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 . |
------- |