FINAL

Site Inspection Report 

Lakehurst Army Aviation Support Facility

Jackson Township, New Jersey

Perfluorooctanesulfonic Acid (PFOS) and 

Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) Impacted Sites

ARNG Installations, Nationwide

February 2021

Revision 1

Prepared for:

Army National Guard Bureau

111 S. George Mason Drive

Arlington, VA 22204

UNCLASSIFIED
Site Inspection Report

Lakehurst Army Aviation Support Facility, Jackson Township, New Jersey 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
Site Inspection Report

Lakehurst Army Aviation Support Facility, Jackson Township, New Jersey 

AECOM i

Table of Contents

Executive Summary .................................................................................................................... 1

1.0 Introduction ..................................................................................................................1-1

1.1 Project Authorization .............................................................................................1-1

1.2 SI Purpose ............................................................................................................1-1

2.0 Facility Background ......................................................................................................2-1

2.1 Facility Location and Description...........................................................................2-1

2.2 Facility Environmental Setting ...............................................................................2-1

2.2.1 Geology ......................................................................................................2-1

2.2.2 Hydrogeology..............................................................................................2-2

2.2.3 Hydrology....................................................................................................2-2

2.2.4 Climate........................................................................................................2-2

2.2.5 Current and Future Land Use......................................................................2-3

2.2.6 Critical Habitat and Threatened/Endangered Species .................................2-3

2.3 History of PFAS Use..............................................................................................2-3

2.4 Other PFAS Investigations ....................................................................................2-3

3.0 Summary of Areas of Interest .......................................................................................3-1

3.1 AOI 1 – Lakehurst AASF .......................................................................................3-1

3.1.1 Building 790 ................................................................................................3-1

3.1.2 Building 780 ................................................................................................3-2

4.0 Project Data Quality Objectives ....................................................................................4-1

4.1 Problem Statement ...............................................................................................4-1

4.2 Goals of the Study.................................................................................................4-1

4.3 Information Inputs: ................................................................................................4-2

4.4 Study Boundaries..................................................................................................4-2

4.5 Analytical Approach...............................................................................................4-2

4.6 Data Usability Assessment....................................................................................4-3

4.6.1 Precision .....................................................................................................4-3

4.6.2 Accuracy .....................................................................................................4-4

4.6.3 Representativeness ....................................................................................4-4

4.6.4 Comparability ..............................................................................................4-5

4.6.5 Completeness .............................................................................................4-5

4.6.6 Sensitivity....................................................................................................4-5

5.0 Site Inspection Activities ...............................................................................................5-1

5.1 Pre-Investigation Activities.....................................................................................5-1

5.1.1 Technical Project Planning ..........................................................................5-1

5.1.2 Utility Clearance..........................................................................................5-2

5.1.3 Source Water and PFAS Sampling Equipment Acceptability .......................5-2

5.2 Soil Borings and Soil Sampling .............................................................................5-2

5.3 Temporary Well Installation and Groundwater Grab Sampling...............................5-3

5.4 Synoptic Water Level Measurement......................................................................5-4

5.5 Surveying..............................................................................................................5-4

5.6 Investigation-Derived Waste..................................................................................5-4

5.7 Laboratory Analytical Methods ..............................................................................5-4

5.8 Deviations from QAPP Addendum.........................................................................5-5

6.0 Site Inspection Results .................................................................................................6-1

6.1 Screening Levels...................................................................................................6-1
Site Inspection Report

Lakehurst Army Aviation Support Facility, Jackson Township, New Jersey 

AECOM ii

6.2 Soil Physicochemical Analyses .............................................................................6-1

6.3 AOI 1 – Lakehurst AASF .......................................................................................6-2

6.3.1 Soil Analytical Results .................................................................................6-2

6.3.2 Groundwater Analytical Results...................................................................6-2

6.3.3 Conclusions ................................................................................................6-2

7.0 Exposure Pathways......................................................................................................7-1

7.1 Soil Exposure Pathway .........................................................................................7-1

7.1.1 AOI 1 – Lakehurst AASF .............................................................................7-1

7.2 Groundwater Exposure Pathway...........................................................................7-2

7.2.1 AOI 1 – Lakehurst AASF .............................................................................7-2

8.0 Summary and Outcome................................................................................................8-1

8.1 SI Activities Summary............................................................................................8-1

8.2 SI Goals Evaluation...............................................................................................8-1

8.3 Outcome ...............................................................................................................8-2

9.0 References...................................................................................................................9-1
Site Inspection Report

Lakehurst Army Aviation Support Facility, Jackson Township, New Jersey 

AECOM iii

Figures

Figure 2-1 Facility Location

Figure 2-2 Groundwater Features

Figure 2-3 Groundwater Elevations February 2020

Figure 2-4 Surface Water Features

Figure 2-5 Non-ARNG Adjacent Sources

Figure 3-1 Area of Interest

Figure 5-1 Site Inspection Sample Locations

Figure 6-1 PFOS Detections in Soil

Figure 6-2 PFOA Detections in Soil

Figure 6-3 PFOA and PFOS Detections in Groundwater

Figure 7-1 Conceptual Site Model, AOI 1

Tables

Table ES 1 Screening Levels (Soil and Groundwater) 

Table ES-2 Summary of Site Inspection Findings

Table ES-3 Site Inspection Recommendations

Table 5-1 Site Inspection Samples by Medium

Table 5-2 Boring Depths and Temporary Well Screen Intervals

Table 5-3 Depth to Water and Groundwater Elevation

Table 6-1 Screening Levels (Soil and Groundwater) 

Table 6-2 PFAS Detections in Surface Soil

Table 6-3 PFAS Detections in Shallow Subsurface Soil

Table 6-4 PFAS Detections in Groundwater

Table 8-1 Summary of Site Inspection Findings

Table 8-2 Site Inspection Recommendations

Appendices

Appendix A Data Validation Reports

Appendix B Field Documentation

B.1 Log of Daily Notice of Field Activities

B.2 Field Forms

B.3 Survey Data

Appendix C Photographic Log

Appendix D TPP Meeting Minutes

Appendix E Boring Logs 

Appendix F Analytical Results 

Appendix G Laboratory Reports 
Site Inspection Report

Lakehurst Army Aviation Support Facility, Jackson Township, New Jersey 

AECOM iv

Acronyms and Abbreviations

°C degrees Celsius

°F degrees Fahrenheit

μg/kg micrograms per kilogram

6:2 FTS 6:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonic acid

8:2 FTS 8:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonic acid

AASF Army Aviation Support Facility

AECOM AECOM Technical Services, Inc.

AFCEC/CZOEAir Force Civil Engineer Center/ Environmental Operations Division

AFFF aqueous film forming foam

amsl above mean sea level

AOI area of interest

ARNG Army National Guard

bgs below ground surface 

btoc below top of casing

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CoC chain of custody

CSM conceptual site model 

DA Department of the Army

DO dissolved oxygen

DoD Department of Defense

DPT direct push technology

DQI data quality indicator

DQO data quality objective

DUA data usability assessment

DVR data validation report 

EIS extraction internal standards

ELAP Environmental Laboratory Approval Program

EM Engineering Manual

ERB equipment rinsate blank

FedEx Federal Express

ft feet

FRB field reagent blank

HA Health Advisory

HDPE high-density polyethylene 

IDW investigation-derived waste

ITRC Interstate Technology Regulatory Council

JBMDL Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst

LC/MS/MS liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry

LCS laboratory control sample

LCSD laboratory control sample duplicate

LOD limit of detection
Site Inspection Report

Lakehurst Army Aviation Support Facility, Jackson Township, New Jersey 

AECOM v

LOQ limit of quantitation

MDL method detection limit

MS matrix spike 

MSD matrix spike duplicate

NAES Naval Air Engineering Station

NELAP National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program

NEtFOSAA N-ethyl perfluorooctanesulfonamidoacetic acid

ng/L nanograms per liter

NJARNG New Jersey Army National Guard

NJDEP New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection

NMeFOSAA N-methyl perfluorooctanesulfonamidoacetic acid

NSA Naval Support Activity

ORP oxidation reduction potential

OSD Office of the Secretary of Defense

PA Preliminary Assessment

PFAS per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances

PFBA perfluorobutyrate

PFBS perfluorobutanesulfonic acid

PFDA perfluorodecanoic acid

PFDoA perfluoroheptanoic acid

PFHpA perfluoroheptanoic acid

PFHxA perfluorohexanoic acid

PFHxS perfluorohexanesulfonic acid

PFNA perfluorononanoic acid

PFOA perfluorooctanoic acid

PFOS perfluorooctanesulfonic acid

PFPeA perfluoropentanoic acid

PFTeDA perfluorotetradecanoic acid

PFTrDA perfluorotridecanoic acid

PFUdA perfluoroundecanoic acid

PID photoionization detector

PPE personal protective equipment

PQAPP Programmatic UFP-QAPP

PVC polyvinyl chloride

PWS public water supplies

QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan

QC quality control

QSM Quality Systems Manual

RI Remedial Investigation

RPD relative percent differences

SI Site Inspection

SL screening level

SOP Standard Operating Procedure

TOC total organic carbon
Site Inspection Report

Lakehurst Army Aviation Support Facility, Jackson Township, New Jersey 

AECOM vi

TPP Technical Project Planning

US United States

UFP Uniform Federal Policy

USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers

USCS Unified Soil Classification System

USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service

USGS United States Geological Survey

UCMR Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule
Site Inspection Report

Lakehurst Army Aviation Support Facility, Jackson Township, New Jersey 

AECOM ES-1

Executive Summary

The Army National Guard (ARNG) is performing Preliminary Assessments (PAs) and Site 

Inspections (SIs) at per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)-impacted sites at ARNG facilities 

nationwide. The objective of the SI at each facility is to identify whether there has been a release 

to the environment from the Areas of Interest (AOIs) identified in the PA and determine the 

presence or absence of perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS), and 

perfluorobutanesulfonic acid (PFBS) at or above screening levels (SLs). A SI was completed at 

the Lakehurst Army Aviation Support Facility (AASF) in Jackson Township, New Jersey. The 

Lakehurst AASF will be referred to as the “facility” throughout this document. 

The Lakehurst AASF comprises 50 acres and is located in the northeastern portion of the 42,000-

acre Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst (JBMDL) in Jackson Township, Ocean County, New 

Jersey. The facility includes two hangers and a small. The Lakehurst AASF is a tenant activity at 

the JBMDL in accordance with a Host-Tenant Real Estate Agreement, Navy Contract no. N40085-

09-RP-00221 and associated License# DACA51-3-09-139. The PA Report identified four potential

PFAS releases associated with Building 790 and 780. Two releases occurred from the Building

790 fire suppression system, one release occurred from the Building 780 fire suppression system,

and one secondary release occurred from a storm drainage outfall south of the helipad as a result

of a release from Building 790 (AECOM, 2019). The release areas were grouped into one AOI

(AOI 1), which was investigated during the SI. The SI field activities were conducted from 26 to

27 February 2020 and included the collection of soil and groundwater samples.

To fulfill the project Data Quality Objectives (DQOs) set forth in the approved SI Quality Assurance 

Project Plan (QAPP) Addendum (AECOM, 2020b), samples were collected and analyzed for a 

subset of 18 PFAS by liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry (LC/MS/MS) 

compliant with Quality Systems Manual (QSM) 5.1 Table B-15. The 18 PFAS analyzed as part of 

the ARNG SI program are specified in Section 5.7 of this Report. 

The Department of Defense (DoD) has adopted a policy to retain facilities in the Comprehensive 

Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) process based on riskbased SLs for soil and groundwater, as described in a memorandum from the Office of the 

Secretary of Defense (OSD) dated 15 October 2019 (Assistant Secretary of Defense, 2019). The 

ARNG PFAS SIs follow this DoD policy and, when the maximum site concentration for sampled 

media exceed the SLs, the AOI will proceed to a Remedial Investigation (RI), the next phase 

under CERCLA. The SLs apply to three compounds, PFOA, PFOS, and PFBS, for both soil and 

groundwater, as presented in Table ES-1. All other results presented in this report are considered 

informational in nature and serve as an indication as to whether soil, groundwater, sediment, and 

surface water contain or do not contain the 18 PFAS analyzed within the boundaries of the Site. 

Sample chemical analytical concentrations were compared against project SLs as described in 

Table ES-1. A summary of the results of the SI data relative to the SLs is as follows:

• The detected concentrations of PFOA, PFOS, and PFBS in soil from AOI 1 were below SLs.

• PFOA and PFBS in groundwater were detected in all samples but did not exceed SLs.

PFOS in groundwater exceeded the individual SL of 40 nanograms per liter (ng/L), with a

maximum concentration of 75.6 ng/L at AOI01-06. Based on the results of the SI, further

investigation of AOI 1 is warranted in the RI.

Table ES-2 summarizes the SI results for soil and groundwater. Based on the conceptual site model 

(CSM) developed and revised in light of the SI findings, there is a potential for exposure to residential 

drinking water receptors caused by DoD activities at or adjacent to the facility. 
Site Inspection Report

Lakehurst Army Aviation Support Facility, Jackson Township, New Jersey 

AECOM ES-2

Table ES-3 summarizes the rationale used to determine if an AOI should be considered for further 

investigation under CERCLA and undergo an RI. Based on the results of this SI, further evaluation 

is warranted in the RI for AOI 1: Lakehurst AASF.

Table ES-1 Screening Levels (Soil and Groundwater)

Analyte

Residential

(Soil)

(μg/kg)a,b

0-2 feet bgs

Industrial/ Commercial 

Composite Worker

(Soil)

(μg/kg)a,b

Tap Water

(Groundwater)

(ng/L)a,b

PFOA 130 1,600 40

PFOS 130 1,600 40

PFBS 130,000 1,600,000 40,000

Notes:

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection regulations are not considered in this SI in lieu of Federal 

regulations.

a.) Assistant Secretary of Defense, 2019. Risk Based Screening Levels Calculated for PFOS, PFOA, PFBS in 

Groundwater and Soil using United States Environmental Protection Agency’s (USEPA’s) Regional Screening Level

Calculator. HQ=0.1. 15 October 2019. 

b.) If only one PFAS is present, a Hazard Quotient (HQ) of 1 applies and the values presented would increase by a factor 

of x10.

Table ES-2: Summary of Site Inspection Findings

AOI Potential PFAS 

Release Area

Soil – 

Source Area

Soil –

Facility 

Boundary

Groundwater 

– Source

Area

Groundwater –

Facility 

Boundary

1 Lakehurst AASF

Legend:

= detected; exceedance of the screening levels

= detected; no exceedance of the screening levels

= not detected

Table ES-3: Site Inspection Recommendations

AOI Description Rationale Future 

Action

1 Lakehurst 

AASF

Exceedances of SLs in groundwater at the facility 

boundary. No exceedances of SLs in soil. 

Proceed to 

RI 
Site Inspection Report

Lakehurst Army Aviation Support Facility, Jackson Township, New Jersey 

AECOM 1-1

1.0 Introduction

1.1 Project Authorization

The Army National Guard (ARNG) G9 is the lead agency in performing Preliminary Assessments 

(PAs) and Site Inspections (SIs) for Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) and Perfluorooctanoic 

acid (PFOA) at Impacted Sites, ARNG Installations, Nationwide. This work is supported by the 

United States (US) Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Baltimore District and their contractor, 

AECOM Technical Services, Inc. (AECOM), under Contract Number W912DR-12-D-0014, Task 

Order W912DR17F0192, issued 11 August 2017. The ARNG performed this SI at the Lakehurst 

Army Aviation Support Facility (AASF) in Jackson Township, New Jersey. The Lakehurst AASF 

will be referred to as the “facility” throughout this document. 

The SI project elements were performed in accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA; US Environmental Protection Agency

[USEPA], 1980), as amended, the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency 

Plan (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Part 300; USEPA, 1994), and in compliance with US 

Department of the Army (DA) requirements and guidance for field investigations including specific 

requirements for sampling for PFOA, PFOS, and perfluorobutanesulfonic acid (PFBS), and the 

group of related compounds known in the industry as per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). 

The term PFAS is used throughout this report to encompass all PFAS chemicals being evaluated, 

including PFOA, PFOS, and PFBS, which are the key components of the suspected releases 

being evaluated, and the other 15 related compounds listed in the task order. 

1.2 SI Purpose

A PA was performed at the facility (AECOM, 2019) that identified four potential PFAS release 

areas, which were grouped into one Area of Interest (AOI). The objective of the SI is to identify 

whether there has been a release to the environment from the AOI and determine the presence 

or absence of PFOA, PFOS, and PFBS at or above screening levels (SLs). 

As stated in the Federal Facilities Remedial Site Inspection Summary Guide (USEPA, 2005), a SI 

has five goals: 

1. Develop information to potentially eliminate a release from further consideration because 

it is determined that it poses no significant threat to human health or the environment.

2. Determine the potential need for a removal action.

3. Collect or develop data to evaluate potential release.

4. Collect data to better characterize the release for more effective and rapid initiation of a 

Remedial Investigation (RI).

5. Collect data to determine whether the release is more than likely the result of activities 

associated with the Department of Defense (DoD)

In addition to the USEPA-identified goals of an SI, the ARNG SI also identifies whether there are 

potential off-facility PFAS sources. 
Site Inspection Report

Lakehurst Army Aviation Support Facility, Jackson Township, New Jersey 

AECOM 1-2

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
Site Inspection Report

Lakehurst Army Aviation Support Facility, Jackson Township, New Jersey 

AECOM 2-1

2.0 Facility Background 

2.1 Facility Location and Description

The Lakehurst AASF is located in the northeastern portion of Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst

(JBMDL) in Jackson Township, Ocean County, New Jersey (Figure 2-1). The facility is 

approximately 2 miles north-northwest of the Borough of Lakehurst and 18 miles southeast of the 

city of Trenton, New Jersey. The approximate center of the facility is located at geographic 

coordinates 40°1’59.45’’N; 74°20’23.98”W, at 76 feet (ft) above mean sea level (amsl). 

The facility was established in 1991 on the Lakehurst portion of JBMDL. JBMDL is a 42,000-acre

military installation that resulted from the merger of the McGuire Air Force Base, Fort Dix, and 

Naval Air Engineering Station (NAES) Lakehurst in 2009 (now Naval Support Activity [NSA] 

Lakehurst). Lease information obtained during the PA confirmed rightful leasing by ARNG of 

Parcel 29 from the Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Mid-Atlantic. The terms of the lease 

include all 50 acres of Parcel 29 for a 50-year period from 30 September 2009 to 29 September 

2059 under Real Estate Agreement, Navy Contract no. N40085-09-RP-00221 and associated 

License# DACA51-3-09-139 (AECOM, 2019). 

The AASF includes two hangers and a small helipad. Building 790 is approximately 37,624 square 

ft, and Building 780 is approximately 98,757 square ft of which approximately 47,757 square ft 

are office space. The hangar portions of Buildings 790 and 780 are used for cold and warm 

storage, respectively. Prior to 2014, the facility was an extension of the Hangar 5 and Hangar 6 

helipad (located 0.25 miles south of the facility). Both hangars have dedicated centralized AFFF 

systems. 

2.2 Facility Environmental Setting

The facility is located in the Pine Barrens of Ocean County, which is part of the Atlantic Coastal 

Plain Physiographic Province of southeastern New Jersey. The terrain of the Atlantic Coastal Plain

is characterized by low relief coastal environment with many beaches. The Pine Barrens are a 

protected National Reserve subject to regulatory land use restrictions to preserve the ecosystem. 

Ocean County is 628.78 square miles, of which 31 percent is covered by water (US Census, 

2018). Approximately 1.5 miles to the south-southeast of the facility is Lake Horicon, a 63-acre 

stream-fed lake used for recreational activities. 

The following sections include information on geology, hydrogeology, hydrology, climate, and 

current and future land use. The facility geology and groundwater features are presented on 

Figure 2-2, groundwater elevations and contours are presented on Figure 2-3, and surface water 

features are presented on Figure 2-4. 

2.2.1 Geology

The geology of the Coastal Plain around the facility is made up of unconsolidated gravel, sand, 

and clay deposits dipping gently to the southeast over Paleozoic crystalline bedrock. Sediments 

range in age from the upper Lower Cretaceous to the Miocene (90 to 10 million years old). The 

facility lies on the southern edge of the last glacial maximum. As a result, the majority of the 

surface and underlying unconsolidated materials are sequences of Pleistocene and Pliocene age 

sand, marginal-marine sediments, gravel, and clay. The most surficial of these units underlying 

the Lakehurst AASF is the Kirkwood-Cohansey Formation (Figure 2-2). The Formation consist of 

unconsolidated fine to coarse-grained sand with interbedded lenses of clay-silt reworked during 

the last glacial maximum. Underlying the facility, the Kirkwood-Cohansey Formation ranges in 

thickness from 100 to 150 ft (Fiore, 2019). Within this unit are low-permeability layers 

(predominantly clay and silt) which create semi-confining conditions within the Kirkwood-
Site Inspection Report

Lakehurst Army Aviation Support Facility, Jackson Township, New Jersey 

AECOM 2-2

Cohansey Formation. Below the Kirkwood-Cohansey Formation is the Manasquan and Shark 

River Formation which consists of calcareous clay-silt with varying amounts of glauconite sand 

(Fiore, 2019). This unit is approximately 250-300 ft thick. 

The deposition of these sediments was controlled by global sea level changes; they contain 

repetitive transgressive-regressive facies changes (HydroGeoLogic, 2015). These changes in 

depositional environment created a unique, repetitive accumulation of sediments followed by 

interstitial confining units. This accumulation of sediments and interstitial confining units led to the 

formation of nine aquifer systems and eight confining units that span the Coastal Plain and 

underlie the Lakehurst AASF (US Geological Survey [USGS], 1989; USGS, 1998). 

2.2.2 Hydrogeology

The most superficial aquifer system is the Kirkwood-Cohansey aquifer system. The surficial 

aquifer generally exists under unconfined conditions, and recharge occurs primarily from direct 

precipitation on exposed portions of the formation. Depth to groundwater at the facility typically 

ranges between 5 and 30 ft bgs (AECOM, 2010). During the SI, depth to water ranged from 7.37 

ft below top of casing (btoc) to 9.67 ft btoc across the facility. Groundwater flow direction in the 

shallow aquifer is generally directed by topography and drainage conditions. Groundwater 

elevations calculated using depth to groundwater measurements and survey data collected during 

the SI indicated groundwater flows primarily east-southeast (Figure 2-3). The regional 

groundwater direction is generally east-southeast, towards the Atlantic Ocean. Multiple other 

aquifer systems exist beneath the Kirkwood-Cohansey as indicated in the geology discussion 

above, but these were not subject to the investigation. 

JBMDL operates multiple public water systems (PWS) that supply drinking water to all airmen, 

families, civilians, and tenants on JBMDL. The supplied drinking water meets the Safe Drinking 

Water Act requirements in addition to the USEPA Health Advisory (HA) for PFOS and PFOA. The 

closest PWS to the Lakehurst AASF are the Hill, Helo, and Test PWS. The Hill system has four 

wells screened in the Kirkwood-Cohansey aquifer system, and one well screened in the PotomacRaritan-Magothy aquifer. The Helo system has one well screened in the Kirkwood-Cohansey 

aquifer system. The Test system has two wells screened in the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer 

(HydroGeoLogic, 2015). It is likely PFAS have not impacted those wells screened in the deeper 

Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer system given the depth; however, the surficial KirkwoodCohansey aquifer system could be subject to potential contamination. Information obtained from 

the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) indicated PFAS were detected 

from shallow (Kirkwood-Cohansey aquifer system) back-up wells in the Hill PWS. Water pumped 

from shallow wells associated with the back-up system to the Hill PWS are currently treated for 

PFOS and PFOA using ion exchange. It is worth noting that the facility is located within two 

wellhead protection areas, and more than two dozen wellhead protection areas exist within a 4-

mile radius of the facility (NJDEP, 2019). 

2.2.3 Hydrology 

The facility is in the north portion of the Union Branch Watershed. The general surface water flow 

is to the east-southeast, as seen in Figure 2-4. The nearest surface water bodies are an unnamed 

drainage ditch, located approximately 0.15 miles southwest of the facility, and the Manapaqua 

Branch, located approximately 0.75 miles to the southwest. Additionally, an unlined stormwater 

basin is located immediately adjacent to the helipad.

2.2.4 Climate 

The climate in the area of the facility is characterized by moderately cold and occasionally snowy 

winters and warm, humid summers. The monthly average temperature ranges from a 
Site Inspection Report

Lakehurst Army Aviation Support Facility, Jackson Township, New Jersey 

AECOM 2-3

high of 86 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) in July to 40 °F in January. Average annual precipitation is 

43.43 inches (US Climate Data, 2019).

2.2.5 Current and Future Land Use

The facility is a private ARNG property that is accessible only through a guarded security gate. 

The property is a New Jersey ARNG (NJARNG) installation that supports the NJARNG mission. 

As previously mentioned, the facility is located within NSA Lakehurst, which is the Navy portion 

of the Air Force controlled JBMDL. The Lakehurst AASF is a tenant activity at the JBMDL in 

accordance with a Host-Tenant Real Estate Agreement, Navy Contract no. N40085-09-RP-00221 

and associated License# DACA51-3-09-139. Outside the boundaries of JBMDL, the surrounding 

area is generally used for residential and commercial space. There are no large-scale agricultural 

areas near the facility. Currently, the ARNG has a planned Aviation Readiness Center (MILCON 

340100) to be constructed on the property.

2.2.6 Critical Habitat and Threatened/Endangered Species 

The following species are listed as federally endangered, threatened, proposed, and/or candidate 

species in Ocean County, New Jersey (US Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS], 2020):

• Amphibians: Bog Turtle, Clemmys [Glyptemys] muhlenbergii (threatened)

• Bird: Piping Plover, Charadrius melodus (threatened)

• Bird: Rufa Red Knot, Calidris canutus rufa (threatened)

• Bird: Roseate Tern, Sterna dougallii (endangered)

2.3 History of PFAS Use

The primary source of PFAS at the facility is related to the two fire suppression systems located 

in Buildings 790 and 780. Several releases occurred over a 4-month period in 2017 that resulted 

in aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) being released to the environment. The most significant of 

these releases occurred in June 2017, when approximately 1,000 gallons of C8 3% AFFF were 

released from the fire suppression system in Building 790. The release resulted in AFFF spilling

out of the maintenance room and onto a grassy area between Building 790 and 780. The AFFF 

also entered a storm drain and resulted in a secondary release to the storm water basin south of 

the helipad. No other history and use of AFFF or PFAS-containing material use were documented. 

2.4 Other PFAS Investigations

As described above, the Lakehurst AASF is a private ARNG property within the boundaries of 

JBMDL. Due to a history of AFFF use, storage, and release JBMDL has been the subject of a 

PFAS PA (HydroGeoLogic, 2015) and SI (Aerostar SES LLC, 2018). Results of the PA identified 

51 specific sites where potential AFFF releases may have occurred (HydroGeoLogic, 2015). 

These sites included fire training areas, non-fire training areas, fire stations, emergency response 

areas, and other spill or release areas. Of the 51 identified sites, seven sites are located within 

0.5 miles of the Lakehurst AASF and are shown in Figure 2-5. A brief description of each site SI 

result are provided below:

• Historical Fire Training Area #1 and #2: FTA #1 was in operation from 1985 to 1997. During

this time, approximately 3 to 4 gallons of AFFF per test per truck (unknown number) were

discharged monthly for fire training activities at Historical FTA # 1 from 1985 to 1997. FTA

#2 used a mock aircraft for training from 1997 to 2010. Currently, a 400 square foot
Site Inspection Report

Lakehurst Army Aviation Support Facility, Jackson Township, New Jersey 

AECOM 2-4

dumpster with concrete secondary containment is used for training with AFFF. It is 

estimated that 1,944-2,592 gallons of AFFF have been released.

Six soil borings were advanced at both FTA #1 and FTA #2 during the JBMDL SI. Surface 

soil, subsurface soil, and groundwater samples were collected from each of the six 

borings. The analytical results indicated PFOS was present in one surface soil sample at 

a concentration exceeding the screening level (calculated using USEPA Risk Screening 

Level calculator). PFOA and PFOS were in groundwater samples at concentrations 

exceeding screening levels for water (USEPA HA). The combined concentrations of PFOA 

and PFOS also exceeded the screening levels in groundwater. 

• Old Firefighting School (AT014): AT014 is a former firefighting school that was in operation 

from the 1920s to 1980. During this time, AFFF was used during fire training activities; 

however, it is unknown what volume or type of AFFF was used at the site.

Two soil borings were advanced at AT014 for the collection of surface soil, subsurface soil 

and groundwater sample during the JBMDL SI. An additional four existing monitoring wells

were sampled. The results of the surface and subsurface soils analyses indicated that the 

target compounds (PFOS, PFOA, and PFBS) were not present in soil. Groundwater 

sample analyses indicated PFBS was not present in the groundwater at concentrations 

above the screening level for water. However, PFOA and PFOS were in groundwater

samples at concentrations exceeding screening levels for water. The combined 

concentrations of PFOA and PFOS exceeded the screening levels in groundwater.

• Firetruck Vehicle Accident: Afiretruck crashed and spilled 130 gallons of AFFF concentrate 

in 1991 after overturning due to icy road conditions. Groundwater testing during the SI 

confirmed the presence of PFAS in exceedance of the USEPA LHA for groundwater.

Two borings were advanced at the Firetruck Vehicle Accident site for the collection of 

surface soil, subsurface soil, and groundwater samples during the JBMDL SI. Two 

additional borings were advanced for groundwater collection and one surface water and 

sediment samples was collected approximately 500 feet east of the site of the accident.

The results of the subsurface soil and surface soil analyses indicated that the target 

compounds were not present in soil at concentrations above the screening levels for soil. 

Groundwater sample analyses indicated PFBS was not present in the groundwater at 

concentrations above the screening level for water. However, PFOA and PFOS were in 

groundwater samples at concentrations exceeding screening levels for water.

• Fire House (Building 687): Building 687 is a currently active fire station for NAES Lakehurst

that houses seven trucks which all store AFFF (15-500 gallons). To date, there have been 

no documented releases or spills. The 2015 PFAS PA closed out this building with no 

additional investigation recommended. 

• Hangar 6 plane crash: Approximately 100 gallons of AFFF were used to extinguish an 8 

July 1994 plane crash near Hangar 6. Three borings were advanced within the plane crash 

site for collection of subsurface soil and groundwater samples during the JBMDL SI. 

Additionally, an existing monitoring well was sampled for groundwater. The results of the 

subsurface soil analyses indicated that the target compounds were not present in soil at 

concentrations above the screening levels for soil. Groundwater sample analyses 

indicated PFBS was not present in the groundwater at concentrations above the screening 

level for water. However, PFOA and PFOS were detected in groundwater samples at

concentrations exceeding screening levels for water. The combined concentrations of 

PFOA and PFOS exceeded the screening levels in groundwater. 
Site Inspection Report

Lakehurst Army Aviation Support Facility, Jackson Township, New Jersey 

AECOM 2-5

• Helistat crash: Approximately 200 gallons of AFFF were used to extinguish a Helistat crash

on 1 July 1986 near Hangar 5. Five borings were advanced within and around the Helistat

crash site for collection of subsurface soil and groundwater samples during the JBMDL SI.

Additionally, existing monitoring well was sampled for groundwater. The results of the

subsurface soil analyses indicated that the target compounds were not present in soil at

concentrations above the screening levels for soil. Groundwater sample analyses

indicated PFBS was not present in the groundwater at concentrations above the screening

level for water. However, PFOA and PFOS were detected in groundwater samples at

concentrations exceeding screening levels for water. The combined concentrations of

PFOA and PFOS exceeded the screening levels in groundwater.
Site Inspection Report

Lakehurst Army Aviation Support Facility, Jackson Township, New Jersey 

AECOM 2-6

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

ARNG

GIS BY

CHK BY

MS

AB

8/10/2020

8/10/2020

NOTES Site Inspection for PFAS at Lakehurst AASF, NJ

1:126,720

8/10/2020 ­ Figure 2-1 PM RG 8/10/2020

12420 Milestone Center Drive

Germantown, MD 20876

Facility Location

Base Map: Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS,

Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI,

C:\Users\stankevichm\OneDrive - AECOM Directory\ARNG_PFAS_GIS_60552172\MXDs\NJ\Lakehurst_AASF_Figures\Lakehurst_AASF_SI_Figures\SI_Report_Figures\Fig_2-1_Lakehurst_AASF_Facility_Location.mxd

Legend

Facility Boundary

^_

Lakehurst AASF

0 1 2 4

Miles

2-7
Horicon Lake

Long Brook

L ittl e HurricaneBranch

Old HurricaneBrook

Manapaqua Branch

Maple Root Branch

Harris Branc h

Nort h Ruckel s B ranch

Green Branch

Dove Mill Branch

Wrangel Brook

Forked B rook

Bla cks Branch

Sunken Branch

Ridg eway Bran ch

ObhonanRidgeway Branch

South Ruck elsBranch

Mid d el RuckelsBranch

Michae ls Branc h

Sh annoc Brook

Bo rdens Mi llB ranch

Union Branch

Dark Branch

Toms River

CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

ARNG

GIS BY

CHK BY

MS

AB

10/16/2020

10/16/2020

NOTES Site Inspection for PFAS at Lakehurst AASF, NJ ­ 10/16/2020

1:95,040 Figure 2-2 PM RG 10/16/2020

12420 Milestone Center Drive

Germantown, MD 20876

Groundwater Features

Base Map: Source: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar

Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS,

C:\Users\stankevichm\OneDrive - AECOM Directory\ARNG_PFAS_GIS_60552172\MXDs\NJ\Lakehurst_AASF_Figures\Lakehurst_AASF_SI_Figures\SI_Report_Figures\Fig_2-2_Lakehurst_AASF_Groundwater.mxd

Legend

Facility Boundary

Water Body

Wetland

River/Stream

Canal/Ditch

Piped Stream

Inferred Groundwater Flow Direction

Geology

Lower Member of the Kirkwood Formation

Cohansey Formation

0 0.75 1.5 3

Miles

The PWS are not depicted due to security concerns, but are located in areas of JBMDL-Lakehurst that surround the Lakehurst AASF

2-8
!?

!?

!?

!?

!?

!?

!?

AOI1-SB01/GW01

72.71

AOI1-SB02/GW02

73.33

AOI1-SB04/GW04

72.20

AOI1-SB06/GW06

72.21

AOI1-SB07/GW07

73.37

AOI1-SB05/GW05

73.05

AOI1-SB03/GW03

73.15

72.50

72.25

72.75

73.25

72.25

73.25

73

72.75

73

72.50

CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

ARNG

GIS BY

CHK BY

MS

AB

10/8/2020

10/8/2020

NOTES Site Inspection for PFAS at Lakehurst AASF, NJ

1:3,600

10/8/2020 ­ Figure 2-3 PM RG 10/8/2020

12420 Milestone Center Drive

Germantown, MD 20876

Groundwater Elevation February 2020

Base Map: Source: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar

Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS,

C:\Users\stankevichm\OneDrive - AECOM Directory\ARNG_PFAS_GIS_60552172\MXDs\NJ\Lakehurst_AASF_Figures\Lakehurst_AASF_SI_Figures\SI_Report_Figures\Fig_2-3_Lakehurst_AASF_GW_Elevation_Contours.mxd

Legend

!? Soil Boring/Groundwater Location

Facility Boundary

Groundwater Elevation Contour

Inferred Groundwater Elevation Contour

0 150 300 600

Feet

1) Groundwater elevations were determined using temporary

wells from the February 2020 SI and may be slightly different

than groundwater flow using permanent wells.

2) Actual groundwater flow may change seasonally.

3) Groundwater elevations are in MSL NAVD88-12B.

2-9
Ridgeway

Branch

Watershed

Union

Branch

Watershed

Manapaqua Branch

Ridgeway Branch

Blacks Branch

Obhonan Ridgeway B ranch

CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

ARNG

GIS BY

CHK BY

MS

AB

10/16/2020

10/16/2020

NOTES Site Inspection for PFAS at Lakehurst AASF, NJ

10/16/2020

1:24,000 ­ Figure 2-4 PM RG 10/16/2020

12420 Milestone Center Drive

Germantown, MD 20876

Surface Water Features

Base Map: Source: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar

Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS,

C:\Users\stankevichm\OneDrive - AECOM Directory\ARNG_PFAS_GIS_60552172\MXDs\NJ\Lakehurst_AASF_Figures\Lakehurst_AASF_SI_Figures\SI_Report_Figures\Fig_2-4_Lakehurst_AASF_Surface_Water.mxd

Legend

Facility Boundary

Water Body

Wetland

River/Stream

Canal/Ditch

Piped Stream

Surface Water Flow

Direction

0 1,000 2,000 4,000

Feet

2-10
Union Branch

Old Hurricane Broo k

Manapaqua Branch

Harris Branch

North Ruckels Branch

Blac ks Branch

Obhonan Ridgeway Branch

Ridge way Bran ch

Middle Ruckels Branch

Bordens Mill Br anch

Historical FTA #1

Historical FTA #2

Fire Truck Vehicle Accident Helistat Crash

Former Naval Air Training Technical Center FTA AT016

Old Fire Fighting School FTA AT014

Hangar 6 - Plane Crash Site

Site AT030 Fire House (Building 687)

Old Fire Station (Building 128) Old Fire Station (Building 335)

Water Treatment Facility Fire

Legend

Potential PFAS Release

Facility Boundary

Water Body

Wetland

River/Stream

Canal/Ditch

Piped Stream

0 1,500 3,000 6,000

Feet

Non-ARNG Adjacent Sources

Figure 2-5

CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

9/10/2019 MS

AB

9/10/2019

9/10/2019

ARNG

GIS BY

CHK BY

TITLE

PROJECT Preliminary Assessment for PFAS at Lakehurst AASF, NJ

Q:\Projects\ENV\GEARS\GEO\ARNG PFAS\900-CAD-GIS\920-GIS or Graphics\MXD\NJ\Lakehurst_AASF_Figures\Lakehurst_AASF_PA_Figures\Fig_5-1_Lakehurst_AASF_Adjacent.mxd

PM RG 9/10/2019

1:36,000 ­ 12420 Milestone Center Drive

Germantown, MD 20876

Base Map: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus

DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community

2-6

2-11
Site Inspection Report

Lakehurst Army Aviation Support Facility, Jackson Township, New Jersey 

AECOM 2-12

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
Site Inspection Report

Lakehurst Army Aviation Support Facility, Jackson Township, New Jersey 

AECOM 3-1

3.0 Summary of Areas of Interest 

This section presents a summary of each potential PFAS release area by AOI. Based on the PA 

findings, one AOI was identified at the Lakehurst AASF, which includes the fire suppression 

system releases at Buildings 790 and 780, as well as the secondary release from storm drain 

outfall south of the helipad (Figure 3-1). A summary of the AOI is presented below.

3.1 AOI 1 – Lakehurst AASF

AOI 1 includes four potential release areas: two releases from the fire suppression system in 

Building 790, one release from the fire suppression system at Building 780, and one secondary 

release from a storm drain outfall (result from one of the releases at Building 790). The AFFF 

released during these events is the potential PFAS source. 

3.1.1 Building 790

Building 790 is equipped with an AFFF fire suppression system. Two releases have occurred at 

Building 790 since it was constructed between 2014 and 2015. On 12 June 2017, an incorrectly 

installed cap blew off the AFFF storage tank manifold system due to a buildup of pressure. As a 

result, AFFF was released from the maintenance closet into the interior of the Building 790 hangar 

bay and outside Building 790 into a grassy area between Buildings 790 and 780. It was 

documented that 1,000 gallons of C8 3% AFFF were released. A large amount of the AFFF spilled 

in the grassy area and entered a storm drain located between Buildings 790 and 780. The AFFF 

exited the storm drain from the outfall located approximately 100 feet south of the southern end 

of the helipad and a drain located on the west side of Building 780. 

The floor drain on the west side of Building 780 runs approximately the entire length of the hangar 

bay from north to south and leads to the sanitary sewer system. During the spill, the floor drain 

acted as a conduit transporting a large amount of the AFFF inside the hangar bay. The AFFF that 

flowed west into the Building 790 hangar bay was pushed into the floor drain with brooms. Water 

containing AFFF was pulled from the lift station and put into a frac tank before eventual transport 

and disposal. In total, approximately 10,000 square feet of area were contaminated.

All-State Power Vac contractors (now ACV) performed the clean-up on 13 June 2017. The pump 

station that serviced the ARNG facility was emptied and cleaned to prevent any residual AFFF 

from entering the sanitary sewer system, and the floor drain in the hangar bay was backfilled with 

cement. The storm water system was flushed and cleaned, and 9,000 gallons of contaminated 

water were containerized in a frac tank. The C8 3% AFFF containment tank in the maintenance 

room was emptied, and the system/tank was cleaned. No cement that had AFFF spilled on it was 

removed. Contaminated soil was excavated from the outfall south of the helipad and from 

between Buildings 790 and 780. Approximately of 6 – 8 inches of soil was excavated based on 

the results of soil and water shake tests. No confirmatory samples were collected for analysis; 

however, a real-time ‘shake test’ was performed with the excavated soil and water. No foaming 

was observed in the sample jar. The soil was containerized into sixteen lined and covered 20-

cubic yard roll-offs totaling 294 tons (588,000 pounds) and taken to an area east of Building 780. 

No contaminated soil/water is thought to have been accidentally released during this clean-up 

event.

The second release at Building 790 occurred on 26 October 2017. During maintenance activities, 

less than 25 gallons of C8 3% AFFF were released from a leak in a pipe that leads to a down 

spout valve located outside Building 790. As a result, the AFFF spilled west, into the grassy area 

between Buildings 790 and 780, within the bounds of the spill event from 12 June 2017. The 

contaminated soil was excavated to a depth of 10 inches at the down spout and 3 inches in the 

area, between Buildings 790 and 780. Similar to the other spill, the depth of the excavation was 
Site Inspection Report

Lakehurst Army Aviation Support Facility, Jackson Township, New Jersey 

AECOM 3-2

determined by performing soil and water shake test results. No foaming was observed in the 

sample jar. No confirmatory samples were collected for analysis. Excavated soil was placed in 

one 20-cubic yard roll-off and temporarily stored in the same area as the previous roll-offs from 

the 12 June 2017 spill event. The maintenance room was cleaned by the Joint Base Response 

team, and no contaminated soil or liquid were spilled during the clean-up event. 

The excavated soil from the June 2017 and October 2017 spill event was sent to WHI Heritage 

facility for incineration, and the ashes were sent to a Class-C landfill. The water was also 

incinerated at temperatures greater than 1,100°F.

3.1.2 Building 780

The third release occurred in Building 780 on 28 August 2017. During the installation of a new 

bladder to the fire suppression system tank, a small amount of AFFF leaked from the valve of the 

900-gallon AFFF storage tank, creating a stain on the concrete floor. Additionally, during the

exchange, the hose connector for the vacuum system on the truck leaked, spilling C8 3% AFFF

onto the concrete just east of Building 780. No subsequent clean-up event was performed

because of the small volume released and confirmation from the facility personnel that no AFFF

contacted the surrounding soil.
Building 790 AFFF Releases

Storm Drainage Outfall

Building 780 AFFF Release

Storm Drain

Storm Drain

Storm Drain

AOI 1

CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

ARNG

GIS BY

CHK BY

MS

AB

10/16/2020

10/16/2020

NOTES Site Inspection for PFAS at Lakehurst AASF, NJ

10/16/2020

1:3,600 ­ Figure 3-1 PM RG 10/16/2020

12420 Milestone Center Drive

Germantown, MD 20876

Area of Interest

Base Map: Source: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar

Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS,

C:\Users\stankevichm\OneDrive - AECOM Directory\ARNG_PFAS_GIS_60552172\MXDs\NJ\Lakehurst_AASF_Figures\Lakehurst_AASF_SI_Figures\SI_Report_Figures\Fig_3-1_Lakehurst_AASF_AOI.mxd

Legend

Area of Interest

Potential PFAS Release

Facility Boundary

River/Stream

Piped Stream

Stormwater Line

0 150 300 600

Feet

All identified storm drain

potential PFAS release areas

are secondary releases from

the June 2017 release

3-3
Site Inspection Report

Lakehurst Army Aviation Support Facility, Jackson Township, New Jersey 

AECOM 3-4

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
Site Inspection Report

Lakehurst Army Aviation Support Facility, Jackson Township, New Jersey 

AECOM 4-1

4.0 Project Data Quality Objectives

Project Data Quality Objectives (DQOs) are qualitative and quantitative statements that specify 

the quality of data and define the level of certainty required to support the project decision-making

process. The specific DQOs established for this facility are described below. These DQOs were 

developed in accordance with the USEPA’s seven-step iterative process (USEPA, 2006). 

4.1 Problem Statement

The following problem statement was developed during project planning:

The presence of PFAS, which may pose a risk to human health or the environment, in 

environmental media at the facility is currently unknown. PFAS are classified as emerging 

environmental contaminants that are garnering increasing regulatory interest due to their potential 

risks to human health and the environment. The regulatory framework for managing PFAS at both 

the federal and state level continues to evolve. 

The DoD has adopted a policy to retain facilities in the CERCLA process based on risk-based 

SLs for soil and groundwater, as described in a memorandum from the Office of the Secretary of 

Defense (OSD) dated 15 October 2019 (Assistant Secretary of Defense, 2019). The ARNG 

program under which this SI was performed follows this DoD policy. Should the maximum site 

concentration for sampled media exceed the SLs established in the OSD memorandum, the site 

will proceed to the next phase under CERCLA. The SLs established in the OSD memorandum

apply to three compounds: PFOS, PFOA, and PFBS. The SLs are presented in Section 6.1 of 

this Report. 

The following quotes from Army policy documents form the basis for this project (DA, 2016b; DA, 

2018): 

• “The Army will research and identify locations where PFOS- and/or PFOA-containing

products, such as AFFF, are known or suspected to have been used. Installations shall

coordinate with installation/facility fire response or training offices to identify AFFF use or

storage locations. The Army will consider FTAs, AFFF storage locations, hangars/buildings

with AFFF suppression systems, fire equipment maintenance areas, and areas where

emergency response operations required AFFF use as possible source areas. In addition,

metal plating operations, which used certain PFOS-containing mist suppressants, shall be

considered possible source areas.”

• “Based on a review of site records...determine whether a CERCLA PA is appropriate for

identifying PFOS/PFOA release sites. If the PA determines a PFOS/PFOA release may

have occurred, a CERCLA SI shall be conducted to determine presence/absence of

contamination.”

• “Identify sites where perfluorinated compounds are known or suspected to have been

released, with the priority being those sites within 20 miles of the public systems that tested

above USEPA HA levels” (USEPA, 2016a; USEPA, 2016b).

4.2 Goals of the Study

The following goals were established for this SI: 

1. Determine the presence or absence of PFOA, PFOS, and PFBS at or above SLs.

2. Develop information to potentially eliminate a release from further consideration because

it is determined that it poses no significant threat to human health or the environment.
Site Inspection Report

Lakehurst Army Aviation Support Facility, Jackson Township, New Jersey 

AECOM 4-2

3. Determine the potential need for a removal action. 

4. Collect data to better characterize the release areas for more effective and rapid initiation 

of a RI.

5. Identify, within 4 miles of the installation, other potential PFAS sources (fire stations, major 

manufacturers, other DoD facilities) and receptors, including both groundwater and 

surface water receptors, to determine whether the ARNG is the likely source of PFAS, or 

whether there is an off-facility source of PFAS responsible for installation detections of 

PFAS (USEPA, 2005).

6. Determine whether a potentially complete pathway exists between the source and 

potential receptors and whether ARNG is the likely source of the contamination. 

4.3 Information Inputs:

Primary information inputs for the SI included the following: 

• The PA for the Lakehurst AASF (AECOM, 2019); 

• Analytical data from groundwater and soil collected as part of this SI in accordance with the 

site-specific Uniform Federal Policy (UFP)-Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) 

Addendum (AECOM, 2020b); and

• Field data including groundwater elevation and water quality parameters measured using a

multi-parameter water quality meter. 

4.4 Study Boundaries

The scope of the SI was bounded by the property limits of the facility (Figure 2-1). Off-facility sampling 

was not included in the scope of this SI. If future off-facility sampling is required, the proper 

stakeholders will be notified, and necessary rights of entry will be obtained by ARNG with property 

owner(s). 

4.5 Analytical Approach

All samples were analyzed by Pace Analytical Gulf Coast, accredited under the DoD

Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program (ELAP; Accreditation Number 74960) and the 

National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program (NELAP; Certificate Number 01955). 

Data were compared to applicable SLs and decision rules as defined in the SI QAPP Addendum 

(AECOM, 2020b). Decision rules were developed for groundwater and soil, and they applied to 

all data collected. These rules governed response actions based on the results of the SI sampling 

effort.

The decision rules described in the Worksheet #11 of the QAPP Addendum identify actions based 

on the following:

Groundwater

• Is there a human receptor within 4-miles of the facility? 

• What is the concentration of PFOA, PFOS, and PFBS at the potential PFAS release area? 

• What is the concentration of PFOA, PFOS, and PFBS at the facility boundary upgradient 

and downgradient of the potential release areas? 
Site Inspection Report

Lakehurst Army Aviation Support Facility, Jackson Township, New Jersey 

AECOM 4-3

• What does the conceptual site model (CSM) suggest in terms of source, pathway and

receptor?

Soil

• What is the concentration of PFOA, PFOS, and PFBS in shallow surface soil (0 - 2 ft bgs)?

• What is the concentration of PFOA, PFOS, and PFBS in deep soil (i.e., capillary fringe)?

• What does the CSM suggest in terms of source, pathway, and receptor?

Soil and groundwater samples were collected from each of the potential PFAS release areas 

within AOI 1. Depth to groundwater was observed to range from 7.37 to 9.67 ft bgs in February 

2020. 

4.6 Data Usability Assessment

The Data Usability Assessment (DUA) is an evaluation at the conclusion of data collection 

activities that uses the results of both data verification and validation in the context of the overall 

project decisions or objectives. Using both quantitative and qualitative methods, the assessment 

determines whether project execution, and the resulting data have met installation-specific DQOs. 

Both sampling and analytical activities are considered to assess whether the collected data are 

of the right type, quality, and quantity to support the decision-making (DoD, 2018a; DoD, 2018b; 

USEPA, 2017).

Data Quality Indicators (DQIs) (Precision, Accuracy, Representativeness, Comparability, 

Completeness, and Sensitivity) are important components in assessing data usability. These 

DQIs were evaluated in the subsequent sections and demonstrate that the data presented in this 

SI report are of high quality. Although the SI data are considered reliable, some degree of 

uncertainty can be associated with the data collected. Specific factors that may contribute to the 

uncertainty of the data evaluation are described below. The Data Validation Report (DVR) 

(Appendix A) presents explanations for all qualified data in greater detail.

4.6.1 Precision 

Precision is the degree of agreement among repeated measurements of the same characteristic 

on the same sample or on separate samples collected as close as possible in time and place. 

Field sampling precision is measured with the field duplicate relative percent differences (RPD); 

laboratory precision is measured with calibration verification, internal standard recoveries, 

laboratory control spike (LCS), and matrix spike (MS) duplicate RPD.

Extraction internal standards (EIS) were added by the laboratory during sample extraction to 

measure relative responses of target analytes and used to correct for bias associated with matrix 

interferences and sample preparation efficiencies, injection volume variances, mass spectrometry 

ionization efficiencies, and other associated preparation and analytical anomalies. All field 

samples displayed EIS area counts within the quality control (QC) limits of 50-150%. 

Calibration verifications were performed routinely to ensure that instrument responses for all 

calibrated analytes were within established QC criteria. All calibration verifications were within the 

project established precision limits presented in the QAPP Addendum (AECOM, 2020b).

LCS/LCS duplicate (LCS/LCSD) pairs were prepared by addition of known concentrations of each 

analyte in a matrix-free media known to be free of target analytes. LCS/LCSD pairs were analyzed 

for every analytical batch to demonstrate the ability of the laboratory to detect similar 

concentrations of a known quantity in matrix-free media. The LCS/LCSD samples were within the 

project established precision limits presented in the QAPP Addendum (AECOM, 2020b).
Site Inspection Report

Lakehurst Army Aviation Support Facility, Jackson Township, New Jersey 

AECOM 4-4

MS/MS duplicate (MS/MSD) samples were prepared, analyzed, and reported for all preparation 

batches. MS/MSD samples demonstrated that the analytical system was in control for the matrix 

being tested. MS/MSD samples were submitted to the laboratory for analysis at a rate of 5%. The 

MS/MSD samples were within the project established precision limits presented in the QAPP 

Addendum (AECOM, 2020b).

Field duplicate samples were collected at a rate of 10% to assess the overall sampling and 

measurement precision for this sampling effort. The field duplicate samples were analyzed for 

PFAS and general chemistry parameters. The field duplicate samples were within the project 

established precision limits presented in the QAPP Addendum (AECOM, 2020b).

4.6.2 Accuracy 

Accuracy is a measure of confidence in a measurement. The smaller the difference between the 

measurement of a parameter and its "true" or expected value, the more accurate the 

measurement. The more precise or reproducible the result, the more reliable or accurate the 

result. Accuracy is measured through percent recoveries in the LCS/LCSD, MS/MSD, and 

surrogates.

LCS/LCSD samples were prepared by addition of known concentrations of each analyte in a 

matrix free media known to be free of target analytes. LCS/LCSD samples were analyzed for 

every analytical batch and demonstrated that the analytical system was in control during sample 

preparation and analysis. 

MS/MSD samples were prepared, analyzed, and reported at a rate of 5%. MS/MSD samples 

demonstrated that the analytical system was in control for the matrix being tested, with a limited 

number of exceptions. The MS/MSD performed on parent sample AOI01-01-GW displayed a 

recovery outside the QC limits of 70-130% for Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid (PFHxS) at 64%. The 

parent sample result associated with the negative bias was positive and was qualified “J-“.

4.6.3 Representativeness

Representativeness qualitatively expresses the degree to which data accurately reflect site 

conditions. Factors that affect the representativeness of analytical data include appropriate 

sample population definitions, proper sample collection and preservation techniques, analytical 

holding times, use of standard analytical methods, and determination of matrix or analyte 

interferences. 

Relating to the use of standard analytical methods, the laboratory followed the method as 

established in PFAS by liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry (LC/MS/MS) 

Compliant with Quality Systems Manual (QSM) 5.1 Table B-15, including the specific preparation 

requirements (i.e. ENVI-Carb or equivalent used), mass calibration, spectra, all the ion transitions 

identified in Table B-15 were monitored, standards that contained both branched and linear 

isomers when available were used, and isotopically labeled standards were used for quantitation.

Field QC samples were collected to assess the representativeness of the data collected. Field 

duplicates were collected at a rate of 10% for all field samples, while MS/MSD samples were 

collected at a rate of 5%. All preservation techniques were followed by the field staff, and all 

technical and analytical holding times were met by the laboratory. The laboratory used approved 

standard methods in accordance with the QAPP Addendum (AECOM, 2020b) for all analyses.

Instrument blanks and method blanks were prepared by the laboratory in each batch as a negative 

control. A limited number of PFAS instrument blanks and method blanks displayed detections 

greater than the detection limit for multiple target analytes. In total, one field sample result for 

PFOS and one field sample result for PFBA were qualified “U” during data validation due to a 

detection in the associated method blanks. The reported field sample result values were adjusted 
Site Inspection Report

Lakehurst Army Aviation Support Facility, Jackson Township, New Jersey 

AECOM 4-5

to be equal to the limit of detection (LOD). The results are usable as qualified but should be 

considered false positives and treated as non-detect. All the detections were less than the 

detection limits and less than SLs. 

Field blanks and equipment rinsate blanks were also collected for groundwater and soil samples. 

All equipment rinsate blanks and field blanks were non-detect for all target analytes. A sample of 

the water used for decontamination of the drill rig was collected in advance of the field effort. The 

decontamination sample, LH-PW-01, displayed a detection for PFOA greater than the detection 

limit. The positive associated field sample results were greater than five times the concentration 

found in the decontamination sample; therefore, no data qualifying action was required. Based on 

the sample results, the potable water source was deemed acceptable for use during the 

investigation for decontamination of drilling equipment and during well installation.

Overall, the data are usable for evaluating the presence or absence of PFAS at the facility. 

Sufficient usable data were obtained to meet the objectives of the SI.

4.6.4 Comparability 

Comparability is the extent to which data from one study can be compared directly to either past 

data from the current project or data from another study. Using standardized sampling and 

analytical methods, units of reporting, and site selection procedures help ensure comparability. 

Standard field sampling and typical laboratory protocols were used during the SI and are 

considered comparable to ongoing investigations.

4.6.5 Completeness

Completeness is a measure of the amount of valid data obtained from a measurement system 

compared to the amount of data expected under normal conditions. The laboratory provided data 

meeting system QC acceptance criteria for all samples tested. Project completeness was 

determined by evaluating the planned versus actual quantities of data. Percent completeness per 

parameter is as follows:

• PFAS in groundwater by LC/MS/MS compliant with QSM 5.1 Table B-15 at 100%;

• PFAS in soil by LC/MS/MS compliant with QSM 5.1 Table B-15 at 100%;

• pH in soil by USEPA Method 9045D at 100%; and,

• Total organic carbon (TOC) by USEPA Method 9060 at 100%.

4.6.6 Sensitivity 

Sensitivity is the capability of a test method or instrument to discriminate between measurement 

responses representing different levels (e.g., concentrations) of a variable of interest. Examples 

of QC measures for determining sensitivity include laboratory fortified blanks, a method detection 

limit (MDL) study, and calibration standards at the limit of quantitation (LOQ). In order to meet the 

needs of the data users, project data must meet the measurement performance criteria for 

sensitivity and project LOQs specified in the QAPP Addendum (AECOM, 2020b). The laboratory 

provided the requested MDL studies and provided applicable calibration standards at the LOQ. In 

order to achieve the DQOs for sensitivity outlined in the QAPP Addendum (AECOM, 2020b), the 

laboratory reported all field sample results at the lowest possible dilution. Additionally, any 

analytes detected below the LOQ and above the DL were reported and qualified “J” as estimated 

values by the laboratory.
Site Inspection Report

Lakehurst Army Aviation Support Facility, Jackson Township, New Jersey 

AECOM 4-6

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
Site Inspection Report

Lakehurst Army Aviation Support Facility, Jackson Township, New Jersey 

AECOM 5-1

5.0 Site Inspection Activities

This section describes the environmental investigation and sampling activities that occurred as 

part of the SI. The SI sampling approach was based on the findings of the PA and was 

implemented in accordance with the following approved documents: 

• Final Preliminary Assessment Report, Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst, Lakehurst, New

Jersey dated October 2019 (AECOM, 2019);

• Final Site Inspection Programmatic Uniform Federal Policy-Quality Assurance Project Plan

dated March 2018 (AECOM, 2018a);

• Final Site Inspection Uniform Federal Policy-Quality Assurance Project Plan Addendum,

Lakehurst Army Aviation Support Facility dated March 2020 (AECOM, 2020b);

• Final Programmatic Accident Prevention Plan dated July 2018 (AECOM, 2018b); and

• Final Site Safety and Health Plan, Lakehurst AASF, Lakehurst, New Jersey dated February

2020 (AECOM, 2020a)

The SI field activities were conducted from 26 to 27 February 2020 and consisted of direct push 

boring and soil sample collection, temporary monitoring well installation, and grab groundwater 

sample collection. Field activities were conducted in accordance with the QAPP Addendum 

(AECOM, 2020b), except as noted in Section 5.8. 

The following samples were collected during the SI and analyzed for a subset of 18 PFAS by 

LC/MS/MS compliant with QSM 5.1 Table B-15 to fulfill the project DQOs: 

• 22 soil samples from eight locations (seven soil borings and one surface hand auger

location); and

• Seven grab groundwater samples from temporary well locations

Figure 5-1 provides the sample locations for all media across the facility. Table 5-1 presents the 

list of samples collected for each media. Field documentation is provided in Appendix B. A Log 

of Daily Notice of Field Activity was completed throughout the SI field activities, which is provided 

in Appendix B1. Field forms are provided in Appendix B2, and survey data are available is 

Appendix B3. Additionally, a photographic log of field activities is provided in Appendix C. 

5.1 Pre-Investigation Activities

In preparation for the SI field activities, project team members participated in Technical Project 

Planning (TPP) meetings, performed utility clearance, and sampled decontamination source 

water. Details of these activities are presented below.

5.1.1 Technical Project Planning 

The USACE TPP Process, Engineering Manual (EM) 200-1-2 (DA, 2016a) defines four phases to 

project planning: 1) defining the project phase; 2) determining data needs; 3) developing data 

collection strategies; and 4) finalizing the data collection plan. The process encourages 

stakeholder involvement in the SI, beginning with defining overall project objectives, including 

quantitative and qualitative DQOs, and formulating a sampling approach to address the AOIs 

identified in the PA. 

A combined TPP Meeting 1 and 2 was held on 16 January 2020, prior to SI field activities. Meeting 

minutes are provided in Appendix D. The combined TPP Meeting 1 and 2 was conducted in 

general accordance with EM 200-1-2. 
Site Inspection Report

Lakehurst Army Aviation Support Facility, Jackson Township, New Jersey 

AECOM 5-2

The stakeholders for this SI include ARNG, NJARNG, USACE, the United States Air Force Civil 

Engineer Center (AFCEC/CZOE) on behalf of the JBMDL Environmental Restoration Program, 

and NJDEP representatives familiar with the facility, the regulations, and the community.

Stakeholders were provided the opportunity to make comments on the technical sampling 

approach and methods at the combined TPP Meeting 1 and 2. The outcome of the combined TPP 

Meeting 1 and 2 was memorialized in the SI QAPP Addendum (AECOM, 2020b). Future TPP 

meetings will provide an opportunity to discuss the results and findings, and future actions, where 

warranted. 

5.1.2 Utility Clearance 

New Jersey One Call was contacted by AECOM’s drilling subcontractor Cascade Drilling Services

to notify them of intrusive work at the Lakehurst AASF. However, because the Lakehurst AASF is 

on a private facility (JBMDL), Dig Safe® contractors did not enter to perform mark-outs. Therefore, 

AECOM submitted a JBMDL work clearance request to have all utilities at the Lakehurst AASF 

be marked by the appropriate JBMDL utility departments. Mark-outs were performed between 21- 

25 February, with final approval to begin work on 25 February. As an added measure, the first 5 

ft of each boring were pre-cleared using a hand auger to verify utility clearance in shallow 

subsurface where utilities would typically be encountered. 

5.1.3 Source Water and PFAS Sampling Equipment Acceptability 

A potable water sample (LH-PW-01) was collected from a spigot at Building 790 on 16 January

2020, prior to mobilization, and analyzed for PFAS by LC/MS/MS Compliant with QSM 5.1 Table 

B-15. The results of the potable well sample are provided in Appendix F. A discussion of the

results is presented in Section 4.6.3.

All materials that were used within the sampling zone were confirmed as acceptable for use in 

the PFAS sampling environment. The checklist of acceptable materials for use in the PFAS 

sampling environment was provided in the Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) appendix to 

the QAPPAddendum (AECOM, 2020b). Prior to the start of field work each day, a PFAS Sampling 

Checklist was completed as an additional layer of control. The checklist served as a daily reminder 

to each field team member regarding the allowable materials within the sampling environment. 

5.2 Soil Borings and Soil Sampling

Soil samples were collected via direct push technology (DPT), in accordance with Standard 

Operating Procedure (SOP) 3-17 Direct Push Sampling Techniques. A GeoProbe® 7822DT dualtube sampling system was used to collect continuous soil cores to the target depth. A hand auger 

was used to collect soil from the top 5 ft of the boring to be compliant with utility clearance 

procedures. 

Three discrete soil samples were collected for chemical analysis from each soil boring. One 

surface soil sample (0 to 2 ft bgs) and two subsurface soil samples (one approximately 1 ft above 

the groundwater table and one at the mid-point between the surface and the groundwater table) 

were collected from each boring. Additionally, one surface soil location (AOI1-SB08) was

completed to 2 ft bgs using a hand auger. The soil boring locations are shown on Figure 5-1, and 

boring and sample depths are provided in Table 5-1. The soil boring locations were selected 

based on the AOI information as agreed on through TPP and QAPP Addendum review. 

The soil cores were continuously logged for lithological descriptions by a field geologist using the 

Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). A photoionization detector (PID) was used to screen 

the breathing zone during boring activities as part of personal safety requirements. Observations 

and measurements were recorded on sampling forms (Appendix B2) and in a non-treated field 

logbook (i.e., composition notebook). Depth interval, recovery thickness, PID concentrations, 
Site Inspection Report

Lakehurst Army Aviation Support Facility, Jackson Township, New Jersey 

AECOM 5-3

moisture, relative density, color (using a Munsell soil color chart), and texture (using the USCS) 

were recorded. The boring logs are provided in Appendix E. 

Each sample was collected into laboratory-supplied PFAS-free high-density polyethylene (HDPE) 

bottles and labeled using a PFAS-free marker or pen. Samples were packaged on ice and 

transported via Federal Express (FedEx) under standard chain of custody (CoC) procedures to 

the laboratory and analyzed for PFAS by LC/MS/MS Compliant with QSM 5.1 Table B-15, TOC 

(USEPA Method 9060A), and pH (USEPA Method 9045D) in accordance with the QAPP 

Addendum (AECOM, 2020b). 

Field duplicate samples were collected at a rate of 10% and analyzed for the same parameters 

as the accompanying samples. MS/MSDs were collected at a rate of 5% and analyzed for the 

same parameters as the accompanying samples. In instances when non-dedicated sampling 

equipment was used, such as a hand auger for the shallow soil samples, equipment rinsate blanks 

(ERBs) were collected at a rate of 5% and analyzed for the same parameters as the soil samples. 

A temperature blank was placed in each cooler to ensure that samples were preserved at or below 

4 degrees Celsius (°C) during shipment.

DPT borings were converted to temporary wells, which were subsequently abandoned in 

accordance with the QAPP Addendum (AECOM, 2020b) using bentonite chips at completion of 

sampling activities. Borings were installed in grass areas to avoid disturbing concrete or asphalt 

surfaces. 

5.3 Temporary Well Installation and Groundwater Grab Sampling

Temporary wells were installed using a GeoProbe® 7822DT dual-tube sampling system. 

Temporary wells were installed at seven boring locations (AOI1-01 – AOI1-07). A temporary well 

was not installed at surface soil location AOI1-08 (drill rig unable to traverse the retention basin 

slope). Once the boring locations (AOI01-01 – AOI01-07)were advanced to the desired depth, a 

temporary well was constructed of a 5-foot section of 1-inch Schedule 40 poly-vinyl chloride (PVC) 

screen with sufficient casing to reach ground surface. The screen intervals for the temporary wells 

are provided on Table 5-2. New PVC pipe and screen were used at each location to avoid cross 

contamination. 

The temporary wells were allowed to recharge for a minimum of 24 hours after installation before 

collection of groundwater samples. Groundwater samples were collected using a peristaltic pump

with PFAS-free HDPE dedicated tubing. Each sample was collected into laboratory-supplied 

PFAS-free HDPE bottles and labeled using a PFAS-free marker or pen. The temporary wells were 

purged at a rate determined in the field to reduce turbidity and draw down prior to sampling. Water 

quality parameters (e.g., temperature, specific conductance, pH, dissolved oxygen [DO], and 

oxidation-reduction potential [ORP]) were measured using a water quality meter and recorded on 

the field sampling form (Appendix B2) after each grab sample was collected. Additionally, a 

subsample of each groundwater sample was collected in a separate container, and a shaker test 

was completed to identify if there was any foaming. No foaming was noted in any of the 

groundwater samples. 

Each sample was collected into laboratory-supplied PFAS-free HDPE bottles and labeled using 

a PFAS-free marker or pen. Samples were packaged on ice and transported via FedEx under 

standard CoC procedures to the laboratory and analyzed for PFAS by LC/MS/MS Compliant with 

QSM 5.1 Table B-15 in accordance with the QAPP Addendum (AECOM, 2020b).

Field duplicate samples were collected at a rate of 10% and analyzed for the same parameters 

as the accompanying samples. MS/MSDs were collected at a rate of 5% and analyzed for the 

same parameters as the accompanying samples. One field reagent blank (FRB) was collected in 

accordance with the Programmatic UFP-QAPP (PQAPP) (AECOM, 2018a). A temperature blank 
Site Inspection Report

Lakehurst Army Aviation Support Facility, Jackson Township, New Jersey 

AECOM 5-4

was placed in each cooler to ensure that samples were preserved at or below 4°C during 

shipment.

Temporary wells were abandoned in accordance with the QAPP Addendum (AECOM, 2020b) by

removing the PVC and backfilling the hole with bentonite chips. Temporary wells were installed in 

grass areas to avoid disturbing concrete or asphalt. 

5.4 Synoptic Water Level Measurement

A synoptic groundwater gauging event was performed on 26 February 2020. Groundwater

elevation measurements were collected from the 7 temporary monitoring wells. Water level 

measurements were taken from the northern side of the well casing. A groundwater flow contour 

map is provided in Figure 2-3. Groundwater elevation data is provided in Table 5-3. 

5.5 Surveying

The northern side of each well casing was surveyed by New Jersey licensed land surveyors 

following guidelines provided in SOP 3-07 Land Surveying. Survey data from the temporary 

monitoring wells were collected on 3 March 2020 in the Universal Transverse Mercator Zone 18N

projection with World Geodetic System 84 datum. The surveyed well data are provided in 

Appendix B3. 

5.6 Investigation-Derived Waste

As of the date of this report, the disposal of PFAS investigation-derived waste (IDW) is not 

regulated federally. Per the request of JBMDL and the NJARNG, all IDW generated was 

containerized and labeled per the United States Air Force Memorandum Establishing Aqueous 

Film Forming Foam (AFFF)-Related Waste Management Implementation Guidance (US Air 

Force, 2019).

Soil IDW (i.e., soil cuttings) and liquid IDW (purge and decontamination water) generated during 

the SI activities were containerized in two, separate 55-gallon drums and stored inside Building 

780. The soil and liquid IDW was not sampled and assumes the PFAS characteristics of the

associated soil samples collected from that source location.

Other solids such as spent personal protective equipment (PPE), plastic sheeting, tubing, rope, 

unused monitoring well construction materials, and other environmental media generated during 

the field activities were disposed of at a licensed solid waste landfill.

5.7 Laboratory Analytical Methods

Samples were analyzed for a subset of 18 PFAS by LC/MS/MS compliant with QSM 5.1 Table B15 at Pace Analytical Gulf Coast in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, a DoD ELAP and NELAP-certified 

laboratory. The 18 PFAS analyzed as part of the ARNG SI program include the following: 

• 6:2 fluorotelomer sulfonic acid (6:2

FTS)

• 8:2 fluorotelomer sulfonic acid (8:2

FTS)

• N-ethyl

perfluorooctanesulfonamidoacetic acid

(NEtFOSAA)

• Perfluorododecanoic acid (PFDoA)

• Perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA)

• Perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA)

• Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid (PFHxS)

• Perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA)

• Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA)

• Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS)
Site Inspection Report

Lakehurst Army Aviation Support Facility, Jackson Township, New Jersey 

AECOM 5-5

• N-methyl

perfluorooctanesulfonamidoacetic acid

(NMeFOSAA)

• Perfluorobutyrate (PFBA)

• Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid (PFBS)

• Perfluorodecanoic acid (PFDA)

• Perfluoropentanoic acid (PFPeA)

• Perfluorotetradecanoic acid (PFTeDA)

• Perfluorotridecanoic acid (PFTrDA)

• Perfluoroundecanoic acid (PFUdA)

Soil samples were also analyzed for TOC using USEPA Method 9060A and pH by USEPA Method 

9045D. 

5.8 Deviations from QAPP Addendum

One deviation was identified after completion of the field work during the reporting stage and 

therefore a Nonconformance and Corrective Action Report was not completed. The deviation from 

the SI QAPP Addendum is noted below:

• At the request of NJDEP, the Final SI QAPP was updated to indicated that surface soil

samples would be collected from the 0.5-1 foot bgs interval. However, during the SI

fieldwork, surface soil samples were inadvertently collected from the ARNG programmatic

surface soil samples interval of 0-2 feet bgs.
Site Inspection Report

Lakehurst Army Aviation Support Facility, Jackson Township, New Jersey 

AECOM 5-6

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
Table 5-1

Site Inspection Samples by Medium

Site Inspection Report, Lakehurst AASF

Sample Identification

Sample

Collection 

Date

Sample Depth 

(feet bgs)

PFAS by LC/MS/MS compliant with QSM 5.1 Table B-15TOC(USEPA Method 9060A)pH (USEPA Method 9045D)

Comments

AOI01-01-SB-0-2 2/26/2020 0-2 x

AOI01-01-SB-0-2-D 2/26/2020 0-2 x Field Duplicate

AOI01-01-SB-7-8 2/26/2020 7-8 x

AOI01-01-SB-8-9 2/26/2020 8-9 x

AOI01-02-SB-0-2 2/26/2020 0-2 x

AOI01-02-SB-4-5 2/26/2020 4-5 x x x

AOI01-02-SB-8-9 2/26/2020 8-9 x

AOI01-03-SB-0-2 2/26/2020 0-2 x

AOI01-03-SB-4-5 2/26/2020 4-5 x

AOI01-03-SB-4-5-D 2/26/2020 4-5 x Field Duplicate

AOI01-03-SB-8-9 2/26/2020 8-9 x

AOI01-04-SB-0-2 2/26/2020 0-2 x

AOI01-04-SB-4-5 2/26/2020 4-5 x

AOI01-04-SB-8-9 2/26/2020 8-9 x

AOI01-05-SB-0-2 2/26/2020 0-2 x

AOI01-05-SB-3-4 2/26/2020 3-4 x

AOI01-05-SB-4-5 2/26/2020 4-5 x

AOI01-06-SB-0-2 2/26/2020 0-2 x

AOI01-06-SB-4-5 2/26/2020 4-5 x

AOI01-06-SB-9-10 2/26/2020 9-10 x

AOI01-07-SB-0-2 2/26/2020 0-2 x

AOI01-07-SB-4-5 2/26/2020 4-5 x

AOI01-07-SB-8-9 2/26/2020 8-9 x

AOI01-07-SB-8-9-D 2/26/2020 8-9 x Field Duplicate

AOI01-08-SB-0-2 2/26/2020 0-2 x

AOI01-01-GW 2/27/2020 8-13 x

AOI01-02-GW 2/27/2020 4-9 x

AOI01-02-GW-D 2/27/2020 4-9 x Field Duplicate

AOI01-03-GW 2/27/2020 9-14 x

AOI01-04-GW 2/27/2020 9-14 x

AOI01-05-GW 2/27/2020 5-10 x

AOI01-06-GW 2/27/2020 8-13 x

AOI01-07-GW 2/27/2020 8.5-13.5 x

Notes:

AASF = Army Aviation Support Facility

AOI = Area of Interest

bgs = below ground surface

D = duplicate

GW = groundwater

PFAS = per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances

pH = potential for hydrogen

SB = soil boring

TOC =total organic carbon

USEPA = United States Environmental Protection Agency

Soil Samples

Groundwater Samples

AECOM 5-7
Table 5-2

 Boring Depths and Temporary Well Screen Intervals

Site Inspection Report, Lakehurst AASF

Area of 

Interest Soil Boring ID Soil Boring Depth 

(feet bgs)

Temporary 

Well Screen 

Interval

(feet bgs)

AOI01-01 15 8-13

AOI01-02 15 4-9

AOI01-03 15 9-14

AOI01-04 15 9-14

AOI01-05 10 5-10

AOI01-06 15 8-13

AOI01-07 15 8.5-13.5

Notes:

AASF = Army Aviation Support Facility

bgs = below ground surface

ID = identification

AOI 1

AECOM 5-8
Table 5-3

Depth to Water and Groundwater Elevation

Site Inspection Report, Lakehurst AASF

Monitoring Well ID Ground Surface 

Elevation (ft amsl)

Depth to Water 

(ft btoc)

Groundwater 

Elevation (ft amsl)

AOI01-01 80.90 8.19 72.71

AOI01-02 80.22 6.89 73.33

AOI01-03 80.61 7.46 73.15

AOI01-04 80.50 8.30 72.20

AOI01-05 79.65 6.60 73.05

AOI01-06 78.38 6.17 72.21

AOI01-07 80.10 6.73 73.37

Notes:

AASF = Army Aviation Support Facility

AOI = Area of Interest

amsl = above mean sea level

btoc = below top of casing

ft = feet

ID = identification

AECOM 5-9
Site Inspection Report

Lakehurst Army Aviation Support Facility, Jackson Township, New Jersey 

AECOM 5-10

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK 
!?

!?

!?

!?

"S

!?

!?

!?

Building 790 AFFF Releases

Storm Drainage Outfall

Building 780 AFFF Release

Storm Drain

AOI 1

AOI01-SB01/GW01

AOI01-SB02/GW02

AOI01-SB03/GW03

AOI01-SB04/GW04

AOI01-SB08

AOI01-SB06/GW06

AOI01-SB07/GW07

AOI01-SB05/GW05

CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

ARNG

GIS BY

CHK BY

MS

AB

10/16/2020

10/16/2020

NOTES Site Inspection for PFAS at Lakehurst AASF, NJ

10/16/2020

1:3,600 ­ Figure 5-1 PM RG 10/16/2020

12420 Milestone Center Drive

Germantown, MD 20876

Site Inspection Sample Locations

Base Map: Source: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar

Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS,

C:\Users\stankevichm\OneDrive - AECOM Directory\ARNG_PFAS_GIS_60552172\MXDs\NJ\Lakehurst_AASF_Figures\Lakehurst_AASF_SI_Figures\SI_Report_Figures\Fig_5-1_Lakehurst_AASF_SI_Sample_Locations.mxd

Legend

"S Hand Auger Soil Boring Location

!? Soil Boring/Groundwater Location

Area of Interest

Potential PFAS Release

Facility Boundary

Stormwater Line

0 150 300 600

Feet

5-11
Site Inspection Report

Lakehurst Army Aviation Support Facility, Jackson Township, New Jersey 

AECOM 5-12

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
Site Inspection Report

Lakehurst Army Aviation Support Facility, Jackson Township, New Jersey 

AECOM 6-1

6.0 Site Inspection Results 

This section presents the analytical results of AOI 1. The SLs used in this evaluation are presented 

in Section 6.1. A discussion of the results for AOI 1 is provided in Section 6.3. Table 6-2 through

Table 6-4 present PFAS results for samples with detections in soil and groundwater; only

constituents detected in one or more samples are included. Tables that contain all results are 

provided in Appendix F, and the laboratory reports are provided in Appendix G. 

6.1 Screening Levels

The DoD has adopted a policy to retain facilities in the CERCLA process based on risk-based 

SLs for soil and groundwater, as described in a memorandum from the OSD dated 15 October 

2019 (Assistant Secretary of Defense, 2019). The ARNG program under which this SI was 

performed follows this DoD policy. Should the maximum site concentration for sampled media 

exceed the SLs established in the OSD memorandum, the AOI will proceed to an RI, the next 

phase under CERCLA. The SLs apply to three compounds, PFOA, PFOS, and PFBS, for both 

soil and groundwater, as presented in Table 6-1. 

All other results presented in this report are considered informational in nature and serve as an 

indication as to whether soil and groundwater contain or do not contain PFAS within the 

boundaries of the facility. These SLs were adopted after the SI QAPP was finalized and are more 

stringent than the USEPA HA originally documented in the SI QAPP (AECOM, 2020b). This 

change did not have any impact on the interpretation of the analytical results or recommendations.

Table 6-1: Screening Levels (Soil and Groundwater)

Analyte

Residential

(Soil)

(μg/kg)a,b

0-2 feet bgs

Industrial/ Commercial 

Composite Worker

(Soil)

(μg/kg)a,b

Tap Water

(Groundwater)

(ng/L)a,b

PFOA 130 1,600 40

PFOS 130 1,600 40

PFBS 130,000 1,600,000 40,000

Notes:

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection regulations are not considered in this SI in lieu of Federal 

regulations.

a.) Assistant Secretary of Defense, 2019. Risk Based Screening Levels Calculated for PFOS, PFOA, PFBS in 

Groundwater and Soil using United States Environmental Protection Agency’s (USEPA’s) Regional Screening Level 

Calculator. HQ=0.1. 15 October 2019.

b.) If only one PFAS is present, a Hazard Quotient (HQ) of 1 applies and the values presented would increase by a factor 

of x10.

6.2 Soil Physicochemical Analyses

To provide basic soil parameter information, soil samples were analyzed for TOC and pH, which 

are important for evaluating transport through the soil medium. Appendix F contains the results 

of the TOC and pH sampling. 

The data collected in this investigation will be used in subsequent investigations, where 

appropriate, to assess fate and transport of PFAS contaminants. According to the Interstate 

Technology Regulatory Council (ITRC), several important PFAS partitioning mechanisms include 

hydrophobic and lipophobic effects, electrostatic interactions, and interfacial behaviors. At 

relevant environmental pH values, certain PFAS are present as organic anions and are therefore 

relatively mobile in groundwater (Xiao et al., 2015), but tend to associate with the organic carbon 

fraction that may be present in soil or sediment (Higgins and Luthy 2006; Guelfo and Higgins, 
Site Inspection Report

Lakehurst Army Aviation Support Facility, Jackson Township, New Jersey 

AECOM 6-2

2013). When sufficient organic carbon is present, organic carbon normalized distribution 

coefficients (Koc values) can help in evaluating transport potential, though other geochemical 

factors (for example, pH and presence of polyvalent cations) may also affect PFAS sorption to 

solid phases (ITRC, 2018).

6.3 AOI 1 – Lakehurst AASF

This section presents the analytical results for soil and groundwater for AOI 1, which includes four

potential PFAS release areas: two releases from the fire suppression system in Building 790, one 

release from the fire suppression system at Building 780, and one secondary release from a storm 

drain outfall (result from one of the releases at Building 790). The detected compounds are 

summarized in Table 6-2 through Table 6-4 and on Figure 6-1 through Figure 6-3. 

6.3.1 Soil Analytical Results 

PFOA, PFOS, and PFBS did not exceed the SLs in soil at the four potential PFAS release areas. 

Figure 6-1 and Figure 6-2 present detections in soil for PFOS and PFOA. The detected 

compounds in soil are summarized on Table 6-2 and Table 6-3. 

At AOI 1, soil was sampled from the shallow interval (0 to 2 ft bgs), intermediate interval (3 to 8 ft 

bgs), and deep interval (8 to 10 ft bgs) from boring locations AOI01-01 through AOI01-08. PFOA

and PFBS were not detected in soil; PFOS was detected in soil at concentrations several orders 

of magnitude lower than the SLs. In the shallow intervals, PFOS was detected at five locations, 

with concentrations ranging from 0.267 J micrograms per kilogram (μg/Kg) to 1.55 μg/Kg. In the 

intermediate intervals, PFOS was detected at four locations within concentrations ranging from 

0.212 J μg/Kg to 0.358 J μg/Kg. In the deep intervals, PFOS was detected at one location at a 

concentration of 0.368 J μg/Kg. The magnitude of concentrations in soil did not show significant 

variation between shallow and intermediate or intermediate and deep. A greatest number of 

compounds detected were observed within AOI01-02, which was advanced adjacent to the 

Building 790 release area. 

6.3.2 Groundwater Analytical Results 

PFOS in groundwater exceeded the SLs at one location in AOI 1. PFOA and PFBS did not exceed 

the SL at any locations in AOI 1. Figure 6-3 presents the ranges of detections for PFOS and 

PFOA. The detected compounds in groundwater are summarized in Table 6-4. 

Within AOI 1, groundwater was sampled from temporary monitoring well locations AOI01-01

through AOI01-07. The SL of 40 nanograms per liter (ng/L) for PFOS was exceeded at AOI01-06

at a concentration of 75.6 ng/L. PFOS was detected in the other six locations, all below SL, with 

concentrations ranging from 6.95 J ng/L to 32.1 ng/L. PFOA and PFBS were detected below the 

SLs of 40 ng/L and 40,000 ng/L at all seven locations with concentrations ranging from 6.92 J

ng/L to 26.6 ng/L for PFOA and 2.22 J ng/L to 35.5 ng/L for PFBS. 

6.3.3 Conclusions

Based on the results of the SI, PFOA and PFBS were not detected in soil at AOI 1, and PFOS 

was detected several orders of magnitude lower than the soil SLs. At location AOI01-06, PFOS 

was detected in groundwater at concentrations exceeding the individual SL of 40 ng/L. PFOA and

PFBS were detected in groundwater at concentrations below the SL, including in an upgradient 

monitoring well, indicating a potential off-facility source. Based on the exceedance of the SL for

PFOS in groundwater, further evaluation at AOI 1 is warranted.
Table 6-2

PFAS Detections in Surface Soil

Site Inspection Report, Lakehurst AASF

Analyte OSD Screening 

Level a

Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual

6:2 FTS - ND ND 12.9 ND ND ND ND ND 0.325 J

PFBA - ND ND 0.349 J ND ND ND ND ND ND

PFHpA - ND ND 0.168 J ND ND ND ND ND ND

PFHxA - ND ND 0.690 J ND ND ND ND ND ND

PFOS 130 0.397 J 0.460 J ND 0.564 J 1.55 ND 0.730 J 0.267 J ND

PFPeA - ND ND 0.946 J ND ND ND ND ND ND

PFTeDA - ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

PFTrDA - ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

PFUnDA - ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

Grey Fill Detected concentration exceeded OSD Screening Levels Chemical Abbreviations

6:2 FTS 6:2 fluorotelomer sulfonate

PFBA perfluorobutanoic acid

PFHpA perfluoroheptanoic acid

References PFHxA perfluorohexanoic acid

PFOS perfluorooctanesulfonic acid

PFPeA perfluoropentanoic acid

Acronyms and Abbreviations

AOI Area of Interest

D Duplicate

ft feet

Interpreted Qualifiers HQ Hazard quotient

J = Estimated concentration LCMSMS Liquid Chromatography Mass Spectrometry

LOD Limit of Detection

ND Analyte not detected above the LOD

OSD Office of the Secretary of Defense

QSM Quality Systems Manual

Qual Interpreted Qualifier

SB Soil boring

USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

μg/Kg micrograms per Kilogram

- Not applicable

Area of Interest

Sample ID

Sample Date

Depth

AOI01-01-SB-0-2

02/26/2020

0 - 2 ft

AOI01-01-SB-0-2-D

02/26/2020

0 - 2 ft

AOI01-02-SB-0-2

02/26/2020

0 - 2 ft

02/26/2020

0 - 2 ft

AOI01-04-SB-0-2

02/26/2020

0 - 2 ft

Soil, PFAS by LCMSMS Compliant with QSM 5.1 Table B-15 (μg/Kg)

a. Assistant Secretary of Defense, 2019. Risk Based Screening Levels Calculated for PFOS, PFOA, PFBS in Groundwater or Soil using USEPA’s Regional 

Screening Level Calculator. HQ=0.1. 15 October 2019. Soil screening levels based on residential scenario for direct ingestion of contaminated soil.

AOI01

AOI01-07-SB-0-2

02/26/2020

0 - 2 ft

AOI01-08-SB-0-2

02/26/2020

0 - 2 ft

AOI01-05-SB-0-2

02/26/2020

0 - 2 ft

AOI01-06-SB-0-2

02/26/2020

0 - 2 ft

AOI01-03-SB-0-2

AECOM

6-3
Table 6-3

PFAS Detections in Shallow Subsurface Soil

Site Inspection Report, Lakehurst AASF

Analyte OSD Screening 

Level a

Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual

6:2 FTS - ND ND 13.0 6.72 ND ND 0.406 J ND ND ND

PFBA - ND ND ND 0.387 J ND ND ND ND ND ND

PFHxA - ND ND 0.270 J 0.662 J ND ND ND ND ND ND

PFOS 1600 0.237 J ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.330 J ND 0.358 J

PFPeA - ND ND 0.411 J 0.991 J ND ND 0.191 J ND ND 0.222 J

Grey Fill Detected concentration exceeded OSD Screening Levels Chemical Abbreviations

6:2 FTS 6:2 fluorotelomer sulfonate

PFBA perfluorobutanoic acid

PFHxA perfluorohexanoic acid

References PFOS perfluorooctanesulfonic acid

PFPeA perfluoropentanoic acid

Acronyms and Abbreviations

AOI Area of Interest

D Duplicate

ft feet

HQ Hazard quotient

Interpreted Qualifiers LCMSMS Liquid Chromatography Mass Spectrometry

J = Estimated concentration LOD Limit of Detection

ND Analyte not detected above the LOD

OSD Office of the Secretary of Defense

QSM Quality Systems Manual

Qual Interpreted Qualifier

SB Soil boring

USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

μg/Kg micrograms per Kilogram

- Not applicable

a. Assistant Secretary of Defense, 2019. Risk Based Screening Levels Calculated for PFOS, PFOA, PFBS in Groundwater or Soil using USEPA’s Regional 

Screening Level Calculator. HQ=0.1. 15 October 2019. Soil screening levels based on industrial/commercial composite worker scenario for incidental 

ingestion of contaminated soil.

AOI01

AOI01-05-SB-3-4

02/26/2020

3 - 4 ft

Soil, PFAS by LCMSMS Compliant with QSM 5.1 Table B-15 (μg/Kg)

AOI01-04-SB-4-5

02/26/2020

4 - 5 ft

AOI01-04-SB-8-9

02/26/2020

8 - 9 ft

AOI01-03-SB-4-5-D

02/26/2020

4 - 5 ft

AOI01-03-SB-8-9

02/26/2020

8 - 9 ft

AOI01-02-SB-8-9

02/26/2020

8 - 9 ft

AOI01-03-SB-4-5

02/26/2020

4 - 5 ft

AOI01-01-SB-8-9

02/26/2020

8 - 9 ft

AOI01-02-SB-4-5

02/26/2020

4 - 5 ft

Area of Interest

Sample ID

Sample Date

Depth

AOI01-01-SB-7-8

02/26/2020

7 - 8 ft

AECOM

6-4
Table 6-3

PFAS Detections in Shallow Subsurface Soil

Site Inspection Report, Lakehurst AASF

Analyte OSD Screening 

Level a

Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual

6:2 FTS - ND ND ND ND ND ND

PFBA - ND ND ND ND 0.172 J ND

PFHxA - ND ND ND ND ND ND

PFOS 1600 0.368 J 0.212 J ND ND ND ND

PFPeA - ND ND ND ND ND ND

Grey Fill Detected concentration exceeded OSD Screening Levels Chemical Abbreviations

6:2 FTS 6:2 fluorotelomer sulfonate

PFBA perfluorobutanoic acid

PFHxA perfluorohexanoic acid

References PFOS perfluorooctanesulfonic acid

PFPeA perfluoropentanoic acid

Acronyms and Abbreviations

AOI Area of Interest

D Duplicate

ft feet

HQ Hazard quotient

Interpreted Qualifiers LCMSMS Liquid Chromatography Mass Spectrometry

J = Estimated concentration LOD Limit of Detection

ND Analyte not detected above the LOD

OSD Office of the Secretary of Defense

QSM Quality Systems Manual

Qual Interpreted Qualifier

SB Soil boring

USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

ug/Kg micrograms per Kilogram

- Not applicable

a. Assistant Secretary of Defense, 2019. Risk Based Screening Levels Calculated for PFOS, PFOA, PFBS in Groundwater or Soil using USEPA’s Regional 

Screening Level Calculator. HQ=0.1. 15 October 2019. Soil screening levels based on industrial/commercial composite worker scenario for incidental 

ingestion of contaminated soil.

AOI01

AOI01-07-SB-8-9-D

02/26/2020

8 - 9 ft

Soil, PFAS by LCMSMS Compliant with QSM 5.1 Table B-15 (ug/Kg)

AOI01-07-SB-4-5

02/26/2020

4 - 5 ft

AOI01-07-SB-8-9

02/26/2020

8 - 9 ft

AOI01-06-SB-4-5

02/26/2020

4 - 5 ft

AOI01-06-SB-9-10

02/26/2020

9 - 10 ft

Area of Interest

Sample ID

Sample Date

Depth

AOI01-05-SB-4-5

02/26/2020

4 - 5 ft

AECOM

6-5
Table 6-4

PFAS Detections in Groundwater

Site Inspection Report, Lakehurst AASF

Analyte OSD Screening Level a Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual Result Qual

6:2 FTS - ND 2110 2230 2270 ND 3190 4090 ND

8:2 FTS - ND ND ND ND ND 7.33 J 7.88 J ND

PFBA - 11.7 245 252 364 32.1 87.5 279 11.0

PFBS 40000 2.22 J 19.2 21.1 16.6 35.5 2.31 J 10.6 5.78 J

PFDA - ND ND ND ND ND 5.26 J 2.52 J ND

PFHpA - 10.2 97.3 101 179 19.7 51.9 160 3.67 J

PFHxA - 23.8 700 690 1130 62.2 199 1080 10.8

PFHxS - 51.0 J- 125 131 28.8 114 34.9 53.9 31.4

PFNA - 3.87 J ND ND 2.81 J ND 2.87 J 4.02 J ND

PFOA 40 26.4 18.5 19.2 6.92 J 25.3 19.6 26.6 14.4

PFOS 40 12.5 32.1 35.3 19.4 6.95 J 27.3 75.6 24.5

PFPeA - 10.4 1050 1080 1910 39.0 336 1570 3.79 J

Grey Fill Detected concentration exceeded OSD Screening Levels Chemical Abbreviations

6:2 FTS 6:2 fluorotelomer sulfonate

8:2 FTS 8:2 fluorotelomer sulfonate

PFBA perfluorobutanoic acid

References PFBS perfluorobutanesulfonic acid

PFDA perfluorodecanoic acid

PFHpA perfluoroheptanoic acid

PFHxA perfluorohexanoic acid

PFHxS perfluorohexanesulfonic acid

PFNA perfluorononanoic acid

PFOA perfluorooctanoic acid

PFOS perfluorooctanesulfonic acid

Interpreted Qualifiers PFPeA perfluoropentanoic acid

J = Estimated concentration

J- = Estimated concentration, biased low Acronyms and Abbreviations

AOI Area of Interest

D Duplicate

GW Groundwater

HQ Hazard quotient

LCMSMS Liquid Chromatography Mass Spectrometry

LOD Limit of Detection

ND Analyte not detected above the LOD

OSD Office of the Secretary of Defense

Qual Interpreted Qualifier

QSM Quality Systems Manual

USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

ng/L nanogram per liter

- Not applicable

a. Assistant Secretary of Defense, 2019. Risk Based Screening Levels Calculated for PFOS, PFOA, PFBS in Groundwater or Soil using USEPA’s Regional 

Screening Level Calculator. HQ=0.1. 15 October 2019. Groundwater screening levels based on residential scenario for direct ingestion of groundwater.

AOI01-07-GW

02/27/2020

Water, PFAS by LCMSMS Compliant with QSM 5.1 Table B-15 (ng/L)

AOI1

AOI01-05-GW

02/27/2020

AOI01-06-GW

02/27/2020

AOI01-03-GW

02/27/2020

AOI01-04-GW

02/27/2020

AOI01-02-GW

02/27/2020

AOI01-02-GW-D

02/27/2020

Area of Interest

Sample ID

Sample Date

AOI01-01-GW

02/27/2020

AECOM

6-6
AOI 1

AOI01-SB01/GW01

AOI01-SB02/GW02

AOI01-SB03/GW03

AOI01-SB04/GW04

AOI01-SB06/GW06

AOI01-SB07/GW07

AOI01-SB05/GW05

AOI 1

AOI01-SB01/GW01

AOI01-SB02/GW02

AOI01-SB03/GW03

AOI01-SB04/GW04

AOI01-SB08

AOI01-SB06/GW06

AOI01-SB07/GW07

AOI01-SB05/GW05

AOI 1

AOI01-SB01/GW01

AOI01-SB02/GW02

AOI01-SB03/GW03

AOI01-SB04/GW04

AOI01-SB06/GW06

AOI01-SB07/GW07

AOI01-SB05/GW05

Shallow Intermediate

0 190 380 760

Feet

Area of Interest

Facility Boundary

PFOS Results (μg/Kg)

ND

>ND - 10

>10 - 130

>130 - 1600

>1600

CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

PROJECT

ARNG

Site Inspection for PFAS at Lakehurst AASF, NJ

8/10/2020

8/10/2020

8/10/2020

MS

AB

RG

GIS BY

CHK BY

PM

Base Map: Source: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus

DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community

8/10/2020

1:4,523 Figure 6-1

PFOS Detections in Soil

12420 Milestone Center Drive

­ Germantown, MD 20876

Deep

6-7
AOI 1

AOI01-SB01/GW01

AOI01-SB02/GW02

AOI01-SB03/GW03

AOI01-SB04/GW04

AOI01-SB06/GW06

AOI01-SB07/GW07

AOI01-SB05/GW05

AOI 1

AOI01-SB01/GW01

AOI01-SB02/GW02

AOI01-SB03/GW03

AOI01-SB04/GW04

AOI01-SB08

AOI01-SB06/GW06

AOI01-SB07/GW07

AOI01-SB05/GW05

AOI 1

AOI01-SB01/GW01

AOI01-SB02/GW02

AOI01-SB03/GW03

AOI01-SB04/GW04

AOI01-SB06/GW06

AOI01-SB07/GW07

AOI01-SB05/GW05

Shallow Intermediate

0 190 380 760

Feet

Area of Interest

Facility Boundary

PFOA Results (μg/Kg)

ND

>ND - 10

>10 - 130

>130 - 1600

>1600

CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

PROJECT

ARNG

Site Inspection for PFAS at Lakehurst AASF, NJ

8/19/2020

8/19/2020

8/19/2020

MS

AB

RG

GIS BY

CHK BY

PM

Base Map: Source: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus

DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community

8/19/2020

1:4,523 Figure 6-2

PFOA Detections in Soil

12420 Milestone Center Drive

­ Germantown, MD 20876

Deep

6-8
AOI01-SB01/GW01

AOI01-SB02/GW02

AOI01-SB03/GW03

AOI01-SB04/GW04

AOI01-SB06/GW06

AOI01-SB07/GW07

AOI01-SB05/GW05

PFOA Results (ng/L)

ND

>ND - 10

>10 - 40

>40 - 70

>70 - 400

>400

AOI01-SB01/GW01

AOI01-SB02/GW02

AOI01-SB03/GW03

AOI01-SB04/GW04

AOI01-SB06/GW06

AOI01-SB07/GW07

AOI01-SB05/GW05

PFOS Results (ng/L)

ND

>ND - 10

>10 - 40

>40 - 70

>70 - 400

>400

PFOA PFOS

0 150 300 600

Feet

Legend

Facility Boundary

CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

PROJECT

ARNG

Site Inspection for PFAS at Lakehurst AASF, NJ

8/19/2020

8/19/2020

8/19/2020

MS

AB

RG

GIS BY

CHK BY

PM

Base Map: Source: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus

DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community

8/19/2020

1:3,600 Figure 6-3

PFOA and PFOS Detections 

in Groundwater

12420 Milestone Center Drive

­ Germantown, MD 20876

6-9
Site Inspection Report

Lakehurst Army Aviation Support Facility, Jackson Township, New Jersey 

AECOM 6-10

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK 
Site Inspection Report

Lakehurst Army Aviation Support Facility, Jackson Township, New Jersey 

AECOM 7-1

7.0 Exposure Pathways 

The CSM for the AOI, revised based on the SI findings, is presented in Figure 7-1. A CSM 

presents the current understanding of the site conditions with respect to known and suspected 

sources, potential transport mechanisms and migration pathways, and potentially exposed human 

receptors. A human exposure pathway is considered potentially complete when the following 

conditions are present:

1. Contaminant source;

2. Environmental fate and transport;

3. Exposure point;

4. Exposure route; and

5. Potentially exposed populations.

If any of these elements are missing, the pathway is incomplete. The CSM figure uses an empty 

circle symbol to represent an incomplete exposure pathway. Areas with no identified complete 

pathway generally warrant no further action. However, the pathway is considered potentially 

complete if PFOA, PFOS, or PFBS are detected, in which case the CSM figure uses a half-filled 

circle symbol to represent a potentially complete exposure pathway. Additionally, a completely 

filled circle symbol is used to indicate when a potentially complete exposure pathway has 

detections of PFOA, PFOS, or PFBS above the SLs. Areas with an identified potentially complete 

pathway may warrant further investigation. 

In general, the potential routes of exposure to PFAS are ingestion and inhalation. Human 

exposure via the dermal contact pathway may occur, and current risk practice suggests it is an 

insignificant pathway compared to ingestion; however, exposure data for dermal pathways are 

sparse and continue to be the subject of PFAS toxicological study. The receptors evaluated are 

consistent with those listed in USEPA guidance for risk screening (USEPA, 2001). Receptors at 

the facility include site workers (e.g., facility staff and visiting soldiers), construction workers,

trespassers (though unlikely due to restricted access), residents outside the JBMDL facility 

boundary, and recreational users outside of the facility boundary.

7.1 Soil Exposure Pathway

The SI results for PFOA, PFOS, and PFBS in soil were used to determine whether a potentially 

complete pathway exists between the source and potential receptors at each AOI based on the 

aforementioned criteria. 

7.1.1 AOI 1 – Lakehurst AASF

AFFF was released to soil at three of the four potential PFAS release areas within AOI 1 through 

accidental releases from the fire suppression systems. PFOS was detected in soil at AOI 1 and 

confirmed the release of PFAS to soil in AOI 1. Based on the results, ground-disturbing activities 

could potentially result in site worker and construction worker exposure to PFOS via inhalation of 

dust or ingestion of surface soil, and ground-disturbing activities could potentially result in 

construction worker exposure to subsurface soil. Additionally, off-facility recreational users may 

potentially be exposed to PFOS via inhalation of dust caused by on-facility ground disturbing 

activities, although this exposure is likely insignificant. The CSM is presented on Figure 7-1. 
Site Inspection Report

Lakehurst Army Aviation Support Facility, Jackson Township, New Jersey 

AECOM 7-2

7.2 Groundwater Exposure Pathway

The SI results for PFOA, PFOS, and PFBS in groundwater were used to determine whether a 

potentially complete pathway exists between the source and potential receptors at each AOI 

based on the aforementioned criteria. 

7.2.1 AOI 1 – Lakehurst AASF

PFOA, PFOS, and PFBS were detected in groundwater from all seven temporary monitoring wells 

at low levels at AOI 1 and exceeded the SL for PFOS in one temporary monitoring well at the 

downgradient facility boundary (AOI01-06). The Main and Back-up Hill PWS wells (which supplies

water to the facility) are located downgradient. The Back-up system is not hydraulically connected 

with the AASF and is currently treated for PFOS and PFOA; however, the Main Hill PWS system 

includes several shallow Kirkwood-Cohansey wells that have had low-level (below USEPA HA) 

PFOS and PFOA detections. Based on this information, the ingestion exposure pathway is 

potentially complete for site workers. Due to the OSD exceedance at the ARNG facility boundary 

and the current understanding of off-facility potable water wells , the ingestion exposure pathway 

is potentially complete for off-facility residents, recreational users, and trespassers. The ingestion 

exposure pathway for future construction workers is considered potentially complete due to the 

exceedance of the SL for PFOS and the shallow depth to groundwater. The CSM is presented on 

Figure 7-1. 
Media

SOURCE PATHWAY RECEPTOR

AOI 1 Fire Suppression

System Releases

PFAS in

Surface Soil

PFAS in

Subsurface

Soil

Human

Activities

Precipitation/

Run-Off

Leaching/

Infiltration

Airborne Soil

particulate

Surface Soil

at AOI

Surface

Water/

sediment

Subsurface

Soil

Shallow

Groundwater

Source Release

Mechanism Media Transportand Migration Media ExposureRoutes

Inhalation of

Dust

Ingestion

Ingestion

Ingestion

Ingestion

Human Receptors:

Current/ Future

Flow-Chart Continues

Partial / Possible Flow

Flow-Chart Stops

Incomplete Pathway

Potentially Complete Pathway

Potentially Complete Pathway

with Exceedance of SL

Site

Worker

Construction

Worker Resident Trespasser/Recreational

Site

Worker

Construction

Worker Resident Trespasser/

Recreational

/

LEGEND

/ /

/ /

Figure 7-1

Conceptual Site Model

AOI 1 Lakehurst AASF

Potential

Off-Facility

Source Not

under

Control of

ARNG

/ /

/

/

/

/ /

/

/

NOTES:

1. The resident and recreational user

receptors refer to an off-site resident or

recreational user.

2. Dermal contact exposure pathway is

incomplete for PFAS.

/ / / /

/

/

/ /

7-3
Site Inspection Report

Lakehurst Army Aviation Support Facility, Jackson Township, New Jersey 

AECOM 7-4

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
Site Inspection Report

Lakehurst Army Aviation Support Facility, Jackson Township, New Jersey 

AECOM 

8.0 Summary and Outcome

This section summarizes SI activities and findings. The most significant findings are summarized 

in this section and are reproduced directly or abstracted from information contained in this report. 

The outcome provides general and comparative interpretations of the findings relative to the SLs.

8.1 SI Activities Summary

The SI field activities at the Lakehurst AASF were conducted from 26 to 27 February 2020. The 

SI field activities included soil and groundwater sampling. Field activities were conducted in 

accordance with the QAPP Addendum (AECOM, 2020b), except as previously noted in Section 

5.8. 

To fulfill the project DQOs set forth in the approved SI QAPP Addendum (AECOM, 2020b),

samples were collected and analyzed for a subset of PFAS by LC/MS/MS compliant with QSM 

Table B-15 as follows. The 18 PFAS analyzed as part of the ARNG SI program are specified in 

Section 5.7 of this Report.

• 22 soil samples from eight locations (seven soil borings and one surface hand auger

location);

• Seven grab groundwater samples from seven temporary well locations

The information gathered during this investigation was used to determine if PFOA, PFOS, and/or

PFBS were present at or above SLs. Additionally, the CSMs were refined to assess whether a 

potentially complete pathway exists between the source and potential receptors for potential 

exposure to PFOA, PFOS, and PFBS at the AOIs, which are described in Section 7. 

8.2 SI Goals Evaluation

As described in Section 4.2, the SI activities were designed to achieve six main goals or DQOs. 

This section describes the SI goals and the conclusions that can be made for each based on the 

data collected during this investigation. 

1. Determine the presence or absence of PFOA, PFOS, and PFBS at or above SLs.

Only PFOS was detected at the facility in soil; however, the detected concentrations in soil

samples from AOI 1 were below the SLs. PFOA, PFOS, and PFBS were all detected in

groundwater. PFOA, PFOS, and PFBS were detected both at the source areas, as well

as at the facility boundary, but PFOS only exceeded SLs at the facility boundary.

2. Develop information to potentially eliminate a release from further consideration because

it is determined that it poses no significant threat to human health or the environment.

PFOA, PFOS, and PFBS were detected in groundwater and PFOS exceeded SLs at the

facility boundary. The location of the exceedance is downgradient of several release

areas. As a result, no release areas can be eliminated from further consideration at this

point in the investigation.

3. Determine the potential need for a removal action.

Based on the data collected during this SI, there are no off-facility residential wells

immediately downgradient of the facility; therefore, the pathway is incomplete between

source and off-facility residential receptors.

8-1
Site Inspection Report

Lakehurst Army Aviation Support Facility, Jackson Township, New Jersey 

AECOM 

4. Collect data to better characterize the release areas for more effective and rapid initiation

of a RI.

The geological data collected as part of the SI indicate a highly permeable and conductive

environment exists at the facility. Soil observed were dominated by poorly-graded sands

with thin, interbedded layers of clays and small gravel.

These site observations are consistent with the regional geology of sedimentary

deposition from a marine environment. Given the shallow nature of the borings, it is difficult

to interpret the underlying transgressive and regressive deposits; however, the shallow

deposits do indicate an unconfined shallow aquifer exists as shallow as 7 to 9 feet bgs.

Groundwater flow direction is to the east-southeast, and the gradient across the facility is

low, which impacts groundwater velocities and contaminant transport. The observed

gradient across the facility could partly be due to the large impervious area and

engineering drainage features designed to move water off runways and landing areas.

This imbalance in recharge likely impacts the groundwater flow direct and therefore fate

and transport. These geologic and hydrogeologic observations will inform the

development of the technical approach for the RI.

5. Identify within 4 miles of the installation other potential PFAS sources (fire stations, major

manufacturers, other DoD facilities) and receptors, including both groundwater and

surface water receptors, to determine whether the ARNG is the likely source of PFAS, or

whether there is an off-facility source of PFAS responsible for installation detections of

PFAS (USEPA, 2005).

Based upon the evaluation of groundwater and soil results in comparison to SLs, in

combination with the groundwater flow direction analysis, the results of the SI indicate that

the source of detected concentrations of PFOA, PFOS, and PFBS at the southeast facility

boundary is likely attributable to ARNG activities. However, it is important to note that the

facility is within the active JBMDL facility and is in close proximity to several Navy PFAS

releases. Specifically, there are two former Navy fire training areas located on JBMDL

approximately 900 ft north of AOI01-01 and AOI01-02. Additionally, there is a former Navy

fire station and emergency response site 1,300 ft west of AOI01-07. A summary of the site

history and sampling results are included in Section 2.4. These non-ARNG sources may

contribute to some of the upgradient and cross-gradient detections; however, it is likely

the PFOS SL exceedance on the downgradient side of the ARNG facility is due to releases

at the Lakehurst AASF. As such, one component of the RI will further evaluate areas

upgradient and cross-gradient of known ARNG releases to better define the extent of

impacts due to ARNG activities.

6. Determine whether a potentially complete pathway exists between the source and

potential receptors and whether ARNG is the likely source of the contamination.

Detections of PFOS in soil within source areas and at the facility boundary indicate there

is a potentially complete pathway to site workers, construction workers, and off-facility

residents, recreational users, and trespassers. The PFOS SL exceedance in groundwater

indicate there is a potentially complete pathway between source and construction workers.

8.3 Outcome 

Based on the CSM developed and revised in light of the SI findings, there is no potential for 

exposure to residential drinking water receptors caused by DoD activities at or adjacent to the 

facility. Sample chemical analytical concentrations collected during the SI were compared against 

the project SLs for PFOA, PFOS, and PFBS in soil and groundwater, as described in Table 6-1. 

The following bullets summarize the SI results: 

8-2
Site Inspection Report

Lakehurst Army Aviation Support Facility, Jackson Township, New Jersey 

AECOM 

• The detected concentrations of PFOA, PFOS, and PFBS in soil from AOI 1 were below SLs.

• PFOA and PFBS in groundwater were detected in all samples, but did not exceed SLs.

PFOS in groundwater exceeded the individual SL of 40 ng/L with a maximum concentration

of 75.6 ng/L at AOI01-06. Based on the results of the SI, further investigation of AOI 1 is

warranted in the RI.

Table 8-1 summarizes the SI results for soil and groundwater. Based on the CSM developed and 

revised in light of the SI findings, there is a potential for exposure to residential drinking water 

receptors caused by DoD activities at or adjacent to the facility.

Table 8-2 summarizes the rationale used to determine if an AOI should be considered for further 

investigation under CERCLA and undergo an RI. Based on the results of this SI, further evaluation 

is warranted in the RI for AOI 1: Lakehurst AASF. 

Table 8-1: Summary of Site Inspection Findings

AOI Potential PFAS 

Release Area

Soil – 

Source Area

Soil –

Facility 

Boundary

Groundwater 

– Source

Area

Groundwater –

Facility 

Boundary

1 Lakehurst AASF

Legend:

= detected; exceedance of the screening levels

= detected; no exceedance of the screening levels

= not detected

Table 8-2: Site Inspection Recommendations

AOI Description Rationale Future 

Action

1 Lakehurst 

AASF

Exceedances of SLs in groundwater at the facility 

boundary. No exceedances of SLs in soil. 

Proceed to 

RI 

8-3
Site Inspection Report

Lakehurst Army Aviation Support Facility, Jackson Township, New Jersey 

AECOM 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK

8-4
Site Inspection Report

Lakehurst Army Aviation Support Facility, Jackson Township, New Jersey 

AECOM 9-1

9.0 References 

AECOM. 2010. Application of a Regional CSM for a Large Installation. Ft Dix, Lakehurst, and 

McGuire Combined. Power Point Presentation. April 2010.

AECOM. 2018a. Final Site Inspection Programmatic Uniform Federal Policy-Quality Assurance 

Project Plan, Perfluorooctanesulfonic Acid (PFOS) and Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) 

Impacted Sites ARNG Installations, Nationwide. Contract No. W912DR-12-D0014/W912DR17F0192. March.

AECOM. 2018b. Final Programmatic Accident Prevention Plan, Perfluorooctanesulfonic Acid 

(PFOS) and Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) Impacted Sites ARNG Installations, Nationwide.

Contract No. W912DR-12-D-0014/W912DR17F0192. July.

AECOM. 2019. Final Preliminary Assessment Report, Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst, 

Lakehurst, New Jersey, Perfluorooctanesulfonic Acid (PFOS) and Perfluorooctanoic Acid 

(PFOA) Impacted Sites ARNG Installations, Nationwide. Contract No. W912DR-12-D0014/W912DR17F0192. October. 

AECOM. 2020a. Final Site Safety and Health Plan, Lakehurst AASF, Lakehurst, New Jersey, 

Perfluorooctanesulfonic Acid (PFOS) and Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) Impacted Sites 

ARNG Installations, Nationwide. Contract No. W912DR-12-D-0014/W912DR17F0192. 

February.

AECOM. 2020b. Final Site Inspection Uniform Federal Policy-Quality Assurance Project Plan 

Addendum, Lakehurst Army Aviation Support Facility, Perfluorooctanesulfonic Acid (PFOS) 

and Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) Impacted Sites ARNG Installations, Nationwide. Contract 

No. W912DR-12-D-0014/W912DR17F0192. March. 

Aerostar SES LLC. 2018. Site Inspection Report of Fire Fighting Foam Usage at Joint base 

McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst, Burlington and Ocean Counties, New Jersey. April. 

Assistant Secretary of Defense. 2019. Investigation Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances within 

the Department of Defense Cleanup Program. United States Department of Defense. 15 

October.

Department of the Army (DA). 2016a. EM-200-1-2, Environmental Quality, Technical Project 

Planning Process. 29 February. 

DA. 2016b. Army Guidance to Address Perfluorooctane Sulfonate (PFOS) and Perfluorooctanoic 

Acid (PFOA) Contamination. August.

DA. 2018. Army Guidance for Addressing Releases of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances. 4 

September.

DoD. 2018a. General Data Validation Guidelines. Environmental Data Quality Workgroup. 9 

February.

DoD. 2018b. Department of Defense (DoD) Department of Energy (DOE) Consolidated Quality 

Systems Manual (QSM) for Environmental Laboratories, Version 5.1.1. September.

Fiore, A.R., 2020, Regional hydrostratigraphic framework of Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst 

and vicinity, New Jersey, in the context of perfluoroalkyl substances contamination of 

groundwater and surface water: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2019–1134, 42 p., 

https://doi.org/ 10.3133/ ofr20191134.
Site Inspection Report

Lakehurst Army Aviation Support Facility, Jackson Township, New Jersey 

AECOM 9-2

Guelfo, J.L. and Higgins, C.P. 2013. Subsurface transport potential of perfluoroalkyl acids ad 

aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF)-impacted sites. Environmental Science and Technology 

47(9): 4164-71.

Higgins, C.P., and Luthy, R.G. 2006. Sorption of perfluorinated surfactants on 

sediments. Environmental Science and Technology 40 (23): 7251-7256.

HydroGeoLogic. 2015. Final Preliminary Assessment Report for Perfluorinated Compounds at 

Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst New Jersey. Air Force Civil Engineer Center. August 2015.

ITRC. 2018. Environmental Fate ant Transport for Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances. March. 

NJDEP. 2019. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of GIS, Interactive 

web mapping application. Accessed September 24, 2019 at https://www.nj.gov/dep/gis/

geowebsplash.htm. 

United States Air Force. 2019. Memorandum Establishing Aqueous Film Forming Foam (AFFF)-

Related Waste Management Implementation Guidance. Headquarters United States Air Force. 

January.

United States Census Bureau. 2018. QuickFacts: Ocean County, New Jersey; United States. 

Accessed July 11 2019 at https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/oceancountynewjersey,

US/POP060210. 

US Climate Data. 2019. Climate New Jersey. Accessed July 7 2019 at 

https://www.usclimatedata.com/climate/lakehurst/new-jersey/united-states/usnj0249.

USEPA. 1980. Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act 

(CERCLA). 

USEPA. 1994. National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (Final Rule). 

40 CFR Part 300; 59 Federal Register 47384. September.

USEPA. 2001. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume I: Human Health Evaluation 

Manual (Part D, Standardized Planning, Reporting, and Review of Superfund Risk 

Assessments). December.

USEPA. 2005. Federal Facilities Remedial Site Inspection Summary Guide. 

USEPA. 2006. Guidance on Systematic Planning using the Data Quality Objectives Process. 

February.

USEPA. 2016a. Drinking Water Health Advisory for Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA). Office of 

Water (4304T). Health and Ecological Criteria Division, Washington, DC 20460. US USEPA 

Document Number: 822-R-16-005. May 2016.

USEPA. 2016b. Drinking Water Health Advisory for Perfluorooctane Sulfonate Acid (PFOS). 

Office of Water (4304T). Health and Ecological Criteria Division, Washington, DC 20460. US 

USEPA Document Number: 822-R-16-004. May.

USEPA. 2017. National Functional Guidelines for Organic Superfund Data Review. OLEM 

9355.0-136, EPA-540-R-2017-002. Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology 

Innovation. January. 

USFWS. 2020. New Jersey Field Office, List of Endanger Species. Environmental Conservation 

Online System. Accessed 19 August 2020 at 

https://www.fws.gov/northeast/njfieldoffice/endangered/index.html.
Site Inspection Report

Lakehurst Army Aviation Support Facility, Jackson Township, New Jersey 

AECOM 9-3

USGS. 1989. Hydrogeologic Framework of the New Jersey Coastal Plain. Regional Aquifer 

System Analysis. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1404-B. 1989. 

USGS. 1998. Ground-Water Flow in the New Jersey Coastal Plain. Regional Aquifer-System 

Analysis – Northern Atlantic Coastal Plain. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1404-

H. 1998.

Xiao, F., Simcik, M. F., Halbach, T. R., and Gulliver, J. S. 2015. Perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) 

and perfluorooctanoate (PFOA) in soils and groundwater of a U.S. metropolitan area: 

Migration and implications for human exposure. Water Research 72: 64-74.