United States
          Environmental Protection
          Agency
              Office of
              Emergency and
              Remedial Response
EPA/ROD/R02-91/166
September 1991
&EPA
Superfund
Record of Decision
          Naval Air Engineering
          Center (Operable Unit 3), NJ

-------
50272-101
REPORT DOCUMENTATION i. REPORT NO. 2.
PAGE EPA/ROD/R02-91/166
4. TWemdSubtMe
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION
Naval Air Engineering Center (Operable Unit 3) , NJ
Fourth Remedial Action
7. Authors)
9, t*tt lUiiiiinQ OrQunlZBoon NunB end MBQPBAA
12. Sponeortng Organization Name and Addraaa
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
3. Recipient1 • Acceaaion No.
5. Report Date
09/30/91
6.
8. Performing Organization Rept No.
10. ProiecVTaak/Work Unit No.
11. Contnct(C) or Grant(G) No.
(C)
(C)
13. Type of Report & Period Covered
800/000
14.
 15. Supplementary Note*
 16. Abatract (Limit: 200 word*)
   The 7,400-acre  Naval Air Engineering  Center (NAEC) site is an  active air base in
   Jackson and Manchester Townships, Ocean  County,  New Jersey.  Activities conducted
   onsite  include  program research, engineering,  development testing and evaluation, and
   various warfare support services.  Land  in the area includes residential areas,
   woodlands, vast wetlands,  and associated floodplain areas.  The  site lies within the
   Toms River Drainage Basin, and adjacent  to and south of the site are commercial
   cranberry bogs  that drain into and out of the  southeast section  of the site.
   Approximately  65,400 residents of the townships are serviced by  several municipal
   supply wells located within 1 mile of the site to the southeast  and north.  From 1916
   to 1919, the Eddystone Chemical Company  conducted chemical artillery testing onsite.
   In 1921, the U.S.  Navy took control of the site and conducted  operations involving
   the use, handling,  storage, and onsite disposal of hazardous substances in various
   onsite buildings.   This Record of Decision addresses Operable  Unit 3, which includes
   eight separate  sites and a region known  as Area L.  The sites  include a disposal area
   (site 15), a gas station  (site 18), an inactive disposal area  (site 23), a contractor
   disposal area  located along a drainage swale (site 26), recovery systems test sites

   (See Attached  Page)
 17. Document Analyala a. Deacriptora
   Record of Decision - Naval Air  Engineering Center  (Operable Unit 3),  NJ
   Fourth Remedial Action
   Contaminated Medium:  None
   Key Contaminants:   None

   b. ktentifiere/Open-Ended Terms
   c. COSATI Reid/Group
18. Avallabllty Statement
19. Security Claaa (Thia Report)
None
20. Security Claaa (Thia Page)
None
21. No. ofPagea
60
22. Price
(SeeANSt-ZW.18)
                                     See Instructions on Reverse
OPTIONAL FORM 272 (4-77)
(Formerly NTIS-35)
Department of Commerce

-------
EPA/ROD/R02-91/166
Naval Air Engineering Center  (Operable Unit 3) ,  NJ
Fourth Remedial Action

Abstract  (Continued)

(site 27), a recovery systems track site  (site 30), a parachute jump circle  (site 34),
and a soil stabilization field test site  (site 40).  Area L is located in the
northwestern corner of the facility in the vicinity of a BOMARC missile explosion area.
The explosion resulted in the limited spread of a radioacative material, plutonium.  The
results of the Remedial Investigation show no evidence of significant contamination at
the eight sites and Area L.  At most sites, contaminants were not detected.  In instances
where contaminants were detected the levels were usually well below State and Federal
action levels.  Furthermore, investigations conducted from 1985 to 1990 in Area L also
concluded that no significant levels of radiological contamination were present in ground
water, soil, or sediment in this area.  Therefore, there are no contaminants of concern
affecting this site.

The selected remedial action for this site includes no further action because no
significant levels of contaminants exist at the eight sites and Area L.  No additional
action is necessary to protect human health or the environment.  There are no costs
associated with this no action remedy.

PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS:  Not applicable.

-------
RECORD OF DECISION

            FOR
    SITES 15,18,23,26,27,30,34,40
         AND AREA L
   NAVAL AIR ENGINEERING CENTER
     LAKEHURST, NEW JERSEY
         SEPTEMBER 16,1991

-------
                          ROD FACT SHEET
SITE

Name:               Naval Air Engineering Center  (NAEC),
                    Lakehurst (OU-3)
Location/State:     Lakehurst, Ocean Co., New Jersey
EPA Region:         II
HRS Score:          49.48
NPL Rank:           Group 4
ROD
                    NAEC - Sept. 19, 1991; EPA - Sept. 30, 1991
                    No Action
                    M/a
Date Signed:
Remedy
Capital Cost:       N/A
0 & M:              N/A
Present Worth:      N/A

LEAD

Enforcement:           Federal Facility lead, EPA oversight
NAEC Primary Contact:  Lucy Bottomley  (908)-323-2612
EPA Primary Contact:   Jeffrey Gratz (212)-264-6667

WASTE

                    No contamination

-------
                         RECORD OF DECISION
                             DECLARATION
               SITES 15, 18, 23, 26, 27, 30, 34, 40 AND AREA L
                   NAVAL AIR ENGINEERING CENTER

 FACILITY NAME AND LOCATION

           Naval Air Engineering Center
           Lakehurst, New Jersey 08733

 STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE

           This decision document presents the selected remedial action for eight
 individual sites (Sites 15, 18, 23, 26, 27, 30, 34 and 40) and one Area (Area L), located
 at the Naval Air Engineering Center (NAEC) in Lakehurst, New Jersey. The selected
 remedial action was  chosen in accordance with the Comprehensive .Environmental
 Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), as amended by the Superfund
 Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA), and, to the extent practicable, the
 National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan.  This decision is
 based on the administrative record for these sites, which is available for public review
 at the Ocean County Library, 101 Washington Street, Toms River, New Jersey.

           Both the United States  Environmental Protection  Agency (USEPA),
 Region n Administrator,  and the  Commissioner of the New Jersey Department of
 Environmental Protection  (NJDEP) concur with the selected remedy.
DESCRIPTION OF THE SET J7TTPT
           The United States Department of the Navy, the lead agency for this Site,
has selected no action as the remedy for Sites 15, 18, 23, 26, 27, 30, 34, 40 and Area L

-------
          ATION
            The  U.S. Department of the Navy has determined that no additional
 remedial action is necessary at Sites 15, 18, 23, 26, 27, 30, 34, 40 and Area L to ensure
 protection of human health and the environment. At Sites 15, 18, 23 and 30, previous
 remedial responses have eliminated the need to conduct additional remedial action.
 At the remaining sites and Area L, no contamination was detected that would require
 remedial action to protect human health and the environment

            This Record  of Decision concerns Sites 15, 18, 23, 26, 27, 30, 34, 40 and
 Area L only.  The locations of these eight sites and Area L within the NAEC are
 shown in Figure 2.
Captain David Raffetto^                     (Date)
Commanding Officer
Naval Air Engineering Center
Lakehurst, New Jersey

With the concurrence of:
                  -x^TZ
Constantino Sidamon-Eristoff    "//          (Date)
Regional Administrator          / /
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region n

-------
 SITE DESCRIPTION

            NAEC is located in Jackson and Manchester Townships, Ocean County,
 New Jersey, approximately 14 miles inland from the Atlantic Ocean (Figure 1). NAEC
 is approximately 7,400 acres and is bordered by Route 547 to the east, the Fort Dix
 Military Reservation to the west, woodland to the  north (portions of which are within
 Colliers Mill Wildlife Management Area), Lakehurst Borough and woodland, including
 the Manchester Wildlife Management Area, to  the south. NAEC and the surrounding
 area are located within the Pinelands National Reserve, the most extensive undevel-
 oped land tract of the Middle Atlantic Seaboard.

            NAEC lies within the Outer Coastal Plain physiographic province, which
 is characterized by gently rolling terrain with minimal relief. Surface elevations within
 NAEC range from a low of approximately  60 feet above mean sea level in the east-
 central pan of the base, to a high of approximately 190 feet above mean sea level in
 the southwestern part of the base.  Maximum relief occurs in the southwestern pan of
 the base because of its proximity to the more rolling terrain of the Inner Coastal Plain.
 Surface slopes are generally less than five percent

            NAEC lies within the Toms River Drainage Basin. The basin is relatively
 small (191 square miles) and the residence time for surface drainage waters is short.
 Drainage from NAEC discharges to the Ridgeway Branch to the north and to the Black
 and Union Branches to the south. All three streams discharge into the Toms River.
 Several  headwater tributaries  to  these branches originate  at NAEC.   Northern
 tributaries to the Ridgeway Branch include the Elisha, Success, Harris and Obhanan
 Ridgeway Branches. The southern tributaries to the Black and Union Branches include
 the North  Ruckles  and Middle Ruckles  Branches and Manapaqua Brook.   The
Ridgeway and Union Branches then feed Pine Lake; located approximately 2.5 miles
east  of NAEC before joining Toms river.  Storm drainage from NAEC is divided
between the north and south, discharging into the Ridgeway Branch and Union Branch,

-------
 respectively.  The Paint Branch, located in the east-central part of the  base, is a
 relatively small stream which feeds the Manapaqua Brook.

            Three small water bodies are located in the western portion of NAEC:
 Bass Lake, Qubhouse Lake, and Pickerel Pond.  NAEC also contains over 1300 acres
 of flood-prone areas, occurring primarily in the south-central part of the base, and
 approximately 1,300 acres of prime agricultural land in the western portion of the base.

            There are  913 acres on  the eastern portion of NAEC that  lie within
 Manchester Township and the remaining  acreage  is in  Jackson Township.   The
 combined population of Lakehurst Borough, Manchester and Jackson Townships, is
 approximately 65,400, for an area of approximately  185 square miles.  The average
 population density of Manchester and Jackson Townships is 169 persons per square
 mile, whereas the density of Lakehurst Borough  is 3,061 persons per square mile.

            The areas surrounding NAEC are, in general, not heavily developed.  The
                                                               *
 closest commercial area is located near the southeastern section of the facility in the
 borough of Lakehurst   This is primarily a residential area with some shops but no
 industry.  To the north and south are State wildlife management areas which are
 essentially undeveloped. Adjacent to and south  of NAEC are commercial cranberry
 bogs, the drainage from which crosses  the southeast section of NAEC property.

            For the combined area of Manchester and Jackson Townships, approxi-
 mately 41 percent of the land is vacant (undeveloped), 57 percent is residential, one
 percent is commercial and  the remaining one percent is industrial or farmed.  For
 Lakehurst Borough, 83 percent of the land is residential, 11 percent is vacant, and the
 remaining 6 percent commercially developed.

            In the vicinity of the NAEC, water is generally supplied to the populace
by municipal supply wells.  Some private wells exist, but these are used primarily for

-------
 irrigation and not as a source of drinking water.  In Lakehurst Borough there is a well
 field consisting of seven 50-foot deep wells, located approximately two-thirds of a mile
 south of the eastern portion of NAEC  Three of the seven wells (four of the wells are
 rarely operated) are pumped at an average rate of 70 to 90 gallons per minute and
 supply drinking water for a population of approximately 3,000.  Jackson Township
 operates one supply well in the Legler area, approximately one-quarter mile north of
 the NAEC, which supplies water to very small population (probably less than 1,000) in
 the immediate vicinity of the NAEC.

 SITE HISTORY

            The  history  of the NAEC dates back to 1916, when the Eddystone
 Chemical Company leased from the Manchester Land Development Company property
 to develop an experimental firing range for the testing of chemical artillery shells.
 Testing was accomplished in cooperation and agreement with the Russian Imperial
 Government until its fall in 1919.  At that time, the U.S. Army assumed control  of
 chemical warfare testing by the Eddystone Chemical Company and named the  area
 Camp Kendrick.  By the early fall of 1919, construction of Hangar No. 1 for the Navy
 had  commenced.   Camp Kendrick was turned  over to  the Navy  and  formally
 commissioned Naval Air  Station (NAS), Lakehurst,  New Jersey on June 28,  1921.
 NAEC was moved from the Naval Base, Philadelphia to Lakehurst in December 1974.
At that time, NAEC became the host activity, thus, the new name NAEC Lakehurst.

            Currently, NAECs mission is to conduct programs of research, engineer-
 ing,  development  testing and evaluation,  systems integration, limited production,
procurement and fleet engineering support in the following areas: aircraft launching,
recovery and landing aid systems; ground support equipment for aircraft and for
airborne weapons  systems to provide, operate and rnaintaip test sites, facilities, and
support services for tests of the above systems and equipment; and conduct research
and development of equipment and instrumentation used in tests.  NAEC supports

-------
 Department of Defense (DOD) standardization and specification programs, provides
 services and material, and operates and maintains aviation and other facilities in
 support of assigned programs.

            NAEC and its tenant activities now occupy more than 300 buildings, built
 between 1919 and 1979, totaling over 2,845,000 square feet  The command  also
 operates and maintains- two 5,000-foot long runways, a 12,000-foot long catapult and
 arrest runway, one one-mile long jet car test track, four one and one-quarter mile long
 jet car  test tracks, a parachute jump circle, a 79-acre golf course, and a 3,500-acre
 conservation area.

            The various operations and activities at NAEC required the use, handling,
 storage and occasionally the  on-site disposal of hazardous substances.  During the
 operational period of the facility, there have been documented, reported or suspected
 releases of these substances into the environment in some areas.
                                                               •
 INITIAL INVESTIGATIONS

            As part of the DOD Installation Restoration Program, the Navy developed
 the Navy Assessment and Control of Installation Pollutants (NACIP) program to
 "identify, assess and control environmental contamination from past methods of storage,
 handling, and disposal of hazardous substances at naval shore  facilities".

            As pan of the NACIP program, an Initial Assessment Study (IAS) was
 completed in 1983 by the Naval Energy and Environmental Support Activity (NEESA)
 at NAEC The purpose of the IAS was to "identify and assess sites posing a potential
 threat to human health or the environment due to contamination from past hazardous
materials operations".

-------
            Based on information from historical records, aerial photographs, field
 inspections, and personnel interviews, the IAS identified  a  total of 44 potentially
 contaminated sites, which were evaluated with regard to contamination characteristics,
 migration pathways, and pollutant receptors. The IAS concluded that "while none of
 the sites pose an immediate threat to human health or the environment, 16 warrant
 further investigation under the NACIP program, to assess potential impacts".  A
 Remedial Investigation (RI) was recommended "to confirm or deny the existence of the
 suspected contamination and to quantify the extent of any problems which may exist".
 Following further review of available data by Navy personnel, it was decided that 42
 of the 44 sites  should be included in the Remedial Investigation. Two potentially
 contaminated sites - an ordnance site (Site 41) and an Advanced Underground Storage
 Facility (Site 43), were deleted from the  Remedial Investigation because they had
 already been rehabilitated. This Record of Decision concerns only Sites 15,18,23,26,
 27, 30, 34, 40 and Area L

            NAEC was designated in 1987 as  a National Priorities List (NPL) site
 under CERCLA.

 ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTIGATION/FEASIBILITY STUDY

            NAECs Remedial  Investigation (RI)  was conducted in  two  phases.
Implementation of the verification phase (Phase I of the RI) was initiated in October
 1984.  Phase n of the RI was initiated in the summer of 1988 to (a) confirm the results
of the Phase I study, specifically the presence or absence of contamination; (b) deter-
mine where contamination is present, characterize  the extent of contamination, assess
the potential for contaminant migration and define the sources of contamination; and
(c) support a feasibility study  and/or final actions at the  Sites.  Some additional
investigations were conducted in July and August 1991 as an addendum to the Phase
n program (i.e., RI Phase n-Addendum). Summaries of the resulting analytical data
for Sites 15,18,23,26, 27,30,34,40 and Area L are provided in Tables 1 through 10.

-------
            The individual Site histories and summaries of past remedial and removal

 activities at each of the eight sites and Area L are provided in the following sections.


 SITE 15 - DISPOSAL AREA NEAR THf, ffl Jfl r)ING 562 PARKING LOT


 Site History


            In 1981, a former  NAEC employee stated that over  a 20-year period,

 starting in the early 1950s, machine cuttings from Hangars 2 and 3 were disposed of at
 this site (Figure 3), which is adjacent to the south side of the Building 562 parking lot.

 It was also reported that this area was an alternate site for the disposal conducted at
 Site  9 - Hangar 2 Disposal Area.  However, these reports were never confirmed.


            Currently, no activities which involve the use,  storage or disposal  of
 hazardous substances occur at, or are being planned for, this site. The site is currently
 partially covered with grassy vegetation and several trees and there is jio evidence of

 stained soils or other debris.
         of Remedial Investigations and Removal Actions
Pre-1985:               One monitoring well (AH) was installed at the site under the
                       direction of the NAEC.  This well had been monitored on a
                       regular basis by NAEC for the presence of floating product
                       None has been detected.

                       As part of the cleanup operations in early 1981, several small
                       piles  of  brown rusty material (believed to  be  machine
                       cuttings) which were present at the site were removed in one
                       55-gallon drum. No cuttings  or stained  soil remain at the
                       site.
                                      8

-------
 November 1985
 January 1986:
 May - June 1988:
August -
December 1988:
July 1990:
 Remedial Investigation - Phase L One groundwater sample
 was collected from monitoring well AH and analyzed for
 volatile organic compounds, total petroleum hydrocarbons,
 total organic halogens, lead and pH.  No contamination was
 detected.   Site observations  did  not reveal  any visual
 evidence of surficial soil contamination.  Furthermore, no
 stained or discolored soil was observed in three shallow test
 pits. Organic vapor analyzer (OVA) readings in two test pits
 excavated 15 feet northwest and 15 feet southeast of well
 AH were 1.6 ppm and 1.0 ppm, respectively.  In the third
 test pit, excavated approximately 30 feet southwest of well
 AH, OVA readings did not exceed background levels.

 A soil gas screening survey at the site detected no petroleum
 or chlorinated hydrocarbons in the soil gas.
Remedial Investigation - Phase n. Two rounds of groundwa-
ter samples were collected from monitoring well AH and
analyzed for organic and inorganic parameters, total petro-
leum hydrocarbons and total organic  carbon.   The only
contaminant detected in the groundwater at levels exceeding
ARARs was chromium.  Chromium was detected at an
estimated concentration of 73.4 jug/1 in the second round
sample.  The ARAR for  chromium  in groundwater  is
50
Three test pits were excavated at Site 15 and one soil sample
was collected from a depth of 2.5 feet from one of the test
pits. No metal or organic contaminants were detected in the
analysis of this sample.  In addition, no staining was observed
in any of the test pits and no OVA readings above back-
ground levels were recorded.

Remedial Investigation - Phase n Addendum. To confirm
the presence or absence of dissolved chromium in the
groundwater at Site  15, filtered and unfiltered groundwater
samples were collected from  monitoring  well AH.  The
samples were only  analyzed  for chromium, which  was
detected at  levels exceeding ARARs during the August-
December 1988 Phase n Remedial Investigation. Chromium
was detected in the unfiltered sample at  a concentration
below the ARAR, but was not  detected in the filtered

-------
                        sample.  Chromium was also detected at  a level below
                        ARAR in the laboratory method blank.  Chromium is  a
                        naturally-occurring metal and its presence  in  unfiltered
                        samples is attributable primarily to the presence of sediment
                        in the samples. It was, therefore, concluded that no ground-
                        water contamination exists at this site.
 SITE 18 - NAVAL EXCHANGE GAS STATION


 Site History


            In  1981, interviews  with  Navy  Exchange  Service  Station personnel

 indicated that the service station (Figure 4) had been discarding waste oils and possibly

 battery acids and solvents into a deck drain beginning in 1958. Available information

 indicated that the deck drain was connected to a dry well which was located to the east

 of the service station.  Prior to 1985, the use of the deck drain for waste disposal was

 discontinued.  The dry well at the site  was removed in October 1988. The service

 station's underground storage tanks were removed in 1990.  At the time of the removal,

 the tanks appeared to be in good condition.  No evidence of tank leakage was observed

 and no staining or odors were noted in soil adjacent to the tanks.


           This site is located approximately 400 feet southwest, and upgradient from,

NAECs main potable water supply well  (PW-9).  Currently, no activities involving the

use, storage or disposal of hazardous substances occur at, or are being planned for this

site.


Summary of Remedial Investigations and Removal Actions
Pre-1985:               One monitoring well (AZ) was installed downgradient from
                       the site under the direction of the NAEC.  Testing of the
                       water from potable water wells PW-5 and PW-9 was initiated
                       by NAEC


                                     10

-------
November 1985
January 1986:
May - June 1988:
August -
December 1988:
 Remedial Investigation • Phase I.   Groundwater samples
 were collected from the  two potable  water wells located
 downgradient from the site (PW-5 and  PW-9) and analyzed
 for volatile and base/neutral organic compounds, pesticides,
 herbicides,  metals,  chloride,  fluoride,  nitrate,  sodium,
 sulphate, pH, radioactivity, total dissolved solids, surfactants
 and  turbidity.   No contamination was  detected. Two soil
 samples were collected at depths of 5 feet and 10 feet from
 a  boring  drilled  immediately  adjacent  to  the dry well.
 Analysis of these samples for volatile organic compounds, pH
 and  total petroleum hydrocarbons revealed no contami-
 nation.

 A soil gas screening survey conducted  at the site  revealed
 low  levels  of chlorinated hydrocarbons in the soil  gas.
 Additional investigations were recommended.
Remedial Investigation - Phase n. Two rounds of groundwa-
ter samples were collected from monitoring wells EK and
AZ,  located  downgradient  from the site.  Groundwater
samples from well  EK were analyzed for the  group of
compounds on EPA's Target Compound and-Target Analyte
Lists (which  includes volatile  organic compounds, semi-
volatile organic compounds, metals, pesticides and PCBs), as
well as total petroleum hydrocarbons. The sample from well
AZ was  analyzed  for  volatile and semi-volatile organic
compounds, pesticides, PCBs, petroleum hydrocarbons and
radiological parameters.  No contamination was detected.
                       Analysis of a sradge sample collected from within the dry
                       well prior to its removal in October 1988 revealed low levels
                       of volatile organic compounds, high levels of semi-volatile
                       organic  compounds  and petroleum hydrocarbons, and
                       moderate to high levels of eight metals.  Following the
                       excavation and removal of the dry well in October 1988, one
                       soil sample was collected from immediately beneath the base
                       of the dry well, at a depth of approximately 8.5  feet

                       No staining was observed in the soil of the excavation. The
                       only  contaminants detected in the analysis of the post-
                       removal sample were  PHCs at 226 Mg/g-  Since targeted
                                     11

-------
                        semi-volatile compounds were not detected in this sample, it
                        appears that the petroleum hydrocarbons were primarily non-
                        targeted tentatively identified compounds.

                        The analytical data and the lack of stains on the floor and
                        walls of the excavation suggest that releases of contaminants
                        from the dry well were not significant and that contaminated
                        sludge within the dry well apparently did not significantly
                        impact soil or groundwater quality at or downgradient from
                        the site.
 SITE 23 - INACTIVE DISPOSAL AREA A     Tn DTNO
 Site History


            In 1983,  interviews with base personnel and reviews of NAEC records

 indicated that  during cleanup operations in early  1981,  four separate areas that

 contained black and  orange-brown stained  soil were  found at  the  southeast and

 northeast corners of Building 524 (Figure 5).  The stained areas varied in size from 4

 x 5 feet to 10 x S feet Also found at the site were nine 55-gallon drumSf-and cardboard

 containers which were reported to be leaking solid resin "beads". These  beads are non-

 hazardous and used for the removal of aluminum and iron from water at the steam

plant  A former potable water well (PW-26) is located inside Building 524 and is

 reported to be 74 feet deep.  Its screened interval is not known. The well is no longer

in general use, but is used infrequently as a back-up source when needed.


            Currently, no activities which involve the  use,  storage  or disposal  of

hazardous substances occur at, or are being planned for, this site.


Summary of Remedial Investigations and Removal Actions
Pre-1985:               Under the direction of NAEC, one monitoring well (BP) was
                       installed approximately 325 feet east of Site 23.  This well
                                      12

-------
November 1985
January 1986:
August -
December 1988:
                        had been monitored on a regular basis by NAEC for the
                        presence of free-floating product None has been detected.

                        As part of the cleanup operations, unknown quantities of
                        surficial stained soil  and nine 55-gallon drums containing
                        solid resin beads  were removed from the site under the
                        direction of NAEC.
 Remedial Investigation - Phase L  One groundwater sample
 was collected from the former potable well PW-26.  The
 sample was analyzed for the New Jersey Standard Drinking
 Water Parameters, including volatile  and  base/neutral
 organic compounds, metals, pesticides, herbicides and various
 other parameters.  No contaminants were detected.  One
 groundwater sample was also collected from well BP.  The
 sample was analyzed for priority  pollutant volatile organic
 compounds, lead, total petroleum  hydrocarbons (PHC), and
 total organic halogens (TOX).  No significant contamination
 was detected.

 An area of dark gray stained  soil, approximately 5 feet in
 diameter, was observed north of Building 524. The stain was
 surficial (2-3 inches deep) and appeared to-'have been the
 result of an old minor spill. Measurements with an Organic
 Vapor Analyzer (OVA) in a shallow (1 ft) test pit excavated
 within the stained soil and four additional shallow test pits
 excavated around Building 524 did not indicate the presence
 of any contamination associated with activities at the site.
Remedial Investigation - Phase IL Two rounds of groundwa-
ter samples were collected from the former potable water
well PW-26 and monitoring well BP. The samples from well
PW-26 were analyzed for PHC and  the parameters included
on the EPA's Target Compound List (organics) and Target
Analyte List (inorganics). No contaminant^ were detected in
these samples. The samples from well BP were analyzed for
total  petroleum  hydrocarbons,  ethylene glycol  and  the
volatile and semi-volatile parameters included on the Target
Analyte List  The only contaminant detected  in these
samples was toluene, which was present in the second round
sample at a concentration below ARARs (16 Mg/1). This
result was qualified, due to the fact that toluene was also
                                     13

-------
                        detected in a laboratory blank. Toluene was not detected in
                        the first round sample from this welL

                        No contamination was detected in the analysis of a soil
                        sample collected at the site. In addition, no visible evidence
                        of contamination was observed on the ground surface or in
                        the test pit  from which the sample was collected  and no
                        OVA levels  were registered above background levels.
 Site History


            Site 26 reportedly consisted of a 30 ft by 50 ft area north of Building 337,

 along a drainage swale leading to the Ridgeway Branch (Figure 6). This area was an
 apparent disposal site utilized by contractors for disposal of oil, roofing materials and
 assorted building debris. The debris was removed from the site in 1981.  Site 26 is

 near, and possibly at the edge of, Site 42 (the former Base Landfill).


            Currently, no activities involving the use, storage, or disposal of hazardous
 substances occur at, or are being planned for, this site.
Summary of Remedial Investigations an j
                                               Actions
1981

November 1985
January 1986
August -
December 1988:
                       The debris was removed from the site.
                       Remedial Investigation - Phase I. No data were collected at
                       this site.
                       Remedial Investigation • Phase H. Two rounds of groundwa-
                       ter samples were collected from a shallow and deep well pair
                       (EH  and ET) located downgradient  from  the site and
                       analyzed for EPA's organic and inorganic parameters, total
                       petroleum hydrocarbons, and sanitary landfill conventional
                       parameters. Elevated levels of lead (65  Mg/1) were detected
                                      14

-------
                        in the first round sample collected from deep well ET. Lead
                        was not detected in the second sampling round. TheARAR
                        for lead is 50
                        Two rounds of surficial soil samples were collected from the
                        reported disposal area north of Building 337. The pesticide
                        4,4-'DDT was detected in the first round  sample at a
                        concentration of 885 Mg/kg and in the second round sample
                        at a concentration of 4,700 Mg/kg. The State action level for
                        DDT in soil ranges from 1 to 10 mg/kg. The pesticide 4,4'-
                        DDE was detected in the first round sample at a concentra-
                        tion of 635 Mg/kg, but was not detected in the second round
                        sample.  The  State action level for this pesticide in soil is
                        determined by the State on a case-by-case basis.  These
                        pesticide concentrations are below EPA  cleanup levels at
                        CERCLA sites.  PHC was  detected in the second round
                        sample at a  concentration of 266  mg/kg, but was not
                        detected in the sample  collected  during the  first round.
                        State action levels for PHC range from 100 mg/kg to  1,000
                        mg/kg, depending on the concentration of  carcinogenic
                        polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs).  Levels of PAHs
                        in these same  samples were below State action levels. The
                        presence of PHCs was probably attributable to non-targeted
                        tentatively identified compounds (TICs).

January 1990:            To evaluate the treatability of pesticides  detected in soil
                        samples during the Phase n Investigation, composite soil
                        samples were  collected  for solidification/stabilization, soil
                        washing and biological treatability studies. To confirm the
                        presence of contaminants detected previously at this site,
                        split portions of these composite soil samples were analyzed
                        for volatile and base/neutral organic compounds, pesticides,
                        total petroleum hydrocarbons, total organic carbon, nitrate
                        and phosphate.  However no contamination was detected
                        and, therefore, treatability studies were  not performed.
                                     15

-------
 SITE 27 - RECnVRRY SYSTEMS TEST SITES rRSTtt SCRAP DUMP

 Site History

            This site is located approximately 100 yards south of the arresting end of
 RSTS Track No. 5 (Figure 7). The size of the site, which was used as a disposal area
 between 1958 and 1980, is about 400 by 700 feet

            It has been reported that the material discarded here was scrap steel cable
 from arresting gear at various locations throughout NAEC.  This cable is made with a
 grease-saturated manila core for lubrication of the cable strands.

            The site was graded and seeded sometime prior to the initiation of the
 Phase I Investigation in 1985.  Currently, the site is overgrown with vegetation and
 surrounded by trees.  There is no visible evidence of past disposal activities.  No
 activities which involve the use, storage or disposal of hazardous substances occur at,
 or are being planned for, this site.

            Currently, no activities involving the use, storage or disposal of hazardous
 substances occur at, or are being planned for, this site.

 Summary of Investigations/Remedial Actions
Pre-1985:              In 1980, following a report of suspected contamination, an
                       EPA contractor performed a survey at this site using an
                       organic vapor analyzer (OVA).  Approximately 25 analyses
                       were obtained  from 3.5 to 4-foot soil borings and  only
                       methane was detected  at low concentrations.  Prior to the
                       initiation of the Phase I Remedial Investigation, the area was
                       graded  and seeded under the  direction  of NAEC.   One
                       monitoring well (AV) was installed at the southern boundary
                       of the site. The well had been monitored on a regular basis
                                      16

-------
November 1985
Januaiy 1986:
May - June 1988:
August -
December 1988:
                       by NAEC for the presence of free-floating product  None
                       has been detected.
 Remedial Investigation - Phase I. A visual inspection of the
 site  revealed no evidence of surficial soil contamination.
 One additional monitoring well (DS) was installed at the
 northern boundary of the site. One groundwater sample was
 collected from this well and analyzed for total petroleum
 hydrocarbons and the priority pollutant organic and inorganic
 parameters. No contamination was detected. One addition-
 al groundwater sample was  collected from well AV and
 analyzed for priority pollutant volatile organic compounds,
 total petroleum hydrocarbons, lead and total organic halo-
 gens. No  contamination was detected.

 A soil gas screening survey conducted at the site confirmed
 the lack of contamination by volatile organic compounds.
Remedial Investigation - Phase n. Two rounds of groundwa-
ter samples (total four  samples) were collected from wells
AV and DS.  The samples were analyzed for total petroleum
hydrocarbons, lead and the volatile and semi-volatile organic
compounds included on the EPA's Target Analyte List  The
two samples collected from well AV were also analyzed for
total organic carbon.   No contamination was detected.
Although the wells  were located along the northern and
southern boundaries of the site and  not directly  down-
gradient the absence of any evidence of soil or groundwater
contamination indicates that the site  is  not a source of
contamination. It should be noted that there are no reports
indicating the direct  disposal of liquid wastes on the ground
at this site.
                                     17

-------
 Site History

            This site, located at the recovery end of Track No. 4, measures about
 75 feet wide by 800 feet long (Figure 8). The site was used for creating aircraft crashes
 under controlled conditions for  the purpose of evaluating fire-preventative jet fuel
 additives. The tests were conducted by launching fueled test aircraft down the track,
 allowing them to become momentarily airborne, and then crash on a mound of soil
 specially prepared for this purpose.  The mound of soil was located on a paved area
 about 200 feet wide.  The soil has since been removed.  The only evidence of the site
 is a stained area on the pavement indicating the former location of the mound.  A total
 of four aircraft were  tested at this site, each with approximately 1,000 gallons of fuel
 on board.  During the crash tests, JIM, JP-5  and Jet  A Gel antimisting fuel  were
 reported to have been deposited on the ground.  Aqueous Film Forming Foam (AFFF)
 was also used at this  site to fight the ensuing fires.

            Currently, no activities involving the use, storage, or disposal of hazardous
substances occur at, or are being planned for, this site.

Summary of Remedial Investigations and Removal Actions
Pre-1985:               One monitoring well (BT) was installed under the direction
                       of NAEC at a distance of approximately 250  feet down-
                       gradient from the former location of the earth mound. The
                       well was monitored by NAEC for the presence of floating
                       product None was detected.
                       All of the soil which formed the  mound  at the end of the
                       track was removed and disposed of at an off-site permitted
                       hazardous  waste  disposal  facility  (Boyertown  Sanitary
                       Disposal, Gilbertville, Pennsylvania).
                                      18

-------
 November 1985
 January 1986:
 August -
 December 1988:
July 1990:
 Remedial Investigation - Phase I.  No evidence of stained
 soil was observed at the site. Analysis of one groundwater
 sample  from the  downgradient monitoring well  BT for
 volatile organic compounds, lead, petroleum hydrocarbons,
 pH, conductivity, and total organic halides did not reveal any
 contamination. Additional investigations were recommend-
 ed.
 Remedial Investigation - Phase H. Two rounds of duplicate
 groundwater samples were collected from monitoring wells
 BT and analyzed for volatile, base/neutral and acid extract-
 able compounds, petroleum hydrocarbons, lead,  ethylene
 glycoL, surfactants and total organic carbon.

 Slightly elevated levels of lead (70.8 Mg/1) were detected in
 one  of the two (duplicate) second  round  groundwater
 samples collected from well BT, located downgradient from
 the site.  The duplicate sample contained lead at a concen-
 tration of 42.2 Mg/1. The ARAR for lead is 50 Mg/1.  Lead
 was not detected in the first round duplicate samples from
 this well.
                                        ^.
 Two rounds of surficial sediment samples were collected
 from a drainage swale located north of the site and analyzed
 for EPA's organic and inorganic parameters, total petroleum
 hydrocarbons and  total organic carbon.   Chromium was
 detected in the second round sediment sample collected from
 the drainage swale north of the site at an estimated concen-
 tration of 110 mg/kg, slightly above the State action level of
 100 mg/kg.  The concentration of chromium in the first
 round sample from this location was 7 mg/kg, well below the
 action level.

 Remedial Investigation - Phase n Addendum.  To confirm
 the presence or absence of dissolved lead previously detected
 in the groundwater at Site 30, filtered and unfiltered ground-
water samples were collected  from monitoring well BT.
 Lead was detected below the Federal Maximum Contami-
 nant Level of 50 Mg/1 in the unfiltered sample and was not
 detected in the filtered sample,  suggesting  that the former
presence of elevated levels of lead was probably due to the
presence of sediment in the sample.
                                     19

-------
 SITE 34-PARACHUTE JUMP CIRCLE

 Site History

            The parachute jump circle is a large 4,000-foot diameter (approximately
 290-acre) open circular field in the north central portion of NAEC (Figure 9), used for
 the practice of parachute landing.  NAEC employees reported that the entire parachute
jump circle was  used to discharge used fuel (i.e., fuel which had been drained from
 aircraft). It was also stated that there was no favorite spot for disposal.  Sometimes the
 fuel truck driver would open the valve and drive around the parachute circle to spread
 the fuel and sometimes he  would park the truck and discharge at one spot   The
 method of disposal depended upon the way the  driver  decided  to discharge the
material.

            According to personnel interviews and fuel handling records, used fuel was
discharged  at the parachute circle from 1950 to 1970 at the rate of about  100,000
gallons  per year. Therefore, up to two million gallons of used  fuel may have  been
discharged  at the parachute circle area.  Although no information was provided, it is
possible that fuel disposal may also have occurred at the jump circle prior to 1950. In
1987, an airplane crash in the northeastern section of the jump circle resulted in the
release of 5 to 10 gallons of AVGAS and motor oil.

            Currently, no activities involving the use, storage, or disposal of hazardous
substances occur at, or are being planned for, this site.
                                      20

-------
      arv of Remedial Tnvcstiea.tions and Removal Actions
November 1985
January 1986:
May - June 1988:
August -
December 1988:
 Remedial Investigation - Phase L   Groundwater samples
 were collected from four monitoring wells installed at the
 site (DW, DX, DZ and DY).  The samples from wel!s DX,
 DZ and DY were analyzed for volatile organic compounds,
 lead, conductivity, total organic halogens, total petroleum
 hydrocarbons and  pH.   The groundwater sample from
 monitoring well DW was analyzed  for volatile and  base/-
 neutral organic compounds,  metals, conductivity, cyanide,
 total petroleum hydrocarbons and pH.  No contamination
 was detected in the analysis of the groundwater samples.

 Two soil samples collected at the site (each a composite
 from two different locations) and  analyzed  for volatile
 organic compounds, lead, total petroleum hydrocarbons and
 pH revealed no contamination.

 Soil gas and groundwater screening surveys conducted at the
 site identified low levels of petroleum hydrocarbons  in two
 groundwater  samples.    Additional investigations  were
 recommended.
Remedial Investigation - Phase IL Two rounds of groundwa-
ter samples were  collected  from nine  monitoring  wells
located at the site (including well D originally installed as a
downgradient well for Site 20).  Most of the samples were
analyzed for EPA's organic and inorganic parameters and
total petroleum hydrocarbons.

No contaminants were detected at levels exceeding ARARs
in any of the samples collected from the nine monitoring
wells.  Two wells  (GC and FZ) were installed  at two
locations where the 1988 groundwater screening surveys had
indicated elevated levels of benzene. However, the analyses
of two groundwater samples from these wells did not confirm
the presence of benzene or other VOCs.
                                     21

-------
                        During Phase n, four soil samples were collected at Site 34
                        at depths ranging from 7 to 18 feet below ground surface..
                        All  samples were collected above the water  table.   The
                        samples were analyzed  for EPA's organic  and inorganic
                        parameters, total petroleum hydrocarbons and total organic
                        carbons.

                        The only contaminants detected in these samples at levels
                        exceeding  State  action  levels were  PHCs, which  were
                        detected in two of the four samples  at concentrations of
                        1,063 mg/kg and 2,264 mkg/kg. The interim State action
                        level for PHC in soils at NAEC is 1,000 mg/kg, unless the
                        levels of carcinogenic base/neutral extractable compounds
                        exceed  10 mg/kg,  in which case the  PHC ARAR may be
                        reduced to 100 mg/kg.  Elevated levels of TICs were also
                        detected in these samples. Targeted VOCs and SVOQ were
                        not detected.
SITE 40 - SOIL STABTTJZATTON KIHI .D TEST SITE


Site History


            In October 1969, a soil stabilization field test was conducted at NAEC as

part of a study to correct the hazards associated with the raising of dust and foreign
materials at Short Airfield in Tactical Support (SATS)  runways. The study was also

designated to find a method of increasing the load-bearing capacity of the soil. Site 40,
the field testing area, is at a low elevation and almost level with the adjacent marshy
area and nearby Pickerel Pond (Figure 10).


            For the stabilization study, a 4,000 square foot area was divided into four

strips  of 100 feet by 10 feet each and cleared, graded, compacted, and scarified to a

depth of 4 inches. Then chemicals were applied as follows: Aniline and ferric chloride

solutions (used as a catalyst) were loaded into a pressure distributor truck and applied
together, followed immediately by furfural. Then the soil and chemicals were mixed
and compacted. The mixer broke down before the mixing operation in the third and


                                     22

-------
 fourth strips and, as a result, the mixing in those two strips was done with the scarifier,
 which provided a rather poor mix. The average compacted thicknesses were 4 inches
 in the first strip, 4-1/2 inches in the second strip, and one inch in the third and fourth
 strips. The exact location of the test strips is not known, although the general area of
 the tests based on examination of historical aerial photography, is shown in Figure 11.

            According to the  study's report, the  surplus  aniline (approximately
 69 gallons) remaining in the distributor was burned or buried. Also, the equipment was
 flushed out and cleaned with fuel oil, to be burned or buried, or with soapy lukewarm
 water, to be buried or discharged into sewer lines.  Rag waste was buried or burned.
 The quantities of fuel oil, soapy water, and rags disposed of or  the location of the
 burning or burying is unknown.  The disposal procedure for the furfural (66  gallons
 surplus) and the ferric chloride solution (69 gallons surplus) is also unknown.

            In November 1969, after two days of rain, there was no sign of erosion on
 the stabilized soil surface.  A compressive strength test was run and the results were
 about  1/4 to 1/5 of laboratory  results.  The study, therefore, concluded that more
 efficient machinery was required in the field.

            Aniline and furfural are on EPA's hazardous substances list due to their
ignitability characteristics.  Also, aniline is considered  to be  very toxic and furfural
moderately toxic by ingestion, inhalation and skin absorption.

            The  product  of the  chemical  reaction   of  aniline  and  furfural is
N-2-(Furanylmethyl) benzene amine. Since furfural is very reactive and excess aniline
and ferric chloride solutions  were used, it is expected that all of the furfural was
reacted.  No available  data was found to indicate  that the compound produced is
hazardous or toxic.
                                      23

-------
            In September-October  1981, the area was found to still be devoid of
 vegetation and the soil surface  was observed to be crusty.  During the Phase I

 Investigation in November 1985-January 1986, the site was still devoid of vegetation,

 but there was no evidence of stained or crusty soil.  Furthermore, it could not be

 confirmed whether or not the lack of vegetation was due to natural erosion or past

 activities at the site.


            Currently, no activities involving the use, storage or disposal of hazardous

 substances occur at, or are being planned for, this site.


 Summary of Remedial Investigations and Removal Actions
November 1985
January 1986:
August -
December 1988:
Remedial Investigation - Phase I. A groundwater sample
was collected from monitoring well EG installed at the site
and analyzed for base/neutral compounds, iron, pH, conduc-
tivity  and chloride.  Iron was detected at a concentration
exceeding the ARAR. No other contaminants were detected.

Three soil samples were collected at the site and analyzed
for base/neutral compounds, iron, pH, aniline, furfural and
chloride. The analysis revealed the presence of one semi-
volatile organic compound, 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene at concen-
trations  ranging from 86.4 Mg/kg to 218 Mg/kg. Additional
investigations were recommended.
Remedial Investigation - Phase IL Two rounds of ground-
water samples were collected from well EG and analyzed for
EPA's organic and inorganic parameters, aniline and furfural.
The only parameter detected above ARARs was iron, at a
concentration of 449,000 MgA m ue second round unfiltered
sample. The ARAR for iron is 300 Mg/1-  In the first round
sample, the concentration was 66,200 MgA but was qualified
as unreliable. Aniline and furfural, the two parameters of
concern, were not detected in these samples.  While the iron
level appears to be abnormally high, comparable concentra-
tions were  detected in other wells throughout the  NAEC
                                     24

-------
 (e.£, well GP, Area G, 392,400 Mg/1;  well BN, Area H,
 318,000 Mg/1; well AT, Area K, 684,000 Mg/1).  Although
 these wells are not all directly upgradient from Site 40, they
 are all far enough away from the site so  as to be out of the
 range of potential impacts from activities at the site.  The
 average concentration of iron  in 282 groundwater samples
 collected throughout NAEC was 27,538 Mg/1- A comparison
 of filtered and unfiltered samples collected at the same time
 from randomly selected wells throughout NAEC shows that
 the average  iron concentration in unfiltered samples was
 120,118 MgA In the filtered samples, the  average concentra-
 tion was drastically reduced to 3,204 Mg/1. This suggests that
 the apparently abnormally high levels of iron in some wells
 are the result of the high sediment load in the samples.  This
 hypothesis is supported by the  fact that,  in many cases, the
 levels of metals in the samples varied significantly between
 the two sampling rounds. For example, in well AT (Area K),
 the concentration of iron was 684,000 Mg/1 in the first round
 sample, but only 2,730 Mg/1 in the second round sample.

 Five soil samples were collected from shallow (1 to 2-foot)
 test pits excavated at the site.  Two background samples
 were collected: one from a marshy area about 400 feet south
 of the site, and one from a higher elevation area between the
 tarmac and Pickerel  Pond, about 400 feet east of the  site.
 These samples were analyzed for aniline, furfural, iron and
 base/neutral  extractable compounds.  Iron was detected at
 concentrations ranging from  1,700 mg/kg to  2,200 mg/kg in
 the five on-site samples. The iron concentrations in the two
 background  samples  were 2,100  mg/kg  and 4,000 mg/kg.
 Therefore, the origin of iron in the on-site samples appear to
 be natural and cannot be attributed to  site activities. It
 should be noted that the average concentration of iron in
 100 samples  collected  at the NAEC during Phase n  was
2335 mg/kg.   1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene,  detected in  soil
 samples during Phase I, was not detected in Phase n.   No
 aniline or  furfural were detected.

Two sediment samples were  collected from  Pickerel Pond,
downgradient from the site, and analyzed for EPA's organic
and inorganic parameters, total  petroleum hydrocarbons,
aniline, furfural and total organic carbon.  Chromium and
nickel were detected at concentrations exceeding State action
levels (420 and 180 mg/kg, respectively) in the second round
              25

-------
                        sample only. The State action level for both chromium and
                        nickel is 100 mg/kg.  Neither chromium nor  lead were
                        detected in soil,  groundwater  or  surface water  samples
                        collected at the Site, and, hence, the levels encountered in
                        one of the two sediment samples collected at the Site do not
                        pose a significant risk to human health or the environment
                        These levels may be attributable  to naturally occurring
                        minerals in  the sediment Some TICs were detected in both
                        samples. No aniline or furfural was detected.

                        Two surface water samples were collected from Pickerel
                        Pond, downgradient from the site and analyzed  for EPA's
                        organic and inorganic parameters, aniline, furfural and total
                        organic carbon.  Low levels of trichloroethene (4 Mg/1) were
                        detected in the first round sample only.  No  aniline or
                        furfural  were detected.  The  source of trichloroethene  has
                        not been identified.  Because of the  detailed information
                        available about  activities at Site 40 (described in the Site
                        History Section), Site 40 is not the source of trace trichloro-
                        ethene contamination. It is possible that its presence is due
                        to  laboratory cross-contamination.   Trichloroethene was
                        detected at  a concentration of  140  Mg/1  in a groundwater
                        sample collected at Site 3, about 1,800 feet from the Pickerel
                        Pond surface water sampling point  However, considering
                        that: (a) the groundwater flow direction in  the vicinity of
                        Site 3 is to the southeast; and (b) the fact that VOCs were
                        not detected in well GZ, located between Site 3 and Pickerel
                        Pond, it is unlikely that  Site 3 is the source of trichloro-
                        ethene in Pickerel  Pond.

July 1990:               Remedial Investigation -  Phase  n Addendum:  To confirm
                        the presence or absence of dissolved iron in the groundwater
                        at Site 40, filtered and unfiltered groundwater samples were
                        collected from monitoring well EG. The samples  were only
                        analyzed for iron which  was  detected at levels  exceeding
                        ARARs during the  Phase I and Phase n Remedial Investiga-
                        tions. During the Phase n Addendum, iron concentrations
                        exceeded ARARs  in both unfiltered duplicate samples
                        (144,000 and 85,200  Mg/1).   Iron concentrations were
                        significantly  lower  in the filtered samples,  although still
                        above ARARs at  concentrations  of 4,000 and 4,650 Mg/1
                        respectively.
                                     26

-------
 ARFiA I; - NORTHWESTERN CORNER OF NAEC


 Arcs History

            Area L includes the extreme northwestern corner of the NAEC This area
was of potential concern due to its proximity to  the location of the explosion of a
BOMARC missile.   Background  information on  this explosion and  subsequent
investigations and remedial actions  is presented below.

            On June 7,1960, an explosion and fire occurred at the BOMARC missile
site  located in Fort Dix Military Reservation, bordering  the western boundary of
NAEC.  The  missile  was located  in  a launcher shelter  approximately 1,800 feet
northwest of the extreme northwest corner of NAEC (Figure 11).

            The following background information is  a  summary of information
included in a report prepared in 1977 by the U.S. Army Toxic and Hazardous Materials
                                                               •
Agency:

                 The force of the explosion destroyed portions of the
           shelter roof,  Flames rose to 20 feet and black smoke blanketed
           the area. At the time of the fire a gentle  northeast wind, 5 to
           8 knots, was blowing the smoke into surrounding areas. The
           nuclear warhead was burned, the missile was destroyed, and the
           launcher shelter was badfy damaged.   The Inhibited Red
           Fuming Nitric Add (IRFNA) tank (caddizer tank), although
           displaced, remained intact and contained add. The residue of
           the burning warhead contaminated the  concrete floor.   In
           addition to the severely damaged roof, the floor was pitted, steel
           roof beams were deformed, and the concrete walls were pitted
           by flying objects. The shelter watts suffered some heat damage.
           The tritium bottle remained in good condition.  The remains of
                                     27

-------
 the warhead and all residue from the floor were placed in
 plastic bags and then into sealed cans for ultimate disposal.

       The fire burned from 1515 hours until 1545 hours before
 any effort was made to extinguish  the flames.  The area was
 flooded with water until 0645 hours on 8 June 1960.  During
 the flooding of the BOMARC shelter, water flowed continuously
 under the front door, down  the macadam street and into the
 drainage ditch outside the fenced-in BOMARC site.  Radioac-
 tive material, Plutonium 239 and 241, traveled approximately
 500 feet along the drainage ditch.  A  dam was constructed
 along the drainage ditch in an attempt to contain excess water
 and prevent spreading of radioactive material  It was reported
 that the water did not leave  the military reservation nor did it
 endanger the water supply.

       In the immediate vicinity of the shelter, alpha radiation
 was confined to the floor of the shelter under the warhead and
 in the water draining from the shelter into the drainage ditch.
 In addition to the shelter, decontamination was also required
 of the macadam ramp and the drainage ditch.

      Decontamination of  the entire  area was started  on
 8 June 1960.  At  0900 hours, air samplers were set up down-
 wind from the accident site.  A  verbal report from the 2702D
Explosive Ordnance  Disposal Squadron  indicated that the
highest reading found on the filter paper was 1.59 counts per
minute (CPM). At one point near  the warhead, a reading of
over 2,000,000 CPM was found. Contamination outside the
shelter was a result of the flooding.  At 1000 hours  an alpha
survey was made of the ramp outside of the shelter; the highest
reading was 160,000 CPM.  Officers from the Public Health
Service surveyed 66 miles of off-post area and found no traces
of contamination.
                           28

-------
       On 10 June  I960,  the entire area  was checked and
 monitoring equipment installed. Air samples were again taken.
 During the fire,  tar had melted and spread in a thin layer on
 sections of the floor.  Several sections of the floor containing tar
 showed readings of  over 2,000,000 CPM.  The count in the
 center of the road outside the shelter was also 2,000,000 CPM.
 The entire area was again washed down and allowed to dry.
 The count in the center of the road was still over allowable
 limits.  In converting counts per minute to micrograms per
 square meter, the amount ofphitonium (alpha) contamination
 was 5,000 micrograms per square meter. It has been estab-
 lished that any area contaminated by plutonium in  excess of
 1,000 micrograms per square meter is considered dangerous.
Allowable surface levels for residential and urban areas would
 be 50 ug/m2.

      After the area was  completely dry,  the inside  of the
shelter was given a very thick layer of paint. Spray guns were
used  to ensure  total coverage.   The outside area was also
painted, and brooms were used to spread  the paint on the
macadam. A total of 110 gallons of paint was used. After the
paint had dried enough to walk on, readings were again taken.
Areas that had previously shown 2,000,000 counts per minute,
now read zero. Some of the fringe areas showed readings of 50
to 500 counts which presented no hazard.

      Alpha radiation can be readify shielded by a one-inch
thick air space, by painting or coating a contaminated surface,
or simply by shielding with a piece of paper. Alpha radiation
will not penetrate the skin of an individual, but  can cause
serious lung damage  if inhaled. Painting or coating a surface
is onfy a temporary solution to the problem. Proper decontami-
nation would require removal of soil for burial
                           29

-------
                   Since 1960, many radiation surveys have been conducted
             around the BOMARC site.  The USAF Radiological Health
             Laboratory, McGuire Air Force Base, New Jersey, has conduct-
             ed surveys since 1960 and,  in  1973,  was  directed by the
             Department of the Air Force to initiate an annual survey
            program.  Surveys have  also been  conducted by the Army
            Environmental Hygiene Agency, and by the U.S. Army Radia-
             tion Team, Ballistics Research Laboratory, both at Aberdeen
            Proving Ground, Maryland, and by EG&G,  Inc.,  Las Vegas,
            Nevada, an independent contractor who conducted the study
            for the Atomic Energy Commission.

                  All reports indicate that a problem does exist in and
            around the BOMARC site.  Both the Army and Air Force
            Surgeon Generals agree that the area should  be restricted and
            monitored and that, in its present  condition, does in  fact
            present a health hazard.
            A memorandum issued by the U.S. Air Force in 1981 concluded that, on
the basis of studies conducted at the BOMARC site:

      1.     Undisturbed, the present condition and use of the site does not present a
            radiological health hazard to persons on or off the site.

      2.     Levels of plutonium off the site, particularly the  elevated levels in the
            drainage ditch, are most probably a result of the original accident and
            subsequent site recovery operations. No further significant migration of
            plutonium off the site is evident at this time.

      3.     Vertical migration of plutonium is confined to the top six inches of soil
            and appears to present  no threat to groundwater  supplies.  Plutonium
            levels found  in adjacent surface waters are comparable  to general

                                      30

-------
            background levels and are not believed to be from any current migration

            of contamination off the site.


            Currently, no activities involving the use, storage or disposal of hazardous

 substances occur at, or are being planned for Area L.


 Summary of Remedial Investigations and Removal Actions
 November 1985
 January 1986:
September 1988
January 1989:
Remedial Investigation - Phase I.  Groundwater samples
were collected from monitoring wells EJ and El installed at
the site and analyzed for lead, zinc (£1 only), conductivity,
gross alpha, gross beta, Plutonium-238, cesium 137, phospho-
rus,  total  organic  halogens  (EJ only),  total  petroleum
hydrocarbons and pH.   No levels above ARARs were
detected in the groundwater samples.

Four soil samples were also collected.  Two of the samples
were analyzed for volatile organic compounds,  lead, total
petroleum hydrocarbons and pH.  The other two samples
were analyzed  for phosphorus, gross  alpha, gross beta,
cesium 137, radium 226, thorium 232 and plutonium 238.
No contaminants were detected above ARARs in the soils.
A surface water sample collected  from the Elisha Branch
and analyzed for volatile organic and base/neutral organic
compounds, metals, total cyanides, total phenolics, conductiv-
ity, total petroleum hydrocarbons, pH, gross alpha, gross
beta, cesium 137, radium 226 and  thorium 232 revealed no
levels above ARARs.
Remedial Investigation - Phase n. Two rounds of ground-
water samples were collected from monitoring wells El and
EJ and analyzed for volatile, base/neutral and acid extract-
able compounds, total petroleum hydrocarbons, radioactivity,
phosphorus, lead and  total organic carbon.  The samples
from well EJ were collected in duplicate.   No significant
levels of contamination were detected.
                                     31

-------
                        Two rounds of sediment samples collected from the Elisha
                        Branch and analyzed in duplicate for the EPA's organic and
                        inorganic parameters, total petroleum hydrocarbons, radioac-
                        tivity,  phosphorus and  total organic  carbon revealed  no
                        significant contamination above ARARs.

                        The primary environmental concern in Area L has been the
                        potential for radiological contamination as a result of the
                        BOMARC missile  explosion  at  the adjacent  Fort  Dix
                        Military Reservation. All available analytical  data collected
                        to date indicate no significant levels (above federal or State
                        ARARs) of radiological contamination in groundwater, soil
                        or sediment in Area L.

                        Cadmium and silver were detected at levels above ARARs
                        in the  second round sediment sample from location EB-2S
                        in the  Elisha Branch.  However, levels of these two metals
                        were below ARARs in a  duplicate  of this  sample, and
                        neither metal was detected in the first round sample from
                        this  location.  It should be noted that these metals  are
                        naturally-occurring and their presence in sediment samples
                        is probably of natural origin. These repeat analyses suggest
                        the metals are  not pervasive in the sediment and do  not
                        represent a significant concern.  Phosphorous was detected
                        in groundwater samples from monitoring weUs El and EJ, at
                        a maximum concentration of 766 mg/1 and in sediment from
                        the Elisha Branch (EB-2S) at a  maximum concentration of
                        369 Mg/g-  These concentrations may be natural background
                        levels for this area. No ARARs exist for this  element
July 1990:              Remedial Investigation - Phase n Addendum.  To confirm
                       the presence or absence of americium 241 and plutonium
                       239/240 in the groundwater, filtered and unfiltered samples
                       were collected  from monitoring wells El and EJ. Plutonium
                       239/240 was not detected. Americium 241 was detected in
                       one of the  duplicate samples from well EJ at a very low
                       concentration (0.33+/- 0.27 pCi/1). Americium 241 was not
                       detected in the other duplicate sample from this well or in
                       the sample from well EL
                                     32

-------
            Historical laboratory analytical results for Area L are provided in Tables
 9 and 10.

 HTOHT JGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION

            The Proposed Remedial Action Plan (PRAP) for Sites 15, 18, 23, 26, 27,
 30, 34, 40 and Area L was  issued to interested  parties on  June 17, 1991.   On
 June 17-19, 1991, a newspaper notification inviting public comment on the PRAP
 appeared in The Asbury Park Press. The Ocean Cfflflntv Observer, and The Advance^]
 News. The comment period was held from June 19 to July 19, 1991.  The newspaper
 notification also identified the Ocean County Library as the location of the Information
 Repository.

            A public hearing was held on June 26,1991. At this meeting representa-
 tives from the Navy, USEPA and NJDEP were available to answer questions about the
 eight Sites,  Area L, and the No Action determination. A list of attendees is attached
 to this Record of Decision as Appendix A. Comments received and responses provided
 during the public hearing are included in the Responsiveness Summary, which is pan
 of this Record of Decision.  No written comments  were received during the public
 comments period.

            This decision document presents the selected remedial action (i.e., No
Action) for Sites 15,18, 23, 26,27, 30, 34, 40 and Area L of NAEC in Ocean County,
New Jersey, chosen in accordance with CERCLA, as amended by SARA and, to the
extent practicable, the National Contingency Plan (NCP).  The decision for the eight
Sites and Area L is based on the administrative record which is available for public
review at the Ocean County Library, 101 Washington Street, Toms River, New Jersey.
                                    33

-------
 SCOPE ANj> RQIf, OF RESPONSE ACTION

            The results of environmental investigations show no evidence of significant
 contamination at Sites 15,  18, 23, 26, 27, 30, 34, 40 and Area  L  In most cases,
 contamination was not detected.  Because the available data indicate that conditions
 at Sites 15, 18, 23, 26, 27, 30, 34, 40 and Area L pose no unacceptable risks to human
 health or the environment, no action is necessary for these eight Sites and Area L.

 SUMMARIES °F SITE CHARACTERISTICS

            The locations of each of the eight Sites and Area L within the NAEC are
 shown in Figure  2. Maps of the individual Sites and Area L are provided in Figures
 3 through 11. The entire NAEC is underlain by the Cohansey Formation, a water-table
 sand aquifer.  The general  direction of groundwater flow at NAEC is to the east-
 northeast  Chemicals  detected in groundwater,  soil, sediment  and  surface water
 analyses at each  of the Sites are provided in Tables 1  through 10.
              OP SE RISKS
            The results of the Remedial Investigations, including the analytical data
summarized in Tables 1 through 10, indicate that conditions at Sites 15, 18, 23, 26, 27,
30, 34, 40 and Area L pose no unacceptable risks to human health and the environ-
ment
                                     34

-------
                         RECORD OF DECISION
                      RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
               SITES 15,18,23, 26,27,30,34,40 AND AREA L
                   NAVAL AIR ENGINEERING CENTER

           The purpose of this responsiveness summary is to review public response
 to the Proposed Remedial Action Plan for the eight Sites and Area L.  It  also
 documents NAECs consideration of such comments during the decision making process
 and provides answers to any comments raised during the public comment period.

           The responsiveness summary for the eight Sites and Area L is divided into
 the following three sections:

           Overview -  This  section briefly describes the process to develop  and
           evaluate the appropriate remedial responses for the eight Sites and Area
           L, the No-Action alternative recommended in the PRAP and any impacts
           on the proposed plan due to public comment

      •     Background on  Community Involvement - This section  describes
           community relations  activities  conducted with respect to the area of
           concern.

      •     Summary of Major Questions ar^ j CftmiT1?ntS • This section summarizes
           verbal and written comments received during the public meeting  and
           public comment period.

OVERVIEW

           Sites 15, 18, 23, 26, 27, 30, 34, 40 and Area L are located at NAEC in
Ocean County, Lakehurst, New Jersey. The eight Sites and Area L have been under
                                   35

-------
 investigation for potential environmental contamination. This responsiveness summary
 addresses public response to the PRAP, proposing the No-Action Alternative, for the
 eight Sites and Area L only.

            The PRAP and other supporting information are available for public
 review  at  the information repository located at the  Ocean County Library,  101
 Washington Street, Toms River, New Jersey.

 BACKGROUND ON COMMUNITY INVOT.VP.MP.NT

            This section provides a brief history of community participation in the
 investigation and interim remedial planning activities conducted at the eight Sites and
 Area L.  Throughout the investigation period, the USEPA and NJDEP have been
 reviewing work plans and reports and have been providing comments and recommenda-
 tions which are incorporated into the appropriate documents. A Technical Review
 Committee (TRC), consisting of representatives of the Navy, the USEPA, the NJDEP,
                                                             ^>
 the Ocean County Board of Health,  the New Jersey Pinelands  Commission, other
 agencies and communities surrounding NAEC was formed  and  has been  holding
 periodic meetings to maintain open lines of communication and to inform all parties
 of current activities.

            Prior to the public release of site-specific documents, NAECs public
 relations staff compiled  a list of local  public officials who demonstrated or were
 expected to have an interest in the investigation.  Local environmental interest groups
 were also identified and included on this list The list is attached at Appendix B to this
 Record of Decision.

           On June 17,1991, NAEC mailed the PRAP for the eight sites and Area L
 to concerned parties on the list  described above.  On June 19, 1991, a public notice
appeared in The Asbury Park Press and The Oce^n  Cnypty  Observer, and in The
                                    36

-------
 Advance News.  The public notice summarized the PRAP and the preferred (No-
 Action) Alternative.  The announcement also identified the time and location of a
 public hearing and specified a public comment period, and the address to which written
 comments could be sent  Public comments were  accepted from June 19 through
 July 19, 1991.

            A public meeting was held on June 26,1991, at 7:30 p.m. at the Lakehurst
 Elementary School in Lakehurst, New Jersey. The Site investigations, Site evaluation
 process and  the proposed remedial alternative (No-Action) were discussed.  NAEC
 representatives included:  Captain David J. Raffetto,  the Commanding Officer  of
 NAEC; Charles Mink, Deputy Public Works Department head; Robert Kirkbright,
 Engineering  Director, Lucy Bottomley, Head Environmental Engineer; Aarti Dalai,
 Environmental Engineer.  Mr. Jeffrey Gratz, represented the EPA's Federal Facility
 Section; Mr. Ian Curtis represented the NJDEFs Bureau of Federal Case Management;
 Mr. Kevin Schick represented NJDEFs Division of Hazardous Site Mitigation and Ms.
 Linda Welkom represented NJDEFs Division of Water Resources. The complete
 attendance list is provided in Appendix A to this Record of Decision.

 SUMMARY OF MAJOR QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS

 Written Comments

           During the public comment period from June 19 through July 19,1991, no
written comments were received pertaining to Sites  15, 18, 23, 26, 27, 30, 34, 40 or
AreaL.
                                   37

-------
 Public Mating Comments

            Questions asked and responses provided during the June 26,1991, public
 hearing are summarized below.  The complete transcript of the questions asked and
 answers given during the hearing is provided in Appendix C to this Record of Decision.

 Question:   Mr. Ernie Colby, Ocean County Observer, asked how the location of the
            suspected contamination could be narrowed down so precisely for some
            of the  Sites, particularly Site IS, based  on reports or comments from
            NAEC employees.

 NAEC Response:

           The sites  were selected based on a number of factors:  one was a review
 of aerial photographs,  another the review of facility records. A major factor that was
 used in determining  locations of sites was interviews  of both past and present
 employees. In almost all cases, someone at NAEC knew where the "site" was located.
 In fact, that's how the  sites were identified in the first place.

           With regard to Site 15, a well was installed in the area where the chips
were discovered.  A NAEC employee had  said this was the spot where dumping
occurred, so a well was  installed there right away. When the remedial investigation was
initiated in the mid and later 1980s, there was no evidence of surficial contamination.

Question:   Mr. Joseph Bishop, WQMB-FM,  asked  if the Sites were going  to be
           monitored, or if any further sampling was to be conducted in the future.
                                     38

-------
 NAEC Respnnsg;

            Following a process established by the USEPA, several alternatives were
 evaluated and it was finally determined that for these sites  no additional action is
 required, including further monitoring or further remedial action.

 Question:   Mr. Ernie Colby, Ocean County Observer, asked if, with respect to Site
            30, all the contamination in the earthen mound was removed?

 NAEC Response;

            The soil that was saturated with fuel was disposed of off-site as hazardous
 waste.  The remaining soil was put in a borrow pit for other uses.

 Question:   Mr. Ernie Colby, Ocean County Observer. On Site 34 you mentioned that
            the fuel was taken out of airplanes and sprayed on the surface to prevent
            vegetation from growing.  Can you review how or what happened to that
            fuel? I mean, why isn't it still there?

 NAEC Response:

            Several things could have happened: because this area is wide open, most
 of the fuel components would volatilize. Probably some of it would go into the ground.
 A lot of it would probably be  treated naturally through  biodegradation.  Since this
 activity was discontinued by 1980, the microbial action would have probably treated
 most of the fuel in the soil Apparently the quantities that entered the groundwater
were small enough that because of dilution, nothing was detected in the wells that were
 installed around the Site, as well as in the middle of the circle.
                                     39

-------
 Question:   Ms. Terry Lettman,  Manchester  Township, asked  why  we wouldn't
             continue to monitor Site 40 due to the high levels of lead which were
             found there.

 NAEC Response:

             There were no high levels of lead, there were high levels of iron.

 Question:

             Ms. Lettman - But there was also trichloroethylbenzene and the report
 talks about some other chemicals.  What Fm trying to get at, even if you take Site 40
 where there was some discrepancy, at some point there was contamination detected and
 another point, later, there wasn't, why wouldn't you go back and monitor it anyway?

 NAEC  Response:

            The reason that this was designated as a site was because of the use of
 aniline  and furfural, which are both hazardous substances. When we did  the original
 investigation, we focused on those two substances, which were not detected at any time.
 One of  the soil samples that we collected had high levels of iron, but that was the only
 thing that was detected at  the site.

            Now, I think you may be referring to a sample that was collected from the
 pond. At the site itself, the two substances of concern, aniline and furfural, were never
 detected. Iron was detected, but then we had a lot of other samples that indicated that
 iron was not really a concern, and we looked at the levels of iron in the entire area and
it's something that is naturally found at very high levels in this area anyway, and it
really does not present a problem.
                                      40

-------
            We may be going back to take samples from the pond to test for other
 parameters, but there was no evidence in the groundwater samples that we took from
 the well or the soil samples that we took from the site that aniline or furfural, the two
 substances of concern, were present

 Mr. Kevin Schick of the NJDEP:

            She's actually  right; 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene was detected  in one of two
 samples during the  first phase of RI there, but it was at very low levels and never
 repeated.  One of the reasons we took additional samples the second time around was
because we saw that contaminant. That's not volatile, it's something you might expect
to find in a hydraulic fluid or a lubricating oil, and we never did find it  again, and the
levels found originally were not real levels of concern either.

            So that's one of the reasons we feel confident that this  area is not a
concern. This contaminant  was never found in the groundwater either.
                                     41

-------
                                                            TABLE 1

                                                     HISTORICAL SUMUY OF
                                                   ANALYTICAL DATA - SITE 15
         Pre-1985


     No data collected
                                       ter (Mel I AHI
                                                                            II  Banediat  Inveatioatton  (19881
Gromdnater (Welt AMI
                           No contain nation detected
                                                                   Netals
                                                                          Chroniua:  NO - 73.4
                                               Sail
                           No data  collected
                                                                                      Soil

                                                                   No contamination detected
                                                                                   Ptw
                                                                                 11 -
                 (19901
                                                                                     CroundMter (Well AH)

                                                                                         Unfiltered      Filtered
                                                                          Chromiia (MO/I):    5.6(8)          NO
NOTES;

NO:
(B):
Not Detected
Detected in laboratory blank
For the complete set of  analytical  results sumarized above,
consult the RI  Reports  - Phases  I,  II  and II-Addendus, which
are part of the administrative record.

-------
                                                            TABLE 2

                                                      HISTORICAL SUMMIT OF
                                                   ANALYTICAL DATA - SITE 18
        Pre-1985


   No data collected
                 Sroundweter
         m
No contamination detected
                        No contamination detected
                                                                dial  Investigation  (1988)
                 Croundwater

No contamination detected
                                                                   ^sia
                                               (Pott-excavation following dry well removal)

                                               Petroleum  Hydrocarbon*:  226.44 ug/g
                                                                                     Orv Welt Sediment

                                                                       Volatile Organic Compounds (ag/ka)

                                                                       1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane:  ND •  6


                                                                       Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds (ug/kg)

                                                                       1,2-dichlorobenzene:   NO  - 15,000
                                                                       Isophorone:   NO  -  18,000
                                                                       2.4-Oimathylphenol:   NO •  6.200
                                                                       2-Hethylnephthalene:   NO  -.270,000
                                                                       Oibenzofuran:  NO  - 970
                                                                       Fluorene:  NO  -  2,600
                                                                       Phenanthrene:  NO  - 10,000
                                                                       Fluoranthene:  NO  • 5,000
                                                                       Pyrent:   NO  -  5,500


                                                                       Metals ma/kg)

                                                                       Arsenic:   112.7
                                                                       Bariua:   897.5
                                                                       Cadmium:   15.5
                                                                       Chromiui:  118.5
                                                                       Copper:   568
                                                                       Lead:  12,629
                                                                       Mercury:   3.1
                                                                       Silver:  8.8


                                                                       Pesticides (ug/kg)

                                                                       Heptachlor:  133.5
MOTES:

NO:     Not Detected

For the complete set of analytical results sumarized above,
consult the RI Reports - Phases I, II and II-Addendum, which
are part of the administrative record.
                                                                      Miscellaneous (ua/g)

                                                                      Petroleum Hydrocarbons:  508,470.96

-------
                                                            TABLE 3
                                                     HISTORICAL SUMMIT OF
                                                   ANALYTICAL DATA - SITE 23
       Pre-1985
   No data collected                     GroundMater
                        No contamination detected
No contamination detected
                                             Soil
                       No data collected
                      SOU,
No contamination detected
NOTES;
For the complete set of analytical  results sumarized  above,
consult the RI  Reports • Phases I,  II  and 11-Addendum,  which
are part of the administrative record.

-------
                                                            TABLE *

                                                     HISTORICAL SUMARY OF
                                                   ANALYTICAL DATA - SITE 26
        Pre-1985

    No data collected
                                                                                Phase II Beaedial Investigation (1988)
No data collected
                                                                          Hetals  (ug/l)

                                                                          Lead:   NO  • 65
                                                                                                 Sail

                                                                          Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds (iio/kg)

                                                                          Benzoic Acid:  NO • 130
                                                                          Phenanthrene:  43 • 240
                                                                          Fluoranthene:  85 - 310
                                                                          Pyrene:   130 • 410
                                                                          B«nzo
-------
                                                            TABLE 5

                                                     HISTORICAL 9MWRT OF
                                                   ANALYTICAL DATA - SITE 27
           Pre-1985

         GromdMBter
                 GroundMater

No contamination detected
                                                                               No contamination detected
                                                   SOU
                                                                     Soil
  Organic  Vapor Analyzer
  (OVA)  measurements were
  recorded at 25  locations.
  The only confound present
  was methane, at  low con-
  centrations
No data collected
                                                                               No data collected
NOTES;

For the complete set of analytical  results simaarized above,
consult the RI  Reports - Phases I,  II  and II-Addendum, which
are part of the administrative record.

-------
                                                            TABUS 6
                                                     HISTORICAL SUWAKY OF
                                                   ANALYTICAL DATA  - SITE 30
         Pre-1985
     MO data collected
                  GroundMnter
No contamination detected
                                                                            Metals
                                                                   dial Investigation (1988)
                                                                   Gnxrrianter
                                                                            Lead:  NO - 70.8
                                                                            Miscellaneous
                                                                            Surfactant*:  MO - .51 (me/I)
                                              Sedtaent
                          No data collected
                                                 Metals (ma/kg)
                                                 Cr:  7.1 • 110
                                                                                               Sediaent
NOTES;
NO:     Not Detected
For the complete set  of  analytical  results sumrized above,
consult the Rl  Reports - Phases  I,  II and II-Addendua, which
are part of the administrative record.
                                                                                      Phase II  • Addendum (19901
                                                                                   Croundnater  (Monitoring Well BT1
                                                                            Lead (»g/l>:
                                                                        UnfUtered
                                                                         -  U.7
Filtered
   MO

-------
                                                            TABLE 7
                                                     HISTORICAL SUPMARY OF
                                                   ANALYTICAL DATA - SITE 34
         Pre-1985
     No data collected
                  CroundMater
No contamination datactad
                       Investigation (1988)
                  GrotndMBter
No contamination datactad
                                                 Soil
                           No contamination datacted
                                                  Patrolaui Hydrocarbons:   NO -  2,263.77 jig/g
NOTES;
NO:     Not  Datactad
For tha complata sat  of  analytical  remits  sunmrizad above,
consult tha  RI  Reports - Phssas  I,  II  and  11-Addenda, which
are part of  the administrative record.

-------
                                                            TABLE 8
                                                     •ISTOUCM. 9MUIY OF
                                                   ANALYTICAL DATA - SITE 40
         Pre-1985
    Mo data collected
                                     GroundMater
                          Metals (mo/1)
                          Iron:  13,000
      Phase II Raaedial  Investigation (1988)
                   CroundMBter
Metals (ug/l)
Iron:  449,000
                          Semi-Volatile Organic compounds (ag/kg)
                          1,2,4-THchlorobenzene:   86.4  - 218

                          Metals (ma/kg)
                          Iron:   2,300 - 4,280
                                                                                           Soil
                                                                    Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds (ag/kg)
                                                                    No contaminant* detected

                                                                    Metals (ma/kg)
                                                                    Iron:  1.700 - 4,000
                          No data collected
                                                                                        Sediment
                                                                    Volatile Organic Compounds  (ag/kg)
                                                                    Toluene:  NO -  11
                                                                           Metals (mg/ka)
                                                                           Chrwius:  17.4 - 420
                                                                           Nickel:  NO - 180
                                           Surface Miter
                          No data  collected
                                                                                      Surface Water
                                                                    Volatile Organic  Compounds Citg/l)
                                                                    Trichloroethene:   NO  - 4
MOTES;
NO:     Not Detected
 0:
Duplicate Staple
For the complete set of analytical  results suMarfzed abov»,
consult the RI Reports • Phases I,  II  and II-Addendua,  which
are part of the administrative record.
                                                                                                        n (1990)
                                                                                    CroundHater (Monitoring Well  EC)
                                                                           Iron:
                                                                                           Unfittered
                                                                                              144,000
                                                                                           (0  •  85,200)
                                      F i t tered
                                        4.000
                                     (0 • 4,650)

-------
                                                     TABU 9

                                    ART OF GROUNDUATEI ANALYTICAL RESULTS  - ABE*
                 ter
  Metals

  Lead

  Zinc


  Miscellaneous

  Conductivity (field)

  Gross Alpha

  Gross Beta

  Plutoniun 238

  Cesium 137

  Phosphorus

  Total  Organic Halogens

  Petroleum Hydrocarbons
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION - PHASE I (1985-1986)

unit
MB/ 1


mhos/as
pCi/l
pCi/l
pCi/l
pCi/l
mg/l
MO/ 1
no/ 1
standard
Monitoring
SL U

5 BMDL
70
56.5
0.8 3.4 (+1.0)
0.8 3.9 (+1.6)
0.1 0.2 (+.1)
10 NO
.05 NO
5 U.2
0.5 NO
4
Hetj
SI

BMDL
BMOL

5.1 (+1.2)
5.1 (±1.7)
0.7 (+.1)
NO
0.1
--
NO
4.7
NOTES;

1.      Only those priority pollutant compounds and metals detected in at
        least one sample are shown.

2.      The value for pH and total organic halogens is the average of two
        available values.

3.      NO:     Not Detected
        BMDL:   Below Method Detection linit
        MDL:     Method Detection  liarit
        •-:     Not included in the analysis

4.      For the complete set of analytical results summarized above,
        consult the RI Reports -  Phases I, II  and 11-Addendum and the
        Radiological  Survey Report, which are  part of the administrative record.

-------
                                               GROMDUATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS, RADIOLOGICAL ANALYSES - AREA L
                                                   REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION - PHASE II AND PHASE II-ADDENDUM
                                                                                             ACTIVITY (pCi/l)
Monitoring
Are* . Uell AnsLyte
PHASE II (1988)
Round 1
Filtered
Unfiltered
Round II
Filtered
Unfiltered
PHASE II ADDENDUM (1990)

Filtered
Unfiltered
                 MU-EI
                 MU-EJ
  Aw-241



Pu-239/240



  AM-241


Pu-239/240
                                      1.8+/-1.0 (FL>
                                                0.39 +/- 0.30 (FL)
                                        <0.3 (FL)
                                       (<9.0) (FL)

                                        <0.1 (FL)
                                   (0.74 »- 0.35) (FL)
                                                                              <0.5
                                                                 <0.06
                                                                              <2.0
                                                                          1.1 */- 0.4
                                                                      (0.61 »/- 0.3) (FF)
                                                                           <0.4 (FFL)
                                                                          <<0.2> (FFL)
   <2.0 (FF)
  1.4 »/- 0.8
(FFL)

 0.38 +/- 0.23
(FF)
   0.3 (FFL)

   <1.0 (FF)
  (<1.0) (FF)

  0.59 */-  0.3
<0.2



<0.2



<0.2


<0.08
     <0.3
     <0.3
(0.33 */- 0.27)

     <0.3
NOTES;

Ra-226
Gr-A
Gr-B
U-238
Aa-241
Pu-239/240

FF
FL
FFL
- Radii* 226
- Gross Alpha
- Grot* Beta
- Uraniua 238
- Aaericiua 241
- Plutoniua 239/240
- Not Analyzed For
- Filtered in field at tine of sample collection
- Filtered in the laboratory before saaple analysis
- Filtered in field and at laboratory
Values show Mithin parentheses ( ) are results of duplicate sanples

For the complete set of analytical results summarized above, consult the
Rl Reports - Phases I, II and 11-Addendum and the Radiological Survey Report.
uhich are part of the actainistrative record

-------
 NEW
JERSEY
                                              ENGINEERING CENTER
                                                                LAKEHURST BORO
                                                                    08733
                                       VICINITY MAP
                                NAVAL AIR ENGINEERING CENTEP
                                    LAKEHURST, NEW JERSEY
                                                                        APPROXIMATE SCALE-IN HILLS
HIHHtNQ. HANl.SIHOM MAP
(H OCIAN CO.. N.J.

-------
0     1/2
        SCALE  IN  MILES
  NAVAL AIR ENGINEERING CENTER

    LAKEHURST. NEW JERSEY
          LOCATION  MAP

   SITES 15. 18.  23.  26.  27. 30

        34.  40 AND AREA L
 Dames  &  Moore   FIC"R
     i i. NI'W jfnr.EY      '

-------
          SUSPECTED AREA
          OF DISPOSAL
          (SITE 15)
 N8.400

   EXPLANATION:

  *"• MONITORING WELL LOCATION
 SIS~'A SOIL OR SEDIMENT SAMPLING LOCATION
      (PHASE II)                 tf

    a TEST PIT LOCATION (PHASE II)
      (no sample collected)     *
_ o
100    200 FEET
    GRAPHIC SCALE
                             0)
                          TITLE
                                     SITE  No.15,  AREA B
                         DISPOSAL AREA NEAR BUILDING 562  PARK \G LOT
                                 NAVAL  AIR  ENGINEERING CEN.=.=
                                     LAKEHURST,  NEW JERSEY
                     \
                                  SCALE
                                     AS NOTED
                                  DATE
                                      8-3-90
Dames & Moore
     CRANFORO. NEW JERSEY	
                                                 OWN. 8Y
     R.G.B.  I
                                                               ! JOS NO.  ~
                                                   . BY
                                                                c-N°-

-------
                                        POTABLE
                                        WATER
                                        WELLS
                                        EKO)
                            WATER
                            TOWER! 91 )  v *
                         (REMOVED)
                                                          bik. top LAWRENCE ROAD
                            LOCATION OF
                            FORMER DRY WELL
                          FORMER GAS STATION
                                                                                 .
                                                                                 o
                                                                                 o
                                                                                 o

bik. top park
189

                                                                               I
                                                                          ,;rass!
                                                                6lk. top park
                                                                   200
N10.800
                                                                    Oik. too
   EXPLANATION:
   DP    MONITORING WELL LOCATION (D=0e«p)
        POTABLE WELL LOCATION
        SOIL SAMPLING         ,   ^
        LOCATION  - PHASE I
                          J>
„ 0   50  100  150 FEET
    GRAPHIC SCALE
                              \
                                   TITLE
                                          SITE No. 18, AREA A  WEST
                                          NAVAL  EXCHANGE GAS  STATION
                                  PSOJECT
                                          NAVAL AIR  ENGINEERING CENTER
                                              LAKEHURST.  NEW JERSEY
                                  SCALE
                                  DATE
AS  NOTED
 8-3-SO
                                                  Dames & Moore
                                                  	CRANFQRQ. NEW JERSEY	
                                                 OWN. BY
                                                 APPR. BY
R.G.B.
C.I.T.
                                                                JOB NO.
                                                                 G. NO.
                                                                      / ;? -
                                                                           _,-

-------
                                  SUSPECTED
                                  DISPOSAL AREA
Si.200
   EXPLANATION;

   9P«  MONITORING WELL LOCATION
 PW~2*B  SUPPLY (NON-POTABLE) WELL LOCATION
 S"~'A  SOIL OR SEDIMENT SAMPLING LOCAJION
       (PHASE II)
   GP.APHIC SCALE
                                 TITLE
        SITE  No. 23,  AREA !
 INACTIVE  DISPOSAL AREA (BLDG.  5
                                         -
PROJECT
       NAVAL  AIR ENGINEERING CEN"£:
           LAKEHURST,  NEW JERSEY
SCALE

DATE
AS  NOTED
7-30-90
                                                Dames & Moore
                                                     CPANFORO. NEW JERSEY	
                                               OV«N. 8Y
                                               APPR. BY
R.G.B.
C.I.T.
                                                              JOB NO.  ---
                                                              nc. NO.

-------
NAEC PROPERTY BOUNDARY
   WETLANDS

              RIDGEWAY BRANCH
           -ORMER
          AfASTEWATER
          TREATMENT
            PLANT
             493
                                 W  E^ T  L

 EXPLANATION:
  EH«  MONITORING WELL LOCATION (D»0««p)

"•-'A  SOIL OR SEDIMENT SAMPLING LOCATION
      (PHASE II)           .  v
   GRAPHIC SCALE
                   V
                   i \

                              SITE  No. 26,  AREA  A  WES
                       CONTRACTOR DISPOSAL AREA  NEAR BUiLC-iNG J57
                       PROJECT
                              NAVAL AIR ENGINEERING CEN'E^
                                  LAKEHURST. NEW JERSEY
                                      Dames & Moore
                                          CHANFORO. NEW JERSEV
                               SCAU
                       DATE
AS  NOTED
 8-3-90
                                     APPR. BY
R.G.B.
C.I.T.
                                                           JOS NO.  - - -
                                                   FIG. NO.

-------
                                                          ESTIMATED AREA
                                                          OF DISPOSAL
31.200
  EXPLANATION;

  05 •  MONITORING WELL LOCATION
*"-"•  SUPPLY (NON-POTABLE) WELL LOCATION
      100     200 FEET
                              TITLE
                                         SITE  No.27, AREA  K
                                          R.S.T.S. SCRAP DUMP
                              PROJECT
                                     NAVAL AIR ENGINEERING CENTE
                                        LAKEHURST.  NEW  JERSEY
                                             Dames & Moore
                                                        NEW JERSEY
                              SCALE
                              DATE
                                  AS  NOTED
                                  7-50-90
                                            OWN. BY
                                            *PP«. BY
R.G.B.
C.I.T.
                                                          JOB NO.
j no. NO.


-------
   EXPLANA1ION:
   AU»  MONITORING WELL LOCATION  '  I
     I  SUPPLY (NON-POTABLE) WELL LOCATION
DSJO-ISA  SO,L OR SEDIMENT SAMPLING LOCATION
       (PHASE II)
   0   10U   200   300 FEET


     GRAPHIC SCALE
TIKe         SITE  No.30,  AREA  K
     R.S.T.S.  TRACK  No.4  RECOVERY END
PROJECT
       NAVAL AIR ENGINEERING CENTER
           LAKEHURST. NEW JERSEY
                Dames & Moore
SCALE
                                  OAIL
                    CftANfORO. Nfw JlRSEr
    AS NOTED
    P. R  00
               OWN BY
                                                 API-R or
_R_GJL
 r i r
                              JOO NO
                                                                f"ic no
7980 •-(>:?:"'

-------
           !     1     !    !
                                              t/7  S
               E3SEY
  Ng.ooo   WILDLIFE  AND GAME
            REFUGE
                               PARACHU itYJUMP  CIRCLE
 "O.2W
"2.500

  gvPLANATlON;

  -a«  MONITORING WELL LOCATION
"W|-1SA  SOIL OR SEDIMENT SAMPLING LOCATION
       (PHASE II)
Fwi-iW£  SURFACE WATER SAMPLING j  N
       LOCATION (PHASE II)     1*
- 0    tOO   800   1200 FEET
     GRAPHIC SCALE
                                  TITLE
                                            SITE  No.34,  AREA  G
                                            PARACHUTE  JUMP  CIRCLE
                                 PROJECT
                                         NAVAL AIR ENGINEERING  CEN7£ =
                                            LAKEHURST, NEW JERSEY
                                                 Dames & Moore
                                                           . NEW jERSE"
                                     AS NQTEDlD^BY  3.G.B.
                                 •DATE  =  -
                                       -5-90
                                              I *PPR. 3Y r
                                                     C.I.T.
                                                              JOB NO.  _ ,
                                                              '1C. NO.

-------
APPROXIMATE AREA
  Of TEST SITES
          R.A.L.S. TOWER
          APPROXIMATELY
             !200 FEET
MONITORING WELL LOCATION
SOIL OR SEDIMENT SAMPLING LOCATION
(PHASE II)
SURFACE WATER SAMPLING
LOCATION (PHASE II)
              SITE  No.40,  AREA  J
        SOIL  STABILIZATION  FIELD  TEST  SITE
   PROJECT
          NAVAL  AIR  ENGINEERING CENTER
              LAKEHURST,  NEW  JERSEY
                  Dames & Moore
   SCALE
   DATE
                             AS  NOTED
                             g_l7_90
                       CSANFOPO. NEW
                 OWN. ar
                 APPfl. SY
R.G.B.
C.I.T.
                                JOS NO.
                                no. NO.

-------
        SITE OF
        30MARC
        FISSILE
        EXPLOSION
        :300' WEST
S4.800
                                FORT OIX
                         MILITARY RESERVATION
S5.ZOO
"•'PL AN ATI ON:

EJ« MONITORING WELL LOCATION
^-WA SOIL OR SEDIMENT SAMPLING LOCA
(PHASE II) ^
V
A
5 0 200 400 600 FEET V^
? GRAPHIC SCALE (
TION
f
at
o
0
*
\
TITLE
"
AREA L
PROJECT
NAVAL AIR ENGINEERING CEN"i =
LAKEHURST, NEW JERSEY

SCAL£AS NOTED
OATE 7-31-90
Dames & Moore 1
CRANFORO. NEW JERSEY I
OWN. 8Y J06 NO. 	 - - - J
K.b.D. ?:.-__•
APPR. av - . -j- nc. NO. • • T
\^ . 1 . 1 . |

-------