorption efficiency.
Table 7-l 1 presents of summary of the dermally-adjusted toxicity values used in this BRA.
6.5
Risk Characterization
This section presents and discusses the estimated incremental lifetime cancer risks (ICRs) and
hazard indices (HIS) for identified potential receptor groups which could be exposed to COPCs via
the exposure pathways presented in Section 6.3.
These quantitative risk calculations for potentially carcinogenic compounds estimate ICRs levels
for an individual in a specified population. This unit risk refers to the cancer risk that is over and
above the background cancer risk in unexposed Individuals. For example, an ICR of 1x10” indicates
that, for a lifetime exposure, one additional case of cancer may occur per one million exposed
individuals.
6-30
The ICR to individuals was estimated from the following relationship:
ICR
= k
CDIi
x CSF,
i=l
where CDIi is the chronic daily intake (mg/kg/day) for compound i and CSFi is the cancer slope in
(mg/kg/day)-1 for contaminant i. The CSF is defined in most instances as an upper 95th percentile
confidence limit of the probability of a carcinogenic response based on experimental animal data,
and the CD1 is defined as the exposure expressedas a mass of a substance contracted per unit body
weight per unit time, averaged over a period of time (i.e., six years to a lifetime). The above
equation was derived assuming that cancer is a non-threshold process and that the potential excess
risk level is proportional to the cumulative intake over a lifetime.
In contrast to the above approach for potentially carcinogenic effects, quantitative risk calculations
for noncarcinogenic compounds assumethat a threshold toxicological effect exists. Therefore, the
potential for noncarcinogenic effects is calculated by comparing CDIs with threshold levels
(reference doses).
Noncarcinogenic effects were estimated by calculating the hazard index (HI) which is defined as:
HI = HQ, + HQ, + ...HQ. or
HI=
k
HQi
i=l
where HQi = CDI, / RfDi
HQi is the hazard quotient for contaminant i, CD& is the chronic daily intake (mg/kg/day) of
contaminant i, and Rfl>i is the reference dose (mg/kg/day) of the contaminant i over a prolonged
period of exposure.
6.51
Human Health Risks
The following paragraphs present the quantitative results of the human health evaluation for each
medium and area of concern at Site 44.
Estimated ICRs were compared to the target risk range of 1x10” to 1~10~. A value of 1.0 was used
for examination of the HI. The HI was calculated by comparing estimated CDIs with threshold
levels below which, noncarcinogenic health effects are not expected to occur. Any HI equal to or
exceeding 1.Osuggestedthat noncarcinogenic health effects were possible. If the HI was less than
1.O,then systemic human health effects were considered unlikely. Tables 6- 12 through 6- 17 present
these risk results.
..
6.5.1.1 Current Wtary
Personnei
The current military receptor was evaluated for potential noncarcinogenic and carcinogenic risk
from exposure to the surface soil. The noncarcinogenic (i.e., HI=O.OS) and carcinogenic risks
6-3 1
(i.e., ICR=3.5xlc7) fell below the acceptable risk levels (i.e., HI<1 and lxl0”<ICR<lxl0~).
results are presented in Table 6- 12.
These
6.5.1.2 Current Trespasser Child
In the current scenario, a recreational child receptor was evaluated for potential risk from exposure
to site surface soils and surface water and sediment from Edwards Creek and the unnamed tributary.
The potential noncarcinogenic and carcinogenic risks from exposure to the surface soil (i.e., HI=O. 18
and ICR=l.2x10d), the surface water (i.e., I-WO.02 and ICR=l.9 x IV), and sediment (i.e., HI=O.O5
and ICR=7.7xlO-‘) were within acceptable risk levels (i.e., HI<1 and lx10-6<ICR<lx10~). These
results are presented in Table 6-13.
6.5.1.3 Future Residential Child
The child receptor was evaluated for potential risk from exposure to surface soil and groundwater
in the future scenario. It was assumed that current exposure to surface water and sediment also
would occur in the future case.
The potential noncarcinogenic and carcinogenic risks from exposure to the surface soil
(i.e., HI=O.95 and ICR=6.0x106), the surface water (i.e., HGO.02 and ICR=2.lxlO”) and
sediment (i.e., HI=O.O5 and ICR=7.8xlO-‘) were within acceptable risk levels (i.e., HI<1 and
lx10”<ICR<lx10-4). The results are summarized in Table 6-14.
In groundwater, there is a potential noncarcinogenic risk from ingestion for the child receptor. The
total noncarcinogenic risk level of 17 was due primarily to groundwater ingestion (HQ=l6). This
value exceeded the acceptable risk level of one for noncarcinogenic risks. Primarily, iron in
groundwater contributed to this risk.
The total carcinogenic risk of 1.0~10~ exceeds USEPA’s generally acceptable carcinogenic risk
range. This risk level was due primarily to the presenceof vinyl chloride in groundwater. It should
be noted that no individual exposure pathway (i.e., ingestion, dermal contact, or inhalation) produced
a carcinogenic risk exceeding USEPA’s acceptable risk range. The risk results are presented in
Table 6-14.
6.5.1.4 Current Trespasser Adult
In the current scenario, an adult trespasser was evaluated for potential risk from exposure to site
surface soils (i.e., HI=O.Ol and ICR=2.8xlO-‘) and surface water (i.e., HI=O.Ol and ICR=4.4 x lo”),
and sediment (i.e., HI=O.Ol and ICR=6.OxlO=l). The potential noncarcinogenic and carcinogenic
risks from exposure to these media were within acceptable risk levels (i.e., HI<1 and
lxlO~6<ICR<lxlO~). These results are provided in Table 6-15.
6.5.1.5 Future Resident&LA&&
The adult receptor was evaluated for potential risk from exposure to surface soil and groundwater
in the future scenario. Similar to the child receptor, it was assumed that current exposure to the
surface water and sediment also would occur in the future case.
6-32
In surface soil (i.e., HI=O.l2 and ICR=3.9x104), surface water (i.e., HI=O.Ol and ICR=5.0x104), and
sediment (i.e., HI=O.Ol and ICR=6.5xlO-‘), the potential noncarcinogenic and carcinogenic risks
from exposure to these media were within acceptable levels (i.e., HI<1 and lxlO”<ICR~1xl0~).
Table 6- 16 summarizes these results.
In groundwater, there is a potential noncarcinogenic risk from ingestion for the adult receptor. The
total noncarcinogenic risk level of 7.0 was due primarily to groundwater ingestion. This value
exceeded the acceptable risk level of one for noncarcinogenic risks. Iron in groundwater contributed
to this risk.
The total carcinogenic risk of 2.0~10~ exceeds USEPA’s generally acceptable carcinogenic risk
range. This risk level was due primarily to the presence of vinyl chloride in groundwater. It should
be noted that approximately 86% of the risk comes from the groundwater ingestion exposure
pathway (HQ=l.8xl 04). The risk results are presented in Table 6- 16.
6.5.1.6 Construction Worker
The construction worker was evaluated for potential noncarcinogenic and carcinogenic risk from
exposure to subsurface soil in the future case. The carcinogenic risk (i.e. HI=O.O7 and
ICR=6.6~10-~) from exposure to the subsurface soil fell within the acceptable risk range of
lx10~~ICR4x104. Table 6-17 presents these results.
6.6
Sources of Uncertain*
Uncertainties may be encountered throughout the BRA process. This section discussesthe sources
of uncertainty involved with the following:
0
0
0
0
Analytical data
Exposure Assessment
Toxicity Assessment
Compounds Not Qualitatively Evaluated
In addition, the USEPA stresses the importance of recognizing the unique characteristics and
circumstances of each facility and the need to formulate site-specific responses. However, many
of the assumptions presented in this document were derived from USEPA guidance, which is
designed to provide a conservative approach and cover a broad variety of cases. As such, the generic
application of such assumptions to a site in the RMB case scenario may work against the objective
of formulating a site-specific response to a constituent presence (i.e., it is possible that the site risks
may be overestimated).
The following sections provide a discussion of the sources of uncertainty associated with this BRA
and the effects on total site risk.
6.6.1
Analytical
Data
The development of a BRA depends on the reliability of and uncertainties with the analytical data
available to the risk assessor. Analytical data are limited by the precision and accuracy of the
analytical method of analysis. In addition, the statistical methods used to compile and analyze the
6-33
data (mean concentration, standard deviation, and detection frequencies) are subject to the
uncertainty in the ability to acquire data.
Data validation serves to reduce some of the inherent uncertainty associatedwith the analytical data
by establishing the usability of the data to the risk assessorwho may or may not choose to include
the data point in the estimation of risk. Data qualified as “J” (estimated) were retained for the
estimation of risk at OU No. 6. Data can be qualified as estimated for many reasons including a
slight exceedance of holding times, high or low surrogate recovery, or intra sample variability.
Organic data qualified “B” (detected in blank) or “R” (unreliable) were not used in the estimation
of risk due to the unusable nature of the data. Due to the comprehensive sampling and analytical
program at OU No. 6, the loss of some data points qualified “B” or “R” did not significantly increase
the uncertainty in the estimation of risk.
6.6.2
Exposure
Assessment
In performing exposure assessments,uncertainties can arise from two main sources. First, the
chemical concentration to which a receptor may be exposed must be estimated for every medium
of interest. Second, uncertainties can arise in the estimation of contaminant intakes resulting from
contact by a receptor with a particular medium.
Estimating the contaminant concentration in a given medium to which a human receptor could
potentially be exposed can be as simple as deriving the 95th percent upper confidence limit of the
mean for a data set. More complex methods of deriving the contaminant concentration are necessary
when exposure to COPCs in a given medium occurs subsequent to release from another medium,
or when analytical data are not available to characterizethe release. In this case,modeling is usually
employed to estimate the potential human exposure.
The potential inhalation of fugitive dusts from affected soils was estimated in the BRA using
USEPA’s Rapid Assessmentof Exposure to Particulate Em’-fro .
(Cowherd et al. 1985). The Cowherd mode1employs thduse of a dmefaultPEF for wind erosion
based on source area and vegetative cover. A conservative estimate of the PEF was used for Site 44
by assuming 0.5 acre source area with 50% erosion potential (USEPA, 1995c). Modeling results
for fugitive dust emission exposure suggested that the potential risk associated with this pathway
was not significant.
Groundwater samples were analyzed for total (unfiltered) and dissolved (filtered) inorganic
contaminants. These samples were obtained from wells which were constructed using USEPA
Region IV monitoring well design specifications. Groundwater taken from monitoring wells cannot
be considered representative of potable groundwater or groundwater which is obtained from a
domestic well “at the tap”. The use of total inorganic analytical results overestimates the potential
human health risks associated with potable use scenarios. However, for the sake of conservatism,
total organic results were used to estimate the potential intake associated with groundwater use.
Currently, the shallow groundwater is not used as a potable source. Current receptors (military
personnel, military dependents, and civilian base personnel) are exposed via ingestion, dermal
contact, and inhalation to groundwater drawn from the deep zone. Therefore, assessingcurrent risks
to contaminants detected in the shallow aquifer for current receptors is unnecessary and, if
estimated, may present an unlikely risk. Therefore, groundwater exposure to current receptors was
not estimated for this investigation.
6-34
As stated previously, both the shallow and deep groundwater analytical results were combined and
evaluated as single data set for the risk evaluation. It is important to note that the shallow
groundwater is not currently used for potable purposes at the site. In addition, it is highly unlikely
that this groundwater will be used similarly in the future. However, becauseit was determined (see
Section 2.0 of this report) that the shallow and deep groundwater systems are interconnected, the
data were combined and evaluated as a single set for the risk assessment.Use of this combined data
set lends a certain degree of uncertainty to the risks calculated for groundwater exposure.
To estimate an intake, certain assumptionsmust be made about exposure events, exposure durations,
and the corresponding assimilation of contaminants by the receptor. Exposure factors, have been
generated by the scientific community and have undergone review by the USEPA. Regardless of
the validity of these exposure factors, they have been derived from a range of values generated by
studies of limited number of individuals. In all instances, values used in the risk assessment,
scientific judgments, and conservative assumptions agree with those of the USEPA. Conservative
assumptions designed not to underestimate daily intakes were employed throughout the BRA and
should error conservatively, thus adequately protecting human health and allowing the establishment
of reasonable clean-up goals.
6.6.3
Sampling
Strategy
Soil represents a medium of direct contact exposure and often is the main source of contaminants
released into other media. The soil sampling depth should be applicable for the exposure pathways
and contaminant transport routes of concern and should be chosen purposely within that depth
interval. If a depth interval is chosen purposely, a random sample procedure to select a sampling
point may be established. The assessmentof surface exposure at the site is certain based on
collection of samples from the shallowest depth, zero to one foot. Subsurface soil samples are
important, however, if soil disturbance is likely or leaching of chemicals to groundwater is of
concern.
In the future exposure scenarios, subsurface soil exposure was evaluated. It was assumed that the
subsurface soil would be excavated and used as surface grading, landscaping, etc., in the foreseeable
future. It is important to note that many of these subsurface soil samples were collected at depths
ranging from 1 foot to possibly up to 90 feet, depending on the depth of the well from which the soil
boring was collected. It is may be unrealistic to assumethat excavation could occur at such depths.
It follows that exposure to contaminants in soil at these depths would be unlikely for future
receptors. However, for the BRA, the subsurface soil analytical results were not segregated by
depth, but were evaluated as a single data set. Consequently, levels found at all depths were
evaluated for potential risk to human health. The use of the entire subsurface soil data set may add
to the conservative nature of the approach used to assessrisk for this site.
The surface soil samples at all siteswere obtained directly or very near the suspecteddisposal areas.
Therefore, these areas would be considered areas of very high concentration which would have a
significant impact on exposures.
6.6.4
-
Toxicity
Assessment
In making quantitative estimates of the toxicity of varying dosesof a compound to human receptors,
uncertainties arise from two sources. First, data on human exposure and the subsequent effects are
usually insufficient, if they are available at all. Human exposure data usually lack adequate
6-35
-
concentration estimations and suffer from inherent temporal variability. Therefore, animal studies
are often used; and, therefore, new uncertainties arise from the process of extrapolating animal
results to humans. Second, to obtain observable effects with a manageable number of experimental
animals, high doses of a compound are used over a relatively short time period. In this situation, a
high dose means that experimental animal exposures are much greater than human environmental
exposures. Therefore, when applying the results of the animal experiment to humans, the effects
at the high doses must be extrapolated to approximate effects at lower doses.
In extrapolating effects from animals to humans and high doses to low doses, scientific judgment
and conservative assumptions are employed. In selecting animal studies for use in dose-response
calculations, the following factors are considered:
0
Studies are preferred where the animal closely mimics human pharmacokinetics
l
Studies are preferred where dose intake most closely mimics the intake route and
duration for humans
l
Studies are preferred which demonstrate the most sensitive response to the
compound in question
For compounds believed to cause threshold effects (i.e., noncarcinogens), safety factors are
employed in the extrapolation of effects from animals to humans and from high to low doses.
Conservatism is also introduced through the use of experimentally-derived oral absorption
efficiencies to adjust oral toxicity criteria (i.e., CSFs and RtDs), derived during studies based on
administered dosages,for the estimation of dermal absorption. Equating the absorption efficiency
of the bi-phasic dermal barrier to that of the mono-phasic gastrointestinal lining and then applying
it to oral toxicity criteria in a dermal risk assessmentscenario tends to generally overestimate the
potential risk to human health by no more than an order of magnitude.
The use of conservative assumptions results in quantitative indices of toxicity that are not expected
to underestimate potential toxic effects, but may overestimate these effects by an order of magnitude
or more.
6.7
Conclusions of the BV
.
The BRA highlights the media of interest from the human health standpoint at Site 44 by identifying
areas with risk values greater than acceptable levels. Current and future potential receptors at the site
included current military personnel, current trespassers(i.e., children and adults), future residents
(i.e., children and adults),and future construction workers. The total risk from the site for these
receptors was estimated by logically summing the multiple pathways likely to affect the receptor
during a given activity. Exposure to surface soil, surface water and sediment was assessedfor the
current receptors. Surface soil, groundwater, surface water, and sediment exposure were evaluated
for the future residents. Subsurface soil exposure was evaluated for the f?.ttureconstruction worker.
6-36
6.7.1
Current
Scenario
In the current case, the following receptors were assessed: military personnel and adult and child
trespassers. Receptor exposure to surface soil, surface water, and sediment at Site 44 was examined.
The risks calculated for all exposure pathways and receptors were within acceptable risk ranges.
6.7.2
Future
Scenario
In the future case, child and adult residents were assessedfor potential exposure to groundwater,
surface soil, surface water, and sediment. A construction worker was evaluated for subsurface soil
exposure. The potential noncarcinogenic and carcinogenic risks for the construction worker at Site
44 were within acceptable levels. The carcinogenic risk for the future child resident was 1.OxlOa.
The carcinogenic risk for the future adult resident was 2.0x1 0A. Both ICR values are driven by the
presence of vinyl chloride in groundwater. Table 6- 12 and Table 6- 14 present these values.
It should be noted that vinyl chloride was detected in one of nine samples from well location
44-TWOl-01. This well is located approximately 50 feet from the Edwards Creek. Due to the
location of the well, the presenceof vinyl chloride appears to be related to creek contaminants rather
than migration of groundwater contaminants. In addition, VOCs were not detected in surface soil,
subsurface soil, and other groundwater samples at Site 44 (see Section 5.0 for further discussion).
The noncarcinogenic risk from groundwater ingestion for the fiture child resident was 16. The
noncarcinogenic risk from groundwater ingestion for the future adult resident was 7.1. This value
exceeds the acceptable risk value of one. The iron detected in the groundwater is driving this risk.
Table 6- 14 and Table 6- 16 present these values.
Iron constitutes 98% of both elevated risk values. Without iron as a COPC, the noncarcinogenic risk
values for future residential adults and children would be 0.15 and 0.35, respectively. The studies
that prompted the addition of a RBC value for iron are provisional only and have not undergone
formal review by the USEPA. Also, iron is considered an essential nutrient.
Finally, it should be noted that groundwater in the MCB Camp Lejeune area is naturally rich in iron.
In addition, there is no record of any historical use of iron at Site 44. Consequently, it is assumed
that iron is a naturally occurring inorganic analyte in groundwater, and its presence is not
attributable to site operations. Tables 6- 14 and Table 6- 16 present these values.
6.8
References
. .
Cowherd, 1985. Cowherd, C., et al. Rapid Assessmentofsure
to Particul,&e Errusslons from
* * . Prepared for EPA Office of Health and Environmental Assessment.
Surface Contamlnatlon
EPA/600/8-851002.
Foster, 1986. Foster, S.A. and P.C. Chrostowaski. “Integrated Household Exposure Model for Use
of Tap Water Contaminated with Volatile Organic Chemicals.” Presented at the 79th Annual
Meeting of the Air Pollution Control Association, Minneapolis, Minnesota. June 22-27, 1986.
USEPA, 1989. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. &k AssessGuidance for Superfund
. .
Office of Solid Waste and
Healthon
wart
A) Interim.
Emergency Response. Washington, D.C. EPA/540/i-89-002. December 1989.
6-37
USEPA, 1989a. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Exposure Factors Handbook. July 1989.
USEPA, 1990. U.S. Protection Agency. National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contitmencv Plan. 55FR8665. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. Washington, D.C.
March 1990.
USEPA, 1991. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Risk AssessmentGuidance for Sunerfund
11.
Manual Supplemental Guidance. “Standard Default Exposure
Factors” Interim Final. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. Washington, D.C.
OSWER Directive 9285.6-03. March 25, 1991.
USEPA, 199la. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. June 1991. National Functiod
Guidelines for Organic Data Review. Draft. USEPA Contract Laboratory Program.
USEPA, 1992. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Dermal Exposure Assessment: Princinles
and Applications. Interim Report. Office of Health and Environmental Assessment. Washington,
D.C. EPA/600/8-9l/OllB. January 1992.
USEPA, 1992a. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. New Interim Repion IV Guidance for
Toxicitv Eauivalencv Factor fTEF) Methodology. Region IV Water Management Division.
USEPA, 1992b. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Supplemental Guidance to RAGS:
Calculating the Concentration Term. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. Washington,
D.C., Publication 9285.7-081. May 1992.
USEPA, 1992c. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Region IV Waste Management Division
Screening Values for Hazardous Waste Sites. Region IV, Atlanta Georgia. January 1992.
USEPA, 1992d. USEPA Region IV Supplemental Risk Guidance. February 11, 1992.
USEPA, 1993. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. I&&m IV Waste Manament Division
Screenin? Values for Hazardous Waste Sites. Region IV, Atlanta, Georgia. January 1993.
USEPA. 1995. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Health Effects Assessment Summary
Table&ual
FY-1995. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. Washington, D.C.
EPA/540/R-95/036 PB95-921199. May 1995.
USEPA, 1995a. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Integrated Risk Information System
(IRIS). Environmental Criteria and AssessmentOffice, Cincinnati, Ohio.
USEPA, 1995b. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. hion
u.
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. October, 1995.
III Risk-Based Concentration
USEPA, 1995c. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Phone conversation with Janine Dinan.
Washington, D.C. November 17,1995.
USEPA, 1995d. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. &&on IV Supplemental Guidance to
GS. m
Health Risk AssessmentBulletin No. 3. Region IV, Atlanta, Georgia. November,
1995.
6-38
Water and Air Research, Inc. (WAR). 1983. initial AssessmentStudy of Marine Corps Base Carnlz
I .eieune. North Carolina. Prepared for Naval Energy and Environmental Support Activity.
-
6-39
SECTION 6.0 TABLES
TABLE 6-l
CONTAMINANTS
OF POTENTIAL
CONCERN
ORGANICS IN SURFACE SOIL
SITE 44-JONES STREET DUMP
REMEDIAL
INVESTIGATION,
CTO-0303
MCB, CAMP LEJEUNE, NORTH CAROLINA
Screening
Value
Exceedance
Frequency
Maximum Detected
Acetone
Pesticides:
4/Y-DDE
4,4’-DDD
4,4’-DDT
I
IOJ
7.4J
4.6J
I
140
7.4J
455
I
155.08
2.93
I
22.97
COPCs are indicated by the shaded areas.
(I) USEPA Region III COC screeningvalue for pyrene used as a surrogate.
44-OA-SB05-00
44-OA-SB03-00
44-OA-SB03-00
I
4113
1113
4113
8%
580
8%
8%
8%
15%
7,800
46,000
880
230,000
TABLE 6-2
CONTAMINANTS
OF POTENTIAL
CONCERN
INORGANICS
IN SURFACE SOIL
SITE 44-JONES STREET DUMP
REMEDIAL
INVESTIGATION,
CTO-0303
MCB, CAMP LEJEUNE, NORTH CAROLINA
Parameter
Barium
Calcium
Chromium
8.3
111
4.2
I
Magnesium
Manganese
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Sodium
Vanadium
zinc
Maximum
Value
&VW
Minimum
Value
6-&k)
I
I
I
95% UCL of
Lognormal
Distribution
16.98
411.42
17.38
1.83
302.03
0.39
53.03
24.30
33.14
44-OA-SB03-00
44-OA-SBO I-00
44-OA-SB03-00
44-OA-SB03-00
44-OA-SBO l-00
44-GW05-00
44-WA-SB04-00
44-GW04-00
44-OA-SB03-00
(NW
Frequency
of Detection
13/13
Frequency
Percentage
w
100%
2X Base
Background
bdk3)
5,940.59
1l/13
13/13
13113
10/13
12113
5113
9113
13113
13/13
85%
100%
100%
77%
92%
38%
69%
100%
100%
23.75
205.75
18.50
3.43
199.61
0.75
59.30
11.63
13.88
400
-l,lOO(‘)
160
-39
__
55
2,300
Screening
Value
Exceedance
Frequency
7113
o/13
NA
O/I3
o/13
NA
o/13
NA
o/13
o/13
26.2
5,SOOJ
16.4
I
115
4.9
0.97
109
0.3 1J
16.6
7
2.7
11,112.40
Location of
Maximum
Detected Value
44-GW05-00
Region III
Residential
Soil
Screening
Value
~wk)
7,800
I
I
I
546
44.2
2.8
339
0.72
57.1
28.6
156
Notes:
COP0 are indicated by the shaded areas.
(I) Screening value based on a RfD of 0.14 mg/kg!day.
1
I
5
TABLE
6-3
CONTAMINANTS
OF POTENTIAL
CONCERN
ORGANICS IN SUBSURFACE SOIL
SITE 44-JONES STREET DUMP
REMEDIAL
INVESTIGATION,
CTO-0303
MCB, CAMP LEJEUNE, NORTH CAROLINA
Region III
Residential
Soil
Screening
Value
kvk)
Screening
Value
Exceedance
Frequency
Maximum
Value
h%kT)
95%UCL of
Lognormal
Distribution
ww
61
hl
41.53
44-OA-SBOI-04
l/12
8%
780,000
o/12
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
83J
83J
214.93
44-OA-SB02-03
l/13
8%
46,000
o/13
Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene
55J
130J
227.91
44-OA-SB05-02
2113
15%
880
o/13
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene”)
40J
120J
247.64
44-OA-SB05-02
3113
23%
230,000
o/13
3.21
370J
46.15
44-GWOlDW-03
4113
31%
1,900
o/13
2,500
1183.84
44-GWOIDW-03
4113
31%
2,700
o/13
15OJ
17.75
44-GWOIDW-03
1113
8%
1,900
o/13
Contaminant
Minimum
Value
hick)
Locationof
Frequency
Maximum Detected Frequency Percentage
Value
af Detection
(%)
Volatiles:
Acetone
Semivolatiles:
Pesticides:
4.4’-DDE
Notes:
COPCs are indicated by the shaded areas.
(I) USEPARegionIII COCscreeningvaluefor pyreneusedasa surrogate.
TABLE 6-4
CONTAMINANTS
OF POTENTIAL
CONCERN
IINORGANICS
IN SUBSURFACE SOIL
SITE 44-JONES STREET DUMP
REMEDIAL
INVESTIGATION,
CTO-0303
MCB, CAMP LEJEUNE, NORTH CAROLINA
I
I
Minimum
Maximum
Value
Value
Parameter
[email protected]
OWW
>~~~~~~~~~
:,:,.....
...‘...‘..$.y.:.:.:.:.:
_.~.:-.:.:.:.~.:.,:(~.~
1,520
9,940
::::::::::::::.:.:.,.,.
,.,.,
..... ..........
~~~
0.315
:.:.:.:.:.
:.;:,~:~.~~,:,~~.~.~,~.~~:~~::.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.~ 2.5
13.7
Barium
I
3.4
Calcium
15.6
3,880
Chromium
2.1
9.5
Copper
0.42
2.9
8,270
9.1
Magnesium
43.2
254
Manganese
1.3
9.3
Nickel
1.3
15.8
Potassium
53
261
Sodium
3.9
32
Vanadium
3.2
19.2
zinc
0.76
10.8
1 95%UCL
of
Lognormal
Distribution
Owk)
7,678.15
1.73
14.68
4,760.48
8.99
1.20
6,991.68
7.45
249.78
8.29
7.17
2 14.33
27.41
13.29
4.89
Notes:
COPCs are indicated by the shaded areas.
(I) Screening value based on a RfD of 0.14 mg/kg/day.
Location of
Maximum
Detected Value
Frequency
of Detection
44-OA-SB02-03
44-WA-SB04-03
44-WA-SB02-03
44-GWOlDW-03
44-WA-SB03-03
44-GWOlDW-03
44-GWOlDW-03
44-GWOIDW-03
44-OA-SBOl-04
44-WA-SB02-03
44-GWOlDW-03
44-OA-SBO l-04
44-OA-SB06-02
44-GWOlDW-03
44-WA-SB04-03
13113
10/13
12113
13113
13113
9113
13/13
1l/13
13/13
13113
6113
1 l/13
6113
13113
12/13
Frequency
Percentage
v-4
2X Base
Background
(wk)
Region III
Residential
Soil
Screening
Value
~wkz)
100%
7,375.30
7,800
-_
Screening
Value
Exceedance
Frequency
NA
290
2,300
400
160
55
2,300
NA
o/13
o/13
NA
‘I
.I)
TABLE
‘!
.’)
6-5
CONTAMINANTS
OF POTENTIAL
CONCERN
IN GROUNDWATER
SITE 44-JONES STREET DUMP
REMEDIAL
INVESTIGATION,
CTO-0303
MCB, CAMP LEJEUNE, NORTH CAROLINA
Contaminant
Minimum
Value
(w/L)
Volatiles:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
10,
:.:...>,
1,2-Dichloroethene
Trichloroethene
Tetrachloroethene
15
1J
IJ
95% UCL of
Lognotmal
Distribution
(l.lg/L)
Location of
Maximum
Value
101
15
1J
1J
6.54
7.98
7.71
7.71
44-TWO1-01
44-TWOl-01
44-TWOl-01
44-GW03-01
119
l/9
l/9
l/9
11%
11%
11%
11%
0.019
5.5
1.6
1.1
l/9
l/9
o/9
o/9
2
70
5
5
l/9
Of9
o/9
o/9
0.015
NA
NA
0.7
26.07
5.22
7.51
5.39
5.70
5.70
5.22
6.07
44-GW03-01
44-GW03-01
44-GW03-01
44-GW03-01
44-GW03-01
44-GW03-01
44-GW03-01
44-GW02-01
ir9
ir9
ir9
ir9
ir9
ir9
ir9
ir9
11%
11%
150
150
220
15
150
110
3.4
4.8
or9
or9
or9
or9
or9
or9
ir9
or9
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
21
NA
800
NA
280
210
NA
3
125,905.73
1.64
44-GWO2-01
44-GW04-01
319
2r9
33%
22%
3,700
or9
2r9
NA
50
NA
NA
NA
50
Maximum
Value
(l&m
Tap Water
Frequency Screening
Frequency Percentage Value
Exceedance
(W)
of Detection
( us/L)
Freauencv
Federal
MCL
( un/L)
Exceedance NCWQS
Frequency
(ua)
Exceedance
Freouency
l/9
NA
NA
l/9
Semivolatiles:
Fluorene
Phenantbrene(‘)
71
4J
13
6J
7J
7J
~~~~~~
4J
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
2J
71
4J
13
6J
7J
7J
4J
2J
374
, .,
2820
2.8
Nsnhthalene
le
- _- _..- -.-.
L
Jl
---.----
11%
11%
11%
11%
11%
11%
ir9
NA
o/9
NA
or9
or9
NA
or9
Inorganics:
Aluminum
Cobalt
Lead
Magnesium
1
1
1.3
880
,
I
1 11,900 I 12,02
i.iro.04
NA
or9
“I
)
” ‘N,,,
)
“8
)
CONTAMINANTS
OF POTENTIAL
CONCERN
IN GROUNDWATER
SITE 44-JONES STREET DUMP
REMEDIAL
INVESTIGATION,
CTO-0303
MCB, CAMP LEJEUNE, NORTH CAROLINA
95% UCL of
Contaminant
Manganese
Potassium
Selenium
Sodium
Zinc
Minimum
Value
~ue/L~
21.6
1,340
2
4,890
6.8
Maximum
Value
~LldL~
241
8,160
2
74,100
16.4
LOgIlOlllld
Distribution
~UdL~
627.59
6,953.62
1.23
87,872.54
15.97
Notes:
COPCs are indicated by the shaded areas.
(I) USEPA Region III COC screening value used as a surrogate.
c2)Screening value based on a RtD of 0.14 mg/kg/day.
Location of
Maximum
Value
44-GW04-0 1
44-GW03-0 1
44-GW05-0 1
44-GWOlDW-01
44-GW04-0 1
Tap Water
Frequency Screening
Frequency Percentage Value
Exceedance
f%j
of Detection
t IldL~
Freouencv
819
89%
5 1o(2)
or9
919
100%
NA
NA
l/9
11%
18
or9
919
100%
NA
NA
419
44%
1,100
or9
Federal
MCL
( up/L)
NA
NA
50
NA
NA
Exceedance NCWQS
Freauencv
(t&L)
NA
50
NA
NA
or9
50
NA
NA
NA
2,100
Exceedance
Frequency
519
NA
o/9
NA
o/9
,x1,,
1
““3
1
TABLE 6-6
CONTAMINANTS
OF POTENTIAL
CONCERN IN SURFACE
SITE 44-JONES STREET DUMP
REMEDIAL
INVESTIGATION,
Cl-O-0303
MCB, CAMP LEJEUNE, NORTH CAROLINA
Contaminants
Minimum
Value
~WtlL~
WATER
Federal
Water and
Organisms
(IldL~
Federal
Organisms
only
~wL.~
State
Freshwater
~llti~
---
2
--
525
__
525
-w
19%
--
0.057
3.2
318
818
818
38%
100%
100%
ND
ND
9,830
418
718
50%
88%
610
----
4600
-__
__
--
--
Maximum
Value
(IlfZlL~
95% UCL of
Lognormal
Distribution
hlL.~
38
13
17.87
7.24
44-EC-SW08-01
44-EC-SW01
8116
3116
50%
19%
2J
I!
6.20
44-EC-SW06-01
3116
21.1
10,000
195,000
21.73
7,255.76
227,754.Ol
44-EC-SW0 1
44-EC-SW05
44-EC-SW05
Frequency Frequency Base-Wide
Location of
Maximum
of
Percentage Average
Detected Value Detection
(o/o)
~ut?lL~
Region IV Region IV
Water and Organisms
Organisms
Only
~up/L~
~LldL~
Volatiles:
Potassium
Sodium
7.7
3,390
16,200
~~~,~~~~lil~~~~~~~~
................
11.7
16.8J
Notes:
COPCs indicated by the shaded areas.
I
1
29.9
61.3J
1
75.76
89.10
I 44-EC-SW01
1 44-EC-SW02
I
1
1
ND
ND
1
I
2
__
525
__
mm
0.52
39
---__
610
---
4600
-_
-__
-*
I --
--
TABLE
6-7
CONTAMINANTS
OF POTENTIAL
CONCERN IN SEDIMENT
SITE 44-JONES STREET DUMP
REMEDIAL
INVESTIGATION,
CTO-0303
MCB, CAMP LEJEUNE, NORTH CAROLINA
Minimum
Value
Contaminant
Volatiles
&g/kg):
p
..:... ..G,...,.,.,/.,.,...,...
i........7..A..‘..<
:
x‘)‘““‘-”
.. .... .... ....r.............
I . .:.x... ........2+x
.... .. . ::::::r$g
....A....,.(
~~~~~~sri~~~~~
#;~.:::::;
........v.....A..
^:~r~.~rr~l~:.~....,.;
...A.....
.........A.... 15
51
2.-Rutmone
- -_-._.._
Semivolatiles
--I--
Frequency
RegionIV
95% UCL of
Maximum Lognormal
Locationof
Frequency Percentage Base-Wide Criteria
%
Value
Distribution MaximumValue of Detection
Average
ER-L
i
289.98
28.01
44-UT’-SDOI-06
44-UT-SD0l-06
11116
2116
69%
13%
740J
2505
I 667.18
1 282.45
44-EC-SDOl-612
44-UT-SD03-612
2/16
5/16
740
1 309.80 I44-UT-SD03-6121
6/16
38%
-
17OJ
1 288.44 144~UT-SD03-612
1
44-UT-SD03-612
44-UT-SD03-612
3/16
19%
--
600
200J
1 320.25 I44-UT-SDO3-6121
I 278.39 i44-UT-SD03-612I
44-UT-SD03-612
44-UT-SD02-06
6116
3116
38%
19%
2116
13%
7%
7%
1.05
ND
--
ER-L
ER-M
(Longet. (Longet. al.
al., 1995). 1995)
-+-+
&g/kg):
1
:$z:::y.s
?$$$:::::::::
]
52J
*.>::::i$g’
.-...
.... 1 49J
x.>)>m
PesticideJPCBs
__
__
61OJ
200
RegionIV
Criteria
ER-M
I
--
__
I
--
I
--
I
225
1
1,380
1
240
1
1
600
1 3,600
600
1 5,100
I
230
1,600
261
1
I
----
I
__
__
1
I
__
I
1,500
1,600 1
-__
__
__
__
--
__
--
@g/kg):
2.6J
5.2J
1
2.6J
5.2J
1.51
1.86
44-UT-SD03-612
44-UT-SD03-612
l/14
l/14
310J
770
99.95
331.86
44-UT-SD02-612
44-UT-SD02-612
16/16
100%
16/16
100%
2.42
1.57
2
2
15
20
2.2
__
27
_-
130
14J
16J
20.16
5.75
6.78
44-EC-SD05-612
44-EC-SD05-612
44-EC-SD05-612
10114
13/16
1306
71%
81%
81%
2.20
1.20
1.44
1
0.5
0.5
7
6
6
1.58
---
46.1
__
--
‘8,
b
‘>
“)
TABLE 6-7 (Continued)
CONTAMINANTS
OF POTENTIAL
CONCERN IN SEDIMENT
SITE 44-JONES STREET DUMP
REMEDIAL
INVESTIGATION,
CTO-0303
MCB, CAMP LEJEUNE, NORTH CAROLINA
I
I
I
Minimum
Value
Contaminant
Id,”
VU”
I
“I
I
1 R&m
-.--
.wy”‘.L”J
.-..
TV
&.
1 RPoi
nn ..?..
A.-e,
TV
&.
1
JXI T
ER-M
(Long et. (Long et. al.,
al., 1995) 1 1995)
lxx-LA
Frequency
of Detection
Percentage
%
Base-Wide
Average
44-UT-SDOl-612
16/16
100%
1,165.57
--
44-UT-SD02-06
44-UT-SDOl-612
44-EC-SD05-612
11/16
16/16
2l16
69%
100%
13%
0.37
6.46
0.09
33
-__
85
__
__
8.2
__
--
70
-ma
0.61
16,773.73
44-EC-SD05-612
44-EC-SD0 l-06
l/16
16/16
6%
100%
0.04
1,967.14
5
--
9
--
1.2
_-
9.6
__
11.1
0.48
6.38
0.42
44-UT-SDOl-612
44-EC-SD03-612
16/16
l/16
100%
6%
1.86
ND
80
--
145
81
--
370
__
7.7
5830
4.02
3,939.07
44-EC-SD05-6 12
44-UT-SDOl-612
16/16
16/16
100%
100%
0.75
433.71
70
--
390
--
34
--
270
--
56.3J
31.91
44-UT-SD03-6
Maximum
Value
Lognormal
Distribution
12,200J
5,225.89
1.4
49.5
0.17
1.03
17.65
0.12
1.2
40,000
Location of
Maximum Value
Criteria
ER-L
Criteria
ER-M
Inorganics (mgkg):
IGGEkrn
1
95.8
1
1
2
::::;:;:~::i;:.:.:.:..
:+:.:.:~:~:~:::~:~:~:
1
!
<:~~<::::y<:::.1.1
60.2
0.47
Sodium
1
0.51
30.3
Notes:
COPCs are indicated by the shaded areas.
12
637
15.9
4
1
1
1
398.07
9.80
2.79
1 44-EC-SDOl-06
1 44-UT-SDOl-06
1 44-EC-SD05-612
1
16/16
16/16
1
1506
299
1.4
1
133.25
0.53
j44-UT-SDOl-612
44-UT-SDOl-612
!
5116
4116
0.51
224
15.1
0.29
123.44
8.99
44-EC-SD05-06
44-UT-SDOl-612
44-UT-SD01612
l/16
16/16
1606
6%
100%
100%
0.25
ND
1.52
1
__
144
62.17
44-EC-SD05-06
16/16
100%
5.11
120
1
1
1
!
100%
100%
100%
94%
31%
25%
1
1
1
1
0.79
45.25
3.63
ND
ND
0.19
--
1
35
-
1
110
--
!
30
!
50
I
_-
I
-
1
46.7
--
1
20.9
I
-_
c
I
218
--
I
51.6
I
I
--
d--
2.2
--
1
---
3.7
---
270
150
410
--
I
TABLE 6-8
SUMMARY
OF EXPOSURE DOSE INPUT PARAMETERS
SITE 44-JONES STREET DUMP
REMEDIAL
INVESTIGATION,
CTO-0303
MCB, CAMP LEJEUNE, NORTH CAROLINA
Receptor
Input Parameter
Surface Soil (mgkg)
Ingestion Rate, IR
Fraction Ingested, FI
Exposure Frequency, EF
Exposure Duration, ED
Surface Area, SA
Absorption Factor, AF
Averaging Time, Noncarc., ATnc
Averaging Time, Cam., ATcarc
Body Weight, BW
I
1Conversion Factor, CF
Absorbance Factor. ABS
Subsurface Soil (mgkg)
Ingestion Rate, IR
Fraction Ingested, FI
Exposure Frequency, EF
Exposure Duration, ED
Surface Area, SA
Absorption Factor, AF
Averaging Time, Noncarc., ATnc
Averaging Time, Cam., ATcarc
Body Weight, BW
Conversion Factor, CF
Absorbance Factor, ABS
Units
mg/d
unitless
d/Y
Y
cm2
mg/cm5
d
I
d
kg
I
Ww
I unitless
mg/d
unitless
d/Y
Y
cm2
mg/cm3
d
d
kg
kg/mg
unitless
I
Trespasser
Child
Trespasser
Adult
100
1
130
6
2,000
1
2,190
25,550
15
1x10&
50
1
43
30
5,000
1
10,950
25,550
70
1xlOd
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
I
I
I
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Adult Military
Personnel
Construction
Worker
Residential
Child
Residential
Adult
100
NA
1
NA
250
NA
4
NA
4,300
NA
1
NA
1,460
NA
I
I
I
25,550
NA
70
NA
lxlOd
NA
Organics = 0.01: Inorganics = 0.001
200
1
350
6
2,300
1
2,190
25,550
15
1x10-6
100
1
350
30
5,800
1
10,950
25,550
70
1x10”
NA
480
NA
1
NA
90
NA
1
NA
4,300
NA
1
NA
365
NA
25,550
NA
70
NA
lxlOd
Organics = 0.01; Inorganics = 0.001
200
1
350
6
2,300
1
2,190
25,550
15
1x10”
I
I
L
I
100
1
350
30
5,800
1
10,950
25,550
70
1x10”
TABLE 6-8 (Continued)
SUMMARY
OF EXPOSURE DOSE INPUT PARAMETERS
SITE 44-JONES STREET DUMP
REMEDIAL
INVESTIGATION,
CTO-0303
MCB, CAMP LEJEUNE, NORTH CAROLINA
Receptor
Input Parameter
Groundwater
(mg/L)
Units
Trespasser
Child
Trespasser
Adult
Adult Military
Personnel
Construction
Worker
Residential
Child
Residential
Adult
TABLE 6-8 (Continued)
SUMMARY
OF EXPOSURE DOSE INPUT PARAMETERS
SITE 44-JONES STREET DUMP
REMEDIAL
INVESTIGATION,
CTO-0303
MCB, CAMP LEJEUNE, NORTH CAROLINA
Receptor
Input Parameter
Outdoor Air
Inhalation Rate, IR
Exposure Frequency, EF
EXDOWe
Duration. ED
Averaging
- - Time, Noncarc.. ATnc
Averaging Time, Cart,. ATcarc
Body Weight, BW
Particulate Emission Factor
Trespasser
Child
Units
I
I
I
h
d
kg
m’ilcg
I
Trespasser
Adult
I
2,190
25,550
15
I
Adult Military
Personnel
I
10,950
25,550
70
I
Construction
Worker
I
1,460
25,550
70
I
1.32E+09
Residential
Child
I
365
25,550
70
I
Residential
Adult
I
2,190
25,550
15
I
10,950
25,550
70
’ ‘S/N,
)
“I,
I
TABLE
6-8 (Continued)
SUMMARY
OF EXPOSURE DOSE INPUT PARAMETERS
SITE 44-JONES STREET DUMP
REMEDIAL
INVESTIGATION,
CTO-0303
MCB, CAMP LEJEUNE, NORTH CAROLINA
Receptor
Input Parameter
Shower Air
Inhalation Rate, IR
Exposure Tie, ET
Exposure Frequency, EF
Exposure Duration, ED
Averaging Time, Noncarc., ATnc
Averaging Time, Cam., ATcarc
Body Weight, BW
Units
m’/h
hid
d/Y
Y
d
d
kg
Trespasser
Child
Trespasser
Adult
Adult Military
Personnel
Construction
Worker
Residential
Child
Residential
Adult
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
0.6
0.25
350
6
2,190
25,550
15
0.6
0.25
350
30
10,950
25,550
70
References:
USEPA
USEPA
USEPA
Interim
I ISEPA
USEPA
Risk Assessment For Superfund Volume I. Human Health Manual (Part A) Interim Final, December, 1989.
&xrWre
Factors Handbook, July, 1989.
’
Risk Assessment For Super-fund Volume I. Human Health Evaluation Manual Supplemental Guidance. “Standard Default Exposure Factors”
Final. March 25, 199 1.
Dermal Exposure Assessment: Principles and Anplications. Interim Report. January, 1992.
Region IV Guidance for Soil Absorbance. (USEPA, 1992)
Notes:
The exposure frequency for the trespasser receptors is based on the typical exposure pattern (i.e., more time spent outdoors in the warmer months vs. the
cooler months) for people who actively garden or play outdoors. It is an upper-bound estimate (USEPA, 1992).
The skin surface area for the trespasser receptors is based on approximately 25 percent of the total surface body area for a child and adult receptor. These
values are lower-bound estimates.
TABLE
6-9
SUMMARY
OF EXPOSURE PATHWAYS
SITE 44-JONES STREET DUMP
REMEDIAL
INVESTIGATION,
CTO-0303
MCB, CAMP LEJEUNE, NORTH CAROLINA
Receptor
Exposure Pathway
Current Adult Military
Personnel
Surface soil ingestion, dermal contact and inhalation of fugitive dusts
Current Adult and Child
Trespassers
Surface soil ingestion, dermal contact and inhalation of fugitive dusts
Surface water ingestion and dermal contact
Sediment ingestion and dermal contact
Future Adult and Child
Residents
Surface soil ingestion, dermal contact, and inhalation of fugitive dusts
Groundwater ingestion, dermal contact and inhalation
Surface water ingestion and dermal contact
Sediment ingestion and dermal contact
Future Construction Worker
Subsurface soil ingestion, dermal contact, and inhalation of fugitive dusts
. .
TABLE
6-10
SUMMARY
OF HEALTH-BASED
CRITERIA
SITE 44-JONES STREET DUMP
REMEDIAL
INVESTIGATION,
CTO-0303
MCB, CAMP LEJEUNE, NORTH CAROLINA
COPCS
(Oral)
I RfD
,---“--,>\
PkY%Jul
RfC (Inhal.)
CSF (Oral) CSF (Inhal.)
Weight-of-t
I I--II--,A\
I ,---“--!J\.l
I I-.-I.-lJ\.l
I m
cviaence
tmw’w”l
~‘w’w~~~
wmvv~
I
VOLATILES
Acetone
2-Butanone
1,2-Dichloroethene (total)
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
1, I-Dichloroethene
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethene
Vinyl Chloride
l.OE-01(i)
6.OE-01(i)
9.OE-03(h)
-
2.86E-01(i)
-
9.OE-03(i)
4.OE-03(i)
6.OE-03(e)
-
-
-
-
2.OE-01(i)
6.OE-01(i)
5.7E-02(i)
l.lE-02(w)
1.9E+OO(h)
2.03E-01(i)
1.75E-0 l(i)
5.6E-02(i)
6.OE-03(e)
3 .OE-0 1(h)
7.3E-01(e)
7.3E+OO(i)
7.3E-01(e)
6.1E-01(e)
6.1E+OO(w)
6.1E-01(e)
-
7.3E-02(e)
1.4E-02(i)
6.lE-02(e)
-
2.OE-02(h)
7.3E-03(e)
6. IE-03(e)
1.2E-01(i)
-
D
D
D
C
C
B2
A
SEMIVOLATILES
-
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
[email protected])fluoranthene
Benzo(g ,h , i)perylene(‘)
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Butylbenzylphthalate
Carbazole
Chrysene
Fluoranthene
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
Phenanthreneu)
Pvrene
*
3.OE-02(i)
-
-
2.OE-02(i)
2.OE-01(i)
-
4.OE-02(i)
3.OE-02(i)
6.OE-01(i)
3.OE-02(i)
1 3.OE-02(i)
1
-
I
I
B2
B2
B2
D
B2
B2
C
-
I
B2
D
B2
D
D
D
PESTICIDES
Aldrin
4,4’-DDD
3.OE-OS(i)
-
1.7E+Ol(i)
2.4E-01(i)
1.71E+Ol(i)
-
B2
B2
1
TABLE
6-10 (Continued)
SUMMARY
OF HEALTH-BASED
CRITERIA
SITE 44-JONES STREET DUMP
REMEDIAL
INVESTIGATION,
CTO-0303
MCB, CAMP LEJEUNE, NORTH CAROLINA
COPCS
RfD (Oral)
@v&Y4
RfC (Inhal.)
bdW4
CSF (Oral)
@@WV’
CSF (Inhal.)
GwWW
Weight-ofEvidence
1.5E+OO(i)
4.3E+OO(i)
-
1.5E+Ol(i)
A
D
B2
Bl
METALS
Aluminum
1.OE+OO
1.4E-04(a)
Cadmium (water)
(food/soil)
LOE-04(i)
I [email protected])
5.71E-05(e)
I
I
-
8.4E+OO(i)
6.3E+OO(i)
I
I
42(i)
I
-
I
I
D
I --D
Iron
1 3.OE-01(e)
-
f
1.4E-05(i)
--
-
-
-
References:
a = BEAST alternative
e = EPA-NCEA Regional Support Provisional Value
h = BEAST, 1994
i = IRIS, 1995
w = Withdrawn from IRIS or BEAST, but used in assessment, as recommended by Region IV
Region III RBC Table, March, 1995
(I) Toxicity values for pyrene were substituted for this constituent.
f2)Toxicity values for chlordane were substituted for this constituent.
@)Toxicity value recommended by USEPA Region IV
- = Not applicable or available
B2
D
D
D
D
I
TABLE
SUMMARY
6-l 1
OF DERMALLY-ADJUSTED
HEALTH-BASED
SITE 44-JONES STREET DUMP
REMEDIAL
INVESTIGATION,
CTO-0303
MCB, CAMP LEJEUNE, NORTH CAROLINA
CRITERIA*
--
TABLE
SUMMARY
6-11 (Continued)
OF DERMALLY-ADJUSTED
HEALTH-BASED
CRITERIA*
SITE 44-JONES STREET DUMP
REMEDIAL
INVESTIGATION,
CTO-0303
MCB, CAMP LEJJXJNE, NORTH CAROLINA
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Vanadium
zinc
20%
20%
20%
20%
20%
2.00E-02
5.00E-03
5.00E-03
7.00E-03
3.00E-0 1
4.00E-03
1.OOE-03
1.OOE-03
1.40E-03
6.00E-02
--_
__
__
_--
-__
__
_-*
Notes:
(I) Region IV recommended values (i.e., 80% for VOCs, 50% for SVOCs/Pesticides, and 20% for Inorganics)
- = Not Applicable
* = Only oral toxicity values were dermally adjusted; inhalation toxicity values were not adjusted.
Dermally-adjusted RfD = oral RfD*percent absorbed
Dermally-adjusted CSF = oral CSF/percent absorbed
References:
IRIS, 1995
HEAST, 1995
Region III RBC Table, March, 1995
I
TABLE
6-12
SUMMARY
OF RISKS FOR THE
MILITARY
RECEPTOR
SITE 44-JONES STREET DUMP
REMEDIAL
INVESTIGATION
CTO-0303
MCB, CAMP LEJEUNE, NORTH CAROLINA
Exposure Pathway
Noncarcinonenic Risk
Carcinogenic Risk
6.9E-02
1.5E-02
--
2.9E-07
6.2E-08
6.6E-10
Surface Soil
Ingestion
Dermal Contact
Inhalation
I
I
Total Risk
Notes:
-- = Not applicable
I
8.4E-02
I
3.5E-07
TABLE
6-13
SUMMARY
OF RISKS FOR THE
CHILD TRESPASSER
SITE 44-JONES STREET DUMP
REMEDIAL
INVESTIGATION
CTO-0303
MCB, CAMP LEJEUNE, NORTH CAROLINA
Exposure Pathway
Noncarcinogenic Risk
Carcinogenic Risk
1.7E-0 1
1.7E-02
__
l.SE-01
l.lE-06
l.lE-07
1.2E-09
1.2E-06
4.OE-03
1.7E-02
3.9E-07
1.5E-06
2.1E-02
1.9E-06
4.3E-02
2.3E-03
6.7E-07
9.1E-08
4.6B02
2SE-01
7.7E-07
3.8E-06
Surface Soil
Ingestion
Dermal Contact
Inhalation
total
Surface Water
Ingestion
Dermal Contact
total
Sediment
Ingestion
Dermal Contact
total
Current/Future
Notes:
-- = Not Applicable
Risk
TABLE
6-14
SUMMARY
OF RISKS FOR THE
FUTURE CHILD RESIDENT
SITE 44-JONES STREET DUMP
REMEDIAL
INVESTIGATION,
CTO-0303
MCB, CAMP LEJEUNE, NORTH CAROLINA
Exposure Pathway
Noncarcinogenic Risk
Carcinogenic Risk
9.OE-01
5.2E-02
-_
5.7E-06
3.3E-07
3.2E-09
9.5E-01
6.OE-06
1.6E+ol
2.OE-01
--
8.2E-05
1.7E-06
2.OE-05
1.6E+ol
l.OE-04
4.OE-03
2.OE-02
3.9E-07
1.7E-06
2.4E-02
2. IE-06
4.3E-02
2.6E-03
6.7E-07
l.lE-07
4.6E-02
7.88-07
1.7E+Ol
l.lE-04
Surface Soil
Ingestion
Dennal Contact
Inhalation
total
Groundwater
Ingestion
Dermal Contact
Inhalation
total
Surface Water
Ingestion
Dermal Contact
total
Sediment
Ingestion
Dennal Contact
total
Future Risk
Notes:
-- = Not Applicable
Bolded values indicate risk values that exceed the acceptable risk value of 1.0
for noncarcinogenic effects and 1x 1OA for carcinogenic effects.
TABLE
6-15
SUMMARY
OF RISKS FOR THE
ADULT TRESPASSER
SITE 44-JONES STREET DUMP
REMEDIAL
INVESTIGATION,
CTO-0303
MCB, CAMP LEJEUNE, NORTH CAROLINA
Exposure Pathway
Noncarcinogenic
Risk
Carcinogenic Risk
Surface Soil
Ingestion
Derrnal Contact
Inhalation
5.9E-03
3 .OE-03
__
total
1.9E-07
8.9E-03
9.3E-08
5.7E-10
2.8E-07
8.5E-04
9.4E-03
4.2E-07
4.OE-06
1.OE-02
4.4E-06
4.7E-03
1.2E-03
3.6E-07
2.4E-07
5.9E-03
2.5E-02
6.OE-07
5.3E-06
Surface Water
Ingestion
Dennal Contact
total
Sediment
Ingestion
Dermal Contact
total
Current/Future
Notes:
-- = Not Applicable
Risk
TABLE
6-16
SUMMARY
OF RISKS FOR THE
FUTURE ADULT RESIDENT
SITE 44-JONES STREET DUMP
REMEDIAL
INVESTIGATION,
CTO-0303
MCB, CAMP LEJEUNE, NORTH CAROLINA
Noncarcinogenic
Exposure Pathway
Risk
Carcinogenic Risk
Surface Soil
Ingestion
Dermal Contact
Inhalation
total
9.7E-02
2.8E-02
-*
3 .OE-06
8.8E-07
4.6B09
1.2E-01
3.9E-06
Groundwater
Ingestion
Derrnal Contact
Inhalation
--.
total
6.8E+oo
l&E-04
9.8E-02
__
4.3E-06
1.6E-05
6.9E+OO
2.OE-04
8.5E-04
l.lE-02
4.2E-07
4.6E-06
1.2E-02
5.OE-06
4.7E-03
1.4E-03
3.6E-07
2.8E-07
Surface Water
Ingestion
Dermal Contact
total
Sediment
Ingestion
Dermal Contact
I
totalI
I
t
Future Risk
I
I
6.1E-03
7.OE+OO
6.5E-07
I
2.1E-04
Notes:
-- = Not Applicable
Bolded values indicate risk values that exceed the acceptable risk value of 1.O
for noncarcinogenic effects and the acceptable risk value of lx 1O-’ for
carinogenic effects.
TABLE
6-17
SUMMARY
OF RISKS FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION
WORKER RECEPTOR
SITE 44-JONES STREET DUMP
REMEDIAL
INVESTIGATION,
CTO-0303
MCB, CAMP LEJEUNE, NORTH CAROLINA
Exposure Pathway
Subsurface
Carcinogenic Risk
6.2E-02
2.8E-03
_-
6.3E-08
2.8E-09
2.OE- 11
Soil
Ingestion
Dermal Contact
Inhalation
I
Noncarcinogenic Risk
Total Risk
Notes:
-- = Not Applicable
I
6SE-02
I
6.6E-08
TABLE 6-18
SUMMARY
OF UNCERTAINTIES
IN THE RESULTS
HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
SITE 44-JONES STREET DUMP
REMEDIAL
INVESTIGATION,
CTO-0303
MCB, CAMP LEJEUNE, NORTH CAROLINA
Potential
Magnitude for
Over-Estimation
of Risks
Fnvironmental
.=-
OF THE
Potential
Magnitude for
Under-Estimation
of Risks
Potential
Magnitude for
Over or UnderEstimation of
Risks
Sampling and Analysis
Sufficient samples may not have been taken to
characterize the media being evaluated.
Systematic or random errors in the chemical analysis
may yield erroneous data.
Selection of COPCs
Low
The use of USEPA Region III COPC screening
concentrations in selecting COPCs in soil and
groundwater.
Exnosure Assessment
Low
The standard assumptions regarding body weight,
exposure period, life expectancy, population
characteristics, and lifestyle may not be
representative of the actual exposure situations.
The use of the 95th percentile upper confidence level
data of the lognormal distribution in the estimation of
the RME.
Assessing future residential property use when the
likelihood of residential development is low.
The amount of media intake is assumed to be
constant and representative of any actual exposure.
Toxicological Assessment
Toxicological indices derived from high dose animal
studies, extrapolated to low dose human exposure.
Lack of promulgated toxicological indices for
inhalation pathway.
. .
Risk Characterl=tlon
Assumption of additivity in the quantitation of cancer
risks without consideration of synergism,
antagonism, promotion and initiation.
Low
Moderate
Low
High
Low
Moderate
Low
Moderate
TABLE
6-18 (Continued)
SUMMARY
OF UNCERTAINTIES
IN THE RESULTS
HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
SITE 44-JONES STREET DUMP
REMEDIAL
INVESTIGATION,
CTO-0303
MCB, CAMP LEJEUNE, NORTH CAROLINA
Potential
Magnitude for
Over-Estimation
of Risks
Assumption of additivity in the estimation of
systemic health effects without consideration of
synergism, antagonism, etc.
Additivity of risks by individual exposure pathways
(dermal and ingestion and inhalation).
Compounds not quantitatively evaluated.
OF THE
Potential
Magnitude for
Under-Estimation
of Risks
Low
Potential
Magnitude for
Over or UnderEstimation of
Risks
Moderate
Low
Low
Notes:
Low - Assumptions categorized as “low” may effect risk estimates by less than one order of magnitude.
Moderate - Assumptions categorized as “moderate” may effect estimates of risk by between one and two
orders of magnitude.
High - Assumptions categorized as “high” may effect estimates of risk by more than two orders of
magnitude.
Source: Risk Assessment Guidance for Suuerfund. Volume 1. Part A: Human Health Evaluation Manual. USEPA,
1989a.
TABLE
SUMMARY
6-19
OF CONTAMINANTS
CONTRIBUTING
TO SITE RISKS
SITE 44-JONES STREET DUMP
REMEDIAL
INVESTIGATION
CTO-0303
MCB, CAMP LEJEUNE, NORTH CAROLINA
SECTION 6.0 FIGURES
‘1
FIGURE
FLOWCHART
Current
Trespassers
II
Future
Residents
6-1
OF POTENTIAL
EXPOSURE PATHWAYS
SITE 44: JONES STREET DUMP
-
I
Ingestion/
4
Dermal Contact
I-I
Surface Waters
1
AND RECEPTORS
I
I
ymi
Indoor Air
I
I
I
Ingestion/
Dermal Contact
.
Future
Residents
7.0
ECOLOGICAL
RISK
ASSESSMENT
The Comprehensive Environmental Response,Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA)
as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986, directs
USEPA to protect human health and the environment with respect to releases or potential releases
of contaminants from abandoned hazardouswaste sites (USEPA, 1989a). This section of the report
presents the ecological risk assessment(ERA) conducted at Operable Unit No. 6, Site 44 that
assessesthe potential impacts to ecological receptors from contaminants detected at this site.
7.1
Obiectives,
Scoue. and Oreanization
of the EcoloPical
Risk Assessment
The objective of this ERA is to evaluate if past reported disposal practices at Site 44 are potentially
adversely impacting the terrestrial and aquatic communities on, or adjacent to, the site. This
assessment also evaluates the potential effects of contaminants related to Site 44 on sensitive
environments including wetlands, protected species,and fish nursery areas. The conclusions of the
ERA are used in conjunction with the human health risk assessmentto evaluate the appropriate
remedial action for this site for the overall protection of public health and the environment. If
potential risks are characterized for the ecological receptors, further ecological evaluation of the site
and surrounding areas may be warranted.
This ERA evaluates and analyzes the results from the Remedial Investigation (RI) including
chemical analysis of the soil, groundwater, surface water, and sediment. In addition, surface water
and sediment bioassayswere conducted at one station. The media of concern for this ERA are the
surface soil, surface water, and sediment. Information used to evaluate sensitive environments is
obtained from historical data and previous studiesobtained in the literature, or through conversations
with appropriate state, Federal, and local personnel.
The risk assessmentmethodologies used in this evaluation are consistent with those outlined in the
Ecological Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfir d: Process for Des’Einc a d Conducting
Ecoloeical Risk Assessments (USEPA, 1994a) and irame ork for Ecolizical Rzk Assessmea
(USEPA, 1992). In addition, information found in the follow:g documents was used to supplement
the USEPA guidance document:
0
USEPA Supplemental Risk Assessment Guidance for Super-fund. Volume U,
&rvironmental Evaluation M
(USEPA, 1989b)
0
Fcolo9;ical
Referencp (USEPA, 1989c)
.
Based on the USEPA Framework for Ecologtcal Risk Assessment, an ERA consists of three main
components: 1) Problem Formulation; 2) Analysis; and, 3) Risk Characterization (USEPA, 1992).
The problem formulation section includes a preliminary characterization of exposure and effects of
the stressorsto the ecological receptors. During the analysis, the data is evaluated to determine the
exposure and potential effects on the ecological receptors from the stressors. Finally, in the risk
characterization, the likelihood of adverse effects occurring as a result of exposure to a stressor is
evaluated. This section also evaluates the potential impact on the ecological receptors at the site
from the contaminants detected in the media. This ERA is organized to parallel these three
components.
7-l
.-n
7.2
Problem
Formulation
Problem formulation
is the first step of an ERA and includes a preliminary
characterization of
exposure and effects (USEPA, 1992a). Chemical analyses were performed on samples collected
from the soil, groundwater, surface water, and sediment to evaluate the presence, concentrations,
and variabilities of the contaminants.
A habitat characterization also was conducted as part of the
field activities. Based on these observations, potential ecological receptors were identified. Finally,
toxicological
information for the contaminants detected in the media was obtained from available
references and literature and used to evaluate the potential adverse ecological effects to the
ecological receptors.
The components of the problem formulation
include identifying the stressors and their potential
ecological effects, identification of ecosystems potentially at risk, defining ecological endpoints and
presenting a conceptual model. The following sections discuss each of these components, and how
they are evaluated in this ERA.
7.3
Contaminants
of Potential
Concern
One of the initial steps in the problem formulation stage of an ERA is identifying the stressors and
their potential ecological effects. For this ERA, the stressors that are evaluated include contaminants
detected in the surface soil, surface water, and sediment.
Fn
Contarninants in the subsurface soil and groundwater are not evaluated in this ERA. Some terrestrial
species burrow in the subsurface soil, and microorganisms
most likely exist in the groundwater.
However, current guidance does not provide sufficient information
to evaluate risk to these
receptors.
The nature and extent of contaminants detected in the environmental media at Site 44 are presented
in Section 4.0 of this report. Sample locations are based on available historical site information and
a site visit to evaluate potential ecosystems and ecological receptors.
7.3.1
Criteria
for Selecting
Contaminants
of Potential
Concern
Quantifying
risk for all positively identified contaminants may distract from the dominant riskdriving contaminants at the site. Therefore, the data set was reduced to a list of contaminants of
potential concern (COPCs). COPCs are site-related contaminants used to quantitatively
estimate
ecological exposures and associated potential ecological effects.
The criteria used in selecting the COPCs from the contaminants
and analytical phase of the investigation are:
0
l
0
0
0
0
0
detected during the field sampling
Historical information
Prevalence
Toxicity
Comparison to Federal and state criteria and standards
Comparison to investigation associated field and laboratory
Comparison to background or naturally occurring levels
Comparison to anthropogenic levels
7-2
blank data
7.3.1.1 Historical Information
Using historical information to associatecontaminants with site activities, when combined with the
following selection procedures, helps determine contaminant retention or elimination. To be
conservative, contaminants detected in the media that may not have been historically used at a site
are retained as COPCs to evaluate risk, but may be eliminated in the ecological significance section
as not being site-related.
7.3.1.2 Prevalence
The frequency of positive detections in sample setsand the level at which a contaminant is detected
in a given medium are factors that determine a chemical’s prevalence. Contaminants that were
detected infrequently are not retained as COPCs.
7.3.1.3 Toxicity
The potential toxicity of a contaminant is an important consideration when selecting COPCs for
further evaluation in the ERA. Several of the contaminants detected in the media at Site 44 are
prevalent, however, their inherent toxicity to aquatic and terrestrial receptors are low (e.g., calcium,
magnesium, potassium, and sodium). Therefore, they are not retained as COPCs. In addition,
several contaminants have not been adequately studied to develop published toxicity values, or even
accepted toxicological data with which to assessthe contaminants. Contaminants that fall into this
category are retained as COPCs (if they are not eliminated due to other criteria), however, they are
not quantitatively evaluated in the ERA.
7.3.1.4 State and Federal Criteria and Standards
Water Quality Standards (WQS) for surface water have been developed for North Carolina (NC
DEHNR, 1994). These are the only enforceable surface water standards. In addition to the WQS,
Water Quality Screening Values (WQSVs) have been developed by USEPA Region IV (USEPA,
1995a), USEPA Region III (USEPA, 1995b), and Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) (Suter
and Mabrey, 1994). The WQS and WQSVs will be herein referred to as Surface Water Screening
Values (SWSVs).
Sediment quality standards have not been developed for North Carolina. However, Sediment
Screening Values (SSVs) are available for many contaminants. These SSVs include the following:
Sediment Screening Levels (SSLs) (Long et. al, 1995; Long and Morgan, 1991; and, USEPA,
1995b), calculated sediment quality criteria (SQC) (USEPA, 1993a), Apparent Effect Threshold
values (AET) (Tetra-Tech, Inc., 1986), and Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources interim
guidance criteria for in-water disposal of dredged sediments (Sullivan, et. al., 1985).
The SWSVs and SSVs are used for comparative purposes to infer potential ecological risks.
Contaminants that were detected at concentrations less than these screening values are not retained
as COPCs for aquatic receptors since contaminants detected at concentrations lessthan these values
are not expected to pose a significant risk to the aquatic receptor population. However, these
contaminants may be retained as COPCs for the terrestrial receptors.
There are no state or Federal soil screening values that can be used to evaluate potential ecological
risks to terrestrial receptors (other than plants or invertebrates). Therefore, toxicity of contaminants
7-3
in the surface soil to terrestrial receptors is not used as criteria for retaining COPCs except for
calcium, magnesium, potassium, and sodium, which are not retained as COPCs in any of the media.
A brief explanation of the standards, criteria, and screening values used for the evaluation of the
COPCs is presented below.
Carolina Water Quality Standards (Surface Water) - WQS are the concentrations of toxic
substances that will not result in chronic toxicity to aquatic life (NCDEHNR, 1994). WQS are
provided for both freshwater and saltwater aquatic systems.
North
Water Quality Screening Values - WQSVs are non-enforceable regulatory guidelines and
are of primary utility in assessingacute and chronic toxic effects in aquatic systems. WQSVs are
provided for both freshwater and saltwater aquatic systems,and are reported as acute and/or chronic
values (USEPA, 1995a,b). Most of the WQSVs are the same as the USEPA Ambient Water Quality
Criteria (AWQC), however, some of the WQSVs are based on more current studies.
USEPA
- ORNL Aquatic Benchmarks are
developed for many contaminants, including those that do not have WQS of WQSVs (Suter and
Mabrey, 1994). The ORNL aquatic benchmarks include secondary acute values and secondary
chronic values that are calculated using the Tier II method described in the EPA’s Pronosed Water
Oualitv Guidance for the Great Lakes Svstem (USEPA, 1993b). Tier II values are developed so that
aquatic benchmarks could be established with fewer data than are required for the USEPA AWQC.
The benchmarks are limited to contaminants in freshwater.
Oak
Ridge
National
Laboratory
Aquatic
Benchmarks
Screening Levels - Sediment Screening Levels (SSLs) have been compiled to evaluate
the potential for contaminants in sediments to cause adverse biological effects, (Long, et. al, 1995;
Long and Morgan 1991; and, USEPA, 1995b). The lower ten percentile (Effects Range-Low [ERL]) and the median percentile (Effects Range-Median [ER-M]) of biological effects have been
developed for several contaminants. The concentration below the ER-L representsa minimal-effects
range (adverse effects would be rarely observed). The concentration above the ER-L but below the
ER-M represents a possible-effects range (adverse effects would occasionally occur). Finally, the
concentration above the ER-M represents a probable-effects range (adverse effects would probably
occur).
Sediment
In addition to the SSLs, Apparent Effects Threshold (AET) Sediment Quality Values have been
developed by Tetra Tech Inc., (1986) for the Puget Sound. AETs are the concentrations of
contaminants above which’ statistically significant biological effects would always be expected.
Finally, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resourceshas developed interim criteria for in-water
disposal of dredged sediments (Sullivan, et. al., 1985). However, these criteria are established using
background data and are not based on aquatic toxicity.
Quality Criteria - Currently, promulgated sediment quality criteria (SQC) only exist for
a few contaminants. However, SQC for nonionic organic compounds .can* be calculated
. . using the
procedures in the Technical?
Sediment Quality Crrterra
Orrzti
. . . for Nomomc
.. .
.
(USEPA,
Contaminants for the Protection of Benthic ~wtnis.ms bv usingbrlum
ParUmu
1993a) as follows:
Sediment
SQC = (Foc)(Koc)(FCV)/1,000,000
7-4
..._.........-.....
“_. . . ...
Where:
SQC = sediment quality criteria (ug/kg)
Foe = sediment organic carbon content (mg/kg)
Koc = chemical organic carbon partition coefficient (mL/g)
FCV = final chronic water quality value &g/L)
7.3.1.5 Field and Laboratory Blank Data
Associating contaminants detected in field related blanks (i.e., trip blanks, equipment rinsates and/or
field blanks) or laboratory method blanks with the same contaminants detected in analytical samples
can eliminate non-site-related contaminants from the list of COPCs. Blank data should be compared
to sample results with which the blanks are associated. However, for this data set it is difficult to
associatespecific blanks with specific environmental samples. Thus, in order to evaluate detection
levels, maximum contaminant concentrations reported in a given set of blanks are applied to a
corresponding set of samples.
In accordance with the National Functional Guidelines for Organics, common lab contaminants (i.e.,
acetone, 2-butanone, methylene chloride, toluene, and phthalate esters) should be regarded as a
direct result of site activities only when sample concentrations exceed 10 times the maximum blank
concentration. For other contaminants not considered common in a lab, concentrations exceeding
5 times the maximum blank concentration indicates contamination resulting from site activities
(USEPA, 199la).
n
Contract Required Quantitation Limits (CRQLs) and percent moisture are employed when
evaluating contaminant concentrations in s&l, in order to correlate solid and aqueous detection
limits. For example, the CRQL for semivolatiles in soil is 33 to 66 times that of aqueous samples,
depending on the contaminant. In order to assesssemivolatile contaminant levels in soil using
aqueous blanks, the blank concentration must then also be multiplied by 33 or 66 to account for
variance from the CRQL (common lab contaminants must first be multiplied by 5 or 10, as
explained in the paragraph above). The final value is divided by the sample percent moisture.
Eliminating a sample result correlates directly to a reduction in the contaminant prevalence in that
medium. Consequently, if elimination due to blank concentration reduces the prevalence of a
contaminant to less than 5 percent, a contaminant that may have been included according to its
prevalence is eliminated as a COPC.
Maximum concentrations of common laboratory contaminants detected in blanks are presented in
Section 6.0, Table 6-l. Blanks containing organic constituents that are not considered common
laboratory contaminants (i.e., all other TCL compounds) are regarded as positive results only when
observed concentrations exceed 5 times the maximum concentration detected in any blank (USEPA,
1989a). All TCL compounds at less than 5 times the maximum level of contamination noted in any
blank are considered not detected in that sample.
7.3.1.6 Backprma
.r=
JRvelS
Contaminants that were detected in the surface soil at concentrations lessthan two-times the average
Base background concentration are not retained as COPCs. As presented in Section 4.0, off-site
surface water and sediment sampleswere collected from several waterbodies in the White Oak River
water basin. The contaminant concentrations in the site samples and the off-site background
7-5
samples are compared to each other to determine if contaminant concentrations in the site stations
are below naturally occurring regional levels.
The two water bodies sampled at Site 44 are Edwards Creek and Strawhom Creek. The majority
of the samples are tidally influenced. Therefore, the mid-stream saltwater off-site background
surface water and sediment samplesare compared to the Site 44 samplesto determine if contaminant
concentrations are within background concentrations. Contaminants that were detected in the
surface water or sediment at concentrations less than the average background concentration are not
retained as COPCs.
7.3.1.7 Anthropoeenic Levels
Ubiquitous anthropogenic background concentrations result from non-site related sources such as
combustion of fossil fuels (i.e., automobiles), plant synthesis,natural fires and factories, Examples
of ubiquitous, anthropogenic chemicals are polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs).
Anthropogenic chemicals are typically not eliminated as COPCs without considering other selection
criteria. It is difficult to determine that such chemicals are present at the site due to operations not
related to the site or the surrounding area. Omitting anthropogenic background chemicals from the
risk assessmentmay result in the loss of important information for those potentially exposed.
The following sections apply the aforementioned selection criteria beginning with the prevalence
of detected analytical results in each medium of interest to establish a preliminary list of COPCs for
Site 44. Once this task has been completed, a final list of media-specific COPCs will be selected
based on the remaining criteria.
7.3.2
Selection
of Contaminants
of Potential
Concern
The following sections present an overview of the analytical data obtained for each medium during
the RI and the subsequent retention or elimination of COPCs using the aforementioned selection
criteria. Contaminants that are not eliminated due to the above criteria are retained as COPCs. The
primary reasons for retaining contaminants as COPCs include, but may not be limited to the
following: (1) frequently detected, (2) detected at concentrations above the screening values (if
available) and/or (3) detected at concentrations above background (if available). In addition, some
common laboratory contaminants (i.e., phthalates, acetone) are retained as COPCs because they
were detected frequently and were not detected in the blank samples. Finally, calcium, magnesium,
potassium, and sodium are not retained as COPCs in any of the media because they are common
naturally occurring chemicals, are not related to the site, and no published toxicity data was
identified to assesspotential impacts to aquatic or terrestrial life.
Tables 7-l and 7-2 present the comparison of the total and dissolved surface water contaminant
concentrations to the SWSVs and the off-site background sample contaminant concentrations,
respectively. Table 7-3 presents the comparison of the sediment contaminant concentrations to
applicable SSVs and the off-site background sample contaminant concentrations. A comparison of
the surface soil contaminant concentrations to base-background concentrations is presented in
Section 6.0, Table 6-3. A summary of the COPCs retained in each media is presented in Table 7-4.
7-6
7.3.2.1 Surface Soil
Thirteen surface soil samples were collected at Site 44. All the samples were analyzed for TCL
VOCs, SVOCs, pesticides/PCBs, and TAL metals (dissolved and total).
Acetone was the only VOC detected in the surface soil. It is retained as a COPC. Five SVOCs were
detected in the surface soil. All the SVOCs [benzo(g,h,i)perylene, bis(2-chloroethyl)ether, bis(Z
ethylhexyl)phthalate, 2,6-dinitrotoluene, and indeno( 1,2,3-cd)pyrene) are retained as COPCs. Three
pesticides (4,4’-DDD, 4,4’-DDE, and 4,4’-DDT) were detected and retained as COPCs in the surface
soil.
Seventeen metals were detected in the surface soil. Cobalt, nickel, and selenium are not retained as
COPCs becausethey were detected at concentrations lessthan two times the base-wide background
concentration. As presented above, calcium, magnesium, potassium, and sodium are not retained
as COPCs. The remaining ten metals (aluminum, arsenic, barium, chromium, copper, iron, lead,
manganese, vanadium, and zinc) are retained as COPCs.
7.3.2.2 Surface Water
Sixteen surface water sampleswere collected at Site 44 in Edwards Creek and the unnamed tributary
to Edwards Creek. Sixteen samples were analyzed for TCL VOCs, while eight samples were
analyzed for SVOCs, pesticides/PCBs, and TAL metals. The eight additional VOC samples were
collected to verify the presence of VOCs in the surface water, and to trace the source of the VOC
contamination.
The sample stations are freshwater or slightly tidally influenced. Therefore, the freshwater off-site
background surface water and sediment samples are compared to the Site 44 samples to determine
if contaminant concentrations in the Site 44 media are within background concentrations. This is
a conservative approach since most of the contaminants in the freshwater off-site background
samples were detected at lower concentrations then they were detected in the mid-stream saltwater
off-site background samples. The contaminant concentrations in the surface water are compared to
the saltwater screening values, since most of the samples are tidally influenced to some degree, and
the water bodies are classified as saltwater by the state of North Carolina.
Seven VOCs were detected in the surface water. 1,I-Dichloroethene, 1,Zdichloroethene, 1,1,2,2tetrachloroethane, trichloroethene, and vinyl chloride are not retained as COPCs for aquatic
receptors because they were detected at concentrations below the SWSVs. Acetone and 1,1,2trichloroethane are the only VOCs retained as COPCs in the surface water samples for both the
aquatic and terrestrial receptors. Two SVOCs [bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate and phenol] were detected
in the surface water but they are not retained as COPCs for the aquatic receptors becausethey were
detected at concentrations below the SWSVs. No pesticides or PCBs were detected in the surface
water.
Thirteen metals (total) were detected in the surface water. Copper, vanadium, and zinc are not
retained as COPCs for the aquatic receptors becausethey were detected at concentrations below the
SWSVs. As presented above, calcium, magnesium, potassium, and sodium are not retained as
COPCs for either the aquatic or terrestrial receptors. The remaining six metals (aluminum, barium,
iron, lead, manganese, and nickel) are retained as COPCs for both the aquatic and terrestrial
receptors.
7-7
Thirteen metals (dissolved) were detected in the surface water. Vanadium and zinc are not retained
as COPCs for the aquatic receptors becausethey were detected at concentrations below the SWSV.
As presented above, calcium, magnesium, potassium, and sodium are not retained as COPCs for the
aquatic receptors. The remaining seven metals (aluminum, barium, copper, iron, lead, manganese,
and nickel) are retained as COPCs for the aquatic receptors.
7.3.2.2 Sediment
Sixteen sediment samples were collected at Site 44 in Edwards Creek and the unnamed tributary to
Edwards Creek. At each sediment station, samples were collected from two depths, 0 to 6 inches
and 6 to 12 inches. All the samples were analyzed for TCL VOCs, SVOCs, pesticides/PCBs, and
TAL metals, while selected samples were analyzed for total organic carbon (TOC) . The lowest
TOC value was used to calculate the SQC screening values, since this is the most conservative
approach for the initial screening. Appendix V contains the SQC calculations.
Two VOCs (acetone and 2-butanone) were detected and retained as COPCs in the sediment.
Thirteen SVOCs were detected in the sediment samples. Benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(a)pyrene,
benzo(b)fluoranthene, benzo(k)fluoranthene, benzo(g,h,i)perylene, bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, and
pyrene are not retained as COPCs because they did not exceed the SSVs. Butylbenzylphthalate,
carbazole, chrysene, fluoranthene, pentachlorophenol, and phenanthrene are retained as COPCs.
Seven pesticides were detected in the sediment. Aldrin, 4,4’-DDD, 4,4’-DDE, 4,4’-DDT, alphachlordane, gamma-chlordane, heptachlor epoxide all are retained as COPCs.
Twenty metals were detected in the sediment. Arsenic, barium, beryllium, cadmium, chromium,
copper, iron, manganese, nickel, silver and zinc are not retained as COPCs because they do not
exceed their respective SSVs. As presented above, calcium, magnesium, potassium, and sodium are
not retained as COPCs. The remaining five metals (aluminum, cobalt, lead, selenium, and
vanadium) are retained as COPCs.
7.3.3
J?hysical/Chemical Characteristics of COPCs
Physical and chemical characteristics of contaminants may affect their mobility, transport, and
bioavailability in the environment. These characteristics include bioconcentration factors (BCFs),
organic carbon partition coefftcient (Koc), octanol water partition coefftcient (Kow), and biotransfer
factors (Bv, Bb, Br). Table 7-5 summarizesthese values for the COPCs detected in the surface soil,
surface water and sediment. Information from these tables is used to assessthe fate and transport
of the contaminants and the potential risks to the environmental receptors at Site 44. The following
paragraphs present the significance of each parameter included in the table.
Bioconcentration factors measure the tendency for a chemical to partition from the water column
or sediment and concentrate in aquatic organisms. Bioconcentration factors are important for
ecological receptors becausechemicals with high BCFs could accumulate in lower-order speciesand
subsequently accumulate to toxic levels in species higher up the food chain. The BCF is the
concentration of the chemical in the organism at equilibrium divided by the concentration of the
chemical in the water. Therefore, the BCF is unitless. The bioconcentration factor is used in the
terrestrial intake model to estimate the COPC concentration in fish that may be ingested by the
raccoon.
7-8
The organic carbon partition coefficient (Koc) measures the tendency for a chemical to partition
between soil or sediment particles containing organic carbon and water. This coefficient is
important in the ecological environment because it determines how strongly an organic chemical
will be bound to the organics in the sediments. The Koc is used to calculate sediment quality
criteria.
The octanol/water partition coefficient (Kow) is the ratio of a chemical concentration in octanol
divided by the concentration in water. The octanol/water partition coefficient has been shown to
correlate well with bioconcentration factors in aquatic organisms and with adsorption to soil or
sediment. The Kow is used to calculate the plant and beef biotransfer factors (for organics) that are
used to estimate the COPC concentration in plants and the small mammal that may be ingested by
the terrestrial receptors in the intake model.
The plant biotransfer factors (Bv or Br) measure the potential for a chemical to accumulate in a
plant. These factors are used to calculate the concentration of the COPCs in the leafy part of the
plant (Bv) or the fruit of the plant (Br). The factors for inorganics are obtained from Baes et. al,
(1984), while the factors for organics are calculated according to Travis and Arms (1988). The Bv
and Br values for the organics are assumed to be same value.
Finally, the beef biotransfer factor (Bb) measures the potential for a chemical to accumulate in an
animal. This factor is used to calculate the COPC concentration in the small mammal that is
ingested by the red fox. The factors for inorganics are obtained from Baes et. al.{ 1984), while the
factors for organics are calculated according to Travis and Arms (1988).
7.4
..
Ecosystems
Potentially
at Risk
Ecological receptors that might be potentially at risk from contaminants at Site 44 were identified
during the field investigations and the habitat evaluation. The regional ecology is presented in
Section 1.0 of this RI, while the site specific ecology is presented in Sections 2.0. Based on the
results of the field investigations and the habitat evaluation, potential receptors of contaminants in
surface water and sediment include the following: fish, benthic macroinvertebrates, other aquatic
flora and fauna and some terrestrial fauna1 species. Potential receptors of contaminants in soil
include the following: deer, rabbits, foxes, raccoons, birds and other terrestrial flora and fauna.
7.5
Jholofzical
EndDoints
The information compiled during the first stageof problem formulation (stressor characteristics and
ecosystemspotentially at risk) is used to selectthe ecological endpoints for this ERA. There are two
primary types of ecological endpoints: assessment endpoints and measurement endpoints.
Assessmentendpoints are environmental characteristics,which, if they are found to be significantly
affected, may indicate a need for remediation (e.g., decrease in sports/fisheries). Measurement
endpoints are quantitative expressions of an observed or measured effect of the contamination of
concern. Measurement endpoints may be identical to assessmentendpoints (e.g., measurement of
abundance of fish), or they may be used as surrogates for assessmentendpoints (e.g., toxicity test
endpoints). Both types of endpoints are used in the ecological risk evaluation and are presented in
the following sections.
A measurement endpoint, or “ecological effects indicator” as it is sometimes referred, is used to
evaluate the assessmentendpoint. Therefore, measurement endpoints must correspond to, or be
7-9
predictive of, assessment endpoints. In addition, they must be readily measurable, preferably
quickly and inexpensively, using existing techniques. Measurement endpoints must take into
consideration the magnitude of the contamination and the exposure pathway. The measurement
endpoint should be an indicator of effects that are temporally distributed. Low natural variability
in the endpoint is preferred to aid in attributing the variability in the endpoint to the contaminant.
Measurement endpoints should be diagnostic of the pollutants of interest, as well as broadly
applicable to allow comparison between sites and regions. Also, measurement endpoints should be
standardized (e.g., standard procedures for toxicity tests). Finally, it is desirable to use endpoints
that already are being measured (if they exist) to determine baseline conditions.
7.5.1
Aquatic
Endpoints
The assessmentendpoints for the aquatic receptors are potential decreases in the survival, growth,
and/or reproduction of the aquatic receptor population or subpopulation that is attributable to siterelated contaminants. The first measurement endpoint for the aquatic assessmentendpoint includes
decreased survival and growth of Pm
promelas and Chironomus fentang, decreased survival
and reproduction of Ceriodaw
dubia, and decreased survival of I-Iyalella azeteca as compared
to controls. The second measurement endpoint is the exceedance of contaminant-specific surface
water and sediment effect concentrations (i.e., SWSVs, and SSVs).
7.5.2
i-
Terrestrial
Endpoints
The assessment endpoint for the terrestrial receptors is the potential reduction of a receptor
population or subpopulation that is attributable to contaminants from the site. The measurement
endpoints for the terrestrial ERA include exceedances of contaminant-specific soil effect
concentrations (i.e., SSSVs) and contaminant-specific effect doses (TRVs).
7.6
Conceutual
Model
This section of the ERA presents each potential exposure pathway via soil, groundwater, surface
water, sediment, and air, and the likelihood that an exposure will occur through these pathways.
Figure 7-l presents the flowchart of potential exposure pathways and ecological receptors.
To determine if ecological exposure via these pathways may occur in the absence of remedial
actions, an analysis is conducted including the identification and characterization of the exposure
pathways. The following four elements are examined to determine if a complete exposure pathway
is present:
0
0
0
a
7.6.1
A source and mechanism of chemical release
An environmental transport medium
A feasible receptor exposure route
A receptor exposure point
Soil Exposure
Pathway
Potential release sourcesto be considered in evaluating the soil pathway are surface or buried wastes
and contaminated soil. The release mechanisms to be considered are fugitive dust, leaching,
tracking, and surface runoff. The transport medium is the soil. The potential routes to be considered
for ecological exposure to the contaminated soil are ingestion and dermal contact. Potential
7-10
exposure points for ecological receptors include speciesliving in, or coming in contact with, the soil.
COPCs were detected in the surface soil demonstrating a release from a source to the surface soil
transport medium. Potential receptors that may be exposed to contaminants in surface soil at/or
around surface soil in the areas of detected COPCs include the following: deer, fox, raccoon,
rabbits, birds, plants, and other terrestrial life.
Terrestrial receptors potentially are exposed to contaminants in the soil through ingestion, dermal
contact, and/or direct uptake (for flora). The magnitude of the exposure depends on their feeding
habits and the amount of time they reside in the contaminated soil. In addition, terrestrial species
may ingest organisms that have bioconcentrated contaminates from the soil. This exposure pathway
is likely to occur at Site 44 and will be retained for further analysis.
7.6.2
Groundwater
Exposure
Pathway
The potential release source to be considered in evaluating the groundwater pathway is contaminated
soil. The release mechanism to be considered is leaching. The routes to be considered for
ecological exposure to the contaminated groundwater are ingestion and dermal contact.
Groundwater discharge to area surface waters may represent a pathway for contaminant migration.
Sub-surface biota (i.e., microorganisms) are the only ecological receptors expected to be directly
exposed to groundwater. Potential impacts to these biota are not assessedin this ERA because
current guidance does not provide sufficient information to evaluate risk. In addition, since the
receptors of concern are not directly exposed to groundwater at Site 44, the groundwater to surface
water exposure is accounted for in the surface water section of the ERA.
7.6.3
Surface Water
and Sediment
Exposure
Pathway
Potential release sources to be considered in evaluating the surface water and sediment pathways
are contaminated surface soil and groundwater. The release mechanisms to be considered are
groundwater seepage and surface runoff. The potential routes to be considered for ecological
exposure to the contaminated surface water/sediment are ingestion and dermal contact. Potential
exposure points for ecological receptors include species living in, or coming in contact with, the
surface water/sediment on-site or downgradient of the site. COPCs were detected in the surface
water and sediment demonstrating a release from a source to the surface water or sediment transport
medium. Potential receptors that may be exposed to contaminants in surface water and sediment
include the following: fish, bentbic macroinvertebrates, deer, birds, and other aquatic and terrestrial
life.
Aquatic receptors are exposed to contaminants in the surface water and sediment by ingesting water
while feeding and by direct contact while feeding or swimming. This exposure pathway is likely
to occur at Site 44 and will be evaluated in the ERA. In addition, aquatic organisms may ingest
other aquatic flora and fauna that have bioaccumulated chemicals from the surface water and
sediment. This potential exposure pathway will not be evaluated in the ERA because current
guidance does not provide sufficient information to evaluate risk.
Terrestrial fauna1 receptors potentially are exposed to contaminants in the surface water and
sediment through ingestion and dermal contact. The magnitude of the exposure depends on their
feeding habits and the amount of time they reside in the contaminated waters. In addition, terrestrial
species may ingest organisms (e.g., fish, small mammals, invertebrates, and plants) that have
7-11
bioconcentrated contaminates from the surface water and sediment. These exposure pathways are
likely to occur at Site 44. However, only the surface water and surface soil ingestion pathway will
be evaluated in the ERA. Current guidance does not exist to evaluate the sediment pathway or
dermal contact pathway for terrestrial receptors, therefore, these pathways will not be evaluated in
the EPA.
7.6.4
Air Exposure
Pathway
There are two potential release mechanisms to be considered in evaluating the atmospheric pathway
release of contaminated particulates and volatilization from surface soil, groundwater and surface
water. The potential exposure points for receptors are areas on or adjacent to the site. The air
exposure pathway is not evaluated in this ERA becauseair sampling was not conducted and current
guidance does not provide sufficient information to evaluate risk
7.7
Exposure
Assessment
The next phase after the problem formulation is the exposure assessmentthat consistsof quantifying
the potential exposure of the stressors(COPCs) to the ecological receptors.
The RI included collecting samples for analytical analysis from four media; soil, groundwater,
surface water, and sediment. As presented earlier in the ERA, contaminants in the subsurface soil
and groundwater are not evaluated. The analytical results for the data used in ERA are presented
in Section 4.0 of this report.
The regional ecology, site ecology, and habitat characterization in the areas surrounding Site 44 are
presented in Sections 1.0 and 2.0 of this report. Information on sensitive environments and
endangered speciesalso is included in this section. Exposure of contaminants in the surface soil to
terrestrial flora and fauna (invertebrates and microorganisms) are assumed to be equal to the
contaminant concentration in the surface soil. It is noted in the uncertainty section of this ERA that
all the contaminants in the surface soil may not be bioavailable to the terrestrial flora or fauna.
Exposure of contaminants in the surface water and sediment to aquatic receptors are assumed to be
equal to the contaminant concentration in the surface water and sediment. Exposure of contaminants
in the surface soil and surface water to other terrestrial fauna (mammals, birds) is estimated using
chronic daily intake models (see Section 7.8.5 of this report).
The following sections present the results of the ecosystemcharacterization including the biological
sampling, abiotic habitat, and biotic habitat.
7.7.1
Surface Water,
Sediment,
and Bioassay Sampling
Water quality measurements were collected during the surface water, sediment, and bioassay
sampling event prior to the sample collection. These measurements consisted of temperature, pH,
specific conductance, salinity, and dissolved oxygen. Site specific descriptions, and field water
quality measurements were recorded on field data sheets(see Appendix T). The station locations
and sampling procedures for collecting each of the environmental media arc presented in Section 2.0
of this report.
7-12
7.7.1.1 Abiotic Habitat
The abiotic habitat consistsof the description of the stations with regard to size of the creek, depth
of the water, substrate type, water chemistry and other such non-biological descriptors. The
following sections present the abiotic habitat for the sampling stations at Site 44.
Table 7-6 presents the sampling station characterization summary that includes the stream width and
depth, canopy cover, sediment type, and sediment odor of the Site 44 stations and the upstream
stations. The stream width ranged from 3 to 20 feet, while the stream depth ranged from 0.5 to 2
feet. The canopy cover ranged from partly shaded to shaded. Finally, the sediment ranged from a
silty-sand, to a coarse sand/gravel mix. The sediment had a normal, anaerobic, and/or petroleum
odor.
Table 7-7 presents the results of the field chemistry including the temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen
concentration, conductivity, and salinity. The temperature ranged from 13.0 to 18.5 “C, the pH
ranged from 3.58 to 7.32 S.U., the dissolved oxygen ranged from 0.7 to 8.2 mg/L, the conductivity
ranged from 320 to 5,400 umhos/cm, and the salinity ranged from 0 to 4.1 ppt. The field chemistry
at these stations appears to be typical of surface waters at MCB, Camp Lejeune based on Baker’s
previous sampling experience.
7.7.1.2 Bioassay Procedures
Baker Environmental, Inc. (Baker) contracted with RMC Environmental Services, Inc. (RMC) to
conduct surface water and sediment bioassays for one sample collected in Strawhorn Creek.
Appendix W contains the laboratory methods used to conduct the bioassays.
RMC conducted 7-day survival and growth bioassays using the fathead minnow (Pimeohales
promelas), and survival and reproduction bioassaysusing the cladoceran (Ceriodaphnia dubia) with
the surface water sample. The tests. were conducted following
procedures outlined in the following
. .
.
documents: Methods for MeasurmP the Acute Tox~ctty of Effluents to Fresh
water
and
Mm
. .
.
, 1990) and Short-Term Methods for Estrw
the Chru
aters to Freshwater Qrwtsms (USEPA, 1989d).
g. gromelas larvae and young G. m
(<24 hr old at test initiation) were exposed to the surface
water samples for 7 days under static renewal conditions (i.e., the test solution was replaced daily
with freshly prepared solution). The tests were conducted with 100 percent sample, along with
sample dilutions of 50 percent, 25 percent, 12.5 percent, and 6.25 percent. A control sample
consisting of 100 percent dilution water also was tested. Survival of the minnows was recorded
daily while the growth of the minnows (as weight gain/loss) was recorded at the end of 7 days.
Survival and reproduction of the c. fi
were recorded daily.
RMC conducted 1O-daychronic survival bioassaysusing the amphipod J-Iyalella azetec& and growth
The tests
and survival bioassays using the midge tironomu
tentans with the sediment
sample.
. .
*
.
were conducted in accordance with the Jviethodssuring
the Toxmttv and Broaccud
.
of Sediment Assoctated Cownts
wrth Fremr
Invertebrates, (USEPA, 1994b).
Ten day old fI. meteca and third instar C. tentans were exposed to the sediment samplesfor ten days
under static renewal conditions. The overlying water was replaced twice daily, however, the
7-13
sediment was not replaced or diluted. Survival of the H. azeteca,and survival and growth (as weight
gain/loss) of the C. tentans were recorded at the end of 10 days.
RMC used moderately hard reconstituted water for the surface water control, dilution water, and the
overlying water for the sediment samples. Baker provided RMC with a sediment sample from
Frenchs Creek (assumed to be uncontaminated) that was used as the control sediment. The bioassay
results of the Site 44 samples were statistically compared to the bioassay results of the control
samples to determine if there was a statistically significant difference in effects (i.e., survival,
growth, reproduction) between the samples.
7.7.1.3 Bioassav Results
The three measurement endpoints for the surface water bioassays are the No Observed Effect
Concentration (NOEC), the Lowest Observed Effect Concentration (LOEC), and the Lethal
Concentration for 50 percent of the test organisms (LC,,). The NOEC is the highest sample
concentration that does not show a significant difference in effects between the site sample and the
control sample. For example, a NOEC of 100 percent sample indicates that the survival or growth
of P. promelas is not significantly different between the undiluted (100 percent) site sample and the
control sample. The LOEC is the lowest sample concentration that shows a statistical difference in
effects between the site sample and the control sample. For example, a LOEC of 50 percent sample
for the P. promelas indicates that there is a significant difference in growth or survival between the
site sample (diluted by 50 percent) and the control sample. Finally, the LC,, is the sample
concentration that is expected to be lethal to half of the test organisms in a given time period. The
LC,, is calculated using on the survival data. The table below summarizes
I the results of the surface
water bioassays.
Note:
All values in percentage of sample
NM - Not Measured
NOEC - No Observed Effects Concentration
LOEC - Lowest Observed Effects Concentration
LGO - Lethal Concentration of 50% of the test organisms over a given time period
The results in the above table indicate that survival and growth of the E. promela in the Site 44
sample is not significantly different
The results of the bioassays indicate that survival and growth of the E. Dromel~ in the undiluted
(100 percent) Site 44 sample is not significantly different from the survival and growth of the E.
promelas in the control sample (NOEC). The survival of G dubia in the undiluted sample is
significantly different from the survival of G. fi
in the control sample, while no significant
survival effect is observed between the control sample and the diluted (50 percent) Site 44 sample.
7-14
Therefore, the lowest concentration where an significant survival effect is observed in the 100
percent Site 44 sample, and is thus designated as the LOEC. There is not a significant difference
in reproduction of C. dub& between the control sample and the diluted (50 percent) Site 44 sample.
The 100 percent site sample was not included in the reproduction evaluation since there was a
significant survival effect in this sample. Therefore, both the NOEC and the LOEC are 50 percent.
Finally, the 4%hr LCsOis 100 percent sample for fathead minnow and the C. dubia,
Current procedures for sediment bioassays do not allow for the dilution of sediment with clean
sediment to test the effects of different sediment concentrations. Therefore, it is not possible to
calculate a NOEC, LOEC or LC,,. The sediment bioassay did not reveal a significant difference in
survival of J-J.aztecabetween the control sample and the Site 44 sample, or survival and growth of
c tentans between the control sample and the Site 44.
7.8
EcoloPical Effects Characterization
The ecological effects data that were used to assesspotential risks to aquatic and/or terrestrial
receptors in this ERA include aquatic and terrestrial screening values as presented in Section 7.3.2
to aid in the selection of the COPCs. The following sections present a summary of the ecological
effects comparison.
7.8.1
Surface Water
Contaminant concentrations detected in the surface water at Site 44 were compared to the saltwater
SWSVs to determine if there were any exceedancesof the published values (see Tables 7-l and 7-2).
In summary, lead, manganese, and nickel were the only contaminants (total) that exceeded any of
the SWSVs. Copper, lead, manganese, and nickel were the only dissolved contaminants detected
in the surface water that exceeded any of the SWSVs. No saltwater SWSVs were available for
acetone, 1,l ,Ztrichloroethane, aluminum, barium, or iron.
In the Ouality Criteria for Water-1986 it is reported that soluble barium concentrations in marine
waters generally would have to exceed ;O,OOOpg/L before toxicity to aquatic life would be expected
(USEPA, 1987). Therefore, the maximum barium concentrations in the surface water samples (27. I
pg/L-total, and 22.4 pg&dissolved) are below the concentrations that are expected to cause adverse
impacts to aquatic life.
The source for the SWSV for manganese of 10 pg/L is not known. However, AQUIRE reports that
10 pg/L caused decreased growth in the pacific oyster (Crassostrea g&$. This study, which did
not meet the criteria for reliability, may be the data source for the Region III value. Other toxicity
values for manganese from AQUIRE listed adverse effects at 20,000 pg/L which is higher than the
maximum sample concentration collected at Site 44 (231 l&L-total, and 33.3 &L-dissolved).
These studies also were conducted with mollusk species.
The maximum concentrations of iron (1,980 pg/L-total, 654 @L-dissolved) in the surface water
are above the concentrations that caused adverse impacts to aquatic life of some of the studies
obtained from the Aquatic Information Retrieval Database (AQUIRE) (100 to 330,000 [email protected]).
However, the majority of the effect concentrations from the studies on AQUIRE are several orders
of magnitude above the maximum iron concentration detected in the surface water. Most of the
studies on iron in AQUIRE were conducted with various marine phytoplankton cultures.
7-15
7.8.2
Sediment
Contaminant concentrations detected in the sediment at Site 44 were compared to SSVs to determine
if there were any exceedances of the published values (see Table 7-3). Butylbenzylphthalate,
chrysene, fluoranthene, pentachlorophenol and phenanthrene are the only SVOCs that exceeded a
SSV. Aldrin, alpha-chlordane, gamma-chlordane, 4,4’-DDD, 4,4’-DDE, 4,4’-DDT, and heptachlor
epoxide are the only pesticides that exceeded a SSV. Finally, lead and selenium are the only metals
that exceeded a SSV. No SSVs are available for acetone, 2-butanone, carbazole, aluminum, cobalt,
or vanadium.
7.8.4
Surface Soil
Although promulgated standards do not exist, Surface Soil Screening Values (SSSVs) that can be
used to evaluate potential ecological risks to terrestrial flora and fauna have been developed by
USEPA Region III (USEPA, 1995b) and Oak Ridge National Laboratory (Will and Suter, 1994a,
1994b). The contaminant concentrations in the surface soils are compared to the SSSVs to
determine if potential impacts to terrestrial flora and fauna invertebrates may be expected (see
Table 7-8).
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene, indeno( 1,2,3-cd)pyrene, 4,4’-DDE, 4,4’-DDT, aluminum, chromium, copper,
iron, vanadium, and zinc were detected in the surface soil at concentrations exceeding the SSSVs.
No SSSVs were available for acetone, bis(2-chloroethyl)ether, or 2,6-dinitrotoluene).
Much of the study area at Site 44 is heavily vegetated with dense understory and trees greater than
three inches in diameter. Therefore, ecological receptors have a high potential for becoming
exposed to contaminants in the surface soil.
7.8.5
Terrestrial
Chronic
Daily Intake
Model
In addition to comparing the soil concentrations to toxicity values for terrestrial invertebrates and
plants, a terrestrial Chronic Daily Intake (CDI) Model is used to estimate the exposure of the COPCs
to terrestrial receptors. The following paragraphs describe the procedures used to evaluate the
potential soil exposure to terrestrial fauna at Site 44 by both direct and indirect exposure to COPCs
via surface water, soil, and foodchain transfer.
Based on the regional ecology and potential habitat at the site, the indicator species used in this
analysis are the white-tailed deer, cottontail rabbit, red fox, raccoon, and the bobwhite quail. The
exposure points for these receptors are the surface soil, surface water, and biota. The routes for
terrestrial exposure to the COPCs in the soil and water are incidental soil ingestion, drinking water,
vegetation (leafy plants, seeds and berries) ingestion, fish ingestion, and ingestion of small
mammals.
7.8.5.1 eation
.
of Terrestrial Reference Value
Total exposure of the terrestrial receptors to the COPCs in the soil and surface waters is determined
by estimating the CD1 dose and comparing this dose to Terrestrial Reference Values (TRVs)
representing acceptable daily dosesin mg/kg/day. The CD1 equations were adapted from those used
in Scarano et. al., (1993). The TRVs were developed from No-Observed-Adverse-Effect-Levels
(NOAELs) or Lowest-Observed-Adverse-Effect-Levels (LOAELs) obtained from the Integrated
7-16
Risk Information System (IRIS), Agency for Toxic Substancesand Disease Registry Toxicological
Profiles, mineral tolerance levels of domestic animals (NAS, 1992) or other toxicological data in
the literature. Appendix X presents the methodology used in deriving the TRVs and the animals that
were used to derive each TRV.
7.8.5.2 Calculation of Chronic Daily Intah
Potential impacts of the terrestrial receptors to the COPCs in the soil and surface water are
determined by estimating the CD1 dose and comparing this dose to TRVs representing acceptable
daily doses in mg/kg/day. The estimated CD1 dose of the bobwhite quail, cottontail rabbit, whitetailed deer and small mammal, to soil, surface water, and vegetation is determined using the
following equation:
CDI
=
BW
Where:
CD1
cw
Iw
cs
Bv
Iv
Is
H
BW
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
Chronic Daily Intake, mg/kg/d
Contaminant concentration in the surface water, mg/L
Rate of drinking water ingestion, L/d
Contaminant concentration in soil, mg/kg
Soil to plant transfer coefficient (leaves, stems, straw, etc.), unitless
Rate of vegetation ingestion, kg/d
Incidental soil ingestion, kg/d
Contaminated area/Home area range area ratio, unitless
Body weight, kg
To calculate the contaminant concentration in the small mammal, the resulting CD1 from the above
equation is multiplied by the biotransfer factor for beef (Bb) for organics (Travis and Arms, 1988)
and metals (Baes, et. al., 1984).
The estimated CD1 dose of the raccoon is determined using the following equation.
Where:
CD1
cw
Iw
Cf
If
cs
Br
Iv
IS
H
BW
Chronic Daily Intake, mg/kg/d
Contaminant concentration in the surface water, mg/L
Rate of drinking water ingestion, L/d
Contaminant concentration in the fish, mg/kg
Rate of fish ingestion, kg/d
Contaminant concentration in soil, mg/kg
Soil to plant transfer coefficient (fruit, seeds,tubers, etc.), unitless
Rate of vegetation ingestion, kg/d
Incidental soil ingestion, kg/d
Contaminated area/Home area range area ratio, unitless
Body weight, kg
7-17
The contaminant concentration in the fish is calculated by multiplying the bioconcentration factor
by the surface water concentration.
The estimated CD1 dose of the red fox is determined using the following equation:
CDI
=
(Cw)(Iw)+[(Cs)(Bv)(Iv) +(W(W +(cmmwJl
BW
Where:
CD1
cw
Iw
cs
Bv
Iv
Is
Cm
Im
H
BW
Chronic Daily Intake, mg/kg/d
Contaminant concentration in the surface water, mg/L
Rate of drinking water ingestion, L/d
Contaminant concentration in soil, mg/kg
Soil to plant transfer coefftcient (leaves, stems, straw, etc.), unitless
Rate of vegetation ingestion, kg/d
Incidental soil ingestion, kg/d
Contaminant concentrations in small mammals, mg/kg
Rate of small mammal ingestion, kg/d
Contaminated area/Home area range area ratio, unitless
Body weight, kg
Bioconcentration of the COPCs to plants is calculated using the soil to plant transfer coefficient (Bv
or Br) for organics (Travis and Arms, 1988) and metals (Baes et. al., 1984). The concentrations of
the COPCs used in the models are the lower of the upper 95 percent confidence limit or the
maximum concentration detected of each COPC. The exposure parameters used in the CD1
calculations are presented in Table 7-9.
7.9
Risk Characterization
The risk characterization is the final phase of ‘a risk assessment.It is at this phase that the likelihood
of adverse effects occurring as a result of exposure to a stressoris evaluated. This section evaluates
the potential decrease in aquatic and terrestrial populations at Site 44 from contaminants identified
at the site.
A Quotient Index (QI) approach is used to characterize the risk to aquatic receptors from exposure
to contaminants in the surface water and sediment and terrestrial receptors from exposure to
contaminants in the surface soil, surface water, and biota. This approach characterizes the potential
effects by comparing exposure levels of COPCs in the surface water and sediments to the aquatic
reference values presented in Section 7.8, Ecological Effects Characterization. The QI is calculated
as follows:
QI =
Where:
( EC or CDI)
(SWSV,
SSV, or TRY)
Quotient Index
EC = Exposure Concentration, ug/L, &kg or mg/kg
CD1 = Chronic Daily Intake, mg/kg/day
SWSV = Surface Water Screening Value, pglL
7-18
SSV = Sediment Screening Value, &kg or mg/kg
TRV = Terrestrial Reference Value, mg/kg/day
A QI of greater than “unity” is considered to be indicative of potential risk. Such values do not
necessarily indicate that an effect will occur but only that a lower threshold has been exceeded. It
is important to determine which contaminants are posing the highest risks, in order to evaluate the
significance of those contaminants to the site. Therefore, the evaluation of the significance of the
QI has been judged as follows: (Menzie et. al., 1993)
a
QI exceeds “1” but less than “10”: some small potential for environmental effects
0
QI exceeds “10”: significant potential that greater exposures could result in effects
based on experimental evidence
a
QI exceeds “100”: effects may be expected since this represents an exposure level
at which effects have been observed in other species
The risks characterized above provide insight into general effects upon animals and plants in the
local population. However, depending on the endpoint selected,they may not indicate if populationlevel effects will occur.
7.9.1
Surface Water
Table 7-10 presents the surface water QIs. Figure 7-2 graphically displays the QIs that exceed “1”.
See Appendix V for the QI calculations. In summary, copper (dissolved), lead (total and
dissolved), manganese (total and dissolved), and nickel (total and dissolved) were the only surface
water COPCs with QIs greater than “1”. With the exception of the manganese samples, all the QIs
were less than “5”. The QIs for manganese ranged from “1.1 to 23.1”.
7.9.2
Sediment
Table 7-l 1 presents the sediment QIs. Figure 7-2 graphically displays the QIs that exceed ” 1”. See
Appendix V for the QI calculations. The SQC QIs for the organics are calculated on a per-station
basis using the sample-specific TOC values. When TOC was not collected in a specific sample, the
lowest TOC value in that waterbody was used to calculate the SQC. Chrysene, fluoranthene,
pentachlorophenol and phenanthrene are the only SVOCs with QIs that exceeded “1”. All the QIs
were less than “3” with the exception of the butylbenzylphthalate SQC QI of 84.2. Overall, only a
slight risk to aquatic receptors is expected from SVOCs in the sediment since most of the QI are
relatively low, and they are detected infrequently.
Alpha-chlordane, gamma-chlordane, 4,4’-DDD, 4,4’-DDE, 4,4’-DDT, and heptachlor epoxide were
the only pesticides detected in the sediment samples with QIs that exceeded “1”. Most of the
samples had ER-M and SQC QIs that were less than ” 10”. However, several samples had QIs that
exceeded “100”. Stations 44-UT-SD02,44-EC-SD02 and 44-EC-SD05 had the highest pesticide
detections. Therefore, there is a moderate to high potential for adverse impacts to aquatic receptors
from pesticides in the sediment.
7-19
Lead and selenium are the only metals detected in the sediment sampleswith QIs that exceeded “1”.
All the ER-L QIs were less than “2”) while all the ER-M QIs are less than “1”. Therefore, only a
slight risk to aquatic receptors is expected from metals in the sediment.
7.9.3
Terrestrial
Chronic
Daily Intake
Model
Table 7-12 presents the QI for the terrestrial CD1 model. Appendix X contains the CD1
spreadsheets. The cottontail rabbit (QI=SS) and the raccoon (QI=12.1) are the only species with
QIs that exceeded “1”. Aluminum (QI=3.5), iron (QI=l.6) and vanadium (QI=l.7) are the COPCs
that account for the majority of the QI value in the rabbit. Aluminum (QI=l 1.7) is the COPC that
accounts for the majority of the QI value in the raccoon. No other COPCs had individual QIs that
exceeded “1”.
7.10
EcoloPical
Simificance
This section essentially summarizesthe overall risks to the ecology at the site. It addresses impacts
to the ecological receptors at Site 44 from the COPCs detected in the media. This section also
summarizes which COPCs are impacting the receptors to the greatest degree, and what contaminants
are site-related “significant”. This information, to be used in conjunction with the human health risk
assessment, supports the selection of remedial action(s) for Site 44 that are protective of public
health and the environment.
7.10.1
Aquatic
Receptors
With the exception of the additional upstream surface water samplesthat were collected to evaluate
the extent of the VOC contamination, all the surface water and sediment samples were collected
either adjacent to, or downstream of Site 44. Copper (dissolved), lead (total and dissolved),
manganese (total and dissolved), and nickel (total and dissolved) are the only surface water COPCs
with that exceeded the SWSVs. It is generally regarded among the scientific community that
dissolved metal more closely approximates the bioavailable fraction of metal in the water column
than does total recoverable metal (USEPA, 1993f). Therefore, there is a potential for these copper,
lead, and nickel to adversely impact aquatic life in the areas where the SWSVs were exceeded. It
should be noted that these exceedencesonly occurred at a few stations,and are not expected to cause
a significant decrease in the aquatic life population in Edwards Creek.
As presented in the Section 7.8.1 (Ecological Effects) of this ERA, the source of the manganese
SWSV is not known. However, it appears to be based on a study conducted with mollusks. Other
studies conducted with mollusks indicate that the concentration of manganese in the surface water
is lower than the concentrations that may cause a potential decreasein the population of aquatic life.
Therefore, there is not sufftcient data to determine if the concentration on manganese would cause
a decrease in the population of aquatic life. In addition, manganese does not appear to be siterelated.
Total and dissolved iron are above the concentrations reported to cause adverse impacts to marine
phytoplankton. However, similar to manganese, there are not enough data to determine if the
detected concentration of iron in the surface water is expected to cause a decrease in the aquatic
receptor population.
7-20
Four SVOCs were detected in the sediment at concentrations slightly exceeding the ER-L, but did
not exceed the ER-M. Two of the SVOCs slightly exceeded the SQC value. One SVOC
(butylbenzylphthalate) was detected in the sediment with a SQC QI of 84.2 at Station 44-UT-SD02.
However, it did not exceed the ER-L value, and it only was detected in one sample. Three of these
SVOCs were detected at Station 44-UT-SD03, indicating a potential “hot spot”. However, based
on the relatively low exceedencesof the SSVs, and/or the infrequency of the detection, there is a low
potential for these contaminants to cause a decrease in the population of aquatic life. It should be
noted that petroleum odors were detected in sediment samples 44-EC-SD04,44-EC-SDOS, and 44UT-SD02. Butylbenzylphthalate was the only SVOC detected in one of these samplesthat exceeded
a SSV. As presented in Section 4.0 of this report, there is a lift station that discharges to the
unnamed tributary. This lift station may be the source of the SVOCs since they are detected in the
unnamed tributary, and the stations adjacent to the tributary (44-EC-SD04 and 44-EC-SD05).
Six pesticides were detected in the sediment at concentrations exceeding the SSVs. Base on the QIs,
4,4’-DDD, 4,4’-DDE, and 4,4’-DDT were the pesticides that contributed highest to the risk to aquatic
life. The highest pesticide concentrations were detected at Stations 44-UT-SD02,44-EC-SD02 and
44-EC-SD05. The source of the pesticides is not known since pesticides reportedly were not stored
or disposed at Site 44. In addition, since the high pesticide concentrations were detected in nonadjacent locations and were detected at concentrations typical of MCB, Camp Lejeune (See
Section 4.0). Therefore, the pesticides may be due to the periodic pesticide spraying that occurred
on the base. ,
Lead and selenium are the only metals detected in the sediment at concentrations that exceeded the
ER-L. However, neither metal exceeds the ER-M. Therefore, there is a low potential for these
metals in the sediment to decreasethe aquatic receptor population. It should be noted that both lead
exceedenceswere located at 44-UT-SD03, the same location as the SVOC “hot spot”. The selenium
exceedence occurred at station 44-UT-SD0 1.
The bioassay samples were collected at station 44-ECSW/SD02. This station had a relatively high
concentration of pesticides in the sediment, along with concentrations of manganese and nickel at
concentrations that exceeded the SWSV. For the surface water bioassay, adverse survival effects
were observed in the G. &&&J bioassay. However, no adverse survival or growth effects were
observed in the E. gromelas bioassay. The reason for the decreasedsurvival of the C. fi
may be
the metals detected in the surface water. The differences in results between the two samples may be
due to interspecies differences in sensitivities to the contaminants in the surface water. No decrease
in survival or growth of H. aeca or G. tentans was observed in the Site 44 sediment sample.
7.10.2
Terrestrial
Receptors
Several SVOCs, pesticides, and metals were detected in the surface soil at concentrations that exceed
the SSSVs. No SSSVs were available for some of the COPCs, therefore, potential adverse impacts
to terrestrial invertebrates and plants from these contaminants could not be evaluated. Much of the
study area at Site 44 is heavily vegetated with dense understory and trees greater than three inches
in diameter. Therefore, ecological receptors have a high potential for becoming exposed to
contaminants in the surface soil.
The cottontail rabbit and the raccoon are the only terrestrial species with estimated CD1 values that
exceeded the TRV values. Aluminum, iron, and vanadium in the cottontail rabbit model, and
aluminum in the raccoon model, contributed the majority of the exceedencesin these models. These
7-21
contaminants are not related to past site activities, and are common naturally occurring metals.
Therefore, they are not considered to be site-related.
7.10.3
Threatened
and Endangered
Species
No threatened or endangered species are present at Site 44.
7.10.4
Wetlands
As presented on the Biohabitat Map in Section 2.0, several wetland areas are present at Site 44. The
wetlands border Edwards Creek and the Unnamed Tributary on both sides. The only samples
collected in the wetlands were collected in the surface water and sediment in the waterbodies
adjacent to the wetlands. Potential impacts to aquatic and terrestrial receptors exposed to
contaminants in these media are evaluated in other sections of this ERA.
7.11
Uncertaintv
Analysis
The procedures used in this evaluation to assessrisks to ecological receptors, as in all such
assessments,are subject to uncertainties. The following discussessome of the uncertainty in this
ERA.
The chemical sampling program at Site 44 consisted of sixteen surface water samples, and eight
saltwater sediment samples. Because there were less than twenty samples, contaminants could not
be eliminated becauseof infrequency. Therefore, contaminants not related to the site may have been
retained as COPCs and thus carried through the ERA.
There is uncertainty in the ecological endpoint comparison. The SWSVs (WQS and AWQC) are
established to be protective of a majority of the potential receptors. However, some speciesmay not
be protected by the values becauseof their increased sensitivity to the chemicals. In addition, most
of the values are established using laboratory tests,where the concentrations of certain water quality
parameters (pH, hardness, total organic carbon) that may influence toxicity are most likely at
different concentrations in the site water.
Potential adverse impacts to aquatic receptors from contaminants in the sediments were evaluated
by comparing the COPC concentration in the sediments to SSVs. These SSVs have more
uncertainty associatedwith them than do the SWSVs, since the procedures for developing them are
not as established as those used in developing SWSLs. In addition, sediment type (PH, acid volatile
sulfide, total organic carbon) also has a significant impact on the bioavailability and toxicity of
contaminants.
Potential adverse impacts to terrestrial invertebrates and plants were evaluated by comparing the
COPC concentration in the soil to SSSVs. Most of these studies do not account for the soil type,
which may have a large influence on the toxicity of the contaminants. For example, soil with high
organic carbon content will tend to sorb many of the organic COPCs, thus making them less
bioavailable to terrestrial receptors. In addition, most of the SSSVsare based on one or two studies,
which greatly adds to their uncertainty.
There are some differences of opinion found in the literature as to the effectiveness of using models
to predict concentrations of contaminants found in terrestrial species. According to one source, the
7-22
food chain models currently used incorporate simplistic assumptions that may not represent actual
site conditions, bioavailability of contaminants, or site-specific behavior of the receptors. Simple
food chain models can provide an effective means of initial characterization of risk, however,
residue analyses, toxicity tests, and the use of biomarkers provide a better approach for assessing
exposure (Menzie et. al., 1993).
There are several sources of uncertainty when using these models. First, most of the terrestrial
reference values are based on toxicity data from another species,which is then extrapolated to the
species of concern using a body-size scaling equation. Since the toxicity of all contaminants may
not be proportional to body size, the calculated TRVs may not accurately predict risk to the species
of concern. Another source of uncertainty with the models is that many of the input parameters are
based on default values (i.e., ingestion rate) that may or may not adequately represent the actual
values of the parameters. -In addition, there is uncertainty in the amount that the indicator species
will represent other speciespotentially exposed to COPCs at the site. There is uncertainty in use of
the bioconcentration and biotransfer factors. Bioconcentration and biotransfer factors can vary
widely from species to species. The species used in the calculation of the bioconcentration and
biotransfer factors are different that the speciesthat actually occur at the site. Therefore, use of the
factors will tend to either overestimate or underestimate actual bioaccumulation of contaminants.
Finally, terrestrial receptors also may be exposed to contaminants in the sediments. However,
currently, there is no guidance in the literature that can be used to evaluate this potential exposure
pathway.
The toxicity of chemical mixtures is not well understood. All the toxicity information used in the
ERA for evaluating risk to the ecological receptors is for individual chemicals. Chemical mixtures
can affect the organisms very differently than the individual chemicals due to synergistic or
antagonistic effects. In addition, the speciesthat were used to develop the toxicity data may not be
present at the site, or have the potential to exist at the site. Depending on the sensitivity of the tested
speciesto the speciesat the site use of the toxicity values may overestimate of underestimate risk.
Many chemicals are not acutely toxic, however, they have the potential to bioaccumulate in
ecological receptors through food chain transfer. This bioaccumulation potential typically is not
taken into account when comparing contaminant concentrations to screening values.
Finally, toxicological data for several of the COPCs were limited or do not exist. Therefore, there
is uncertainty in any conclusions involving the potential impacts to aquatic receptors from these
contaminants
7.12
Conclusions
7.12.1
Aquatic
Receptors
As presented earlier in the ERA, the assessmentendpoints for the aquatic receptors are potential
decreases in the survival, growth, and/or reproduction of the aquatic receptor population or
subpopulation that is attributable to site-related contaminants. These assessmentendpoints are
evaluated using a series of measurement endpoints. This section of the ERA examines each of the
measurement endpoints to determine if the assessmentendpoints are impacted.
The first measurement endpoint is decreased survival and growth of E prome& and G tentans,
decreased survival and reproduction of G &,
and decreased survival of K, azeteca as compared
to controls. The bioassay sampleswere collected at station 44-EC-SW/SD.02 in an area of relatively
7-23
high pesticide detections (several orders of magnitude greater than the SSSVs). Manganese and
nickel concentrations slightly exceeded the SWSVs at this station. For the surface water bioassay,
adverse survival effects were observed in the G. dubia bioassay, however, no adverse survival or
growth effects were observed in the E. prome& bioassay. Therefore, the metals in the surface water
may be causing a decrease in survival of G. dubia. No decrease in survival or growth of H. azteca
or C. tentans was observed in the Site 44 sediment sample.
The second measurement endpoint is determining if the contaminant concentrations in the surface
water and sediment exceed the contaminant-specific surface water and sediment effect
concentrations (i.e., SWSVs, and SSVs). Several metals, SVOCs, and pesticides were detected in
the surface water and/or sediment at concentrations above the SWSVs or SSVs. Based on the
screening value comparison, there is a moderate to high potential for a decrease in the population
of aquatic receptors from pesticides in the sediments. There is only a low potential for a decrease
in .the population of aquatic receptors from metals in the surface water and sediment, and SVOCs
in the sediment, since the concentration of these contaminants only slightly exceeded the screening
values or were detected infrequently.
It should be noted that the highest pesticide concentrations were detected at Stations 44-UT-SD02,
44-EC-SD02 and 44-EC-SD05 while elevated lead and SVOC concentrations were detected at
Station 44-UT-SD03. The source of the pesticides is not known since pesticides reportedly were not
stored or disposed at Site 44. In addition, since the high pesticide concentrations were detected in
non-adjacent locations, the pesticides may be due to the periodic pesticide spraying that occurred
on the base. Lead was detected at low concentrations in the groundwater (maximum detection of
1.4 pg/L) and surface soil (maximum detection of 3 1.7 mg/kg). Therefore, the lead in the surface
water (maximum detection 11.2 ug/L) and sediment (maximum detection 56.3 mg/kg) does not
appear to be site-related. Phenanthrene was the only SVOC in the sediment that was detected in the
groundwater (7 t&L), and none of the SVOCs in the sediment were detected in the surface soil.
Therefore, it does not appear that the SVOCs in the sediment are site-related, but may be related to
a lift station that discharges into the unnamed tributary.
Several VOCs were detected in the surface water. Based on the comparison to screening values
there does not appear to be a risk to aquatic species. It should be noted, however, that the source of
the VOCs originates upstream of Site 44, based on the additional sampling event.
7.12.2
Terrestrial
Receptors
As presented earlier in the ERA, the assessmentendpoints for the terrestrial receptors is the potential
reduction of a receptor population or subpopulation that is attributable to contaminants from the site.
This section evaluates this assessmentendpoint using the measurement endpoints.
The first measurement endpoint is determining if there is an exceedances of contaminant-specific
soil effect concentrations (i.e., SSSVs). Several SVOCs, pesticides, and metals were detected in the
surface soil at concentrations that exceed the SSSVs. Much of the study area at Site 44 is heavily
vegetated with dense understory and trees greater than three inches in diameter. Therefore,
ecological receptors have a high potential for becoming exposed to contaminants in the surface soil.
The second measurement endpoint is determining if the terrestrial CD1 exceeds the TRVs. The
cottontail rabbit and the raccoon are the only terrestrial species with estimated CD1 values that
exceeded the TRV values. However, the COPCs causing the majority of the risk (aluminum, iron,
7-24
and/or vanadium) are not related to past site activities, and are common naturally occurring metals.
Therefore, they are not considered to be site-related.
Overall, 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 SSSVs. A potential decrease
in the terrestrial vertebrate population from site-related contaminants is not expected based on the
terrestrial intake model.
7.13
References
Arthur and Alldredge. 1979. Public Health Evaluation and Ecological Assessment. Martin Marrietta
Astronautics Group, Waterton Facility, Vol. II of III, Appendix A and B. Cited in Scarano, 1993.
Baes, C.F., Sharp, A.L., and R.W. Shor. September 1984. “Review and Analysis of Parameters for
AssessingTransport of Environmentally Released Radionuclides through Agriculture.” Oak Ridge
National Laboratory.
Beyer, N., E. Connor, and S. Gerould. 1993. “Estimates of Soil Ingestion by Wildlife”.
Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD.
Patuxent
Dee, J.C. November, 1991. “Methodology For AssessingPotential Risks To Deer Populations: A
Case Study at a Superfund Site”. Paper presented at the 1991 Annual Meeting of the Society of
Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. Abstract No. 426.
Fitchko, J. 1989. Criteria for Contaminated Soil/Sediment Cleanup. Pudvan Publishing Company,
Northbrook, Illinois.
Long, E.W., D.D. Macdonald, S.L. Smith, and F.D. Calder. 1995. “Incidence of Adverse Biological
Effects within Ranges of Chemical Concentrations in Marine and Estuarine Sediments.”
Environmental Management Vol. 19, No. 1, pp. 8l-97.
Long, E.R and Morgan, L.G. 1991. The Potential for Biological Effects of Sediment-Sorbed
Contaminants Tested in the National Status and Trends Program. National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration Technical Memorandum NOS OMA 52.
Menzie,.C.A., Cura J. and J. Freshman. January 1993. Evaluating Ecological Risks and Develoning
Remedial Objectives at Forested Wetland Systems in New En&&.
Paper contained in:
Application of Ecological Risk Assessment To Hazardous Waste Site Remediation, Water
Environmental Federation.
Montgomery, J.H. and L.M. Welkon. 1990. Groundwater Chemicals Desk Referew.
Publishers, Inc. Chelsea, Michigan.
Lewis
Nagy, Kennith. 1987. “Field Metabolic Rate and Food Requirement Scaling in Mammals and Birds.
Ecological Monographs.” 57(2). pp. 111-128.
NAS. 1992. Subcommittee on Mineral Toxicity in Animals. Mineralwnce
Animals. National Academy of Sciences. Washington, D.C. pp 5-7.
7-25
of Domestic
NC DEHNR. 1994. 15A NCAC 2b.0200 - Classifications and Water Quality Standards Apnlicable
to Surface Waters of North Carolina. State of North Carolina Department of Health and Natural
Resources. June 1, 1994.
Opresko, D.M., B.E. Sample, and G.W. Suter II. 1994. Toxicological Benchmarks for Wildlife,
I994 Revisions. Prepared for the US Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Restoration
and Waste Management. September, 1994. ES/EFUTM-86/Rl.
SCDM. 1991. Super-fund Chemical Data Matrix. United StatesEnvironmental Protection Agency
Hazardous Site Evaluation Division. December 1991.
Scarano, Louis, J. Ph.D. and Daniel M. Woltering, Ph.D. January 1993. “Terrestrial and Aquatic
Eco-Assessmentfor A RCRA Hazardous Waste Site”. Paper contained in: Annlication of Ecological
Risk AssessmentTo Hazardous Waste Site RemediatiQn, Cited in WEF, 1993.
Sullivan, J., J. Ball, E. Brick, S. Hausmann, G., G. Pilarski, and D. Sopcich. 1985 Report of the
. .
. . fpr In-Water Dtsposal.
Technical Subcommittee on Determmatton of Dredge Ma&&t1 Suitabrlrty
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Madison, WI. November, 1985.
Suter, G.W. II. and J.B. Mabrey. 1994. ToxicoloPical Benchmarks for Screeninp Potential
.
Contaminants of Concern for Effects on Aquatic. Biota:
1994 Revision. Environmental Sciences
Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 1986. Development of Sediment Ouality Values for Puget Sound. Volume I. PuPet
Sound Dredged Disnos&&&sis
Renort. Cited in Fitchko, 1989.
Travis, Curtis C. and Angela Arms. 1988. Bioconcentration of Ornanics in Beef. Milk. and
Vegetation. Environmental Science Technology. Vol. 22, No. 3.
USEPA, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. January 26, 1995a.
Spreadsheet”. Region IV, Atlanta, Georgia.
“Toxic Substance
USEPA, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. January 19, 1995b. “Region III BTAG Screening
Levels”. Region III, Philadelphia, PA.
USEPA, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. September 26, 1994a. Ecological Risk Assessment
Guidance for Superfund: Process for Designing and Conducting Ecological Risk Assessments.
Review Draft Environmental Response Team, Edison NJ
.
. .
USEPA, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
June 1994b. Methods for Measurmg the Tox 1Cltv
.
and Rtoaccumulation of Sedrment-AssContaminants with Freshwater Invw.
Office
of Research and Development, Washington, DC. EPA/600&94/024.
USEPA, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. September 1993a. Technic. .
Sediment
Ouality
. .
Cntcm . . for. Nonlonlc,.
Oreanic
Contaminants
for the Protection of Benthk
.
by usinP EauPartmonmg. Office of Science and Technology, Health and
Criteria Division. EPA-822-R-93-O 11.
7-26
USEPA, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1993b. “Water Quality Guidance for the Great
Lakes Systemand Correction: Proposed Rules”. Federal Register. 58(72) 20802-21047. Cited in
Suter and Mabrey, 1994.
USEPA, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. September 1993c. Sediment Qualitv Criteria for
the Protection of Benthic Organisms: Fluoranthene. Office of Science and Technology, Health and
Ecological Criteria Division. EPA-822-R-93-012.
USEPA, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. September 1993d. Sediment Qualitv Criteria far
the Protection of Benthic Organisms: Phenanthrene. Office of Science and Technology, Health and
Ecological Criteria Division. EPA-822-R-93-0 14.
USEPA, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. December 1993e. Wildlife EXDOSU e Factors
Handbook. Office of Research and Development. Washington, D.C. EPA/6OOK93/lr87a.
USEPA, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. October 1, 1993f. Office of Water Policv and
. .
. .
Technical Guidance on Interpretation and lmglementat ion of Aauattc Ltfe Metals Crrterra.
Office
of Water.
USEPA. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. February 1992. Framework for Ecological Risk
Assessment. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Risk Assessment Forum.
EPA/630/R-92100 1.
USEPA, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. June 1991a. National Functional Guidelines for
Organic Data Review. Draft. USEPA Contract Laboratory Program.
USEPA, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. May 1, 1991b. “Water Quality Criteria Summary”
(Wall Chart). Office of Science and Technology. Health and Ecological Criteria Section.
Washington, D.C.
USEPA, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Mach 1990. Methods for Measuring the Acute
Toxicity of Effluents to Freshwater and Marine Organism Fourth Edition, Environmental
Monitoring SystemsLaboratory, Cincinnati, OH. EPA/600/4-90/027F.
USEPA. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. December 1989a. R-Assessment Guidance foe
Superfund. Volume I. Human Health Evaluatlnn_rulanual (Part A). Interim Final EPA
-USEPA. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. March 1989b.
Assessment Guidance fnr
. Risk
.
.
Superfund Volume II. Envu-onrzutal Evaluation Manual Intertm Eu.& Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response. Washington, D.C. EPA/540/i-89-00 1.
USEPA. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. March 1989~. Ecolooical Asswent
of
1.abo&ory Reference. Environmental Research Laboratory,
. .
USEPA, U.S.. Environmental
Protection .Agency.
1989d. Short-Term Methods
for Estlmatlng
.
.
.
onm Toxtcnv of Effluents a& Recetvl[lg Waters to Freshwater Om.
Second Edition,
Environmental Monitoring SystemsLaboratory, Cincinnati, OH. EPA/600/4-89/001 March 1989.
7-27
USEPA. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. May 1987. Qualitv Criteria for Water-1986
Office of Water Regulations.
USEPA. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. October 1986. Chemical. Phvsical. and Biolo&al
Pronerties of Comnounds Present at Hazardous Waste Sttes. Office of Solid Waste and Remedial
Response. Washington D.C. EPA/540/i-86/060.
Water Environment Federation (WEF). 1989. Application of Ecological Risk Assessment to
.
Hazardous Waste SateRemediation. Based on a January 10, 1993 Workshop., 601 Wythe Street,
Alexandria, VA 223 14- 1994.
Will, M.E. and Suter, G.W. II. 1994a. Toxicological Benchmarks for Screeninp Potential
Contaminants of Concern for Effects on Soil and 1itter Invertebrates and Heterotronhic Process.
Environmental Sciences Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
’
Benchmarks for Screening Potentia 1
Will, M.E. and Suter, G.W. II. 1994b. T oxrcologtcal
*
Contaminants of Concern for Effects on Terrestrial Plants. Environmental Sciences Division, Oak
Ridge National Laboratory.
7-28
SECTION 7.0 TABLES
TABLE 7-l
FREQUENCY AND RANGE OF CONTAMINANT
DETECTIONS
COMPARED
TO SALTWATER
SURFACE WATER SCREENING VALUES
SITE 44, JONES STREET DUMP
REMEDIAL
INVESTIGATION
CTO-0303
MCAS, NEW RIVER, NORTH CAROLINA
T
+
Surface Water Screening Values
(SWSV)
USEPA Region IV
Water Quality Screening
North
Values
Carolina
(WQSV)(*)
Water
Quality
Standards
Chronic
( WQS)(‘)
Acute
ICoDDer
IIron
T
Contaminant Frequency/Range
Average
Reference
Station
Concentration
No. of
Positive
Detects/No.
of &mules
NE
712,000
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
224,000(‘)
9,020”
NE
2,oooo,
224,OOOo)
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
3116
3116
14/16
12/16
l/16
14/16
8116
NE
NE
NE
5,800(‘)
360(‘)
NE
ND
ND
l/8
NE
NE
NE
3
NE
NE
NE
NE
2.9
NE
NE
NE
NE
2.9
NE
333
25.67
17,567
ND
576
718
718
818
718
818
-.-
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthlate
r
Range of Positive
Detection
T
No. of Positive
Detects Above
Lowest SWSV
No. of Positive
Detects Above
the Average
Reference
Station
Concentration
NA
1J-25
25-150
5-42
6
NA
,,
25-66
75-38
6
3
15-35
6
122-509
14.5-27.1
33,500-55,500
1.9-2.3
1,170-1,980
NA
NA
NA
0
NA
3
2
8
7
8
‘h
?
TABLE
7-l (Continued)
FREQUENCY
AND RANGE OF CONTAMINANT
DETECTIONS
COMPARED
TO SALTWATER
SURFACE WATER SCREENING
VALUES
SITE 44, JONES STREET DUMP
REMEDIAL
INVESTIGATION
CTO-0303
MCAS, NEW RIVER, NORTH CAROLINA
r
Contaminant
(Manganese
Surface Water Screening Values
(SWSV)
North
Carolina
Water
Quality
Standards
(WQS)(‘)
25
NE
NE
8.3
USEPA Region IV
Water Quality Screening
Values
(WQSV)(*)
ANtE
r
NE
NE
86
No. of
Positive
Detects/No.
of Samples
218
S/8
ND
818
ND
ND
9,830
318
818
818
418
718
ND
95
1
86
Notes:
NE
NA
ND
0)
(2)
0)
(4)
Contamiuant Frequency/Range-
Average
Reference
Station
Concentration
ND
1,745
NE
kanadium
T
= Not Established
= Not Applicable
= Not Detected
NCDEHNR, 1994 (North Carolina Water Quality Standards)
USEPA, 1995a (Region IV Toxic Substance Spreadsheet)
USEPA, 1995b (Region III BTAG Screening Levels)
USEPA, 1991b (Wall Chart, Lowest Observed Effect Concentration)
ND
Range of Positive
Detection
0.835-l 1.2
2,530-23,300
38.8-23 1
7.7-2 1.1
3,390-10,000
16,200-195,000
11.7-29.9
16.85-61.35
No. of Positive
Detects Above
Lowest SWSV
1
NA
No. of Positive
Detects Above
the Average
Reference
Station
Concentration
2
8
8
8
2
NA
NA
3
0
TABLE
FREQUENCY
COMPARED
Contaminant
Inorganics @g/L)
Aluminum
Barium
Calcium
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Nickel
Potassium
Sodium
Vanadium
ZillC
7-2
AND RANGE OF DISSOLVED
INORGANIC
DETECTIONS
TO SALTWATER
SURFACE WATER SCREENING
VALUES
SITE 44, JONES STREET DUMP
REMEDIAL
INVESTIGATION
CTO-0303
MCAS, NEW RIVER, NORTH CAROLINA
Surface Water Screening Values (SWSV)
USEPA Region IV
I
Water Quality Screening Values
North Carolina
(WQSV)c2)
Water Quality Standards
I
(WQS)o)
Acute
Chronic
I
!
!
NE
NE
NE
3
NE
25
NE
NE
8.3
NE
NE
NE
86
NE
NE
NE
2.9
NE
220
NE
NE
75
NE
NE
NE
95
Notes:
NE = Not Established
NA = Not Applicable
(1) NCDEHNR, 1994 (North Carolina Water Quality Standards)
(2) USEPA, 1995a (Region IV Toxic Substance Spreadsheet)
(3) USEPA, 1995b (Region III BTAG Screening Levels)
I
NE
NE
NE
2.9
NE
8.5
NE
1OQ)
8.3
NE
NE
10,000~~~
86
Contaminant Frequency/Range
I
I
No. of Positive
Detects/No. of
Samples
Range of Positive
Detection
I
318
718
8/8
418
818
l/8
818
818
318
818
818
218
718
21.9-25.9
12.7-22.4
33,200-55,500
1.9-3.7
268-6545
41.8
2,470-24,400
6.5-33.3
6.2-19.8
3,420-10,300
16,000-205,000
2.5-l 1.6
65-24.3
No. of Positive
Detects Above
4-l
NA
I
NA
I
TABLE
7-3
FREQUENCY
AND RANGE OF CONTAMINANT
DETECTIONS
COMPARED
TO SALTWATER
SEDIMENT
SCREENING
VALUES
SITE 44, JONES STREET DUMP
REMEDIAL
INVESTIGATION
CTO-0303
MCAS, NEW RIVER, NORTH CAROLINA
No. of Positive
Detect Above
the Average
Reference
Concentration
6
6
16
16
TABLE
7-3 (Continued)
FREQUENCY
AND RANGE OF CONTAMINANT
DETECTIONS
COMPARED
TO SALTWATER
SEDIMENT
SCREENING
VALUES
SITE 44, JONES STREET DUMP
REMEDIAL
INVESTIGATION
CTO-0303
MCAS, NEW RIVER, NORTH CAROLINA
Sediment Screenin : Values
WV)
Contaminant
ER-L
l(2)
4,4’-DDT
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
I
1 0.5c5’
1.2(”
1 NE
9.6”’
Chromium
1
Cobalt
Copper
1
Iron
Lead
NE
81(”
I
NE
34”’
1 NE
270(l)
I
I
Average
Reference
ER-M
70)
I
I
I
NE
1 370(l)
I
27,[email protected])
NE
1 46.7(”
1 [email protected])
I
I
Magnesium
NE
NE
Manganese
23O(s)
NE
Nickel
Potassium
20.9”’
5 1.6(‘)
NE
NE
NE
1
ND
Contaminant
I
I
TABLE 7-3 (Continued)
FREQUENCY
AND RANGE
OF CONTAMINANT
DETECTIONS
~~MPAREDTOSALTWATERSEDIMENTSCREENINGVALUES
SITE 44, JONES STREET
DUMP
REMEDIALINVESTIGATIONCTO-0303
MCAS,NEWRIVER,NORTHCAROLINA
Sediment Screening Values
(SW
Contaminant
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Vanadium
zinc
ER-L
[email protected])
1.O(‘)
NE
NE
150(‘)
ER-M
NE
3.7”’
NE
NE
410”’
SQC(3)
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
Average
Reference
Station
Concentration
(upstream)
0.19
0.25
ND
1.52
5.11
Contaminant
Frequency/Range
No. of
Range of
Positive
Positive
Detects/No.
Detections
of Samples
0.47- 1.4
4116
0.51
l/l6
30.3-224
16/16
1.9-15.1
16/16
6.3-144
16116
= Not Established
= Not Applicable
= Effects Range Low
= Effects Range Median
SQC = Sediment Quality Criteria
(I) Long &al., 1995
(*) Long and Morgan, 199 1
c3) Values were calculated using the following equation: SQC = Foc*Koc*FCV/l000000
Where:
Foe = Fraction of organic carbon in the sediments (used 1,300 mgkg)
Koc = Organic carbon partition coefficient (chemical specific)
FCV = Final water chronic value (chemical specific)
(4) USEPA, 1995a (Region III BTAG Screening Levels)
w Tetra Tech Inc., 1986 (Apparent Effects Threshold Sediment Quality Values)
w Sulliven a.&, 1985
NE
NA
ER-L
ER-M
No. of
Positive
Detects Above
Lowest SSV
1
0
NA
NA
0
No. of Positive
Detect Above
the Average
Reference
Concentration
4
1
16
16
16
TABLE
7-4
CONTAMINANTS
OF POTENTIAL
CONCERN
IN EACH MEDIA
SITE 44, JONES STREET DUMP
REMEDIAL
INVESTIGATION
CTO-0303
MCAS, NEW RIVER, NORTH CAROLINA
Contaminant
Volatiles
Acetone
2-Butanone
1,l -Dichloroethene
1,2-Dichloroethene
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
1,l ,ZTrichloroethane
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Butylbenzylphthalate
Carbazole
Chrysene
2,6-Dinitrotoluene
Fluoranthene
Indeno( 1,2,3-cd)pyrene
Pentachloroohenol
Surface Water
Aquatic Terrestrial
receptors receptors
X
I
X
X
X
1x1
X
Surface
Soil
Sediment
X
I
I
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
TABLE
7-4 (Continued)
CONTAMINANTS
OF POTENTIAL
CONCERN IN EACH
SITE 44, JONES STREET DUMP
REMEDIAL
INVESTIGATION
CTO-0303
MCAS, NEW RIVER, NORTH CAROLINA
MEDIA
Contaminant
Inorganics
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Nickel
Selenium
Vanadium
Zinc
XIX
IXIXI
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
TABLE
7-5
PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL
CHARACTERISTICS
OF THE COPCS
SITE 44, JONES STREET DUMP
REMEDIAL
INVESTIGATION
CTO-0303
MCAS, NEW RIVER, NORTH CAROLINA
Contaminant of
Potential Concern
I
Volatiles
Acetone
11.I .2-Trichloroethane
I
Semivolatiles
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Indeno( 1,2,3-cd)pyrene
Phenol
I
PesticidesA’CBs
Aldrin
1Alpha-chlordane
1Aluminum
i.
..,._, .. ,._,
TABLE 7-5 (Continued)
PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL
CHARACTERISTICS
OF THE COPCS
SITE 44, JONES STREET DUMP
REMEDIAL
INVESTIGATION
CTO-0303
MCAS, NEW RIVER, NORTH CAROLINA
Vanadium
ZiUC
1
I
ND
47”’
I
ND
ND
I
Notes:
(I)
@)
(9
c4)
c5)
w
(‘)
c8)
t9)
(lo)
BCF
ND
Bv
Br
Bb
Baes, 1984 for the inorganics
The organics were calculated using Travis, 1988
USEPA, 1995a (Region IV)
USEPA, 1995b (Region III)
USEPA, 1986.
SCDM, 1991.
Montgomery and Welkon, 1990.
Used benzo(a)pyrene Kow
USEPA, 1993~ (Sediment Quality Criteria for Fluoranthene)
USEPA, 1993d (Sediment Quality Criteria for Phenanthrene)
= Bioconcentration Factor
= NoData
= Biotransfer factor for vegetation (stems, leaves)
= Biotransfer factor for vegetation (berries, fruits)
= Biotransfer factor for beef
ND
ND
1 5.50e-03 1 3.00e-03
I 1.50e+OO I 9.00e-01
1 2.50e-03
I l.OOe-01
TABLE
7-6
SAMPLING
STATION CHARACTERIZATION
SUMMARY
SITE 44, JONES STREET DUMP
REMEDIAL
INVESTIGATION
CTO-0303
MCAS, NEW RIVER, NORTH CAROLINA
Station
44-EC-S W/SD0 1
Stream
Stream
Width
(fi)
10
Depth
(f-u
l-2
Canopy Cover
Partly Shaded
Sediment Description
Coarse sand/gravel (black/gray)
brown sand (0.5 inch), rest coarse sand/gravel (black/gray), some
sticks/twigs at 10 inches
44-EC-SW/SD02
5
0.5
Shaded
44-EC-SW/SD03
10
0.5
Partly Shaded
Coarse sand (black/gray)
44-EC-SW/SD04
15
1
Shaded
Coarse sand (black/gray)
44-EC-SW/SD05
20
1-2
Shaded
Silty sand (black/brown)
0.5
0.5
Partly Shaded
Partly Shaded
1.5
Shaded
I
44-UT-SW/SD01
7
44-UT-SW/SD03
3-4
(
15-20
1
IO- 15
I
1
Notes:
SW
SD
EC
UT
=
=
=
=
Surface Water Sample
Sediment Sample
Edwards Creek
Unnamed Tributary to Edwards Creek
Normal
Slight Anaerobic
Slight Anaerobic
Slight Petroleum (at 6
inches)
Silty sand, refusal at 8 inches
Petroleum
(at 6- 12 inches)
Normal
Coarse sand at 6 inches (black/gray),
fine silt/sand at 6- 12 inches (brown)
Petroleum
(at 4-6 inches)
I
1
Sediment Odor
Medium/fine
sand with some silt (gray/black) and some organic debris
Anaerobic
TABLE
7-7
FIELD CHEMISTRY
DATA
SITE 44, JONES STREET DUMP
REMEDIAL
INVESTIGATION
CTO-0303
MCAS, NEW RIVER, NORTH CAROLINA
44-UT-SW/SD0
16.3-16.6
6.87
3.0
425-5 11
0.1
44-UT-SW/SD02
15.5-15.9
6.93
8.2
509-850
0.2-l
44-UT-SW/SD03
15.5-16.5
6.78-6.93
0.7-l .7
750-2,020
0.5-2.1
“C
mg/L
S.U.
umhoskm
PPt
=
=
=
=
=
1
Degrees Centigrade
Miligrams per Liter
Standard Units
Micromhos per centimeter
Parts Per Thousand
TABLE 7-8
FREQUENCY
AND RANGE OF CONTAMINANT
DETECTIONS
COMPARED TO SOIL FLORA AND FAUNA SCREENING VALUES
SITE 44, JONES STREET DUMP
REMEDIAL
INVESTIGATION
CTO-0303
MCAS, NEW RIVER, NORTH CAROLINA
Soil Flora and Fauna
Scseening Values(‘)
Contaminant
Plant
Earthworm
Invertebrate
Microorganisms
and Microbial
Processes
Contaminant
Frequency/Range
No. of Positive
Range of
Detects/No. of
Positive
Samples
Detections
No. of
Positive Detects
Above Lowest
Screening Value
NA
1
NA
0
NA
1
0
1
4
13
0
0
12
1
13
0
0
TABLE 7-8 (Continued)
FREQUENCY AND RANGE OF CONTAMINANT
DETECTIONS
COMPARED TO SOIL FLORA AND FAUNA SCREENING VALUES
SITE 44, JONES STREET DUMP
REMEDIAL
INVESTIGATION
CTO-0303
MCAS, NEW RIVER, NORTH CAROLINA
Soil Flora and Fauna
Screening [email protected])
Contaminant
Vanadium
ZiIlC
Plant,
2
50
Earthworm
58p)
200
Invertebrate
580’
500
Microorganisms
and Microbial
Processes
20
100
Contaminant
Frequency/Range
No. of Positive
Range of
Detects/No. of
Positive
Samples
Detections
13/13
7-28.6
13/13
2.7-156
No. of
Positive Detects
Above Lowest
Screening Value
13
1
Notes:
Will and Suter (1994a and 1994b) unless indicated otherwise (Values presented for plants, earthworms, and microorganisms and microbial
processes are benchmarks below which adverse inpacts to these species are not expected. Values for invertebrates are No Observed Effects
Concentrations, however, they are based on less data than the benchmarks)
USEPA, 1995b (Region III BTAG Soil Screening Values for Soil Fauna)
”,
1
,I
1
TABLE
EXPOSURE
Exposure,Parameter
Food Source Ingestion
Feeding Rate
Incident Soil Ingestion
Rate of Drinking Water
Ingestion
Rate of Vegetation
Ingestion
Body Weight
Rate of Small Mammal
Ingestion
Rate of Fish Ingestion
Home Range Size
Units
NA
kg/day
kg/day
L/day
PARAMETERS
FOR CHRONIC
DAILY INTAKE
SITE 44, JONES STREET DUMP
REMEDIAL
INVESTIGATION
CTO-0303
MCAS, NEW RIVER, NORTH CAROLINA
White-Tailed
Deer
Vegetation
100%
1.6c2)
0.0185(‘)
1.1(2)
MODEL
Eastern
Cottontail
Rabbit
Vegetation
100%
0.237c4)
o.oo57(5)
0.119(3)
Bobwhite
Quail
Vegetation
100%
0.0135(‘)
0.001 lo)
o.0191(3)
Red Fox
Small Mammals 80%
Vegetation 20%
0.601(3)
O.O168(s)
0.385”3)
Raccoon
Vegetation 40%
Fish 60%
0.2 [email protected])
0.0201(5)
0.422(‘)
0.237
0.0135
0.12
0.086
0.112
Small Mammal
(Meadow Vole)
Vegetation
100%
0.112(3’
0.00269”’
0.0652”
kg/day
1.6
kg
kg/av
45.4(f)
NA
1.229c3)
NA
0.174(3)
NA
4.54Q3
0.48
5.120)
NA
0.3725”’
NA
kg/day
acres
NA
454”)
NA
9.300)
NA
26.24(“)
NA
1,245(‘)
0.128
2570)
NA
0.0320’
Notes:
NA
(1)
7-9
= Not Applicable
Arthur and Alldridge, 1979
(2) Dee, 1991
(3)
USEPA, 1993e
(4)
Opresko, a.&, 1994
(5’ Beyer, 1993
(6) Nagy, 1987
TABLE
7-10
SURFACE WATER QUOTIENT
INDEX
SITE 44, JONES STREET DUMP
REMEDIAL
INVESTIGATION
CTO-0303
MCAS, NEW RIVER, NORTH CAROLINA
Quotient Index
Contaminant
Total Inorganics
Station
I
44-EC-SW07
. . --
North
Carolina
Sample Concentration
(Pm
USEPA SWSV
Acute
Chronic
WQS
t
-...,”
. ..,
44-EC-SW04
44-EC-SW05
44-UT-SW0 1
44-T
.
Nickel
.
-A
TT-SW03
-..--
47.2
NA
18 8
NA
--.-
44-UT-SW03
74.2
44-EC-SW01
21.1
15.3
44-EC-SW02
_._-
NA
~~~~~~~~
i,._.i,.......,.,._.i,.
:::::;:::::::;:;::::::::i.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.,:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.
t’~
:::~:.::.:...:.:.:.:.:.
/.. .(,,.,.....
....._
Dissolved Inoreanics
Chmar
--l-r--
i
44-UT-DSW02
I
44-UT-DSW03
I
Lead
44-T
. . -*IT-lXWn3
--..--
Manganese
44-EC-DSWOI
44-EC-DSW02
I
NL-In-1
I.&W..“.
I
3
41
. -.-8
I
17.2
44-EC-DSW03
44-EC-DSW04
20.9
20.8
44-EC-DSW05
44-UT-DSWOI
33.3
26.3
44-UT-DSW03
29.7
44-Et-!-DSWO
. . --. . -- 1
44-EC-DSW02
. .,. . .,. . .,. . .,.
. . . . _. . . . ..-.. . . .,.,
. . ..-..i...l., ., ._ in.., ., ,.. . . .. .. .z.....
.... .
I,,-
1.0
s:?.$g:;:$B
..........................
11
I
I
Notes:
ShadedSamplesare Quotient Indices That Exceed “1”
= Not Established
NE
WQS = Water Quality Standard
SWSV = Surface Water ScreeningValue
.P-
3.7
19.8
12.1
:;:~:~~;~:$g
I
I
NA
1
NA
:;y.:;;:;::;;.::r
:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:..
...i............
...i.
............n..
...i.n
...
/.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.l
..i..........
NA
NA
~~~
TABLE
7-l 1
SEDIMENT
QUOTIENT
INDEX
SITE 44, JONES STREET DUMP
REMEDIAL
INVESTIGATION
CTO-0303
MCAS, NEW RIVER, NORTH CAROLINA
I
I
Contaminant
ISemivolatiles
(n
.. gncg)
I
lButylbenzylphthalate
khrvsene
.
I
Station
I
I
144~UT-SD02-06
144~UT-SD03-06
I
1 Concentration
I
I
I
Fluoranthene
Pentachlorophenol
44-UT-SD03-06
Phenanthrene
44-UT-SD03-06
Pesticides @g/kg)
Alpha-chlordane
44-EC-SD0 l-06
48J
460
I
Quotient Index
1 ER-M
1
1 0.8
r$jFG~~~~
44-EC-SD0 l-6 12
44-EC-SD04-6
.
I
12
2.35
:::::::::::::
::.
;:23:3$#
./ii
..:.:.:.:p:::..
.....i_
.....
.....A.
..4
2.65
.........
;$~;[email protected]
;::::::::::::~
....-.....rr.
::.~.:::.:.:*
:<:::::::::::,,
~,,,
2.95
:.‘.:.:.~.:.:.:’
I
44-UT-SD02-06
I
1
44-UT-SD02-6
12
44-UT-SD03-06
44-UT-SD03-6 12
I
]44-EC-SDOl-06
I
I
5.1NJ
2.6NJ
I
[email protected]$f
. .... .... ... ....
~~~~~3
:. :
.:::::::::::;
...i..n
I
i.:,:.:,.:]I
5.6 J
7.8J
::::::+:,
:
[;;;;;a
2.75
F$$$$
2.75
44-EC-SDOl-612
44-EC-SD02-06
44-EC-SD02-6 12
,
I
NA
0,2
SQC
i~~~~
I:l~ii:::::~:::j::,:~~
1 0.09
0.01
i:s:z
t.:.:.:.:.
......
44-EC-SD04-06
Gamma-chlordane
I
1 ER-L
2.8
,.‘-‘-.y
:Z:Z:Z:Z:::Z:?i
......i...
::::::::::::::y
.:.-....
..,....
..I....Y...L
._..a.....
....._....
...,
I
4.25
144-EC-SD03-612
I
2.85
m L
144-EC-SD05-06
I
6.55
F:&$$j
44-UT-SD02-06
I
5.1J
ii
r
TABLE
7-11 (Continued)
SEDIMENT
QUOTIENT
INDEX
SITE 44, JONES STREET DUMP
REMEDIAL
INVESTIGATION
CTO-0303
MCAS, NEW RIVER, NORTH CAROLINA
I
Contaminant
I
4’4-DDD
..1.. . . . . .
44-EC-SD02-06
44-EC-SD02-6
12
44-EC-SD04-06
44-EC-SD04-6
12
44-EC-SD05-6
12
335
435
I
I
44-UT-SD0 l-06
370
5.5J
44-UT-SDOl-612
135
I
44-UT-SD02-06
I
I
44-UT-SD02-6 12
144-UT-SD03-06
I
I
770
145
..i_
I...
......n...
..l...
I:,,,
...........
p$$
:p:::j:.:.:.
....:z.............
?>;>
.......................
~~~1..,
(1.7
~:,,
::::;:::::
j::::::::
L.:.:,
:.:.:.:.:.
I
I
4’4-DDE
144-EC-SD0 l-06
I
30J
I
144-EC-SDOl-612
I
21J
I
20J
.i........
..i.....
.I..._
::::::::::
44-EC-SD02-612
44-EC-SD03-06
44-EC-SD03-6
I
12
144-EC-SD04-06
44-EC-SD05-06
44-EC-SD05-6
12
I
44-UT-SDOl-612
I
255
.:.:.:.:.
I
44-UT-SD02-6
12
I
31()J
@
0.1
_. . . . _
.
TABLE
7-l 1 (Continued)
SEDIMENT
QUOTIENT
INDEX
SITE 44, JONES STREET DUMP
REMEDIAL
INVESTIGATION
CTO-0303
MCAS, NEW RIVER, NORTH CAROLINA
Contaminant
I4’4-DDT
I
I
Concentration
44-EC-SD026 12
44-EC-SD04-06
I
2.6J
I
3.7J
3.1J
5.2J
Station
144-EC-SDOl-06
44-UT-SD02-6 12
1Hentachlor eDoxide
Inorganics
Lead
>>>:>F:,y,
~g$j!g
0.1
1 NA
NA
0.1
.:.:.:,:.:,:
j~ic~~~~~i’
:::::$::::$::.“.
... .......::
~i~~~~~~~~
NA
NA
(mg/kg)
44-UT-SD03-06
~. --- ^-^- __-
44-lJl’-SUW-6
Selenium
Quotient Index
ER-L 1 ER-M 1 SQC
12
44-UT-SD0 1-6 12
Notes:
Shaded samples are Quotient Indices that exceed “1”
NE
= Not Established
ER-L
= Effects Range Low
ER-M
= Effects Range Median
=
Sediment Quality Criteria
SQC
53J
56.35
1.4
TABLE
7-12
TERRESTRIAL
INTAKE MODEL QUOTIENT
INDICES
SITE 44, JONES STREET DUMP
REMEDIAL
INVESTIGATION,
CTO-0303
MCAS, NEW RIVER, NORTH CAROLINA
Contaminant of
Potential Concern
Acetone
1,l -Dichloroethene
1,2-Dichloroethene (total)
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
1,l ,ZTrichloroethane
4&DDE
4,4’-DDT
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Chromium
Copper
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Nickel
Vanadium
Zinc
Total Quotient
Red Fox
Bobwhite
Quail
Cottontail
Rabbit
Raccoon
Whitetail
Deer
1.59e-04
3.43e-04
9.17e-03
2.23e-04
2.02e-04
1.43e-05
5.99e-03
9.22e-05
2.89e-06
1.2 1e-03
1.05e-05
4.42e-03
6.8le-05
3.90e-05
1.64e-02
2.35e-04
8.57e-04
2.78e-03
8.76e-06
3.68e-03
5.67e-05
7.13e-04
8.72e-06
1.34e-06
1.3le-02
3.48e-03
I
1 2.93e-02
1 3.12e-04
1.79e-03
2.16e-02
3.55e-04
3.6Oe-03
5.66e-05
l.O9e-02
l.O2e-02
I
I
Index
1.87e-05
2.35e-04
l.l6e-03
1 1.2&01
1 2.98e-03
1 4.32e-04
r
1.50e-03 1 4.42e-05 1 1.34e-05
1.79e-04 1 6.91e-06 1 1.35e-06
I
I
1 3.07e-02 1 4.14e-01 1 9.61e-02 1 1.78e-02
1 1.77e-04 1 1.15e-03 1 1.61e-03 1 2.32e-05
3.70e-02 1 9.02e-01
5.32e-03
5.85e-02
1.3 +je-O1 ~~~~
7.70e-02
2.19e-02
.....
:.....:...:.:.:.;.
.,...,_,._/
_.....
5.42e-03 1 8.74e-02 [ 4.26e-03
3.54e-03
4.0 le-04
2.71e-02
4.01e-02
4.44e-03
l.S5e-04
7.55e-03
1.3 le-02
1.77e-03
ga68e-Q4 ~~~~
1.8
1
e-02
2.84e-03
.
:.:...:.,.:
._...,.,...._.(.,.
......._,
I
I
I
1
6.36e-03
f(JJ&41
Notes:
Shaded boxes are Quotient Indices that exceed “1”
I
1 2.25e-01
I
1 1.42e-03
7.89e-03
1.54e-01
J
SECTION
7.0 FIGURES
FIGURE 7-l
CONCEPTUAL
EXPOSURE MODEL FOR ECOLOGICAL
SITE 43, AGAN STREET DUMP
1
Atmoipheric
Deposition
1
Particulate
I
i
I
,
Erosiy$Ud;tive
I
Terrestrial Biotia
Infiltration/
Percolation
I
Surface Waters
Ingestion
RECEPTORS
Ingestion/
Dermal
Contact
"'R
+.(-DOE
4'4-DOT
Npha-chlordane
Gamma-chlordane
SEDIMENT (6-11)
4'4-DDD
4'4-DDE
4'4-DDT
Alpha-chlordane
Gamma-chlordane
\
ERL
216
9.5
2.5
5.6
6.6
0.4
8.13
0.5
0.4
3.56
4.11
ERM
22
sac
0.8
0.4
0.5
0.5
3030CCB:
43
3.67
7.81
3.97
4.52
44-EC-SWOS
44-Ec-sDo5
swsvswsv
SURFACE WATER ftotoll
13
ERL
185
68.2
130
G&nma-chlardana
SEDIMENT (6-11)
4'4-DDD
4'4-DDE
4'4-DDT
28
Alpha-chlordane
,Gammcr-chlordane
-W/SD04
N W a Acute Chmnic
32
EC-SW/SYS,
1.1
ERM
SQC
18.5
5.6
18.6
2.3
2.7
370
26.22
406.25
19.18
21.92
8.9
-4/ ,
1
,.
44-W-!3f01
44-UT-SM)l
SURFACE WATER (total)
I
I4'L-WE
Manganese
SURFACE WATER (dissolved)
Langanese
SEDIMENT (0-6")
NCWQS
NA
N4
NA
ERL
NA
2.6
ERM
SQC
0.3
0.06
0.04
2.75
9.1
ERL
6.5
11.4
. 1 . 4 .
4'4-DDD
44-DDE
,SEDIMENT (6-12)
4'4-DDD
4'4-OM
,Selenium
0.7
ERM
4.7
SQC
0.7
0.1
0.9
0.04
N 4 . N A I
UT-SW/SDO 1
//
LEGEND
EC-vDo
SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT
SAMPLING LOCATION
I)
FLOW
DIRECTION OF SURFACE WATER FLOW
&
-EOE-
MARSH
OVERHEAD ELECTRIC LINE & UTILITY POLE
FENCE
150
-
ASPHALT ROAD
- - - - - - - GRAVEL OR DIRT ROAD
-.
_..-
-
EDGE OF CREEK. DRAINAGE DITCH, MARSt
OR POND
TREE LINE
BASE HOUSING UNIT
P
75
m
1 inch = 150 ft
150
Baker Emtornentalk
FIGURE 7-2
QUOTIENT INDICES THAT EXCEED " 1"
IN SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT
SITE 44, JONES STREET DUMP
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION, CTO-0303
MARINE CORPS AIR STATION, NEW RIVER
8.0
CONCLUSIONS
8.1
Conclusions
AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The following conclusions were derived from the RI conducted at Site 44:
8.2
0
VOCs were detected throughout Edwards Creek. The highest levels of VOCs were
detected in samples obtained from sampling stations located upgradient of Site 44.
Based upon the distribution of positive detections, the source of VOCs does not
appear to be originating from Site 44. Several potential sources have been
identified upgradient of Site 44 and will be investigated during future studies.
0
No unacceptable human health risks were calculated based on exposure to site
surface water or sediment. Pesticides in sediment posed moderate ecological risks
to aquatic receptors. Metals in site surface water were found at levels greater than
criteria and may pose slight risks to aquatic receptors. Based upon soil screening
values, metal levels in soil posed a potential risk to terrestrial receptors.
0
Iron was detected at levels exceeding NCWQS levels in groundwater samples
obtained throughout Site 44. Iron in groundwater posed a potential risk to human
health at Site 44. As noted in the report, iron is a very common constituent in all
media at MCB, Camp Lejeune.
,Recommendations
The following recommendations are provided based on the RI findings:
0
A No Action Record of Decision should be prepared as the preferred remedial
alternative.
0
All site monitoring wells should be abandoned in accordance with state and federal
procedures.
8-l
Was this manual useful for you? yes no
Thank you for your participation!

* Your assessment is very important for improving the work of artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project

Download PDF

advertisement