PB99-963802
EPA541-R99-067
1999
EPA Superfund
Record of Decision:
Federal Aviation Administration
Technical Center OU 11
Atlantic County, NJ
9/28/1999
-------
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION II
DATE:
SUBJECT: Fjna| ROD for Areas 27, 56, F, R and S (OU11)
FROM: jujjo p Vazquez, Project Manager
Federal Facilities
T0: File, Areas 27, 56, F, R and S (OU11)
FAA Technical Center
THRU: Robert Wing, Chief
Federal Facilities Section
The above referenced ROD document was forwarded to the Superfund Document Center
through Peter Moss, who noticed that tables included in Appendix D of the document were
not properly keyed into the ROD text. The tables carried pagination numbers according
to their source documents (i.e., RI/FS reports). This glitch was caught after the Final ROD
document was duly signed on September 28,1999, and there is nothing that can be made
to change the situation at this point.
The inclusion of the tables into Appendix D of the Final ROD document responded to a
verbal request made by the NJ DEP to include reference technical information from
previous studies. Since the tables were added after the ROD document had been
finalized, the tables included in Appendix D of the Final ROD document are not referenced
throughout the ROD text, and do not influence in any way to the main body of the ROD
text.
-------
-------
FINAL
RECORD OF DECISION
AREA 27 - FUEL MIST TEST AREA,
AREA 56 - ABANDONED NAVY
LANDFILL,
AREA F - AIR BLAST FACILITY,
AREA R - TRASH DUMP, AND
AREA S - EXCAVATED AREA WEST
OF TILTON ROAD
FAA WILLIAM J. HUGHES TECHNICAL CENTER
ATLANTIC CITY INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
NEW JERSEY
AUGUST 17,1999
-------
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DECLARATION FOR THE RECORD OF DECISION ... ............. . . ........... 1
DECISION SUMMARY, RECORD OF DECISION ................................ 1
I SITENAME, LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION ............................. 1
H. SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVnTES ........................ 2
A. Land Use [[[ 2
Area 27 ..... .................................................. 9
Area 56 ......................... ............ . ................. 9
Area F [[[ 9
Area R ................................................. ....... 10
Area S .................. . ............................ .... ____ 10
B. Initial Investigations ............................................. 10
C. Environmental Investigation ....................................... 11
Area 27 . . . .......... ............ ............................ 11
Area 56 ............. .......... ............................... 14
AreaF ........................................... ............ 18
AreaR ..... , ............................. .................... 21
Area S ................................ ....................... 24
HI. HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION ........................ 28
IV. SCOPE AND ROLE OF RESPONSE ACTION .............. ............... 28
V. SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS ............................... 28
A. Aifia_22 ................ . ..................................... 28
Soil ................. ................. ...................... .28
Ground Water .......................... ....................... 29
Sediment ......................... ............................. 30
Surface Water ....................... . ......................... 30
B. Area 56 ........................................... ........... 30
Soil ...... . ............ ...................................... 30
Ground Water ................................................. 31
C. Ajsa_E [[[ 32
Soil [[[ 32
Ground Water ................................................. 33
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
E. Area_S [[[ 36
Soil ....................... .................................. 36
Ground Water ................................................. 38
Sediment [[[ 38
Surface Water ................................................. 38
YL SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS .................................... ....... 39
A, Human Health Risk Assessments ................................... 39
B. Ecological Risk Assessments ...................................... 40
C. Area 27 ........................................... ........... 41
Human Health Risk Assessment .................................... 42
Ecological Risk Assessment ....................................... 44
Comparison to ARARs/TBCs ..... ...................... .......... 44
D. Area 56 ................................... ................... 45
Human Health Risk Assessment ........ ............................ 45
Ecological Risk Assessment ....................................... 48
Comparison to ARARs/TBCs ..... ................................. 48
E. ATSJLE ....................... - ........................ . ...... 48
Human Health Risk Assessment .................................... 48
Ecological Risk Assessment ....................................... 50
Comparison to ARARs/TBCs ...................................... 57
F. AreaR ........................ . .............................. 57
Human Health Risk Assessment .................................... 59
Ecological Risk Assessment ....................................... 65
Comparison to ARARs/TBCs ...................................... 66
G. Area_S [[[ 68
Human Health Risk Assessment ... .......... ....................... 68
Ecological Risk Assessment .................................... ... 71
Comparison to ARARs/TBCs ...................................... 71
VH. DESCRIPTION OF INSTITUTIONAL CONTROL REMEDIES . . .............. 74
A. Area 27 [[[ 74
B. Area 56 ......................................... ............. 74
C. AreaF ............................................. . ......... 74
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY, RECORD OF DECISION 1
I. OVERVIEW 1
H. BACKGROUND ON COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT . 1
m. SUMMARY OF MAJOR QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS 2
LIST OF FIGURES
1 Locations of Areas 27, 56, F, R and S, FAA Technical Center 3
2 Area 27 - FuelMist Test Area 4
3 Area 56 - Abandoned Navy Landfill 5
4 Area F - Air Blast Facility 6
5 Area R - Trash Dump 7
6 Area S - Excavated Area West of Tilton Road 8
7 Area 27 - Phase I and n El Sampling Locations 12
8 Area 27 - 1989 Excavation Areas ..15
9 Area 56 - Phase I and n El and Additional Investigation Sampling Locations 16
10 Area F - Phase I and n El Sampling Locations 19
11 Area R - Phase n, Supplemental and Additional Investigation Sampling Locations .... 22
12 Area S - Supplemental and Additional Investigation Sampling Locations 25
LIST OF TABLES
1 Summary of Semi-volatile Organic Compounds Detected in Area R
Surface Soil Samples 35
2 Summary of Semi-volatile Organic Compounds Detected in Area S
Surface and Near-surface Soil Samples 37
3 Exposure Assessment Input Parameters Used in the Area 27 and Area 56 HHRAs .... 43
4 Toxicity Values Used in the HHRA, Area 56 - Abandoned Navy Landfill 47
5 Constituents of Potential Concern, Area F - Air Blast Facility 49
6 Summary of Exposure Parameter Values, Area F - Air Blast Facility 51
7 A Summary of Toxicity Values Associated with Carcinogenic Effects: Oral,
Area F - Air Blast Facility 53
7B Summary of Toxicity Values Associated with Noncarcinogenic Chronic Effects: Oral,
Area F - Air Blast Facility 54
7C Summary of Toxicity Values Associated with Noncarcinogenic Subchronic Effects:
Oral, Area F - Air Blast Facility 55
iii
-------
TABLE OF CONTFNTff
(Continued)
8 Summary of Ecological Hazard Quotients, Area F - Air Blast Facility ............. .53
9 Constituents of Potential Concern, Area R - Trash Dump ........... . ........... 60
10 Summary of Exposure Parameter Values, Area R - Trash Dump ................ .61
1 1A Summary of Toxicity Values with Carcinogenic Effects: Oral, Area R - Trash ..... . . 62
1 IB Summary of Toxicity Values Associated with Noncarcinogenic Chronic Effects:
Oral, Area R- Trash Dump .................. ....... . ........ . 63
1 1C Summary of Toxicity Values Associated with Noncarcinogenic Subchronic Effects:
Oral, Area R- Trash Dump ......................................... 54
12 Ecological Hazard Quotient Summary, Terrestrial and Avian Receptors,
Area R - Trash Dump ...................................... 67
13 Constituents of Potential Concern for Ground Water, Area S - Excavated Area
West of TiltonRoad ............................. 69
14 Summary of Identified Ground Water Standards/Guidelines and Comparison to ......
Exposure Point Concentrations, Area S - Excavated Area West of Tilton Road ...... 70
1 5 Constituents of Potential Concern for Surface Soil, Area S - Excavated Area
West of TiltonRoad ..................... . ............................. 72
16 Evaluation of Surface Soil Exposure Point Concentrations Using the Selected Soil
Screening Criteria, Area S - Excavated Area West of Tilton Road ................ 73
APPENDICES
A NJDEP AND PINELANDS COMMISSION LETTERS OF CONCURRENCE
B PUBLIC MEETING ATTENDANCE LIST
C PUBLIC MEETING TRANSCRIPT
D DATA SUMMARY TABLES
IV
-------
DECLARATION FOR THE RECORD OF DECISION
Area 27 - Fuel Mist Test Area
Area 56 - Abandoned Navy Landfill
Area F - Air Blast Facility
Area R - Trash Dump and
Area S - Excavated Area West of Tilton Road
FAA William J. Hughes Technical Center
FACILITY NAME AND LOCATION
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) William J. Hughes Technical Center, Atlantic County
Atlantic City International Airport, New Jersey
STATEMENT OF BASIS AMD PURPOSE
This decision document presents the selected remedial action for Area 27 - Fuel Mist Test
Area, Area 56 - Abandoned Navy Landfill, Area F - Air Blast Facility, Area R - Trash Dump and
Area S - Excavated Area West of Tilton Road at the FAA William J. Hughes Technical Center,
Atlantic City International Airport, New Jersey. The remedial action decision was chosen in
accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act
(CERCLA), as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA), and, to
the extent practicable, the National Contingency Plan. This decision is based on the administrative
record for Areas 27, 56, F, R and S.
The Commissioner of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and the
Pinelands Commission concur with the selected remedy (Appendix A).
DESCRIPTION OF THE SELECTED REMEDY
The selected remedy for Areas 27, 56, F, R and S is an institutional control and ground water
monitoring remedy, consisting of the following components for each individual area:
Area 27 - Residential Site Use Restrictions;
Area 56 - Residential Site Use Restrictions, Continued Ground Water Monitoring and
Establishment of a Ground Water Classification Exception Area;
Area F - Residential Site Use Restrictions;
Area R - Residential She Use Restrictions, Ground Water Use Restrictions Including
the Establishment of a Ground Water Classification Exception Area; and Continued
Ground Water Monitoring; and
Area S - Residential Site Use Restrictions.
DECLARATION OF STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
The Federal Aviation Administration and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
Region 2 have determined that no remedial actions other than institutional controls and ground water
use restrictions at Area R are necessary at Areas 27, 56, F, R and S to ensure protection of human
Declaration - 1
-------
health and the environment. Pursuant to Section 121(c) of CERGLA, 42 U.S.C. 9621(c) and Section
300.430(rX4)(ii) of the National Contingency Plan, 40 C.F.R. Section 300.430(fX4)(ii), five-year
reviews of the selected remedial actions will be required since the remedy includes long-term
institutional controls to ensure the continued protection of human health and the environment.
(Signature) J (Date)
Gary E. Poulsen, P.E., Manager
Facility Engineering and Operations Division
FAA William J. Hughes Technical Center
I-7 J
/ (Date)
Jeanne M. Fox
Regional Administrator
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2
Declaration - 2
-------
DECISION SUMMARY
RECORD OF DECISION
Area 27 - Fuel Mist Test Area
Area 56 - Abandoned Navy Landfill
Area F - Air Blast Facility
Area R - Trash Dump and
Area S - Excavated Area West of Tilton Road
FAA William J. Hughes Technical Center
L SITE NAME, LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The FAA William J. Hughes Technical Center (FAA Technical Center) encompasses an area
of approximately 5,000 acres in Atlantic County, New Jersey, eight miles northwest of Atlantic City.
Among the installations on the property are the Atlantic City International Air Terminal, the New
Jersey Air National Guard 177th Fighter Interceptor Group, the Upper Atlantic City Reservoir, the
Laurel Memorial Park Cemetery and the extensive facilities of the FAA Technical Center. Atlantic
City's municipal water supply is provided by nine ground water production wells located just north
of the Upper Atlantic City Reservoir on FAA property as well as by water drawn directly from the
Atlantic City Reservoirs. The reservoirs are fed by the North and South Branches of Doughty's Mill
Stream (also referred to as Absecon Creek), which traverse portions of the FAA Technical Center
grounds. The public water supply facilities on site are owned by the Atlantic City Municipal Utilities
Authority (ACMUA).
The FAA Technical Center is located within the Atlantic Coastal Plain, a broad, flat plain
which encompasses the southern three-fifths of New Jersey. The area within two miles of the FAA
Technical Center has a maximum relief of about 65 feet, ranging from an elevation often feet above
mean sea level (msl) at the Lower Atlantic City Reservoir to 75 feet above msl to the west and north
of the airport. The facility itself is relatively flat; slopes generally range from 0 to 3 percent. Forested
areas exist north, south and east of the airport runways. These areas comprise about 40% of the
5,000-acre FAA Technical Center property. The remaining 60% of the site has been cleared for FAA
facilities and consists of buildings and paved surfaces, grassed lawns and native grassland and shrubs
adjacent to the runways.
The area within one mile of the FAA Technical Center boundaries includes open or forested
land and commercial and residential areas. A large forested tract containing no commercial or
residential property exists west of the FAA Technical Center. To the east, the property is bordered
by the Garden State Parkway, the Lower Atlantic City Reservoir, and the forested land surrounding
the reservoir. The area north of the FAA Technical Center contains commercial properties along the
White Horse Pike (Rte. 30) and a concentrated residential area, Pomona Oaks, north of the White
Horse Pike. The closest residential area south of the FAA Technical Center consists of a series of
three trailer parks at the intersection of Tilton Road and Delilah Road. The majority of commercial
and residential areas south of the FAA Technical Center are greater than 2,000 feet away from the
FAA property, south of the Atlantic City Expressway. All residential areas in the vicinity of FAA
appear to be upgradient of or otherwise isolated from the ground water flow at the FAA Technical
Center.
Decision Summary -1
-------
The locations of the five areas of concern addressed herein are indicated in Figure 1. Area
27 is located south of the Atlantic City Reservoir, in the Research and Development (R&D) portion
of the FAA Technical Center. As indicated in Figure 2, Area 27 includes an area located adjacent to
Building 211, as well as downgradient portions of a storm drain and drainage swale which received
runoff from the Building 211 area. The total site area is approximately 4 acres.
Area 56, the abandoned Navy landfill, is located near the current FAA hangar, south of the
major east-west runway, as indicated in Figure 1. The 11-acre area is currently characterized by the
presence of a Softball field and a parking area over portions of the former disposal area, as indicated
in Figure 3.
Area F is located north of the major east-west runway, in the airport operations area of the
FAA Technical Center, as indicated in Figure 1. The Building 311 complex, consisting of buildings
and trailers, is located at Area F, as are air blast test facilities which include a large concrete pad used
in testing activities. The entire site is comprised of approximately 4 acres. A site location plan of
Area F is provided in Figure 4.
Area R is a former trash dump located west of Tilton Road, as indicated in Figure 1.
Approximately 7 acres in size, Area R currently consists of a cleared area surrounded by low trees.
As indicated in Figure 5, a portion of the eastern part of the area which did not undergo significant
filling is considerably lower than the rest of the area and occasionally contains ponded water. The
higher elevations in the western part of the area are covered with broken concrete and asphalt
fragments. The area is accessed by a dirt road off of English Creek Road.
Area S is located west of Tilton Road and approximately 1,300 feet south of Area R, as
indicated in Figure 1. The 11-acre area is currently overgrown with trees, with edges of former
excavation areas and small piles of soil materials and debris evident, as indicated in Figure 6. Areas
of 1 to 4 feet of standing water are also present. The South Branch of Doughty's Mil Stream is
approximately 200 feet to the southwest of the site.
n. SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
A.
The first significant development of what is now FAA property came during the 1930s when
the Upper Atlantic City Reservoir was created by damming the South Branch of Doughty's Mill
Stream. Prior to 1942, the entire property was wooded, except for the presence of large borrow pits
near the present-day R&D facilities. On a 1940 aerial photograph, several dirt roads and what
appears to be a railroad right-of-way traverse the property. In the early 1940s, a Naval Air Base and
the Atlantic City Municipal Airport, including most of the existing runways, were constructed over
much of the eastern two-thirds of the property. Many of the buildings in the western built-up area
were also constructed at this time. Li 1958, the Navy transferred its interests to the Airways
Modernization Board (AMB).
Decision Summary - 2
-------
Upper
Atlantic City
Reservoir
0 3000
=H
SCALE FEET
Figure 1. Locations of Areas 27.56.F, R andS. FAA Technical Center
Decision Summary - 3
-------
LEGEND
1983 R.R WESTON
MONITORING WELL
AREA EXCAVATED
AFTER 1986 FUEL
SPILL
SURFACE WATER
FLOW DIRECTION
DRAINAGE
SWALE
STORM DRAIN
CATCH BASIN
v LINED FUEL
v \MISTTEST
\ AREA
Figure 2. Area 27 - Fuel Mist Test Area
Decision Summary - 4
-------
Decision Summary - 5
-------
D
e.
CO
I'
PROPOSED
LAB BUILDING
LOCATION
/ i
/ \
i\
\ \
v \
\ \
\ \
\
DRAINAGE
FROM
PAD
-i
a
311
O
ORDINAL tyNKj
LOCATIONS!
CONCRETE PAD
JET FUSELAGE
0 200
SCALE FEET
\ \ __ REPLACEMENT
\ S TANK LOCATIONS
\
\
s
\
\'\
Figure 4. Area F - Air Blast Facility
-------
LEGEND
CONTOUR LINE (feet
above mean sea level)
FILLED
AREA
200
SCALE FEET
FigureS. Area R - Trash Dump
Decision Summary - 7
-------
§
*/
Sf
3
6j
FILLAREAWITH
.STANDING LIQUID
(1974)
MOUNDE
MATERIAL
(1974)
\
AREAS OF DARK
STAINING (1960)
EXISTING
BUILDING
AREAS OF
STANDING LIQUID
(1974)
SCALE
200
FEET
Figure 6. Area S - Excavated Area West of Won Road
-------
The FAA took over the operations of the AMB in November 1958. The development of
most of the R&D portion of the facility south of the Upper Atlantic City Reservoir occurred in the
early 1960s. The FAA's large Technical/Administrative Building was constructed in 1979. The New
Jersey Air National Guard has maintained its facilities south of the runways in the west-central portion
of the facility since 1973.
The FAA Technical Center was listed on the National Priorities List (NPL) on August 30,
1990, 55 FR 35502, with an effective date of October 1,1990. The FAA entered into an Interagency
Agreement (IAG) with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on May 17, 1993. The
IAG is a legally enforceable document that memorializes FAA's commitment to remediate the site
and defines the role of EPA in the cleanup process.
Each area of concern is discussed in more detail in the following sections.
Area 27
At Area 27, the fuel mist test facility was used for the testing of anti-misting additives for jet
fuel until the practice was discontinued in 1986. The test procedure involved spraying the jet fuel and
burning it in the open. Fuel mist tests were first conducted in 1979 over an unlined open area.
Approximately 25 tests were run before the January 1980 installation of a Mylar liner for the
collection of unburned fuel. In September 1985, a second Mylar liner was installed above the
original. The location of the lined fuel mist test area is indicated in Figure 2.
In 1986, approximately 100 gallons of jet fuel were apparently spilled into a storm drainage
piping system at Area 27 due to the malfunction of an oil/water separator at Building 211. This
drainage system leads to a small, unlined drainage swale north of Area 27. At the time of the 1986
spill, jet fuel passed through the drainage system and contaminated soil in the swale. The
contaminated soil was removed from the swale areas indicated in Figure 2 in the spring of 1986 and
was disposed of according to applicable laws and regulations.
Area 56
The landfill at Area 56 was operated by the Navy between 1943 and 1958. The nature of
material and total volume of material disposed of at the site are unknown. The approximate area!
extent of the disposal area is indicated in Figure 3.
Area F
The air blast facility at Area F included a large exhaust duct which was used to route air at
high velocity to a jet fuselage located on a concrete pad. During historic site use, ethylene glycol and
jet fuel may have spilled onto the concrete pad during testing activities. The location of the concrete
pad is noted in Figure 4.
Three JP-4 jet fuel underground storage tanks were historically located in the southwestern
portion of Area F and were removed prior to the initiation of site investigations. Three replacement
underground storage tanks were installed within 50 feet and south of the original tank locations.
Decision Summary - 9
-------
While these replacement tanks were present at the time the site investigations were conducted, they
have since been removed. A plan view of the area which indicates the former underground storage
tank locations is provided as Figure 4. An unexplained apparent loss of 11,000 gallons of jet fuel
from the fuel storage area (based on written fuel storage records) prompted the performance of site
investigations to determine if a subsurface leak was a potential explanation for the discrepancy.
At the time the site investigations were conducted, Area F was also being considered as a
potential site for a new laboratory building. While the building was eventually constructed in another
area of the FAA Technical Center, the proposed building location, as indicated on Figure 4, was
investigated.
Area R
The former trash dump area at Area R was reportedly used as a borrow pit until about 1958,
when the Area 56 landfill was closed. At that time, Area R began to be used as a landfill for wood,
brush, paper, and construction debris. In 1978 or 1979, a fire at the area prompted FAA to close the
dump and use local landfills for trash disposal. A plan view of the area is presented in Figure 5.
AreaS
The historic use of Area S is unknown. The site was identified in an EPA historic aerial
photograph review as an area of "possible liquid impoundments and solid waste disposal." Aerial
photographs taken over a period spanning from 1947 to the present indicate the presence of dark-
toned material at the surface beginning in 1957. Subsequent photos show excavation areas, areas of
standing liquid, and the presence of trenches and mounds of material at the site. One observed trench
appears to drain towards the South Branch of Doughty's Mill Stream, located approximately 200 feet
to the south. A plan view presenting some of the areas of staining, standing liquid and mounded
material is presented in Figure 6.
B. Initial Investigations
Li 1983, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) directed Roy F.
Weston (Weston) to conduct an assessment of potential pollution sources that could impact the then-
proposed Atlantic City well field. The assessment included a review of all data on possible
contaminant sources in the area, a limited field investigation of these sources, and soil and ground
water sampling at five areas considered most threatening to ground water supplies hi the area. The
entire FAA Technical Center was included in the Weston study, and the five areas identified by
Weston, including Areas 27 and 56, were all located on the FAA property. The locations of
monitoring wells installed at Areas 27 and 56 under the Weston investigations are indicated in Figures
2 and 3. Weston's report led the FAA to initiate the present Environmental Investigation/Feasibility
Study (EI/FS) of the five sites as well as additional areas, including Areas F, R and S, which were
identified by the FAA.
Decision Summary - 10
-------
C. Environmental Investigation
TRC Environmental Corporation (TRC) was contracted by the FAA to conduct an EI/FS at
the FAA Technical Center. Included in the scope of work were the investigations of Areas 27, 56,
F, R and S, as described below.
Area 27
The Area 27 El included three phases of investigation conducted between February 1987 and
October 1989. The scope of these investigations is described below. Sampling locations for the
Phase I and Phase n Els are presented in Figure 7.
Phase I - Site investigation activities conducted in 1987 during the Phase I El included a soil
gas survey, geophysical surveys, surface soil sampling, subsurface soil sampling and ground water
sampling. Each of these Phase I El components is discussed briefly below.
A soil gas survey was conducted on a 100-foot grid over the area to identify potentially
contaminated soils or contaminant plumes through the presence of elevated levels of volatile
organic compounds (VOCs) within the soil's pore space. A small soil gas anomaly was
located along the north end of the drainage swale which runs through the field north of Card
Road. A surface soil sample subsequently collected at this location exhibited high
concentrations of total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH), considered to be attributable to the
1986 fuel spill to the ditch.
A geophysical survey (EM-31 and EM-34) and resistivity profiling to detect buried metal
objects were also conducted during the Phase I investigation. Geophysical anomalies found
at Area 27 were attributable to known cultural features (e.g., pipes, buildings, power lines).
Sixteen surface soil samples (27-SS1 through 27-SS16) were collected at Area 27. Two
samples, 27-SS5 and 27-SS6, were collected from above the liners of the fuel mist test area
while most of the remaining samples were collected from around the edges of the fuel mist
test and liner area. One sample, 27-SS10,was collected from the soil gas anomaly area. Five
of the samples were analyzed for the full list of priority pollutants plus 40 additional peaks
(PP+40), eight were analyzed for TPH and three underwent chromatograph fingerprinting in
an attempt to identify the probable source of the fuel spill contamination. Methylene chloride,
toluene and 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethene were the only priority pollutant VOCs detected in the
surface soil samples. VOC tentatively identified compounds (TICs) were detected in two of
the surface soil samples. No priority pollutant semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs)
were detected in the surface soil samples, although SVOC TICs were detected in three of the
samples. The pesticides 4,4-DDT and 4,4-DDE were detected in one surface soil sample.
No poh/chlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) were detected in the surface soil samples. Inorganics
detected in the surface soil samples included arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, and
zinc. TPH was detected in six of the eight samples in which it was analyzed, including a
surface soil sample collected from the drainage swale, in a sediment sample from a storm
sewer catch basin, and in surface soil samples collected from around the lined test area. The
Decision Summary - 11
-------
LEGEND
A SURFACE SOIL SAMPLE
SOIL BORING
MONITORING WELL
SURFACE WATER AND
SEDIMENT SAMPLE
SURFACE WATER
FLOW DIRECTION
STORM DRAIN
CATCH BASIN
GROUND WATER
FLOW DIRECTION
«
4-
Figure 7. Area 27 - Phase I & II El Sampling Locations
Decision Summary - 12
-------
chromatograph fingerprinting could not differentiate between the three suspected types of fuel
(i.e., jet-A, JP-4 and anti-misting kerbsene) which may have been the source of the fuel spill
Four 30-foot-deep soil borings were drilled to characterize subsurface conditions and site
geology. The borings were located in the area of the lined fuel mist test area. Two
subsurface soil samples were collected from each boring location, with one of the samples
analyzed for PP+40 and the second sample analyzed for VOCs and SVOCs only. Methylene
chloride was the only priority pollutant VOC detected in the subsurface soil samples, present
in five of the eight samples, and VOC TICs were detected in one sample. SVOC TTCs were
present in each of the subsurface soil samples. No pesticides or PCBs were detected in the
four samples analyzed for PP+40; inorganics detected in the samples included chromium,
copper, lead, and zinc.
Three shallow monitoring wells were also installed during the Phase I El, supplementing three
shallow monitoring wells installed during the Weston Study. All monitoring wells were
sampled, with the ground water samples analyzed for PP+40. VOC contaminants in the
ground water samples included chloroform, detected in one sample, methylene chloride,
detected in two samples, and acetone, a VOC TIC, detected in only one sample. SVOC TICs
were detected in four samples. While pesticides were not detected, PCBs were detected in
one sample. Detected inorganics include beryllium, chromium, mercury, lead, and zinc.
Phenol was also detected in one sample.
The Area 27 boring logs and ground water data provide geologic and hydrogeologic
information on the area. The Area 27 near-surface soils are characterized as fine to coarse
sands with some gravel to a depth of 5 to 15 feet, being thicker beneath the fuel mist test area
than north of Card Road. Beneath the sandy surficial layer, sandy silt predominates to a depth
of at least 30 feet, the maximum depth of most of the wells and borings. The water table was
encountered at depths of 2 to 15 feet during the Phase I El, depending on the location within
the site and the season. As indicated in Figure 7, ground water at Area 27 flows to the
northeast, towards the Upper Atlantic City Reservoir.
Phase n - A Phase n El was conducted in 1988 to determine if the presence of PCBs, which
were detected in one shallow monitoring well during the Phase I El but were not detected in soil or
other ground water samples, could be verified. Two ground water samples were collected during the
Phase n El from the monitoring well which exhibited PCBs during the Phase I EL No PCBs were
detected in the Phase n confirmation ground water samples.
The Phase n El was also conducted to determine if previous removal activities had addressed
all residual soil/sediment contamination from the fuel spill and to confirm that surface water quality
had not been impacted by the fuel spill. Two sediment samples (plus one duplicate sample) and two
surface water samples (plus one duplicate sample) were collected from the drainage swale north of
Card Road. The surface water samples were analyzed for VOCs while the sediment samples were
analyzed for TPH. No VOCs were detected in the surface water samples but TPH was detected in
the sediment samples. Although previous soil removal activities had been conducted within the
drainage swale, it was theorized that the contaminated soil identified in the catch basin during the
Decision Summary - 13
-------
Phase I El could be acting as a continued source of soil/sediment contamination in the downgradient
drainage swale.
Additional Investigations - In October 1989, residual TPH contamination in the catch basin
and the storm drain (see Figure 7 for the catch basin and storm drain locations) was removed through
the physical removal of the catch basin soils and the flushing of the storm drain. Three downgradient
"hot spot" areas identified in the swale based on the results of a soil gas survey were then excavated,
as indicated in Figure 8. Following the completion of the soil excavation, five soil samples were
collected from the base of the excavations to confirm that all contaminated soils had been excavated.
Four of the samples were analyzed for TPH and one was analyzed for PP+40. The four samples
analyzed for TPH exhibited TPH levels ranging from 11 parts per million (ppm) to 30 ppm. The only
organic compounds present in the priority pollutant soil sample were also detected in the field or
method blanks or were SVOC TICs not on the priority pollutant list. Inorganics detected in the soil
included chromium, lead, zinc, and phenol.
During the October 1989 contaminated soil removal effort, it was noted that stained soils
remained adjacent to the steel drainage pipe under the road. Therefore, in December 1990, twelve
test borings were drilled around the drainage pipe buried beneath the road. One sample was collected
from each boring for TPH analysis. All twelve soil samples exhibited TPH at concentrations ranging
from 9.2 to 1,500 ppm. The highest levels beneath the road were generally observed in the locations
closest to the drainage pipe.
Area 56
The Area 56 El included three phases of investigation conducted between February 1987 and
November 1992 to determine whether past activities had impacted environmental media. The scope
of these investigations is described below. Sampling locations are presented in Figure 9.
Phase I - The Phase I El was conducted in 1987 and consisted of a soil gas survey, a
geophysical survey, surface soil sampling, subsurface soil sampling, and the installation and sampling
of two intermediate-depth (80 to 100 feet deep) monitoring wells. Each of these Phase I El
components is discussed briefly below.
A soil gas survey was conducted on a 100-foot grid over the site area. One small anomaly
was detected in the eastern portion of the site.
Geophysical methods employed at Area 56 included electromagnetic (EM-31 and EM-34)
and magnetometer surveys, resistivity soundings, ground penetrating radar (GPR) and gamma
logging of a deep borehole. The presence of buried utilities and other site characteristics
limited the effectiveness of these techniques. One anomaly area detected during both the
EM-31 and magnetometer surveys was indicative of buried ferrous metal.
Since the landfill area had been covered with a thick layer of fill, only two composite surface
soil samples, each composited from two sampling point locations, were collected and
analyzed for PP+40, less the VOC fraction. Separate non-composited samples from each
sampling site were analyzed for VOCs (4 samples total). Methylene chloride was detected
Decision Summary - 14
-------
DRAINAGE
SWALE
EXCAVATED
AREA
EXCAVATED
AREA
EXCAVATED
AREA
SCALE FEET
I
N \
\ \
\ \
\ \
\ \
\ \
Figure 8. Area 27 - 1989 Excavation Areas
Decision Summary -15
-------
s
o
-J
t?
1
I
1
I
I
i
b.
Decision Summary -16
-------
in one of the surface soil samples. No priority pollutant SVOCs were detected in the surface
soil samples, although SVOC TICs were detected in two of the samples. No pesticides or
PCBs were detected in the surface soil samples. Inorganics detected in the surface soil
samples included chromium, lead and zinc.
Four soil borings, ranging in depth from 15 to 24 feet, were drilled to characterize subsurface
conditions and site geology. The borings were located in the former landfill area. Two
samples were taken from each of the four borings, with one of the samples analyzed for
PP+40 and the second sample analyzed for SVOCs. The SVOC sample from one of the
borings (56-B1) was also analyzed for VOCs. Methyiene chloride was the only VOC
detected, present in each of the five subsurface soil samples analyzed for VOCs. VOC TICs
were present in three samples and in the associated field and trip blank samples. Bis(2-
ethylhexyOphthalate was detected in two subsurface samples collected from boring location
56-B2. SVOC TICs were detected at the remaining three boring locations. No pesticides or
PCBs were detected in the subsurface soil samples. Inorganics detected in the subsurface
samples included chromium, lead, and zinc.
Two intermediate-depth monitoring wells (56-MW2D, and 56-MW4D) were installed during
the Phase I El, supplementing five existing shallow monitoring wells installed during the
Weston Study. These wells were screened at depths of 75 to 95 feet and 80 to 100 feet,
respectively. All wells were sampled, with the ground water samples submitted for PP-f-40
analysis. Two VOCs, 1,1-dichloroethane and 1,1,1-trichloroethane, were detected in well
56-MW4D. No VOCs were detected in any of the other wells. Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthaiate
was detected in five samples, but was also found in a field blank at similar concentrations.
Fluoranthene was also detected in one sample. SVOC TICs were present in four of the
ground water samples. No pesticides or PCBs were detected in the ground water samples.
Inorganics detected in the wells included beryllium, cadmium, chromium, copper, mercury,
nickel, lead, selenium, zinc, and cyanide. Phenol was also detected in each of the wells.
The Area 56 monitoring well borings and ground water data provide geologic and
hydrogeologic information on the area. No waste materials other than occasional glass chips
and wood chips were encountered in the soil borings. There are two semi-confining layers
within the top 100 feet at Area 56, each consisting of silty sand with some clay. The upper
layer is encountered at depths of 28 to 33 feet and ranges in thickness from 25 to 35 feet.
The lower semi-confining layer is present at depths of 68 to 78 feet and ranges in thickness
from 10 to 30 feet. Fine to coarse sand is present above and between the semi-confining
layers, and is poorly sorted in the top 10 feet, where it is thought to primarily consist of fill.
A 202-foot boring drilled during the Weston Study in the northwest corner of Area 56
identified the presence of a semi-confining layer (the Middle Cohansey Clay) at a depth of 109
feet, with a thickness of 16 feet, and consisting of "silty/clayey" fine sand. The water table
was encountered at depths of 8 to 33 feet during the Phase I El. Local shallow ground water
flow is to the east at Area 56, as indicated in Figure 9.
Phase n - The Phase II El was conducted at Area 56 in late 1988 and early 1989 to further
investigate the presence of elevated levels of metals in one of the shallow monitoring wells, 56-
MW4S. A shallow ground water sample was collected from well 56-MW4S and was analyzed for
Decision Summary -17
-------
filtered and unfiltered inorganics. In addition, all five shallow wells were sampled for parameters
indicative of a landfill leachate plume, including chemical oxygen demand (COD), total organic ^^
carbon (TOC),-ammonia nitrogen, nitrates, and total suspended solids (TSS). The unfiltered sample
from 56-MW4S exhibited chromium, copper, mercury, nickel and zinc, while only nickel and zinc
were detected in the filtered sample. Consistent with other areas investigated at FAA, the number
and concentrations of metals detected in filtered versus unfiltered samples is lower. The water quality
parameters detected in the shallow wells included COD, ammonia nitrogen, nitrates, TOC, and TSS.
Additional Investigations - Due to EPA's disqualification of previously collected sampling
data, the EPA required resampling at Area 56 to determine if VOCs were present in the soils and
ground water. The resampling effort conducted in 1992 included the collection of three subsurface
soil samples and five shallow and two intermediate ground water samples (one from each of the
existing monitoring wells) for VOC analysis. No priority pollutant VOCs were detected in the
subsurface soil samples. 1,1-Dichloroethene, 1,1,1-trichloroethane and 1,1-dichloroethane were
detected in one of the intermediate monitoring wells (56-MW4D). Chlorobenzene and 1,4-
dichlorobenzene were was also detected in a shallow monitoring well (56-MW2S).
Quarterly ground water sampling has been conducted at shallow well 56-MW4S and
intermediate well 56-MW4D, located in the eastern portion of the site, since May 1994 to monitor
any trends in the presence or absence of VOCs. The quarterly sampling employs an Analytical method
which provides low detection limits. The sample from the shallow well is also analyzed for filtered
and unfiltered metals and nitrate. The quarterly ground water monitoring results indicate consistent
VOC detections in the intermediate monitoring well, with a decreasing trend in contaminant levels,
while the shallow well has exhibited periodic detections of VOCs. Inorganic concentrations have
generally decreased within the shallow monitoring well over the quarterly monitoring period.
AreaF
The Area F El included three phases of investigation conducted between January 1987 and
August 1996 to determine whether past activities had impacted environmental media. The scope of
these investigations is described below. Sampling locations are presented in Figure 10.
Phase I - The Phase I El was conducted in 1987 and consisted of a soil gas survey,
geophysical surveys, surface/near-surface soil sampling, subsurface soil sampling, and the installation
and sampling of three shallow monitoring wells. Each of these Phase I El components is discussed
briefly below.
A soil gas survey was conducted on a 100-foot grid, with no anomalies detected.
Electromagnetic (EM-31 and EM-34) surveys and resistivity profiling were conducted at
Area F. One anomaly indicative of buried metal was detected just to the west of the former
underground tanks.
Decision Summary -18
-------
LtUtNU
A Surface Soil Sample - Priority Pollutants
(PP)orPP&TPH
Surface Soil Sample-PP Metals & TPH
i Surface Soil Sample - Cadmium Only
Soil Boring
-^-Monitoring Well
__ .,..
a
CO
c
/ I
/ I
/ I
I I
\ \
\
\
\ \
-%
GROUND WATER
FLOW DIRECTION
__**
CONCRETE PAD
JET FUSELAGE
figure 10. Area F - Phase I and II El Sampling Locations
-------
Surface soil sampling was conducted to investigate soil quality in the area of a proposed new
laboratory building and to characterize soil quality in an area which received runoff from the
concrete test pad. One discrete surface soil sample and nine composite soil samples, each
representing both the 0 to 2 foot interval and the 4 to 6 foot interval, were initially collected
during the Phase I EL Of these samples, one was analyzed for PP+40, three were analyzed
for PP+40 and TPH, and the remaining six were analyzed for priority pollutant metals and
TPH, Subsequently 16 additional surface soil samples (15 samples and one duplicate) were
collected from the proposed lab building area and analyzed for cadmium. Methylene chloride
was detected in each of the four soil samples analyzed for PP+40. VOC TICs were detected
in only one of the samples. Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate and di-n-butyl phthalate were the only
priority pollutant SVOCs detected, each at estimated values. SVOC TICs were present in
each of the four samples. Pesticides or PCBs were not detected in the samples. Inorganics
detected in the samples included arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, nickel,
zinc and cyanide. Inorganic phenols and TPH were each detected in five of the nine samples
in which they were analyzed.
Four 30-foot-deep soil borings were drilled to characterize subsurface conditions and site
geology. The borings were located in the general area of the former underground fuel storage
tanks. Two samples were taken from each of the four borings, with one of the eight samples
analyzed for PP+40 and the remaining seven samples analyzed for TPH. Two duplicate
samples were also collected and analyzed for PP+40 and TPH, respectively. Subsequent to
the initial sampling event, 16 additional subsurface soil samples (15 samples and one
duplicate) were collected at depths of 4 to 6 feet below grade in the proposed lab building
area and analyzed for cadmium. Methylene chloride, ethylbenzene and VOC TICs were
detected in the single sample and duplicate sample analyzed for PP+40. Naphthalene and
SVOC TTCs were the only SVOCs detected in the samples. The PCB Aroclor 1242 was also
detected in one of the two samples. Chromium, lead and zinc are detected in both samples.
TPH was detected in each of the eight samples in which it was analyzed.
Three shallow monitoring wells were installed to gather stratigrapnic, hydrogeologic and
ground water quality data. Each of the wells was sampled and analyzed for PP+40 and a
duplicate sample was also collected for PP+40 analysis. Benzene and ethylbenzene were each
detected at estimated concentrations in a single well and VOC TICs were present in each
sample. B5s(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate and SVOC TICs were detected in each of the three
samples. No pesticides or PCBs were detected in the ground water. Inorganics detected in
the ground water samples included cadmium, chromium, copper, mercury, lead, selenium, and
zinc. Phenol was also detected in each of the wells.
The Area F subsurface investigations indicate that the upper 15 feet of soil at Area F are
characterized by the presence of clay layers ranging in thickness from under one inch to
several feet. Where the soil in the unsaturated zone is locally saturated because h overlies a
day layer above the water table, perched ground water exists. Of the three monitoring wells
installed during the Phase I El, one well was screened in the true water table while the
remaining two wells were screened in the perched water table. Within the perched zone,
water was encountered at depths of 11 to 12 feet. In the one well screened within the true
water table, the water table was encountered at a depth of 30 feet. The water table in the
Decision Summary - 20
-------
vicinity of Area F is nearly flat, with flow direction to the southeast. Water flow within the
perched zones is controlled by the configuration of the upper clay layers.
Phase H - The Phase II El was conducted at Area F in 1988 to further investigate potential
subsurface contamination in the vicinity of the former underground storage tanks and to determine
if the true water table aquifer had been impacted by fuel leakage from the tanks. The Phase n El
consisted of the drilling of five additional borings and the installation of a monitoring well which was
screened within the true water table. Five subsurface soil samples were collected from the borings
and analyzed for TPH. TPH was detected in four of the five samples. The new well was sampled
along with one of the existing Phase I wells. The ground water sample from the new well was
analyzed for PP+40 while the ground water sample from the existing well was analyzed for filtered
and unfiltered inorganics. The Phase I El well which had been installed within the true water table
had been dry for one year, indicating that it had been installed above the level of the water table.
Therefore, it was filled with grout during the Phase n EL The only organic detected in the new
monitoring well sample was acetone, identified as a VOC TIC. Inorganics detected in the new well
included chromium, copper, lead and zinc. The existing well sample which was analyzed for filtered
and unfiltered inorganics exhibited chromium, copper, lead and zinc in the unfiltered sample, with
only zinc detected in the filtered sample. Consistent with other areas investigated at F AA, the number
and concentrations of metals detected in the filtered versus unfiltered samples was lower.
Additional Investigations - Based on the ground water inorganic results from the Phase I
and Phase n Els, and the time which had passed since the Els were conducted, ground water samples
were collected from the three existing Area F monitoring wells in August 1996. The samples
collected from one of the perched wells and from the true water table well (including a duplicate
sample from the true water table well) were analyzed for priority pollutants. However, insufficient
sample volume could be collected from the second perched well to support the full suite of chemical
analyses; therefore, the sample from the third monitoring well was analyzed for VOCs and inorganics
only. Carbon disulfide was the only VOC detected, present in one of the perched monitoring wells.
SVOCs detected in the ground water samples included bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, di-n-butyl
phthalate, and SVOC TICs. Inorganics presenit in the ground water samples included arsenic,
beryllium, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, selenium, and zinc.
AreaR
The Area REI included four phases of investigation conducted between December 1988 and
August 1994 to characterize the disposal area at the site and to determine if disposal activities had
impacted soil or ground water quality, with the first investigations conducted under the Phase II EL
The scope of these investigations is described below. Sampling locations are presented in Figure 11.
Phase n - The Phase n El was conducted in 1988 and consisted of subsurface soil sampling,
and the installation and sampling of three shallow monitoring wells. Each of these Phase n El
components is discussed briefly below.
Six 30-foot-deep soil borings were drilled to characterize subsurface conditions and site
geology. The borings were located in the filled area of the site and in a depressed area just
east of the filled area. One sample was collected from each of five of the borings, with two
Decision Summary - 21
-------
LEGEND
A SURFACE SOIL SAMPLE
SOIL BORING
MONITORING WELL
V CONTOUR LINE (feet
^above mean sea level)
GROUND WATER
FLOW DIRECTION
FILLED
AREA
Figure II. Area R - Phase II, Supplemental and Additional Investigation Sampling Locations
Decision Summary - 22
-------
samples collected from the remaining boring. A duplicate sample was also collected. All
samples were analyzed for PP+40 with the exception of one sample which was analyzed for
VOCs and SVOCs only. VOC TICs were detected in four of the eight subsurface soil
samples. Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate was detected in two subsurface samples,
benzo(b)fluoranthene was detected in one sample and S VOC TICs were detected in each of
the samples. No pesticides or PCBs were detected in the subsurface soil samples. Inorganics
detected in the subsurface samples included beryllium, chromium, copper, nickel, lead, and
zinc.
Three shallow monitoring wells were installed during the Phase H El. Three ground water
samples and a duplicate were collected. All ground water samples were submitted for PP+40
analysis. Due to a possibility of cross-contamination during the original sampling effort, two
wells were resampled and analyzed for VOCs. Two VOCs, chlorobenzene and 1,4-
dichlorobenzene, were each detected in two of the monitoring wells while benzene,
chloroform, vinyl chloride and ethylbenzene were detected in one monitoring well. VOC
TICs were present in each of the monitoring wells. Acenaphthene, bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate,
and naphthalene were each detected in one well sample. 4,4-DDD was present in one sample
and 4,4-DDT was present in two samples. Inorganics detected in the wells included
chromium, copper, nickel, lead, and zinc.
The Area R soil borings, monitoring well borings and ground water data provide geologic and
hydrogeologic information on the area to a maximum depth of 37 feet. The basic stratigraphy
consists of fine to coarse sands overlain by fill. Running sands were encountered and forced
the termination of two borings located in the depressed portion of the site. Where fill material
was encountered, it consisted of concrete, sand, asphalt, wood, metal and plastic and ranged
in thickness from 2 to 12 feet, with the thickest portion in the western part of the site. The
water table was encountered at depths of 19 to 22 feet, with the ground water flow direction
to the southeast, as indicated in Figure 11.
Supplemental Investigations - A supplemental investigation was conducted at Area R in late
1989 to further characterize ground water quality upgradient and downgradient of the former disposal
area. One shallow upgradient well was installed to determine if the organic constituents detected
during the Phase n El had an upgradient source and two shallow downgradient wells were installed
to determine if the organic constituents had migrated beyond the borders of the original disposal area.
The three new monitoring wells were sampled and analyzed for PP+40. Methylene chloride and
chloroform were the only VOCs detected and were present in only one monitoring well. Methylene
chloride was also present in the associated blank samples. Copper and zinc were the only other
analytes detected in the ground water samples, with copper present in one sample and zinc present
in all three monitoring well samples.
Additional Investigations - Due to EPA's disqualification of previously collected sampling
data, the EPA required resampling at Area R to determine if VOCs were present in the soils and
ground water. The resampling effort conducted in 1992 included the collection of four subsurface
soil samples and four shallow ground water samples for VOC analysis. No priority pollutant VOCs
were detected in the subsurface soil samples. Two shallow wells within the fill area exhibited
Decision Summary - 23
-------
chlorobenzene, 1,2-dichlorobenzene and 1,4-dichlorobenzene. Ethylbenzene was detected in one
well.
Sampling of surface soils was completed in August 1994 to support the performance of a
human health risk assessment. Eleven surface soil samples were collected and analyzed for priority
pollutants. VOCs were not detected in any of the surface soil samples, although one sample exhibited
the presence of VOC TICs. Eleven SVOCs, including phenanthrene, fluoranthene, pyrene,
benzo(a)anthracene, chrysene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, benzo(k)fluoranthene, benzo(a)pyrene,
indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene, dibenzo(a,h)anthracene and benzo(g,h,i)perylene, were detected hi each of
the surface samples except for the background sample. Other SVOCs detected in the samples include
phenol, naphthalene, acenaphihene, fluorene, anthracene, and SVOC TICs. Two pesticides, 4,4-DDE
and 4,4-DDT, were detected hi two surface soil samples. Two PCBs, Aroclor-1242 and Aroclor
1254, were detected in three surface soil samples. Inorganics detected in the surface soil samples
included arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, copper, cyanide, lead, mercury, nickel, silver, and
zinc.
Quarterly ground water sampling and analysis have been conducted at all six shallow wells
at Area R since May 1993 to confirm that VOCs have not migrated outside of the fill area. This
program uses an analytical method which provides low detection limits. The results of the quarterly
monitoring indicate that the two wells screened in the fill area continue to exhibit several VOCs. Two
additional shallow wells located sidegradient and downgradient of the fill area have exhibited the
presence of chloroform. Chloroform, however, cannot be attributed to the fill material, since it has
not consistently been detected in the fill area wells. It has, however, been consistently detected in the
monitoring well located upgradient of the fill area. No known site activities have occurred upgradient
of Area R which could be contributing to the presence of chloroform hi the upgradient well. The
detection of chloroform in wells located upgradient of other areas of concern indicate that this
constituent my be characteristic of regional ground water quality hi the FAA Technical Center area
and that it does not appear to be related to the areas of concern at the facility, including Area R
AreaS
The Area S El included three phases of investigation conducted between August 1989 and
May 1995 to determine whether past activities had impacted environmental media. The scope of
these investigations is described below. Sampling locations are presented in Figure 12.
Supplemental Investigations - Area S was first investigated as part of the Supplemental
Investigations conducted in 1989. The study consisted of a soil gas survey, a geophysical survey, test
pitting, surface soil sampling, subsurface soil sampling, sediment sampling, surface water sampling,
and the installation and sampling of three monitoring wells. Each of these investigation components
is discussed briefly below.
A soil gas survey was conducted on a 100-foot grid. No significant anomalies were detected.
Decision Summary - 24
-------
LEGEND
A SURFACE SOIL SAMPLE
SOIL BORING
^- MONITORING WELL
TEST PIT
D SURFACE WATER SAMPLE
A SEDIMENT SAMPLE
/ "X
^/
>S)
-§'
I'
I'
MOUNDS
MATERIAL
(1974)
AREAS OF DARK
STAINING (1
AREAS OF
STANDING LIQUID
(1974)
4-
GROUND
WATER FLOW
DIRECTION
SCALE
EXISTING-
BUILDING
200
FEET
Figure 12. Area S - Supplemental and Additional Investigation Sampling Locations
Decision Summary - 25
-------
A magnetometer survey was conducted on a 100-foot grid, with a more detailed survey (50-
foot grid) conducted in obvious fill areas or where magnetic anomalies were detected. Three
strong anomalies were detected, two in the central portion of the site and one in the northeast
portion of the site.
Twelve test pits were dug in areas of suspected dumping (e.g., magnetic anomalies,
hummocky areas or areas of mounded material). At some of the test pit locations, the
presence of metallic debris (responsible for the magnetic anomalies), decayed wood, and other
debris was identified. Other test pits exhibited no evidence of environmental contamination.
A near-surface soil sample (Le., collected from depths of 1 to 4 feet) was collected from each
of four of the test pits and analyzed for PP+40. Methylene chloride was detected in each of
the test pit soil samples although it was also present in the blank samples. Toluene was
detected in three samples, tetrachloroethene in two samples, and chloroform in one sample.
VOC TICs were detected in one of the samples. Phenol and bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate were
each detected in two test pit samples, while fluoranthene, pyrene, benzo(a)anthracene,
benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, benzo(k)fluoranthene, chrysene, naphthalene and
phenanthrene were each detected in one of the test pit soil samples. S VOC TICs were
detected in each of the samples. No pesticides or PCBs were detected in the test pit soil
samples. Inorganics detected in the test pit soil samples included chromium, copper, mercury,
lead, and zinc.
Two composite surface soil samples were collected and analyzed for PP+40. Two separate
non-composited samples were collected for the VOC portion of the analysis. Methylene
chloride was detected in each of the surface soil samples although it was also present in the
blank samples. Tetrachloroethene was also detected in the surface soil samples. Bis(2-
ethylhexyl)phthalate and SVOC TICs were detected in both of the surface soil samples while
di-n-butylphthalate, fluoranthene and phenol were each detected in one sample. No pesticides
or PCBs were detected in the surface soil samples. Inorganics detected in the surface soil
samples included chromium, lead, and zinc.
Two shallow soil borings were drilled in the vicinities of two test pits which exhibited the
presence of debris to determine the vertical extent of the debris. One sample was collected
from each boring and analyzed for PP+40. Methylene chloride was detected in each of the
subsurface sofl samples, although it was also present in the blank samples. VOC TICs were
also present in the subsurface soil samples. SVOCs detected in the samples include di-n-
butylpnthalate (present in both samples) and bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (present in only one
sample). SVOC TICs were also detected in both samples. No pesticides or PCBs were
detected in the subsurface soil samples. Inorganics in the subsurface samples included lead
and zinc.
Six sediment and two surface water samples were collected from the South Branch of
Doughty's Mill Stream and one surface water sample was collected from an impoundment
of standing water on the site. Two of the sediment samples and one surface water sample
were analyzed for PP+40 while the remaining sediment and surface water samples were
analyzed for VOCs only. Methylene chloride was detected in each of the sediment samples
although it was also present in the blank samples. Toluene was detected in two sediment
Decision Summary - 26
-------
samples and VOC TICs were present in four samples. SVOC TICs, lead and zinc were
detected in the two sediment samples analyzed for PP+40. In the surface water, methylene
chloride was detected in one sample although it was also present in the blank samples.
Acetone was detected as a VOC TIC in each of the surface water samples and associated
blank samples. Copper and zinc were the only other analytes detected, present in the single
surface water sample analyzed for PP+40.
Three shallow monitoring wells were installed and sampled, with the samples analyzed for
PP+40. VOC TICs, bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, di-n-butylphthalate, phenol, pyrene and lead
were each detected in one well and zinc was detected in a second well.
The Area S test pits, monitoring well borings and ground water data provide geologic and
hydrogeologic information on the area. To a depth of 27 feet (the depth of the deepest
recovered samples during the Supplemental Investigations), the Area S subsurface soils are
characterized as predominantly light brown fine- to medium-grained sand, often grading to
medium to coarse sand with a trace of gravel. The water table was encountered at depths of
4 to 13 feet below grade during the Supplemental Investigations. Ground water flow is south
to southeast, as indicated in Figure 12.
Additional Investigations - Due to EPA's disqualification of previously collected sampling
data, the EPA required resampling at Area S to determine if VOCs were present in the surface and
subsurface soils, sediment, and shallow ground water. The resampling effort conducted in 1992
included the collection of four surface soil samples, three subsurface soil samples, three sediment
samples, and three shallow ground water samples for VOC analysis. Due to the fact that there was
no ponded or running water in the South Branch at the time of sampling, surface water was not
resampled. Toluene was detected in three of the four surface soil samples, with VOC TICs detected
in two of the samples. No priority pollutant VOCs were detected in the subsurface soil samples,
although VOC TICs were detected in one sample. Trichlorofluoromethane was detected in one
sediment sample. Methylene chloride was present in two sediment samples but was also detected in
the associated blank sample. No VOCs were detected in the ground water samples.
An additional investigation was subsequently conducted hi May 1995 due to EPA concern
that the three existing monitoring wells at Area S did not provide sufficient coverage to determine
whether ground water contamination was emanating from the site. The investigation consisted of the
installation of three additional monitoring wells and sampling of all Area S wells. The ground water
samples from the three new wells were analyzed for PP+40, with the VOC fraction analyzed using
a method"which provides low detection limits. Samples collected from the three existing wells were
analyzed for VOCs only using the low detection limit methodology. Chloroform was detected in
three of the wells and butylbenzylphthalate was detected in one well. SVOC TICs were identified
in each of the new wells. Chromium, lead, nickel, copper, and zinc were detected in each of the
ground water samples although the zinc results were rejected due to the presence of zinc in the field
blank.
Decision Summary - 27
-------
BDL HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
A newspaper notification of the availability of the Proposed Plan for Areas 27, 56, F, R and S
was published in the Atlantic City Press on February 11, 1999. The notice invited the public to
comment on the EI/FS and Proposed Plan. The public comment period was held from February 1 1
1999 through March 15, 1999. The Proposed Plan and EI/FS Reports were placed in the
administrative record maintained at the Atlantic County Library.
A public meeting was held on March 4, 1999 at the Atlantic County Library. At the meeting,
representatives from the FAA, FAA's environmental consultant (TRC Environmental Corporation),
EPA, and NJDEP were available to answer questions about Areas 27, 56, F, R and S. The
attendance list from the meeting is attached (see Appendix B). No comments on the Proposed Plan
were received during the public comment period, as noted in the Responsiveness Summary which
follows this Decision Summary.
This decision document presents the selected institutional control alternative for Areas 27,
56, F, R and S of the FAA Technical Center in Atlantic County, New Jersey, chosen in accordance
with CERCLA, as amended by SARA and, to the extent practicable, the NCP. The decision for
Areas 27, 56, F, R and S is based on the administrative record.
IV. SCOPE AND ROLE OF RESPONSE ACTION
Based on a comparison of the constituents detected at Areas 27, 56, F, R and S to relevant
regulatory or background levels, no principal threats to human health under continued employee use
scenarios or to the environment have been identified at Areas 27, 56, F, R and S, thereby providing
the basis for the "institutional control" decision. It should be noted that Areas 27, 56, F, R and S
represent only five of more than 20 areas of potential environmental concern identified' at the FAA
Technical Center. This document addresses only Areas 27, 56, F, R and S, and is not intended to
address the entire FAA property. The other areas of concern at the FAA Technical Center will be
subject to separate response action decisions.
V. SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS
For each environmental medium (e.g., soil, ground water, etc.) sampled at Areas 27, 56, F,
R and S, detected concentrations of contaminants are summarized below. Original data summary
tables are included in Appendix D.
A. Area 27
SoU
During the El activities at Area 27, a total of 41 surface and subsurface soil samples were
collected for chemical analysis. In the six surface soil samples analyzed for PP+40, methylene
chloride, toluene and 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethene were the only priority pollutant VOCs detected. Two
of the surface soil samples exhibited 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethene at concentrations of 0.0059 ppm and
Decision Summary -28
-------
0.011 ppm, respectively. Toluene was detected in one surface soil sample at a concentration of
0.0073 ppm. Methylene chloride was present in four samples at concentrations ranging from 0.005
to 0.021 ppm, but it was also found in the field blank sample. VOC TICs were detected in three
surface soil samples at total concentrations ranging from 0.012 to 0.16 ppm. The VOC TICs
consisted of acetone, an unsaturated hydrocarbon, terpene and an unknown compound. In the eight
subsurface soil samples analyzed for VOCs, methylene chloride was the only priority pollutant VOC
detected. Methylene chloride was detected in five of the eight samples at concentrations ranging from
0.006 to 0.019 ppm, but it was also detected in the trip blank sample. Only one subsurface sample
exhibited VOC TICs (at 0.008 ppm). The VOC TICs consisted entirely of acetone; however, acetone
was also detected in the associated field blank samples.
Fourteen surface and subsurface soil samples were analyzed for SVOCs. No priority pollutant
SVOCs were detected in the surface or subsurface soil samples. SVOC TICs were detected in four
of the surface soil samples, at concentrations ranging from 2 to 731 ppm. The SVOC TICs consisted
mainly of octane, decane, nonene, dimethylnaphthalene, unknown cyclohexanes, unknown
cycloalkanes, and unknown alkanes. SVOC TICs were present in each of the subsurface soil samples
at concentrations ranging from 1.6 to 87 ppm. The SVOC TICs consisted mainly of dioctylphthalate
ester, dimethyl heptane, trichloro-2-methyl-2-propanol, 2,4-dimethyl-3-heptanone, dioctyl phthalate,
unknown hydrocarbons, and other unknowns.
Ten surface and subsurface soil samples were analyzed for pesticides and/or PCBs. The
pesticides 4,4-DDE and 4,4-DDT were detected in one of six surface soil samples at concentrations
of 0.059 ppm and 0.15 ppm, respectively. Pesticides were not detected in the four subsurface soil
samples and PCBs were not detected in the surface or subsurface soil samples.
Ten surface and subsurface soil samples were analyzed for inorganics. The inorganics
detected in the six surface soil samples included arsenic (2.2 ppm), cadmium (1.1 to 2.4 ppm),
chromium (3.9 to 16 ppm), copper (5.5 to 9.7 ppm), lead (3.9 to 9.9 ppm), and zinc (6.9 to 12.6
ppm). Inorganics detected in the four subsurface soil samples included chromium (2.6 to 6.9 ppm),
copper (6.9 to 8.7 ppm), lead (2.5 to 4 ppm), and zinc (7.5 to 19.4 ppm).
Twelve surface soil and twelve subsurface soil samples were analyzed for TPH. Six surface
soil samples collected around the lined test area exhibited TPH concentrations ranging from 4 to 23
ppm, whereas a surface soil sample collected at the soil gas anomaly location at the northern end of
the drainage swale exhibited 283 ppm of TPH and a soil sample collected in a storm sewer catch basin
exhibited a TPH concentration of 16,000 ppm. After removal of this residual contaminated sediment
from the catch basin and other residual surface soil contamination from the drainage swale, four
additional surface soil samples were collected from the drainage swale for TPH analysis, with the
samples exhibiting TPH values ranging from 11 to 30 ppm. The twelve subsurface soil samples
collected adjacent to the drainage pipe beneath the road exhibited TPH at levels ranging from 9.2 to
1,500 ppm, with the highest levels detected nearest the pipe.
Ground Water
A total of eight ground water samples were collected from six monitoring wells at Area 27
during the site investigations. Six of the samples were analyzed for VOCs. Methylene chloride and
Decision Summary - 29
-------
chloroform were the only priority pollutant VOCs detected in the ground water samples. Methylene
chloride was detected in two samples at levels of 8 parts per billion (ppb) and 9 ppb but was also
detected in the field and trip blanks. Chloroform was detected in one sample at a concentration of
6 ppb. Acetone, a VOC TIC, was also detected in one sample at a concentration of 91 ppb.
No priority pollutant SVOCs were detected in the ground water samples, although SVOC
TICs were present in four of the wells, with total concentrations ranging from 6 to 165 ppb. The
SVOC TICs consisted of benzenecarboxcylic acid, unknown hydrocarbons and other unknowns.
SVOC TICs were also present hi the field blank and trip blank samples.
During the Phase I El, the PCB Aroclor 1242 was detected in one ground water sample at
a concentration of 0.83 ppb. Two additional ground water samples were collected from the subject
well during the Phase n investigations, with no PCBs detected.
Inorganics detected in the ground water samples include beryllium (8.2 ppb), chromium (13.3
ppb), mercury (0.54 ppb), lead (7.4 to 11.7 ppb), and zinc (28.8 to 261 ppb). Phenol was also
detected in one sample, at a concentration of 15.5 ppb.
Sediment
Three sediment samples (two samples and a duplicate) were collected from the drainage swale
north of Card Road and analyzed for TPH. The samples exhibited TPH levels ranging from 89 to 350
ppm. These sediments were removed during a subsequent removal action in October 1989. The
analytical results for soil verification samples collected after sediment removal are included in the soil
description above.
Surface Water
Three surface water samples (two samples and a duplicate) were collected from the drainage
swale north of Card Road and analyzed for VOCs. No VOCs were detected in the surface water
samples.
B. Area 56
Soil
During the £1 activities at Area 56, a total of 15 surface and subsurface soil samples were
collected for chemical analysis. Li the four surface soil samples analyzed for VOCs, methylene
chloride was detected in one sample at a level of 0.006 ppm. However, methylene chloride was also
detected in the field blank sample. In the eight subsurface soil samples analyzed for VOCs, methylene
chloride was again the only priority pollutant VOC detected. Methylene chloride was detected in five
samples at concentrations ranging from 0.01 to 0.021 ppm, but it was also present in the associated
soil field and trip blank samples. During the Phase I El, three of the five subsurface soil samples
analyzed for VOCs exhibited VOC TICs, along with the associated field and trip blank samples. The
TICs included acetone, carbon disulfide, l,l,2-trichloro-l,2,2-trifluoroethane and an unknown
Decision Summary - 30
-------
hydrocarbon. During the additional investigations, one of three subsurface soil samples exhibited a
VOC TIC, acetone at a concentration of 0.071 ppm.
Ten surface and subsurface soil samples were analyzed for SVOCs. No priority pollutant
SVOCs were detected in the two surface soil samples analyzed for SVOCs, while SVOC TICs were
detected at concentrations of 6.2 ppm and 210 ppm. The SVOC TICs consisted mainly of unknown
hydrocarbons, unknown organics, and an unknown organic acid. Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate was
detected in two subsurface soil samples from a single soil boring location at concentrations of 4.2
ppm and 7.5 ppm. The SVOC TIC concentrations in the eight subsurface soil samples ranged from
non-detectable to 77.9 ppm. The SVOC TICs consisted mainly of an unknown hexanedioic acid,
unknown benzebicarboxylic acid, dimethyl heptanes, 2,4-dimethyl-3-heptanone, dioctyl phthalaie and
other unknown organics.
Six surface and subsurface soil samples were analyzed for pesticides and/or PCBs. No
pesticides or PCBs were present in the samples.
Six surface and subsurface soil samples were analyzed for inorganics. Inorganics detected in
the two surface soil samples included chromium (5.1 ppm and 8 ppm), lead (6.2 ppm in both) and
zinc (9.9 ppm and 10 ppm). Inorganics detected in the subsurface samples also included chromium
(3.1 to 4.6 ppm), lead (1.2 to 49.3 ppm), and zinc (5 to 23.3 ppm).
Ground Water
A total of twenty ground water samples were collected from the five shallow and two
intermediate monitoring wells during site investigations at Area 56. During the Phase I El, 1,1-
dichloroethane and 1,1,1-trichloroethane were detected in intermediate well 56-MW4D at
concentrations of 29 ppb and 27 ppb, respectively. During the additional investigations,
chlorobenzene and 1,4-dichlorobenzene were detected for the first time in one shallow monitoring
well at concentrations of 6 ppb and 4 ppb, respectively, and 1,1-dichloroethane, 1,1-dichloroethene,
and 1,1,1-trichloroethane were detected in intermediate well 56-MW4D at concentrations of 19 ppb,
4 ppb, and 28 ppb, respectively. VOCs have also consistently been detected in this intermediate
monitoring well during the quarterly sampling.
Two SVOCs, fluoranthene and bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthakte, were detected in the ground water
samples. Fluoranthene was detected in a single shallow monitoring well at a level of 11 ppb. Bis(2-
ethylhexyl)phthalate was detected in four shallow and one intermediate monitoring wells at
concentrations ranging from 11 to 18 ppb, but it was also present in the associated field blank sample.
SVOC TICs were detected in four ground water samples at levels ranging from 24 to 148 ppb and
were identified as unknown alkanes, unknown decane or other unknown organics.
No pesticides or PCBs were detected in the Area 56 ground water samples.
Inorganics detected in the shallow monitoring wells include beryllium at 4 to 8 ppb, cadmium
at 40 ppb, chromium at 237 to 281 ppb, copper at 32.3 to 216 ppb, cyanide at 17.6 ppb, mercury at
0.23 to 3.1 ppb, nickel at 117 to 306 ppb, lead at 5.1 to 204 ppb, selenium at 5.8 to 6 ppb, and zinc
at 23 to 415 ppb. Intermediate monitoring wells exhibited chromium at 12 to 21 ppb, mercury at 0.65
Decision Summary - 31
-------
ppb, lead at 18.2 to 37.2 ppb, and zinc at 30 to 40 ppb. The filtered ground water sample collected
from a shallow well during the Phase EL El exhibited only nickel (at 183 ppb) and zinc (at 79.7 ppb).
During the quarterly sampling, inorganic concentrations have generally decreased within the shallow
monitoring well.
Of the five ground water samples analyzed for ground water quality parameters representative
of landfill characteristics, chemical oxygen demand (COD) ranged from 11.2 to 13.2 ppm, ammonia
as nitrate was measured in one sample at 0.47 ppm, nitrate as nitrogen ranged from 0.27 to 4.6 ppm,
total organic nitrogen was measured in one sample at 0.13 ppm, total organic carbon (TOC) ranged
from 1.3 to 2.4 ppm and total suspended solids (TSS) ranged from 11 to 248 ppm.
C. AreaJE
Soil
During the £1 activities at Area F, a total of 26 surface soil samples and 31 subsurface soil
samples were collected for chemical analysis. Four surface soil samples and two subsurface soil
samples were analyzed for priority pollutant VOCs. Methylene chloride was the only priority
pollutant VOC detected in the surface soil samples, present at levels ranging from 0.0066 to 0.011
ppm. Acetone, a VOC TIC, was also detected at a level of 0.012 ppm in one surface soil sample.
The two subsurface soil samples also exhibited methylene chloride at levels of 1.3 ppm in each
sample; however, methylene chloride was also present in the field blank at a concentration of 0.810 |li
ppm. The subsurface soil samples also exhibited ethylbenzene at concentrations of 1 ppm and 1.4
ppm and VOC TICs at concentrations of 39.8 ppm and 61.3 ppm. The VOC TICs consisted of
4-methyl-2-pentanone, 2-hexanone, unknown hydrocarbons, xylenes, an unknown cyclic compound,
and other unknowns.
Four surface soil samples were analyzed for SVOCs. Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate was detected
in three of the four samples at estimated concentrations ranging from 0.12 to 0.21 ppm while di-n-
butylphthalate was present in only one sample at an estimated concentration of 0.041 ppm. SVOC
TICs were detected at concentrations ranging from 1.9 to 8.1 ppm. The SVOC TICs consisted of
unknown compounds. One of the two subsurface soil samples analyzed for SVOCs exhibited
naphthalene at a concentration of 0.54 ppm, while both samples exhibited SVOC TICs at
concentrations of 64.4 ppm and 246 ppm, consisting of unknown hydrocarbons and other unknowns.
No pesticides or PCBs were detected in the four surface soil samples analyzed for PP+40.
One of the two subsurface soil samples analyzed for pestirides/PCBs exhibited the PCB Aroclor 1242
at a level of 0.33 ppm.
Inorganics detected in the one discrete surface soil sample analyzed for PP+40 included
cadmium at 1.7 ppm, chromium at 11.1 ppm, cyanide at 1.3 ppm, lead at 10.7 ppm, nickel at 10.7
ppm and zinc at 19.1 ppm. Composite samples collected over both the 0- to 2-foot interval and the
4- to 6-foot interval exhibited arsenic at levels ranging from 0.5 to 1.1 ppm, cadmium at 0.8 to 4.9
ppm, chromium at 3.3 to 19.0 ppm, copper at 1.4 to 3.8 ppm, cyanide at 0.39 to 0.56 ppm, lead at
2.4 to 6.0 ppm, mercury at 0.3 ppm, nickel at 6.7 to 8.8 ppm, and zinc at 2.3 to 7.5 ppm. Cadmium
was not detected in the 32 surface soil and near-surface (4 to 6 feet in depth) samples analyzed for
Decision Summary - 32
-------
cadmium only. In the two soil boring samples, chromium was present at 5.5 to 5.8 ppm, lead was
present at 5.2 to 6.3 ppm, and zinc was present at 6.1 and 7.9 ppm.
Nine surface and thirteen subsurface soil samples were analyzed for TPH. Detected levels of
TPH in the surface soil samples ranged from 1 to 2 ppm while detected levels of TPH in the
subsurface soil samples ranged from 1 to 2,920 ppm.
Ground Water
A total often ground water samples were collected from the Area F shallow monitoring wells.
Nine of the samples were analyzed for VOCs. Benzene, ethylbenzene and carbon disulfide were the
only priority pollutant VOCs detected, each present in one sample at concentrations of 2 ppb, 1 ppb,
and 0.4 ppb, respectively. VOC TICs were detected at levels ranging from 6 to 1,009 ppb during the
Phase I EL These VOC TICs consisted of xylenes, cycloalkanes, alkenes, paraffins, mixed
hydrocarbons, acetone, olefins and other unknowns. Acetone, a VOC TIC, was detected at a level
of 3,400 ppb in the single ground water sample analyzed for VOCs during the Phase H investigations;
however VOC TICs were also detected in the associated field blank sample.
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate and di-n-butylphthalate were the only priority pollutant SVOCs
detected in the ground water, present at levels ranging from 10 to 57 ppb and at a level of 0.6 ppb,
respectively. SVOC TICs were also detected at levels ranging from 399 to 4,719 ppb, and consisted
of decane, nonene, benzene carboxylic acid, trimethyl benzene, unknown hydrocarbons, phthalate,
unknown alkanes, unknown octane and other unknowns.
No pesticides or PCBs were detected in the ground water samples.
Inorganics detected in the ground water samples subject to unfiltered inorganic analysis
included arsenic (1.8 to 2.5 ppb), beryllium (0.38 to 0.40 ppb), cadmium (16 to 20 ppb), chromium
(13.5 to 159ppb), copper (6.1 to 81 ppb), mercury (0.26 to 1.9 ppb), lead (3.5 to 67.4 ppb), nickel
(8.3 ppb), selenium (1.5 to 5.1 ppb) and zinc (2 to 199 ppb). However, the Phase H El filtered
analysis of a ground water sample identified the presence of zinc alone at a concentration of 35.5 ppb.
D. AreaR
SoH
During the El activities at Area R, a total of 11 surface soil samples and 12 subsurface sofl
samples were collected for chemical analysis. All of these samples were analyzed for priority
pollutant VOCs. Priority pollutant VOCs were not detected in the surface or subsurface soil samples,
although VOC TICs were detected in one surface soil sample at a concentration of 0.020 ppm and
in four subsurface soil samples at concentrations ranging from 0.091 to 0.29 ppm. The VOC TICs
in the surface soil consisted entirely of terpene while the VOC TICs in the subsurface soil samples
consisted of acetone. VOC TICs were also detected in the trip blanks and field blanks associated
with the subsurface soil samples.
Decision Summary - 33
-------
Eleven surface soil samples and eight subsurface soil samples were analyzed for SVOCs. The
SVOCs detected in the surface soil samples and their detected levels are presented in Table 1. In the
eight subsurface soil samples analyzed for SVOCs, bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate and
benzo(b)fluoranthene were the only priority pollutants detected. Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate was
detected in three samples at concentrations ranging from 0.47 to 1.1 ppm and benzo(b)fluoranthene
was detected in one sample at a concentration of 0.49 ppm. SVOC TICs were also detected in the
subsurface soil samples at concentrations ranging from 0.1 to 4.4 ppm.
Eleven surface soil samples and seven subsurface soil samples were analyzed for pesticides
and PCBs. Two pesticides, 4,4-DDE and 4,4-DDT, were detected in the surface soil samples at
concentrations ranging from 0.0030 to 0.0039 ppm and from 0.0029 to 0.0038 ppm, respectively.
The PCB Aroclor 1242 was detected in three surface soil samples at concentrations ranging from
0.042 to 0.440 ppm, while Aroclor 1254 was detected in only one surface soil sample at a
concentration of 0.047 ppm. Neither pesticides nor PCBs were detected in the seven subsurface soil
samples which were analyzed for pesticides/PCBs.
Inorganics detected in the eleven surface soil samples included arsenic at 1.0 ppm, beryllium
at 0.15 to 0.43 ppm, cadmium at 0.42 to 0.83 ppm, chromium at 4.5 to 14.2 ppm, copper at 2.7 to
43.4 ppm, cyanide at 0.61 to 2.2 ppm, lead at 2.3 to 16.3 ppm, mercury at 0.07 to 0.15 ppm, nickel
at 2.0 to 5.5 ppm, silver at 0.65 to 2.4 ppm and zinc at 2.8 to 57.7 ppm. The seven subsurface soil
samples analyzed for inorganics exhibited beryllium at 1.3 ppm, chromium at 2.7 to 7.3 ppm, copper
at 5.7 to 7.3 ppm, nickel at 8.1 to 12.9 ppm, lead at 1.1 to 2.5 ppm, and zinc at 4.3 to 41.8 ppm.
Ground Water
A total of thirteen ground water samples were collected from the Area R shallow monitoring
wells during the El. All thirteen samples were analyzed for VOCs. Priority pollutant VOCs which
were detected in the ground water samples include the following:
Constituent "'''/; -''v'-'^^jirHr''-^;'-''
Ethylbenzene
Chlorobenzene
1 ,2-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene
Methylene Chloride1
Chloroform1
Benzene
Vinyl Chloride
':'-'. Range in Concentration (ppb)
9 to 14
1 to 42
2
3 to 13
5
9
1
1
1 Also detected in blank samples
Decision Summary - 34
-------
TABLE 1
SUMMARY OF SEMI-VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
DETECTED IN AREA R SURFACE SOIL SAMPLES
Constituent
Phenol
Naphthalene
Acenaphthene
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Chrysene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Tentatively Identified Compounds (TICs)
Range in Concentration (ppm)
0.019-0.22
0.21
0.024-1.6
0.022 - 1.9
0.037 - 21
0.022 - 6.0
0.17-56.0
0.15-49.0
0.082 - 32.0
0.12-32.0
0.15-33.0
0.12-30.0
0.100-32.0
0.061-22.0
0.029 - 9.5
0.068 - 23.0
1.48-219
Decision Summary - 35
-------
VOC TICs were also detected in ground water samples at levels ranging from 13 to 95 ppb during
the Phase II El and consisted of acetone. Acetone was also present in the associated field and trip
blank samples.
Seven ground water samples were analyzed for SVOCs, pesticides/PCBs and inorganics.
Acenaphthene, bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate and naphthalene were the only priority pollutant SVOCs
detected in the ground water, each present in one well at levels of 1 ppb, 11 ppb, and 8 ppb,
respectively. No SVOC TICs or PCBs were detected in Area R ground water samples. 4,4-DDD
was present in once sample at a concentration of 0.030 ppb and 4,4-DDT was present in two samples
at concentrations of 0.02 ppb and 0.04 ppb. Inorganics detected in the ground water samples
included chromium at 15.9 to 31.2 ppb, copper at 35.4 to 35.6 ppb, nickel at 47.8 to 112 ppb, lead
at 10.4 ppb, and zinc at 31.3 to 204 ppb.
E. ArejLS
SoU
During the £1 activities at Area S, a total often surface and near-surface soil samples and five
subsurface soil samples were collected for chemical analysis. All of these samples were analyzed for
priority pollutant VOCs. Surface soil samples and test pit samples collected at depths ranging from
the surface to 4 feet deep exhibited methylene chloride at concentrations ranging from 0.016 to 0.027
ppm; however, methylene chloride was also detected in the associated blank samples at
concentrations of 0.007 and 0.008 ppm. Toluene was also detected in six of the samples at
concentrations ranging from 0.001 to 0.005 ppm. Tetrachloroethene was present in four samples at
concentrations ranging from 0.002 to 0.005 ppm, while chloroform was present in one sample at a
concentration of 0.001 ppm. VOC TICs were detected in surface/near-surface soil samples at
concentrations ranging from 0.007 to 0.232 ppm. The VOC TICs included an unknown octadienol,
acetone, terpene and other unknowns. In subsurface soil samples, methylene chloride was detected
in two samples at concentrations of 0.017 and 0.020 ppm; however, it was also present in the
associated blank samples at concentrations of 0.005 and 0.007 ppm. VOC TICs were detected in
three subsurface soil samples at concentrations ranging from 0.05 ppm to 0.46 ppm. The VOC TICs
in the subsurface soil samples consisted of alkane, vinyl acetate, acetone and terpene.
Six surface/near-surface soil samples and two subsurface soil samples were analyzed for
SVOCs, PCBs/pesticides and inorganics. SVOCs detected in the surface/near-surface soil samples,
are summarized in Table 2. SVOC TICS were detected in each of the six surface/near-surface soil
samples at concentrations ranging from 3.1 ppm to 31.4 ppm. The SVOC TICs included alkanes,
alkenes, unidentified hydrocarbons, adipate and aldol condensate. In the two subsurface soil samples,
di-n-butylphthalate and bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate were the only SVOCs detected at concentrations
of 3.1 to 3.9 ppm and 0.39 ppm, respectively. SVOC TICs, consisting of aldol condensate and other
unknowns, were detected in each of the subsurface soil samples at total concentrations of 4.3 ppm
and 5.1 ppm.
No pesticides or PCBs were detected in the six surface/near-surface and two subsurface soil
samples. Inorganics detected in the surface/near-surface soil samples included chromium at 2.9 to
Decision Summary - 36
-------
TABLE 2
SUMMARY OF SEMI-VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
DETECTED IN AREA S SURFACE AND NEAR-SURFACE SOIL SAMPLES
Constituent
Phenol .
Naphthalene
Fluoranthene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Chrysene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Di-n-butylphthalate
Range in Concentration (ppm)
0.295-0.415
0.12
0,047 - 0.42
0.4
0.56
0.26
0,38
0.11-2.4
0.29
0.26
0.29
0.067
Decision Summary - 37
-------
4.7 ppm, copper at 8.4 to 8.8 ppm, mercury at 0.22 ppm, lead at 4.0 to 19 ppm, and zinc at 8.2 to
27.1 ppm. Subsurface soil samples exhibited lead at 0.96 to 2.7 ppm and zinc at 25.5 ppm.
Ground Water
A total of twelve ground water samples were collected from the Area S shallow monitoring
wells during the El. All twelve samples were analyzed for VOCs. Chloroform was the only priority
pollutant VOC which was detected in the ground water samples, present in four samples at
concentrations ranging from 0.1 to 4.0 ppb. VOC TICs were also detected in one ground water
sample at a level of 26 ppb and consisted of unknowns.
Six ground water samples were analyzed for SVOCs, pesticides/PCBs and inorganics. The
only priority pollutant SVOCs detected in the ground water include butylbenzylphthalate, present in
one well at a level of 1 ppb, and bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, di-n-butylphthalate, phenol and pyrene,
each present in a second well at concentrations of 2,600 ppb, 2 ppb, 9.55 ppb, and 2 ppb,
respectively. SVOC TICs were detected in four ground water samples at concentrations ranging
from 5 to 173 ppb. The SVOC TICs consisted of alkanes and other unknowns. No pesticides or
PCBs were detected in Area S ground water samples. Inorganics detected in the ground water
samples included chromium at 4.9 to 10.5 ppb, copper at 2.0 to 14.7 ppb, nickel at 9.0 to 13.1 ppb,
lead at 2.4 to 30.4 ppb, and zinc at 23.4 to 88.4 ppb.
Sediment jttt
A total of nine sediment samples were collected from the South Branch adjacent to Area S
during the site investigations. Each of these samples was analyzed for priority pollutant VOCs.
Toluene was detected in two samples at concentrations of 0.095 and 5.7 ppm.
Trichlorofluoromethane was detected in one sample at a concentration of 0.005 ppm. Methylene
chloride was detected in eight sediment samples at concentrations ranging from 0.023 to 0.22 ppm;
however, it was also detected in the associated blank samples at concentrations ranging from 0.007
to 0.18 ppm. VOC TICs were detected in four sediment samples at concentrations ranging from 0.07
to 0.664 ppm. The VOC TICs consisted of 1, l,2-trichloro-l,2,2-trifluoroethane and unknowns.
Two sediment samples were analyzed for SVOCs, pesticides/PCBs and inorganics. No
priority pollutant SVOCs were detected in the sediment samples but SVOC TICs were present at
concentrations of 190 and 324 ppm. The SVOC TICs consisted of aldol condensate, alkanes, alkenes
and other unknowns. No pesticides/PCBs were detected in the sediment samples. Lead and zinc
were the only inorganics detected in the two samples, at concentrations ranging from 48.8 to 61.8
ppm and 26.6. to 58.1 ppm, respectively.
Surface Water
Three surface water samples were collected from the South Branch adjacent to Area S. One
of the samples was analyzed for PP+40, while the remaining two samples were analyzed for VOCs
only. Methylene chloride was the only priority pollutant VOC detected in the surface water samples,
present in one sample at a concentration of 6 ppb. It was also detected in the associated blank
samples, however, at concentrations ranging from 7 to 180 ppb. VOC TICs, all attributed to the
Decision Summary - 38
-------
presence of acetone, were detected in each of the surface water samples at concentrations ranging
from 6 to 13 ppb and in each of the associated blank samples at concentrations ranging from 6 to 29
ppb. No SVOCs, pesticides or PCBs were detected in the single surface water sample analyzed for
full priority pollutants. Inorganics detected in this single sample include copper at 50.7 ppb and zinc
at 20.2 ppb.
VL SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS
A baseline risk assessment estimates the human health and ecological risks which could result
from contamination at a site if no remedial action is taken. For Areas 27, 56, F and R, quantitative
human health baseline risk assessments were conducted based upon site investigation results to
estimate the potential risks associated with current and future land uses at these sites. A qualitative
baseline risk assessment was conducted for Area S. Summaries of the Human Health Risk
Assessment (HHRA) and Ecological Risk Assessment (ERA) methodologies are presented below,
followed by site-specific risk assessment descriptions.
A. Humqn Health Risk Assessments
Each HHRA consisted of a four-step process to assess the potential site-related human health
risks under both current and potential future exposure scenarios. The four-step process includes
hazard identification, exposure assessment, toxicity assessment, and risk characterization steps, as
summarized below.
The hazard identification involves the selection of the constituents of concern (COCs), the
constituents detected during the investigations which have inherent toxic/carcinogenic effects that are
likely to pose the greatest concern with respect to the protection of human health.
The exposure assessment identifies the potential pathways and routes for COCs to reach
potential receptors, estimates the constituent concentrations at the points of exposure, and
characterizes the extent of the potential exposures. Exposure assessments for areas of concern at the
FAA Technical Center are predicated upon the fact that the entire FAA Technical Center is restricted
by a fence and security, and only government employees have access to the facility, thereby
precluding persons under the age of 18. Therefore, all risk assessments were conducted assuming
continued non-residential site use in the future. Constituent release mechanisms from the
environmental media, based on relevant hydrologic and hydrogeologic information (fate and
transport) and other pertinent site-specific information, are also presented in the HHRA.
The toxicity assessment summarizes the types of adverse health effects associated with
exposures to each COC and the relationship between magnitude of exposure (dose) and severity of
toxic effect (response).
For potential carcinogens, risks are estimated as probabilities. Constituent-specific cancer
potency factors (CPFs) are estimates of the constituent's carcinogenic potency based upon studies,
most often in laboratory animals but occasionally in humans, which test the relationship between the
magnitude of exposure and the prevalence of tumors in the exposed population. The CPFs used in
Decision Summary - 39
-------
the HHRA are presented as the expected cancer risk for a chronic exposure to 1 mg/kg/day of the
specific constituent (i.e., risk per unit dose or (mg/kg/day)"1), and correspond to the largest possible
linear slope (within a 95% confidence interval) of the dose-response curve.
Determining the potential for chronic non-cancer (systemic) effects was based on the use of
constituent-specific reference doses (RfDs). RfDs are estimates of the daily exposure to the
population that are likely to be without appreciable risk of deleterious effect. RfD values incorporate
numerous safety and/or modifying factors which serve as a conservative downward adjustment of the *
numerical value.
The risk characterization combines the estimates of exposure with the dose-response (or
toxicity) values to derive estimates of the potential cancer risks and the potential for adverse non-
cancer health effects.
Excess lifetime cancer risks were determined for each COC by multiplying the COC-specific
exposure dose by the COC-specific CPF, described above. The resulting cancer risk estimates are
expressed in scientific notation as a probability (e.g. 1x10"* for one in a million) and indicate (using
this example), that an average individual is likely to have a one in a million chance of developing
cancer over a 70 year lifetime. Current EPA practice considers carcinogenic risks to be additive when
assessing exposure to a mixture of constituents. That is, the COC-specific cancer risks are summed
to estimate pathway-specific cancer risks.
_. v _ , ... _ .. ...... .. .. . ^ ....
non-carcinogenic health effects. The HI is the sum of the constituent-specific hazard quotients (HQs)
which are calculated by dividing the exposure dose by the reference dose (RfD). In general, HQs are
assumed additive for constituents with similar toxic endpoints.
The estimated cancer risks and non-cancer His were evaluated using EPA's established target
risk range for Superfund cleanups (i.e, cancer risk range of 10"* to 10"4) and target HI value (i.e., HI
less than or equal to 1). The State of New Jersey defines acceptable lifetime career risks as risks of
10"* or less.
B. Ecological Risk Assessments
Ecological risk assessments either consisted of qualitative evaluations of ecological risk (e.g.,
for Areas 27, 56 and S) or quantitative risk assessments (e.g., for Areas F and R). For Areas F, R
and S a four-step process was utilized for assessing site-related ecological risks for a reasonable
maximum environmental exposure scenario.
In the first step, referred to as Problem Formulation, a qualitative evaluation of constituent
presence and distribution is conducted. COCs are identified, along with receptors and habitats of
interest and potential exposure pathways. Finally, endpoints are selected for further study.
In the Exposure Assessment step, a quantitative evaluation of receptor exposures and
constituent uptake into the food chain is conducted. Exposure point concentrations are measured or
estimated.
Decision Summary - 40
-------
In the Ecological Effects Assessment step, literature reviews, field studies, and/or toxicity
tests are used to link contaminant concentrations to effects on ecological receptors. The sensitive
toxic effects (e.g., developmental, neurological, etc.) on mammalian and avian receptors are
considered for each COC and benchmark doses are identified.
In the final Risk Characterization step, the potential for adverse effects is estimated by
comparing exposure doses to benchmark doses. By dividing the exposure dose by the ecological
benchmark dose for a specific COC, the ecological hazard quotient (EHQ) is calculated. An EHQ
of less than 1 indicates a low potential for adverse ecological effects while an EHQ greater than 1
indicates that a potential for adverse effects exists. Other factors which can aid in the interpretation
of EHQ values include, for example, spatial extent of affected media, significance of affected habitat,
and corroborating field evidence. EHQ values are summed across COCs when exposure occurs
within the same receptor, although the assumption of additivity may not be appropriate in situations
where the type of toxic effect (e.g., target organ) differs.
Also considered in the evaluation of ecological risks were the conclusions of the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS) based on their Environmental Contaminants Impact Analysis and
Ecological Risk Assessment for the FAA Technical Center (USFWS, 1996), a facility-wide evaluation
of potential ecological risks. This study involved the quantitative evaluation of ecological risks based
on soil and sediment characterizations, macroinvertebrate community assessments, sediment
bioassays, and/or earthworm bioassays at certain areas of concern (AOCs) and qualitative evaluations
of ecological risks at other AOCs.
Because several of the risk assessments were performed before the gathering of environmental
data was complete, potential risks were also evaluated by comparing detected contaminant levels for
all of the data with chemical-specific applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs)
and to-be-considered criteria (TBCs). Soil contaminant levels were compared to the most stringent
of NJDEP's soil cleanup criteria, including residential soil cleanup criteria, non-residential soil cleanup
criteria and impact to ground water soil cleanup criteria. Promulgated state and federal standards
(Le., federal and state Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) and Ground Water Quality Standards)
were used to evaluate ground water contamination. The New Jersey Ground Water Quality
Standards state that for Class I-Pineland (Protection Area) ground water, as is applicable to Areas
27, 56, F, R and S, the ground water quality standard shall be the background water quality. Where
a constituent standard (i.e., background) is of a lower concentration than the practical quantitation
level (PQL), a discharge is not considered to contravene the standard as long as the ground water
concentration is less than the PQL. Therefore, in the following discussions, contaminant levels are
compared to MCLs and PQLs.
The risk assessments/risk evaluations for each of the areas of concern are discussed separately
below.
A quantitative baseline HHRA and a qualitative ERA were conducted based upon the results
of the Phase I El to estimate the potential risks associated with current and future land uses at Area
Decision Summary - 41
-------
A
found in the Phase I El Report, Volume I (TRC, 1988).
Human Health Risk Assessment
Hazard Identification - The COCs which were identified for Area 27 on the basis of the
Phase I El included 4,4-DDT, which was detected in one surface soil sample, and the PCB Aroclor
1242, which was detected in a single shallow ground water sample.
Exposure Assessment - At Area 27, the current receptor population was characterized as
limited to government employees. Area 27 is located within a built-up section of the R&D area of
the Technical Center, and workers could be exposed to surface soils through dermal contact and/or
ingestion under current site use. Future land use at Area 27 may consist of various activities including
construction/excavation projects where construction workers could potentially be exposed to
subsurface soils. However, based on the relatively low concentrations of constituents detected in
subsurface soil samples, a quantitative assessment of risk associated with subsurface soil exposures
was not conducted. While there is no potable well currently located at Area 27, a well could
potentially be installed on-site in the future. Therefore, potential future exposures to ground water
via ingestion were evaluated. However, based on Area 27s location relative to existing potable wells
at the Technical Center and the depth at which the potable wells are screened, it is safe to assume no
migration of Area 27 constituents to potable wells would occur and, therefore, no exposure risks in
ground water are likely to occur.
The assumptions used in the HHRA regarding the magnitude, frequency, and duration of
exposures to the COCs in surface soils and ground water are provided in Table 3. Two exposure
point concentrations (EPCs) were identified for each COC; namely, the arithmetic average
concentration and the maximum detected concentration. The average and maximum concentrations
(and corresponding exposure assumptions) were used to characterize the "most probable case" and
"realistic worst case" exposures to the identified COCs, respectively. Under each exposure "case",
acute and chronic exposure doses were also estimated, corresponding to potential exposures averaged
over a single day and a lifetime, respectively.
Toxichy Assessment - The dose-response values used in the HHRA include the non-cancer
reference dose for PCBs (0.0003 mg/kg/day) which was obtained from the EPA's Environmental
Criteria and Assessment Office (May 1985) and the carcinogenic potency factors for 4,4-DDT (0.34
(mg/kg/day)'1) and PCBs (4.34 (mg/kg/day)'1) which were obtained from the EPA's Health Effects
Assessment (May 1986).
Risk Characterization - The results of the baseline risk assessment for Area 27 indicate that
modeled exposures to surface soil do not pose an unacceptable risk to human health under federal
guidelines. That is, estimated cancer risks and non-cancer His were below the target values (i.e., 10*6
to 10"4 and 1.0, respectively). The total carcinogenic risk associated with the current use scenario for
surface soil ingestion and dermal contact was estimated to be 7 x 10"*. The cancer risks associated
with ingestion of ground water under future site use were estimated to fall within the target cancer
risk range of 10"* to llJ under the realistic worst case (based on the maximum detected
concentrations), and to fall below this range under the most probable case (based on the average
Decision Summary - 42
-------
TABLE 3
EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT INPUT PARAMETERS
USED IN THE AREA 27 AND AREA 56 HHRAS
AREA 27 - FUEL MIST TEST FACILITY
AREA 56 - ABANDONED NAVY LANDFILL
FAA TECHNICAL CENTER
.'.'. Input Parameter : y
General (a)
Exposure, Point Concentration
(mg/kg; mg/l): (b)
Body Weight, Adult (kg):
Current FAA Worker (Surface Soils)
Ingestion
Ingestion Rate (kg/d):
Oral Absorption (-):
Area 27:
4,4-DDT
Area 56:
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Chromium
Lead'
Exposure Frequency (d/yr):
Exposure Duration (yr):
Dtmal Contact
Dermal Contact Rate (kg/d):
Dermal Absorption (-):
Area 27:
4,4-DDT
Area 56:
Bjs(2-ethvlhexyl)pnthalate
Chromium
Lead
Exposure Frequency (d/yr):
Exposure Duration (yr):
Future FAA Worker (Ground Water)
Jngestion
Ingestion rate (i/d):
Oral absorption ( ):
ATM 27:
PCBs
ATM 56:
Bts(2-ethylhexyl}phthalate
Cadmium
Chromkjrn
Lead
Mercury
Exposure Frequency (d/yr):
Exposure Duration (yr):
Most .
Probable
Case
Average
70
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
\
1.0
1.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
250
10
Realistic
Worst ;
Case'''
Maximum
70
0.0002
1.0
1.0
0.1
0.1
20
2
0.01
0.5
0.5
0.1
0.1
240
2
2
1.0
1.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
250
20
(a) Input parameters shown describe potential chronic exposures
averaged over a lifetime. Potential acute exposures were
also evaluated within the HHRA, based on an exposure over
a single day (i.e., without the application of the exposure
frequency and exposure duration factors feted above).
(b) Chemical-specific
NA » not analyzed
Decision Summary - 43
-------
concentrations). The carcinogenic risk associated with the ingestion of ground water was estimated f|P
to be 2 x 10"5 under the realistic worst case and 8 x 10"7 under the most probable case. The realistic
worst case risk estimate was based on the detection of PCBs in one monitoring well at a
concentration of 0.83 ppb. However, subsequent Phase n El resampling of the monitoring well in
which the PCBs were detected did not confirm the presence of PCBs in the monitoring well.
Therefore, there is a degree of uncertainty associated with this risk estimate.
The estimated non-cancer His for exposures to surface soil and ground water were less than
1.0 under both the realistic worst case and the most probable case. The total hazard index for chronic
effects associated with exposures to surface soils via' ingestion and dermal contact combined was
0.0004 under the realistic worst case. A total hazard index for acute effects associated with soil
exposures could not be calculated as the required toxicity value for 4,4-DDT was not available at the
time the risk assessment was conducted. The total hazard indices for acute and chronic effects for
exposures to ground water via ingestion were 0.002 and 0.05, respectively, under the realistic worst
case and 0.0002 and 0.007, respectively, under the most probable case.
Based on the results of the risk assessment, risks to human health under continued non-
residential use posed by constituents detected in the soil or ground water at Area 27 do not exceed
federal guidelines but do exceed the State of New Jersey's acceptable lifetime risk definition. The
detection of PCBs in a Phase I ground water sample is responsible for the exceedance of the State's
acceptable carcinogenic risk standard. However, there is a degree of uncertainty associated with the
calculated risks for this constituent since the presence of PCBs could not be verified through
resampling.
Ecological Risk Assessment
A qualitative ecological risk assessment was conducted on the basis of the same COCs as the
human health risk assessment. Due to the lack of an exposure pathway, wildlife generally is not
exposed to ground water. However, small mammals and earthworms could be exposed to 4,4-DDT
via soil contact. However, given the detection of 4,4-DDT in only one surface soil sample and the
relatively low level detected, major toxic effects associated with the presence of 4,4-DDT in Area 27
surface soils are unlikely. Therefore, it is unlikely that Area 27 would be associated with adverse
impacts to ecological receptors. Based upon the results of bioassays conducted within the Area 27
drainage swale, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) facility-wide Ecological Risk
Assessment also concluded that Area 27 is not presenting unacceptable risks to ecological receptors.
Comparison to ARARs/TBCs
Because only Phase I El data were used in the HHRA and ERA, Area 27 data were also
compared to ARARs and TBCs. Area 27 soil contaminant levels were evaluated with respect to New
Jersey soil cleanup criteria. At the time of sampling, New Jersey soil action levels had not been
established for individual compounds, but soil action levels of 10 ppm for total VOCs, 10 ppm for
total SVOCs and 100 ppm for TPH had been established. Following the completion of additional soil
removal actions at Area 27, these action levels were not exceeded by the detected levels of surface
soil contaminants, with the exception of TPH levels of up to 1,500 ppm which remained in soils
adjacent to the drainage pipe beneath Card Road. However, the remaining TPH concentrations do
Decision Summary - 44
-------
not exceed the current New Jersey residential soil cleanup criterion of 10,000 ppm for total organics
or current federal or state ARARs. Therefore, the presence of TPH in the soils beneath Card Road
at Area 27 evidences no significant threat to human health or the environment.
Cadmium was the only soil constituent which was detected at a level which exceeds the
current New Jersey residential soil cleanup criterion. However, based on NJDEP's approval of a
facility-wide Alternate Cleanup Standard of 39 ppm for cadmium, detected cadmium levels at Area
27 (which range from 1.1 to 2.4 ppm) are not indicative of adverse environmental impact. Also,
cadmium was not detected in subsurface soil samples or ground water samples, further illustrating
its lack of impact on environmental media at the site.
In ground water, chloroform and PCBs were the only organics detected at levels exceeding
MCLs and/or PQLs. However, each constituent was detected in only one ground water sample and
the presence of PCBs in the ground water was not verified by resampling of the well in which it was
originally detected. Beryllium, chromium, mercury, lead and zinc were the only inorganics detected
in ground water samples at levels exceeding MCLs or PQLs. Two constituents were present at levels
exceeding PQLs in the Area 27 upgradient monitoring well: lead (at 10.9 ppb) and chromium (at 13.3
ppb). Zinc was also present in the upgradient well but at a level of 28.8 ppb, which was just below
the PQL of 30 ppb. Beryllium, mercury and lead were each detected at a level exceeding applicable
standards in a single site well (with each constituent detected in a different well). Beryllium was
detected at a level of 8.2 ppb, which exceeds the MCL of 4 ppb. Mercury was detected at a level of
0.54 ppb, which slightly exceeds the MCL and PQL values of 0.5 ppb, but is within the mercury levels
(0.4 to 2.9 ppb) detected in upgradient wells at the Technical Center. Lead was detected at a level
of 11.7 ppb, which slightly exceeds the PQL of 10 ppb, but is within the range for upgradient wells
(6.1 to 67 ppb). Zinc was present in two site wells at levels of 105 ppb and 261 ppb, each of which
exceed the PQL of 30 ppb. Given the presence of chromium, lead and zinc in the background well
and the infrequency of detection of the other inorganics in site wells, it is concluded that past
activities at Area 27 have not impacted ground water quality and the area does not present a human
health or ecological concern.
D. Area 56
A quantitative baseline HHRA and a qualitative ERA were conducted based upon the results
of the Phase I El to estimate the potential risks associated with current and future land uses for Area
56. A summary of the HHRA and ERA is presented below. A more complete description can be
found in the Phase I El Report, Volume H (TRC, 1988).
Human Health Risk Assessment
Hazard Identification - The COCs which were identified for Area 56 on the basis of the
Phase I El included bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, cadmium, chromium, mercury, and lead. VOCs were
not included as COCs, primarily due to their low concentrations. Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate,
chromium and lead were detected in both surface and subsurface soil and shallow and intermediate
ground water while cadmium and mercury were detected in shallow and/or intermediate ground water
only.
Decision Summary - 45
-------
Exposure Assessment - At Area 56, the current receptor population was characterized as
limited to government employees due to the size and security of the FAA Technical Center. A
parking lot has been constructed on a portion of Area 56 and another portion of the site is
periodically used for recreational activities by FAA employees. Therefore, workers could be exposed
to surface soils through dermal contact and/or ingestion under current site use. Future land use at
Area 56 may consist of various activities including construction/excavation projects where
construction workers could potentially be exposed to subsurface soil contaminants. Similarly, while
there is no potable well currently located at Area 56, a well could potentially be installed on-site in
the future, resulting in exposures to shallow or intermediate ground water via ingestion. Therefore,
potential future exposures to ground water via ingestion were evaluated.
The assumptions used in the HHRA regarding the magnitude, frequency, and duration of
exposures to the COCs in surface soils, subsurface soils, and ground water are provided in Table 3
Two exposure point concentrations (EPCs) were identified for each COC; namely, the arithmetic
average concentration and the maximum detected concentration. The average and maximum
concentrations (and corresponding exposure assumptions) were used to characterize the "most
probable case" and "realistic worst case" exposures to the identified COCs, respectively. Under each
exposure "case", acute and chronic exposure doses were also estimated, corresponding to potential
exposures averaged over a single day and a lifetime, respectively.
Toxicity Assessment - The dose-response values used in the HHRA are summarized in
Table 4.
Risk Characterization - The results of the baseline risk assessment for Area 56 indicate that
modeled exposures to surface soil, subsurface soil, and shallow and intermediate ground water do not
pose an unacceptable risk to human heahh under federal or state guidelines. That is, estimated cancer
risks and non-cancer His were below the target values (i.e., KT* to 10"4 and 1.0, respectively). The
only carcinogenic COC detected in surface soil was chromium and chromium is not considered to
be carcinogenic via the oral or dermal routes of adsorption. Therefore, no carcinogenic risks were
estimated in association with exposures to surface soils. Under future site use conditions, the total
carcinogenic risk associated with dermal contact with and ingestion of the subsurface soil was
estimated to be 7 x IV9 under the realistic worst case (the most probable case was not evaluated).
The carcinogenic risk associated with the future ingestion of ground water was estimated to be
7 x 10"* under the reasonable worst case and 9 x 1CT9 under the most probable case.
The estimated non-cancer His for exposures to surface soil, subsurface soil, and shallow and
intermediate ground water were less than 1.0 under both the realistic worst case and the most
probable case. The total hazard indices for acute and chronic noncarcinogenic effects, respectively,
under the realistic worst case were estimated to be 0.002 and 0.002 for exposures to surface soils via
ingestion and dermal contact combined, 0.0005 and 0.4 for exposures to subsurface soils via ingestion
and dermal contact combined, and 0.03 and 0.2 for future exposures to ground water via ingestion.
Under the most probable case, total hazard indices for acute and chronic noncarcinogenic effects,
respectively, were estimated to be 0.002 and 0.02 for future exposures to ground water via ingestion
(the most probable case was not evaluated for soil exposures).
Decision Summary - 46
-------
, TABLE4
TOXICITY VALUES USED IN THE HHRA
AREA 56 - ABANDONED NAVY LANDFILL
FAA TECHNICAL CENTER
Constituent :
Bis(2-ethylh«xy1)phthalate
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Non-Cancer
Reference
Dose
-------
Based on the results of the risk assessment, under continued non-residential site use,
constituents detected in the soil or ground water at Area 56 do not pose unacceptable risks under
federal or state" guidelines.
Ecological Risk Assessment
A qualitative ERA was conducted on the basis of the same COCs as the HHRA. Due to the
lack of an exposure pathway, wildlife generally is not exposed to ground water. Potential risks to
wildlife associated with the presence of chromium and lead in surface soils would not be considered
to be significant, as the detected levels of these constituents were not elevated above state
background levels. Similarly, the potential risk associated with exposures to bis(2-
ethylhexyl)phthalate in subsurface soils is low because the compound exhibits low toxicity, is not well
absorbed, and was detected only in two of eight subsurface soil samples collected at depths of 8 to
10 feet and 16 to 18 feet, respectively. Therefore, it is unlikely that Area 56 would be associated with
adverse impacts to ecological receptors. Based on a review of available contaminant data and site
inspections, the USFWS also concluded that no exposure concern exists for terrestrial receptors at
Area 56.
Comparison to ARARs/TBCs
Because only Phase I El data were used in the HHRA and ERA, Area 56 data were also
compared to ARARs and TBCs. Area 56 soil contaminant levels were evaluated with respect to New
Jersey soil cleanup criteria. No soil constituents were detected at levels which exceed New Jersey
residential soil cleanup criteria. In ground water, 1,1,1-trichloroethane and, to a lesser extent, 1,1-
dichloroethene have been consistently detected in an intermediate monitoring well at levels exceeding
PQLs. Inorganics have consistently been detected in a shallow monitoring well at levels exceeding
PQLs or MCLs. Detected concentrations have generally decreased during the quarterly ground water
monitoring, with nickel, chromium, and nitrate as nitrogen consistently detected at levels exceeding
PQLs and lead and zinc periodically detected at levels exceeding PQLs. While these exceedances
have been identified in on-site ground water samples, no evidence of off-site migration has been
detected. Table 22 in the Area 56 ground water summary tables presented in Appendix D compares
historic ground water data to PQLs.
£. ArtmJE
A quantitative baseline HHRA and a quantitative ERA were conducted based upon the results
of the Phase I and Phase n Els to estimate the potential risks associated with current and future land
uses for Area F. A summary of the HHRA and ERA is presented below. A more complete
description can be found in the Draft Final Risk Assessment, Area F, Air Blast Facility (TRC, 1996).
Human Health Risk Assessment
Hazard Identification - The COCs which were identified for Area F on the basis of the Phase ^
I and Phase JJ Els are listed in Table 5. For the purposes of the HHRA, only those samples collected
at depths of 0 to 2 feet were considered surface soil samples. Composite samples that included soil
from depths of 0 to 2 feet and 4 to 6 feet were evaluated as subsurface soil samples.
Decision Summary - 48
-------
TABLE 5
CONSTITUENTS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN
AREA F - AIR BLAST FACILITY
FAA TECHNICAL CENTER
2 INORGANICS
Cadmium
Chromium
1 VOLATILES
Acetone
1 SEMIVOLATILE
Phenol
- - - - ^^g
10 SUBSURFACE SOIL
1 INORGANIC
Cadmium
6 VOLATILES
Acetone
Ethyibenzene
Hexanone,2-
Methyl,2-pentanone,4-
Methylene chloride
Xylene
2 SEMIVOLATILES
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phtha!ate
Naphthalene
1 PCB
Aroclor 1242
12 GROUND WATER
7 INORGANICS
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Selenium
Zinc
4 VOLATILES
Acetone
Benzene
Ethyibenzene
Xylene
1 SEMIVOLATILE
Phenol
Decision Summary - 49
-------
Exposure Assessment - At Area F, the current receptor population was characterized as
limited to government employees. Current site use of Area F is limited to occasional visits by an FAA
employee or contractor to the Building 311 complex. Access to the general area in which Area F is
located is restricted because the site is located within the Airport Operations Area (AOA), an area
accessible only to pre-authorized employees through a small number of mechanized security gates.
At Area F, workers could be exposed to surface soils through dermal contact and/or ingestion under
current she use. While no development of the she is currently planned, future land use at Area F was
considered to possibly include construction/excavation projects where construction workers could
potentially be exposed to subsurface soil contaminants via dermal contact and incidental ingestion.
Similarly, while there is no potable well currently located at Area F, a well could potentially be
installed on-site in the future, resulting in exposures ground water via ingestion and dermal contact.
Therefore, potential future exposures to ground water via ingestion and dermal contact were
evaluated. For each exposure scenario, the reasonable maximum exposure concentrations were
evaluated.
The assumptions used in the HHRA regarding the magnitude, frequency, and duration of
exposures to the COCs in surface soils, subsurface soils, and ground water are provided in Table 6.
Toxicity Assessment - The dose-response values used in the HHRA are summarized in
Tables 7A through 7C.
Risk Characterization - The results of the baseline risk assessment for Area F indicate that
modeled non-residential exposures to surface soil, subsurface soil, and shallow ground water do not
pose an unacceptable risk to human health under federal or state guidelines. That is, estimated cancer
risks and non-cancer His were below the target values (i.e., 10* to W4 and 1.0, respectively). Due
to a lack of EPA cancer slope factors and/or EPA dermal absorption values for the surface soil COCs,
cancer risks were not calculated for surface soil exposures under the current FAA worker or future
commercial/industrial exposure scenarios. Under future conditions, the total carcinogenic risk
associated with dermal contact with and ingestion of the subsurface soil was estimated to be 3 x 10"7.
The carcinogenic risk associated with the future ingestion of ground water was estimated to be
2 x lO'7.
The estimated non-cancer His for exposures to surface soil, subsurface soil, and shallow
ground water were less than 1.0 under all exposure scenarios. The total hazard indices were
estimated to be 0.0002 for exposures to surface soils via ingestion and dermal contact combined,
0.009 for exposures to subsurface soils via ingestion and dermal contact combined, and 0.9 for future
exposures to ground water via ingestion.
Based on the results of the risk assessment, under continued non-residential site use,
constituents detected in the soil or ground water at Area F do not pose unacceptable risks under
federal or state guidelines.
Ecological Risk Assessment
A
Problem Formulation - Problem formulation included relating the quantitative and spatial ^^
extent of constituents to key habitats to determine what receptors may be at greatest potential risk,
Decision Summary - 50
-------
TABLE 6
SUMMARY OF EXPOSURE PARAMETER VALUES
AREA F - AIR BLAST FACILITY
FAA TECHNICAL CENTER
PARAMETER
." ' "
Global variables:
Body Weight (kg)
Adult (Current FAA Worker; Future Construction
Worker; Future Commercial/Industrial)
Exposure Duration (yr)
-Current FAA Worker
- Future Construction Worker
- Future Commercial/Industrial
Averaging Tune (d)
- Cancer risks
- Noncancer hazard quotients
Current FAA Worker
Construction
Future Commercial/Industrial
Adherence Factor for Soil (mg/cm2)
Fraction of Exposed Surface Area that contacts soil
Relative Absorption Factors (-)
- fnjjestton of soil & ground water
- Dermal contact wfth sol
Cadmium
PCBs
Chemical Concentration Justification:
SoHs; Ground Water
Scenario 1 - Currant FAA Worker
Exposure Frequency (dfyr)
Ingestion of Constituents In Soft
Ingestkm Rate (mg/d)
Derma/ Contact with Chemicals In Soils
Skin Surface Area (cm2)
VALUE
USED
70
25
1
25
25,550
9.125
365
9.125
1
0.5
1.0
0.01
0.06
40
100
2,000
RATIONALE FOR VALUE USED
' -
Value based on average of males and females between 18-75 yrs
National upper-bound (95th percentte) at one job.
Time spent doing construction, excavation, or utility work.
National upper-bound (95th percenfle) at one job.
Value based upon 70 year life expectancy.
Value based upon exposure duration.
Value based upon exposure duration.
Value based upon exposure duration.
Reasonable upper value
(a)
Fraction absorbed (b)
Fraction absorbed (c)
The 95tt UCL or maximum concentrations were used in estimating
exposure
Based on visits to the site for 3 hours per day. 2 days per week
Assumes non-contact intensive exposures
Corresponds to 10% total body surface area
REFERENCE
FOR VALUE
USED
EPA 1993a
EPA 1993a
BPJ
EPA 1993a
EPA 1989a
EPA, 1992b
EPA. 1989c
BPJ
EPA, 1992b
EPA, 1992b
FAA. 1996
EPA 1993a
EPA1992b
o
-------
uj O
Cf U.
I
o:
S
o
?=
n
222
CQ «* ff\
CD
I
g § i
CM
fiiE-S
«O
o>
flJ 0
CO P>
o> o>
O> O
"S
fe
o
£
s
fi
5
g
Cj
8
g g ^
rn »-
CM
o>
OL Q- Q. O.
HI UJ UJ LU
i
A
1
r S
£ «
1? i
o
Decision Summary - 52
-------
a
Ul
O sd
PO
Si
a
M
111
e
&
(O
^M
is
m u
tr x
n
|i
5S in
KIO
III
(0 CO (O
LU Lu LU Lu
t- t-
HS2I-
to~ of co jo § « to"
-------
(J
I
o
O
§
S
8
CO
Ul
i
H
i
B
I,
88
H l-_ &
to w -
E$i$M
^lillli fPiii,
1-11-
1 i
3 8
1 i
I i E
PI
ill
i i
i-INlis sis
O O O
c> o
I
zoo:
tUJ
55
UJ LU < S-'S'
£x xz £
-------
loZSoi
8
88
8
-»- £'
! to w I-w '
!JSS !§35!
iS? xl'
i
9
cc
Ul
teo
!1
!
CO
1
1
1
II
I.
A
ci 5=>
. 6
cso'
(O ^- tr
oi=>s-
-.&
i U i
%
I
«H
I]
Ul :
=>
XX
i SS
Decision Summary - 55
-------
scoping the approach for assessing these risks, and selecting COCs for detailed analysis. Surface soil
was determined to be the media of greatest concern with respect to ecological effects. Subsurface
soil and ground water were not considered to be potential sources of exposure to terrestrial receptors.
The Area F surface soil COCs included acetone, phenol, cadmium, chromium, lead, and zinc.
4
The respective ecological receptors (plant or animal species or habitat) modeled as potentially
being exposed to these COCs include the following:
White-footed mouse, due to its likely presence in the grassland habitats near Area F,
its ingestion of insects and vegetation, and its consumption by higher order species;
White-tailed deer, due to its documented presence at the FAA Technical Center and
herbivorous nature;
Red fox, due to its tendency to prey on small mammals and vegetation;
American robin, due to its identification at the facility and preference for habitat
similar to that found at or near Area F and its consumption of both insects and
vegetation; and
Broad-winged hawk, due to its consumption of small mammals and young birds and
its potential for experiencing biomagnification. Jflfe
Exposure Assessment - The exposure assessment provides a determination of which
pathways are most likely to produce significant exposures to selected indicator species and the
derivation of estimates of the daily exposure dose indicator species would obtain from on-site COCs.
Major exposure pathways that were evaluated for the Area F indicator species included the following:
White-footed mouse -ingestion of vegetation, insects, and soil;
White-tailed deer - ingestion of vegetation and soil;
Red fox - ingestion of white-footed mice, vegetation, and soil
American robin - ingestion of insects, earthworms, soil and vegetation; and
Broad-winged hawk - ingestion of white-footed mice and soil.
Stressor-Response Assessment - The stressor-response assessment requires the development
of an understanding of COC potency for indicator species via a review of pertinent laboratory or field
toxicity studies and the linking of COC concentrations to potential effects on ecological receptors.
The sensitive toxic effects (e.g., developmental, neurological, etc.) on mammalian and avian receptors
were considered for each COC and benchmark doses were identified using a two-step process. In
the first step, benchmark doses were identified based on the chronic no observable adverse effect level
(NOAEL) pertinent to the indicator species or, if no chronic NOAEL was available, by deriving an
ecological benchmark dose from another toxicity endpoint by the application of an uncertainty factor
Decision Summary - 56
-------
(ranging from 5 for a chronic LOAEL to 100 for an LD50). In the second step, the chronic NOAEL
value (identified or estimated) was then modified to account for uncertainties associated with
phylogenetic effects.
Risk Characterization - The estimated cumulative EHQs for soil-related exposures at Area
F are summarized in Table 8. As indicated, the estimated EHQs exceed 1 for all five indicator species
evaluated and indicate that a potential for adverse ecological effects exists. The EHQs for the mouse
(7) and deer (2) are primarily attributable to cadmium, while the EHQ for the fox (2) is primarily due
to cadmium and zinc. Zinc is also the primary contributor to the EHQs for the robin (20) and hawk
(20). Key uncertainties in the risk characterization included the detection of chromium, lead and zinc
in surface soil at concentrations which were less than the maximum background levels reported for
New Jersey soils by NJDEP and the incorporation of uncertainty factors ranging from 8 to 800 into
the species-specific ecological benchmark doses for cadmium, chromium, lead and zinc.
The USFWS conducted a qualitative review of available contaminant data from Area F and
conducted site inspections which indicated the presence of poor foraging habitat at Area F. Based
on this evaluation, the USFWS concluded that the site does not pose much, if any, threat of exposure
to fish and wildlife.
Comparison to ARARs/TBCs
Because only Phase I and Phase n El data were used in the HHRA and ERA, Area F data
were also compared to ARARs and TBCs. Area F soil contaminant levels were evaluated with
respect to New Jersey soil cleanup criteria. No soil constituents were detected at Area F at levels
which exceed New Jersey residential soil cleanup criteria or the facility-wide Alternate Cleanup
Standard of 39 ppm for cadmium (granted by NJDEP in 1996). In ground water, benzene was
detected in a single Phase I perched ground water sample at a concentration of 2 ppb, which exceeds
the PQL of 1 ppb. It was not detected, however, in a duplicate sample or in a sample collected from
the same well in August 1996. Inorganics have been detected in ground water at levels exceeding
PQLs or MCLs but they have not been consistently detected in each sampling round. Of the
inorganics detected in the Phase I ground water sampling effort at levels exceeding PQLs, lead and
chromium were the only ones detected in subsequent sampling efforts at levels exceeding PQLs.
Lead was detected in two Phase E samples at levels of 25.2 ppb and 25.8 ppb, which exceed the PQL
of 10 ppb but are within the range of lead levels (i.e., 6.1 to 67 ppb) detected in upgradient wells at
the Technical Center. Lead did not exceed PQLs in the August 1996 sampling effort. Chromium was
detected in two August 1996 perched ground water samples at 19 ppb and 13.5 ppb, which exceed
the PQL of 10 ppb but are less than the average FAA background concentration of 21 ppb.
F. AreaR
A quantitative baseline HHRA and a quantitative ERA were conducted based upon the results
of all environmental data collected during the Area R site investigations to estimate the potential risks
associated with current and future land uses. A summary of the HHRA and ERA is presented below.
A more complete description can be found in the Draft Final Risk Assessment, Area R, Trash Dump
(TRC, 1995).
Decision Summary - 57
-------
TABLE 8
SUMMARY OF ECOLOGICAL HAZARD QUOTIENTS
AREA F - AIR BLAST FACILITY
FAA TECHNICAL CENTER
Constituent
INORGANICS
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Zinc
VOLATILES
Acetone
SEMIVOLATILES
Phenol
TOTAL
Mouse
:.":*;[
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.07
0.01
<:%*;'-
.^"iDeer '';.''.
1
0.04
0.02
0.05
0.02
0.004
:;';;";:.2:'-;'.-j:V
:='' '?<*-.' : ':
0.6
0.1
0.01
1
0.004
0.0008
!:,;:^2v':.':
Robin
'.-...- *.-'
""'-.'2
.."': 4 ".
10
0.03
NA
20 '; '
Hawk
0.03
0.2
0.1
. 20
0.000002
NA
. ' 20
4ft
shaded text
EHQ
<§
Decision Summary - 58
-------
Human Health Risk Assessment
Hazard Identification - The COCs which were identified for Area R on the basis of the site
investigations and quarterly monitoring data are listed in Table 9. No subsurface soil COCs were
identified, as no constituents were detected in the two subsurface soil samples collected from 1 to 10
feet below grade (considered a reasonable maximum depth of excavation for construction projects).
Exposure Assessment - At Area R, the current receptor population was characterized as
limited to government employees. Current site use of Area R is limited to occasional visits by an
FAA employee. Access to the general area in which Area R is located is via a locked gate off of
English Creek Road. No signs of trespassing are evident at the site. At Area R, workers could be
exposed to surface soils through dermal contact and/or ingestion under current site use. While no
development of the site is currently planned, future land use at Area R was considered to possibly
include construction/excavation projects where construction workers could potentially be exposed
to subsurface soil contaminants via dermal contact' and incidental ingestion. However, as described
in the previous paragraph, no subsurface soil COCs were identified and, therefore, a quantitative
assessment of risk associated with subsurface soil exposures was not conducted. While there is no
potable well currently located at Area R, a well could potentially be installed on-site in the future,
resulting in exposures ground water via ingestion and dermal contact. Therefore, based on potential
future development of the site, future exposures to surface soils and ground water via dermal contact
and/or ingestion were evaluated. For each exposure scenario, the reasonable maximum exposure
concentrations were evaluated.
The assumptions used in the HHRA regarding the magnitude, frequency, and duration of
exposures to the COCs in surface soils and ground water are provided in Table 10.
Toxicity Assessment - The dose-response values used in the HHRA are summarized in
Tables 11A through 11C.
Risk Characterization - The results of the baseline risk assessment for Area R indicate that
modeled non-residential exposures to surface soil and shallow ground water do not pose an
unacceptable risk to human health under federal guidelines. That is, estimated cancer risks and non-
cancer His were within or below the target values (i.e., 10"* to 10"4 and 1.0, respectively). Under
current site use conditions, the total carcinogenic risk associated with dermal contact with and
ingestion of surface soils is 6 x 10"*. Under a future commercial/industrial use scenario, the total
carcinogenic risk associated with dermal contact with and ingestion of surface soils and ingestion of
ground water is estimated to be 2 x 10"*, which is near the upper end of EPA's acceptable cancer risk
range. Of this total, the carcinogenic risk associated with incidental ingestion of surface soil was
1 x 10~* and the carcinogenic risk associated with ingestion of ground water was 2 x 10'1. Polynuclear
aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in the surface soils and vinyl chloride in the ground water were the
main contributors to these risk estimates. The key uncertainties associated with these risk estimates
include the use of maximum PAH concentrations in soil to estimate exposure, the presence of asphalt
fragments over the surface of the site (which may have contributed to the detection of PAHs in the
surface soil samples), and the detection of vinyl chloride in ground water at or below the MCL (0.002
mg/1) in 3 of 4 detections (33 samples total).
Decision Summary - 59
-------
TABLE 9
CONSTITUENTS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN
AREA R-TRASH DUMP
FAA TECHNICAL CENTER
30 SURFACE SOIL
0 SUBSURFACE SOIL
22 GROUND WATER
10 INORGANICS
Arsenic
Beryllium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
16 SEMIVOLATILES
Acenaphthene
Anthracene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(g,h,i)peryiene
Benzo(k}ftuoranthene
Chrysene
0!benzo(a,h)anthracene
Fluoranthene
FKiorene
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Pyrene
2 PESTICIDES
DDE, 4,4'-
DDT, 4,4'-
2 PCBs
Aroctor 1242
Arodor 1254
5 INORGANICS
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
12 VOLATILES
Acetone
Benzene
Butanone, 2-
Chlorobenzene
Chloroform
Dichlorobenzene, 1,2-
DicMorobenzene, 1,3-
Dichlorobenzene, 1,4-
DichJoroethene, 1^-
-------
& uiui ui
ui ui ui ui
t
5
I
g
I
v
g
I
i
ill
I
i i,
if
i
i
1*
i
8
i «
t
?
1
.! f «
* *
i
S
i
S KS
5 I I S§ i I -
.{
ill
i:
'I!
£ tOZ
I I
Hi
i
Hi Hlii! I
II
I I
Decision Summaiy - 61
-------
TABLE 11A
SUMMARY OF TOXICITY VALUES ASSOCIATED WITH CARCINOGENIC EFFECTS: ORAL.
AREA R- TRASH DUMP
FAA TECHNICAL CENTER
Constituent
INORGANICS
An«nic(a}
Beryllium
Chromium 111
Chromium VI
Copper
Cyanide
LMKt
Mercury
NJck»l
SHver
Zinc
VOLATILES
Acetone
Senzene
Sutanone, 2-
Chlorobenzene
Ihloroform
fchlorobenzene, 1.2-
Dtehlorobenzene. 1.3-
Dtehtorobenzene.1.4-
Dtehtoroethene, 1.2-(cis)
illrytbenzene
Vinyl chloride
Xyfeoa (total)
SEMVOLAT1LES
Acenapnthene
Anthracene
lenzo{a)anthracano (b)
kNizo(a)pyrene
tenzo(b)fluorantheno (b)
)enzo(g,h,i)perylene
3enzo(k)fluorantheno (b)
Bi«(2-Bhy1bexyf)phth»lat»
!hry«ene(b)
)ibanzo(a,h)anthraoena (b)
luoranthene
Tuorene
lndeno<1 ,2,3-cd)pyreoe O)
Naphthalene
'henanthrene
ttenol
Pyrene
PESTICIDES
ODD. 4.4-
DOE.4.4-
DOT. 4.4-
PC8e
Arodor-1242 (c)
Arodor-1254 (c)
SLOPE FACTOR
(SF)ORAL
fmo/icg-4EAST
DM/IRIS
NA/1RIS.HEAST
NAflRlS^EAST
NAflRtS^EAST
NAflRIS^EAST
DieMRB
DieMRIS
DteORJS
DteMRJS
DM/IRIS
RIS - U.S. EPA. 1»4a. Integrated RWc krformaSon Sytfem (IRIS) Database
HEAST - U.S. EPA (ECAO). 1994b, Health Effect* Assessment Summary Tables (HEAST): Annual Update
NA » Texfcfty value not available
(a) Estimated from unit nsk of 5 x10-3 (ug/l).i
(b) Cancer slope factor for benzo(a)pvrene combined wtth the Icudc equivalency factors (tEFs) for (he other
carcinogenic PAHs
(c) Cancer slope factor for polychlorinmted biphenyts (PCBs)
Decision Summary - 62
-------
TABLE11B
SUMMARY OF TOXICTTY VALUES ASSOCIATED WITH NONCARCINOGENIC CHRONIC EFFECTS: ORAL
AREA R- TRASH DUMP
FAA TECHNICAL CENTER
Constituent
INORGANICS
Arsenic
iaryllium
Ihromium III
Chromium VI
Copper (a)
Cyanide
Lead
dercury
Nickel (b)
Silver
Zinc
VOUAT1LES
Acetone
Senzene
Sutanone, 2-
CMoiabenzene
(hKmfforni
DfcfikKObenzane, 12-
Jichlorobenzene, 1,3-
Dkhlorobenzene, 1,4- '
Dichloroethene, 1 .2-{cts)
Ethytfaenzene
Vinyl chloride
XytenaOotaQ
SEMTVOLATttES
Acemaphthene
Anthracene
)enzo(e)anthracene
ienzo(a)pyrene
lenzo(b)fluorsntnene
lenzotJe.h.Qperylena (c)
Senzo(k)lhioranthene
Jhrvsene
5fbenzo(«,h)anthreoene
nuoranthene
Huorene
lndeno<1.2,3-cd)pyren*
Naphthalene
9henantnrene (c)
Phenol
Pyrene
PESTICIDES
ODD, 4.4-
3OE.4.4-
DOT.4.4-
PCB*
Aractor-1242
Aroetor.1254
Chronic RtD
(Oral)
(mg/lcg-day)
0.0003
0.005
1
0.005
0.037
0.02
NA
0.0003
0.02
0.003
0.3
0.1
NA
0.6
0.02
0.01
0.09
NA
NA
0.01
0.1
NA
2
0.08
0.3
NA
NA
NA
0.04
NA
fl OS <
U.W*
NA
NA
0.04
0.04
NA
0.04
0.04
0.8
0.03
NA
NA
0.0006
NA
NA
Confidence
Leva)
Medium
Low
Low
Low
Medium
Medium
Low
Medium
Low
Low
Medium
Medium
Low
Low
Medium
Low
Low
Medium
Low
Low
Low
Low
Medktm
Critical Effect
Hyperpigrrwntation. keratoeis, possible vascular effect*
None observed
None observed
None observed
Local gastrointestinei irritation
Decreased body wt., thyroid effects, myalin degeneration
Money effect*
Reduced body and organ weight
Dermal eflects
Anemia
Increased Hver and kidney weight
Decreased fetal birth weight
UvertoxtcHy
Fetotadc. Fatty cysts in the Hver
nOfflV OOMfWl
Blood
Liver and kidney tarfetty
HypenetMty^ecreaied body weighl.incmased mortality
HepaldoxtcKy
None observed
Decreased body weight gain
Increased relative tiver weight
Kidney, fiver. Wood, and clinical effects
Hematotooteal effects
Decreased body weight gain
Decreased body weight gain
Reduced fatal body weigh!
Kidney effect*
Uver lesions
OralRfD '
Basis/Source
Water/IRIS
Water/IRIS
Diet/IRlS
Water/IRIS
OraWHEAST
DM/IRIS
NMRISXEAST
OraVHEAST
Diet/IRlS
I.V71R1S
DleMRIS
t^vege/lRIS
NAflR!S,HEAST
OraVRIS
OraMRlS
OraMRlS
OevaoeJTRlS
NAWIS.HEAST
NMRIS.HEAST
QtvagerHEAST
OraMRlS
NMR1S.HEAST
OavageyiRIS
OevagertRlS
QavogenRIS
MMRIS.HEAST
NA/IRISXEAST
NA/IVSXEAST
Gavage/HEAST92
MMRIS.HEAST
Dlet/KUS
NAflRlS^EAST
NA/VtiS^HEAST
QevageARIS
OavageflRIS
NAflRlS^EAST
Oavage/HEAST92
OavogeyHEASTBZ
OavaoeflRJS
OevegeflRJS
NAWIS^IEAST
NMRIS^iEAST
DMrWS
NA/IRK^EAST
NATOIS^TEAST
Uncertainty
Factor
3
100
100
500
100
1000
300
3
3
1000
3000
1000
1000
1000
3000
1000
100
3000
3000
10000
1000
3000
3000
10000
10000
100
3000
100
Modifying
Factor
1
1
10
1
5
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
NA
1
1
NA
1
1
1
IRIS - U.S. EPA, 1994a, integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) Database
HEAST U.S. EPA (ECAO). 1994b. Health Effect* Assessment Summary Tablet (HEAST): Annual Update
HEASTW » U.S. EPA (ECAO), 1882f, Health Effects Assessment Summary Tabtes (HEAST): Annual Update. Used per guidance from EPA Region I.
NA » Tondty value net available
() Value derived from current drinking water standard of 1.3 mg/l
(b) Value for metallic nickel
(c) Value for naphthalene
Decision Summary - 63
-------
TABLE11C
SUMMARY OF TOXICITY VALUES ASSOCIATED WITH NONCARCINOOENIC SUBCHRONIC EFFECTS: ORAL
AREA R - TRASH DUMP
FAA TECHNICAL CENTER
Constituent
INORGANICS
Arsenic
Beryllium
Chromium IN
Chromium VI
Coopor(a)
Cyanide
-eed
Mercury
1ldtel(b)
SIN*/
Zinc
VOLATtES
featone
ienzene
Butanone.2-
Ctubrabanzena (c)
Chloroform
WchJocobenzsne, 1.2-(c)
Wchkxobenzsne, 1.3-
Wchkxobenzeoe. 1,4-
Ulcblocoatheoe, 1 £-{<&)
Ethylbenzane (c)
vinyl chloride
Xyltoe (total) (c)
SEMn/OLATLES
teeosphlhene
Vithraoene
lanzo(a)anmraceo«
Benro(a)pyrane
tanro(b}fkicfinthena
)enzo(gjij)perylene (d)
lenzo(k)flucnnthene
Chrysene
}lbeflZD((,h)en(hncen«
Tuorartheoe
Tuoreoe
ndef>o{1 ,2,3-cd)pyrene
H^h\t»S*»
Phenarrthrene (d)
t»nol
Pyt»o«
PESTICCES
XX). 4.4-
E>DE,4.4-
3OT, 4.4-
PCSs
^rod
-------
The estimated non-cancer His for exposures to surface soil and shallow ground water were
less than 1.0 under all exposure scenarios, The total hazard indices were estimated to be 0.0003 for
exposures to surface soils via ingestion and dermal contact combined, and 0.1 for future exposures
to surface soils via ingestion and dermal contact and to ground water via ingestion combined.
Based on the results of the risk assessment, under continued non-residential site use, risks to
human health posed by constituents detected in the soil or ground water at Area R do not exceed
federal guidelines, but do exceed the State of New Jersey's acceptable lifetime risk definition.
However, there is a degree of uncertainty associated with the calculated risks associated with PAHs
in the surface soil, as described above. In a letter to the FAA Technical Center from NJDEP dated
October 17,1995, NJDEP concurred with the conclusion that the risk assessment exceedances were
primarily due to the existence of asphalt in the soil samples and, therefore, no remedial actions are
required.
Ecological Risk Assessment
Problem Formulation - Problem formulation included relating the contaminant data to site-
specific biological species/habitat information to determine what receptors may be at greatest
potential risk, scoping the approach for assessing these risks, and selecting COCs for detailed
analysis. Surface soil was determined to be the media of greatest concern with respect to ecological
effects. Subsurface soil and ground water were not considered to be potential sources of exposure
to terrestrial receptors. The Area R surface soil COCs are listed in Table 9.
The respective ecological receptors (plant or animal species or habitat) modeled as potentially
being exposed to these COCs include the following:
Deer mouse, due to its likely presence in the grassland portions of Area R, its
ingestion of insects and vegetation, and its consumption by higher order species;
White-tailed deer, due to its documented presence at the FAA Technical Center and
herbivorous nature;
Red fox, due to its tendency to prey on small mammals and vegetation;
Grasshopper sparrow, due to its identification at the facility, the presence of suitable
habitat at Area R, its consumption of both insects and vegetation, and its small spatial
range; and
Broad-winged hawk, due to its consumption of small mammals, amphibians, reptiles,
and occasionally young birds, and its potential for experiencing biomagnification.
Exposure Assessment - The exposure assessment provides a determination of which
pathways are most likely to produce significant exposures to selected indicator species and the
derivation of estimates of the daily exposure dose indicator species would obtain from on-site COCs.
Major exposure pathways that were evaluated for the Area R indicator species included the following:
Decision Summary - 65
-------
Deer mouse - dermal contact with soil and ingestion of vegetation, insects, and soil; UP
White-tailed deer - dermal contact with soil and ingestion of vegetation and soil;
Red fox - dermal contact with soil and ingestion of deer mice, vegetation, and soil; *
Grasshopper sparrow - dermal contact with soil and ingestion of insects, soil and
vegetation; and
Broad-winged hawk - ingestion of deer mice and soil.
Strcssor-Responsc Assessment - The stressor-response assessment requires the development
of an understanding of COC potency for indicator species via a review of pertinent laboratory or field
toxicity studies and the linking of COC concentrations to potential effects on ecological receptors.
The sensitive toxic effects (e.g., developmental, neurological, etc.) on mammalian and avian receptors
were considered for each COC and benchmark doses were identified, typically based on no observable
adverse effect levels (NOAELs) pertinent to the indicator species.
Risk Characterization - The estimated cumulative EHQs for soil-related exposures at Area
R are summarized in Table 12. As indicated, the estimated EHQs exceed 1 for three indicator
species, the deer mouse, grasshopper sparrow and broad-winged hawk, indicating that a potential for
adverse ecological effects exists. The EHQs for the remaining species (white-tailed deer and red fox)
were less than 1. The EHQ for the mouse (11) is primarily attributable to copper, lead and zinc, the
EHQ for the sparrow (14) is primarily due to copper and zinc, and the EHQ for the broad-winged
hawk (2.2) is primarily due to zinc. Key uncertainties in the risk characterization included the
derivation of ecological benchmark doses for the COCs.
The USFWS conducted a qualitative review of available Area R contaminant data and site
inspections and concluded that the site does not pose much, if any, threat of exposure to fish and
wildlife.
Comparison to ARARs/TBCs
Area R data were also compared to ARARs and TBCs. Area R soil contaminant levels were
evaluated with respect to New Jersey soil cleanup criteria. PAHs were detected in Area R soils at
levels which exceed New Jersey residential soil cleanup criteria. However, the detection of PAHs
in Area R surface soils is thought to be attributable to the presence of asphalt fragments over the
surface of the site, as PAHs are commonly detected in soils which contain asphalt. The only other
soil contaminant detected at levels exceeding New Jersey residential soil cleanup criteria was
beryllium, detected in a single subsurface soil sample collected at a depth of 20 to 22 feet, thereby
limiting the potential for direct exposure.
In shallow ground water at Area R, chloroform and chlorobenzene have been consistently
detected at levels exceeding PQLs. Chlorobenzene and other volatile organics have been consistently
detected within the shallow ground water in the fill area and are expected to be attributable to the
historic disposal activities. Chloroform, detected in shallow wells located outside of the fill area, is
Decision Summary - 66
-------
TABLE 12
ECOLOGICAL HAZARD QUOTIENT SUMMARY
Terrestrial and Avian Receptors
AREA R - TRASH DUMP
FAA TECHNICAL CENTER
Compound
INORGANICS
Arsenic
Beryllium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
SEMIVOLATILES
Acenaphthene
Anthracene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(g,h,0perylene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Chrysene
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
lndeno(1 ,2.3-cd)pyrene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Pyrene
PESTIClDES/PCBs
DDE, 4.4'-
DDT, 4,4'-
Aroclor 1242
Aroclor 1254
Total Ecological Ratio
Mouse
0.12
0.0031
0.20
;,v/7:" 5.8
. L '.': ... ., 1.7
0.021
0.064
0.0030
.'' ;,:'2.6
0.0076
0.016
0.032
0.027
0.023
0.014
0.020
0.032
0.0081
0.0029
0.0068
0.013
0.0020
0.055
0.0011
0.034
0.0040
0.00099
0.40
0.042
<:>-*
Deer
0.0025
0.000075
0.0044
0.021
0.033
0.00043
0.0014
0.000019
0.0048
0.000030
0.000099
0.00047
0.00047
0.00048
0.00033
0.00043
0.00047
0.00014
0.000036
0.000033
0.00032
0.0000050
0.00035
0.0000017
0.00038
0.000025
0.000016
0.0064
0.00069
0.078
Fox
0.00015
0.0000038
0.00035
0.011 :
0.0017
0.000064
0.000079
0.0000031
0.036
0.0000045
0.000011
0.000072
0.00011
0.00031
0.00083
0.00050
0.000072
0.000032
0.0000044
0.0000043
0.0021
0.0000011
0.000040
0.00000055
0.000043
0.000029
0.0000046
0.00051
0.000055
0.054
Sparrow
0.0077
0.0040
0.91
."; :"." ',,-7.9
0.56
0.056
0.083
0.0041
>; **
0.026
0.054
0.11
0.089
0.075
0.046
0.064
0.11
0.027
0.0098
0.023
0.043
0.0067
0.19
0.0015
0.11
0.0021
0.00051
0.052
0.0056
,«,«,
Hawk
0.00020
0.00010
0.038
0.33
0.0098
0.0044
0.0021
0.000068
'; v ..:.-.. :',.. 1.4
0.000086
0.00039
0.0058
0.010
0.030
0.084
0.050
0.0058
0.0029
0.00031
0.0001 1
0.21
0.000010
0.0014
0.00000063
0.0027
0.00043
0.000067
0.0014
0.00014
=< &'.v;.; 2.2
shaded text
= EHQ
Decision Summary - 67
-------
not expected to be associated with the historic disposal activities and its presence does not pose an
unacceptable human health risk. Zinc, detected in the most recent inorganic ground water analyses
at levels exceeding the PQL, is present at levels which are less than the average zinc level in
upgradient wells at the FAA Technical Center. Table 19 in the Area R ground water summary tables
presented in Appendix D compares historic ground water data to PQLs.
G. AreaS
A qualitative baseline HHRA was conducted on the basis of all ground water data collected
during the Area S site investigations. Other media were not considered in the evaluation as they are
unlikely to pose a concern with respect to human health. A qualitative ERA was conducted based
upon the surface soil data collected during the Area S site investigations. Potential ecological risks
associated whh aquatic exposures to the sediments in the adjacent South Branch of Doughty's Mill
Stream were evaluated within the USFWS' facility wide ecological risk assessment and are also
described herein. A summary of the HHRA and ERA is presented below. A more complete
description can be found in the Risk Assessment, Area S, Excavated Area West of Tilton Road (TRC,
1996).
Human Health Risk Assessment
Hazard Identification - The ground water COCs which were identified for Area S on the
basis of the site investigations are listed in Table 13.
Exposure Assessment - Currently, there is no means of exposure to ground water at Area S
(i.e., there are no potable wells) and no site development involving installation of a well is proposed
for the she. However, h is possible (although unlikely) that the ground water at Area S could be used
as a source of potable water, resulting in future ingestion exposures to FAA personnel.
Toxicity Assessment - For the purposes of the qualitative HHRA, the dose-response
assessment identified the available human health-based ground water standards and guidelines,
including EPA MCLs, New Jersey MCLs, New Jersey PQLs for organics and the higher of the
background concentration for the FAA Technical Center and the PQL for inorganics. The ground
water standards and guidelines used in the HHRA are summarized in Table 14.
Risk Characterization - The risk characterization for the Area S qualitative HHRA involved
the comparison of estimated EPCs and the selected ground water criteria. An exceedance above the
criterion for a given COC was interpreted to infer a potential concern with respect to human
exposures and health. The results of the comparison are shown in Table 14. Lead and bis(2-
ethylhexyl)phthalate are the only constituents for which the selected ground water criteria are
exceeded The key uncertainties associated with this analysis include the following: data uncertainties
due to infrequent detections, limited numbers of samples or qualified data; the assumption that Area
S ground water will be used as a potable water source; the detection of lead in ground water a
concentrations within the range reported for the upgradient wells at the FAA (0.0061 to 0.067 mg/I);
and, for bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, its presence in the method blank, its absence in the other four
Area S ground water samples and its unlikelihood to be site-related.
Decision Summary - 68
-------
TABLE 13
CONSTITUENTS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN
FOR GROUND WATER
AREA S - EXCAVATED AREA WEST OF TILTON ROAD
FAA TECHNICAL CENTER
GROUND WATER (7)
INORGANICS (1)
Lead
VOLATILES (1)
Chloroform
SEMIVOLATILES (5)
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Butylbenzylphthalate
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Phenol
Pyrene
Decision Summary - 69
-------
TABLE 14
SUMMARY OF IDENTIFIED GROUND WATER STANDARDS/GUIDEUNES
AND COMPARISON TO EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATIONS
AREA S - EXCAVATED AREA WEST OF TILTON ROAD
FAA TECHNICAL CENTER
Constituent
INORGANICS
Lead
VOLATILES
Chioroforni
SEMIVOLAT1LES
Bb(2-ethythexyl)phthalate
Butyibenzylphthalate
Di-n-butyi phthalate
Phenol
Pyrene
Federal
Maximum
Contaminant
Level (a)
(man)
0.01 5 (e)
0.1
0.006
NA
MA
NA
NA
New Jersey
Maximum
Contaminant
Level (b)
(ros/l)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
New Jersey
Ground Water
Quality
Standard (c)
(mo/1)
0.02
0.001
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.02
Selected
Ground Water
Quality
Criterion (d)
(mo/1)
0.015
0.001
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.02
(o)
(f)
(D
(0
(0
(0
(0
Exposure
Point
Concentration
(mgl\)
0.030
0.0002
2.6
0.001
0.002
0.0089
0.002
**
**
**
**
*»
*
«PQL
NA-Not available
** * Maximum detected concentration used as the exposure point <
Emit (UCL) exceeds the maximum detected concentration
miration (EPC) since the 95% upper confidence
(a) EPA. 1995. Drinking Water Regulations and Health Advisories. May.
(b) N.JAC. 7:10 (NJDEP. 1989)
(c) Class I. For organics, the practical quanBtation Imft (PQL). For inorganics, the higher of the background
concentration and PQL (N.JAC. 7:9-6) (NJDEP. 1993); The background concentration for each inorganic was
calculated as the 95% UCL for the upgndient wells at the FAA Technical Center
(d) Lower of the identified standards provided the lower value is not less than the PQL.
In the latter situation, the PQL is selected.
(e) EPA action level at the tap
(f) New Jersey Ground Water Quality Standard
(g) EPA action level
Decision Summary - 70
-------
Based on the results of the qualitative risk assessment, under continued non-residential site
use, constituents detected in the soil and ground water at Area S do not pose unacceptable risks
under federal or state guidelines.
Ecological Risk Assessment
Problem Formulation - Problem formulation included the identification of the habitats,
species and COCs at Area S. Surface soil COCs are listed in Table 15.
Four protected plant species were listed as being in the immediate vicinity of Area S.
Terrestrial species identified as being likely to occur include the deer mouse, white-tailed deer, red
fox, grasshopper sparrow, and broad-winged hawk.
Exposure Assessment - The 95% upper confidence limits (UCLs) or maximum detected
concentrations were used as the EPCs for this qualitative ERA.
Stressor-Response Assessment - Surface soil criteria used in the USFWS Ecological Risk
Assessment were used in screening whether on-site conditions may pose a concern with regard to
ecological receptors. The criteria used in the ERA are provided along with the EPCs in Table 16.
Risk Characterization The potential for adverse impacts was evaluated by comparing the
estimated surface soil EPCs to the surface soil criteria selected by the USFWS, as presented in
Table 16. As indicated, all of the surface soil EPCs are at least an order of magnitude less than the
selected criteria concentrations.
The USFWS facility-wide risk assessment evaluated potential risks associated with aquatic
exposures to the sediments in the South Branch of Doughty's Mill Stream. The risk assessment
included the performance of bioassays using sediments collected from the South Branch at a point
adjacent to Area S. USFWS concluded that there is little evidence to indicate serious risk to
ecological receptors inhabiting areas surrounding the sediment sampling station.
Comparison to ARARs/TBCs
Area S data were also compared to ARARs and TBCs. Area S soil contaminant levels were
evaluated with respect to New Jersey soil cleanup criteria within the qualitative ERA No
exceedances of the residential soil cleanup criteria were identified at Area S.
A comparison of ground water constituents to ARARs/TBCs was conducted in the qualitative
HHRA (see previous discussion).
Decision Summary - 71
-------
TABLE 15
CONSTITUENTS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN
FOR SURFACE SOIL
AREA S - EXCAVATED AREA WEST OF TILTON ROAD
FAA TECHNICAL CENTER
SURFACE SOIL (14)
VOLATILES (2)
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
SEMIVOLATILES (12)
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fiuoranthene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Chrysene
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Fluoranthene
Napthalene
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Pyrene
Decision Summary - 72
-------
TABLE 16
EVALUATION OF SURFACE SOIL
EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATIONS
USING THE SELECTED SOIL SCREENING CRITERIA
AREA S - EXCAVATED AREA WEST OF TILTON ROAD
FAA TECHNICAL CENTER
Constituent
VOLATILES
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
SEMIVOLATILES
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Chrysene
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Fluoranthene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Pyrene
PAH (total)
Exposure
Point iB;;/,;r;:
Concentration
(ma/kg) :
0.029
0.002
0.26
0.29
0.29
0.26
2.4
0.38
0.067
0.42
0.12
0.4
0.415
0.56
2.98
.".'/.Soil
: Screening
Criteria (a)
{mg/kg)
6.0
1.5
(e)
(e)
(e)
(e)
50
(e)
8.1
(e)
(e)
(e)
1.0
(e)
200
(b)
(c)
(c)
(c)
(c)
«J)
* = Maximum detected concentration in surface soil (0-2 feet)
(a) As selected by USFWS (1995)
(b) NJDEP, 1994
(c)NYDEP, 1992
(d) Beyer, 1990
(e) see PAH (total)
Decision Summary - 73
-------
YD. DESCRIPTION OF INSTITUTIONAL CONTROL REMEDIES
The selected alternative for Areas 27, 56, F, R and S at the FAA Technical Center consists
of the implementation of an institutional control remedy consisting of such components as residential
site use restrictions, continued ground water monitoring, and/or ground water use restrictions. The
components of the remedy applicable to each of area concern and the justification for their application
are provided below for each area.
A. Area 27
The selected remedy for Area 27 consists of residential site use restrictions. While Area 27
does not exhibit the presence of soil contaminants at levels exceeding the residential New Jersey soil
cleanup criteria and does not present unacceptable risks under continued non-residential site use, risks
associated with residential use of the site were not evaluated. Therefore, while it was concluded that
Area 27 is not serving as a continuing source of contamination and therefore does not present an
environmental or human health concern under continued non-residential site use, residential site use
restrictions will be implemented to ensure its continued future protectiveness.
B. Arei56
The selected remedy for Area 56 consists of residential site use restrictions combined with
continued ground water monitoring. No surface or subsurface soil constituents were detected at Area
56 at levels exceeding residential New Jersey soil cleanup criteria. Carcinogenic and non-
carcinogenic risk estimates associated with current and future non-residential exposures to the site
were within acceptable federal and state guidelines and no adverse ecological impacts are anticipated.
However, risks associated with residential use of the site were not evaluated. Therefore, while no
remedial activities or monitoring are proposed for Area 56 soils, residential site use restrictions will
be implemented to ensure the site's continued protectiveness of human health.
In ground water, volatile organics have consistently been detected in one intermediate ground
water monitoring well and inorganics have consistently been detected in one shallow ground water
monitoring well, both at levels exceeding PQLs. Due to the low concentrations of detected
constituents and the lack of evidence of an area of concentrated "hot spot" contamination, further
action at Area 56 is not warranted, although continued ground water monitoring at Area 56 is
warranted to monitor any trends in the presence of these ground water constituents. Therefore, the
selected alternative includes continued ground water monitoring to ensure the future protection of
human health and the environment at Area 56. A Classification Exception Area will also be
established for the she, as per NJAC 7:26E 6.2(a) 17.
C. AreaF
The selected remedy for Area F consists of residential she use restrictions. While Area F does
not exhibit the presence of soil contaminants at levels exceeding the residential New Jersey soil
cleanup criteria and does not present unacceptable risks under continued non-residential site use, risks
associated with residential use of the site were not evaluated. Therefore, while it was concluded that
Area F is not serving as a continuing source of contamination and therefore does not present an
Decision Summary - 74
-------
environmental or human health concern under continued non-residential site use, residential site use
restrictions will be implemented to ensure its continued future protectiveness.
D.
The selected remedy for Area R consists of residential site use restrictions combined with
continued ground water monitoring and the establishment of ground water use restrictions. PAHs
were detected in surface soils at Area R at levels exceeding residential New Jersey soil cleanup
criteria, but were thought to be attributable to the presence of asphalt in the soil samples. Due to the
presence of these PAH compounds, carcinogenic risk estimates associated with potential future
commercial/industrial exposures to the site soils were near the upper end of EPA' s acceptable
carcinogenic risk range. Therefore, while no remedial activities or monitoring are proposed for Area
R soils, residential site use restrictions will be implemented to ensure the site's continued
protectiveness of human health.
In ground water, chlorobenzene and zinc have been consistently detected at levels exceeding
PQLs within the shallow ground water in the fill area. Other volatile organics have also consistently
been detected in the shallow ground water in this portion of the site. Due to the presence of vinyl
chloride in the fill area ground water, the carcinogenic risk estimate associated with potential future
commercial/industrial exposures to the site ground water was near the upper end of EPA' s acceptable
carcinogenic risk range. Therefore, based on the presence of elevated organic levels in the shallow
fill area ground water, ground water use restrictions and continued ground water monitoring at Area
R will be implemented to prevent future employee exposures to the ground water and to monitor any
trends in the presence of these ground water constituents in fill area, upgradient or downgradient
wells. A Classification Exception Area will also be established for the site, as per NJAC 7:26E
6.2(a)17.
E. AreaS
The selected remedy for Area S consists of residential site use restrictions. While Area S does
not exhibit the presence of soil contaminants at levels exceeding the residential New Jersey soil
cleanup criteria, the human health risk assessment for Area S was based on continued non-residential
use of the site. Therefore, while it was concluded that Area S is not serving as a continuing source
of contamination and therefore does not present an environmental or human health concern under
continued non-residential site use, residential site use restrictions will be implemented to ensure its
continued future protectiveness.
After reviewing the existing database for Areas 27, 56, F, R and S, the NJDEP and Pinelands
Commission have indicated concurrence with the Proposed Plan of institutional controls, as defined
above. Copies of the declarations of concurrence are attached as Appendix A.
DOCUMENTATION OF NO SIGNIFICANT CHANGES
The Proposed Plan for Areas 27, 56, F, R and S was released for public comment on February
11, 1999. The Proposed Plan concluded that institutional controls consisting of residential site use
Decision Summary - 75
-------
restrictions, continued ground water monitoring and/or ground water use restrictions are required to
ensure protection of human health and the environment at Areas 27, 56, F, R and S. No written or
oral comments on the Proposed Plan were submitted during the public comment period. Therefore,
it has been determined that no significant changes to the remedy, as originally identified in the
Proposed Plan, are necessary.
Decision Summary - 76
-------
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
RECORD OF DECISION
Area 27 - Fuel Mist Test Area
Area 56 - Abandoned Navy Landfill
Area F - Air Blast Facility
Area R - Trash Dump and
Area S - Excavated Area West of Tilton Road
FAA William J. Hughes Technical Center
The purpose of this Responsiveness Summary is to review public response to the Proposed
Plan for Areas 27, 56, F, R and S. It also documents the FAA's consideration of such comments
during the decision-making process and provides answers to any major comments raised during the
public comment period.
The Responsiveness Summary is divided into the following sections:
Overview - This section briefly describes the selected remedy and any changes to the remedy
from that included in the Proposed Plan for Areas 27, 56, F, R and S.
Background on Community Development - This section provides a summary of community
interest in Areas 27, 56, F, R and S and identifies key public issues. It also describes
community relations activities conducted with respect to these areas of concern.
Summary of Major Questions and Comments - This section summarizes verbal and written
comments received during the public meeting and public comment period.
L OVERVIEW
The FAA William J. Hughes Technical Center is located at the Atlantic City International
Airport in Atlantic County, New Jersey. Area 27, located south of the Upper Atlantic City Reservoir,
is the former Fuel Mist Test Area, Area 56, located south of the major east-west runway and near the
FAA hangar, is an abandoned Navy landfill area, Area F, located northeast of the major east-west
runway in the Airport Operations Area of the facility, is the Air Blast Facility, Area R, located west
of Tilton Road, is a former trash dump area and Area S, also located west of Tilton Road, was
identified as a former excavation area.
tt BACKGROUND ON COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT
This section provides a brief history of community participation in the Environmental
Investigation/Feasibility Study (EI/FS) activities conducted at Areas 27, 56, F, R and S.
Throughout the investigation period, the EPA, NJDEP, Atlantic County Department of Health
and the Pinelands Commission have been directly involved through proposal and project review and
Responsiveness Summary - 1
-------
comments. Periodic meetings have been held to maintain open lines of communication and to keep fflh
all parties abreast of current activities. ^^
On February 11, 1999, a newspaper notification was published in the Atlantic Citv Press
inviting the public to comment on the EI/FS process and Proposed Plan. The announcement also
identified the time and location of a public meeting to be held to discuss the Proposed Plan, the
location of the information repository, the length of the public comment period, and the address to
which written comments could be sent. Public comments were accepted from February 11, 1999
through March 15, 1999.
A public meeting was held on March 4,1999 at the Atlantic County Library in Mays Landing,
New Jersey. The Areas 27, 56, F, R and S EI/FS results were discussed. Keith C. Buch, Program
Manager, Environmental Branch, represented the FAA, Julio Vazquez, Remedial Project Manager,
Federal Facilities Section, represented the EPA Region 2 Emergency and Remedial Response Division
and Ian Curtis, Case Manager, represented the NJDEP Bureau of Federal Case Management. TRC
Environmental Corporation, FAA's environmental contractor, also attended. The complete
attendance list is provided as Appendix B to this Record of Decision. A transcript of the public
meeting is provided as Appendix C.
DDL SUMMARY OF MAJOR QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS
No questions or comments with regard to the Proposed Plan for Areas 27, 56, F, R and S
were raised at the public meeting held on March 4, 1999. In addition, no written comments were
received during the thirty-day public comment period.
Responsiveness Summary - 2
-------
APPENDIX A
NJDEP AND PINELANDS COMMISSION
LETTERS OF CONCURRENCE
-------
-------
of
Dapartmeni of Environmental Protection
Robert C. Shinn. Jr.
Commissioner
Mr. Keith Buch
FAA Technical Center
Environmental Programs Branch
ACM-440
Atlantic City International Airport, N.J. 08405
Dear Mr. Buch, FEB 0 2 1997
Re: Proposed Plan 27, 56, R and S
FAA Technical Center
Egg Harbor Township, Atlantic County
The NJDEP has reviewed the Proposed Plan dated September 1996 for Areas 27 56 R and
-------
CHRISTINE TOOD WHITMAN
Gotxrnor
THE PINELANDS COMMISSION
POBox?
NEW LISBON NJ 08064
(609) 894-9342
February 11, 1999
Ian Curtis, NJDEP
P.O. Box 028
401 East State Street
Trenton, NJ 08625-0028
Please Always Refer to
This Application Number
Re: Application #87-0046.15
Areas 27, 56, R & S
App. #87-1058.15
AreaF
Egg Harbor Township
Dear Mr. Curtis:
We have received and reviewed the February, 1999 Final Proposed Plan for Areas 27, 56,
F, R, and S at the FAA Technical Center.
The revisions were made in accordance with EPA comments. The revised plan does not raise
any significant issues regarding compliance with the standards of the Pinelands Comprehensive
ManagementPlan. Pleasereferto our January 14,1997 letter regarding additional comments related
to these sites.
If you have any questions, please contact the project review staff.
Sincerely,
fodd DeJesi
Environmental Specialist
cc: Keith Buch, FAA
Jean Oliva, TRC
Martha Williams
http://www.ttata.nl.us/plnalands/
E-mail: infoenjplnes.*tau.nj.u»
Tlw Plnelands - Our Country'. First National Reserve and a U.S. Biosphere "e"rve
New Jersey Is An Equal Opportunity Employer Printed on Recycled and Recyclable Paper
-------
1
APPENDIX B
PUBLIC MEETING ATTENDANCE LIST
-------
-------
SIGN-IN SHEET
PUBLIC MEETING
MARCH 4, 1999
PROPOSED PLAN PRESENTATION FOR
AREAS 27, 56, F, R & S
FAA WILLIAM J. HUGHES TECHNICAL CENTER
ATLANTIC CITY INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, NEW JERSEY
NAME
AFFILIATION/ADDRESS
PHONE NUMBER
2.
Co 5-5.-
J
4.
.
.
8.
9^
10.
11.
12^
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
-------
-------
APPENDIX C
PUBLIC MEETING TRANSCRIPT
-------
ft
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
PUBLIC MEETING AGENDA
PROPOSED PLAN FOR:
AREA 27 - FUEL MIST TEST AREA
AREA 56 - ABANDONED NAVY LANDFILL
AREA F - AIR BLAST FACILITY
AREA R - TRASH DUMP
AREA S - EXCAVATED AREA WEST OF TILTON ROAD
ORIGINAL
TAKEN BEFORE: BETTY ANN WASILEWSKI, a
Certified Shorthand Reporter, License No. XI01032,
Registered Professional Reporter, Certificate of
Merit Holder and Notary Public of the State of New
Jersey, at the ATLANTIC COUNTY LIBRARY, 2 South
Farragut Avenue, Mays Landing, New Jersey 08330,
on Thursday, March 4, 1999, commencing at 2:02 p.m,
ATLANTIC CITY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC.
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS
401 NEW ROAD, SUITE 100-B, LINWOOD, N.J. 08221
(609) 927-6660
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
.13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
APPEARANCE S :
Keith Buch, Program Manager
FAA Technical Center
Jean Oliva, P.E., Project Engineer
TRC Environmental Corporation
Larry Butlien, Project Hydrogeologist
TRC Environmental Corporation
ATLANTIC CITY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC.
-------
1 MR. BUCH: Good afternoon. I'm
2 Keith Buch, Superfund Program Manager for the FAA
3 Technical Center Superfund Cleanup Program.
4 Notice of this meeting has been duly
5 advertised in the Press of Atlantic City. We're
6 starting a few minutes after two to make sure that
7 anyone that may arrive late has time to come to the
8 meeting to express any opinions that they may
9 offer.
10 This meeting is limited to
11 discussions on Area 27, Area 56, Area F, Area R and
12 Area S.
13 If you have another question
14 regarding an environmental program or another
15 superfund issue at the Tech Center, you're more
16 than welcome to see me after the meeting and I will
17 happily answer your question.
18 The Tech Center cannot investigate
19 and study the sites on their own. We have to
20 enlist the help of capable consultants. In this
21 case, the firm of TRC, Incorporated, who have been
22 here since 1986 and done an excellent job, has
23 prepared a proposed plan for these five no action
24 sites. They have a nice presentation that explains
25 our rationale in detail as to why we're taking no
ATLANTIC CITY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC.
-------
1
2
3
I
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
IS
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
action at these five sites.
So at this point, I would like to
turn the meeting over to our capable personnel at
TRC Environmental.
MS. OLIVA: Good afternoon. Ky name
is Jean Oliva. i'm Project Engineer with TRC
Environmental Corporation, and the first area we'll
be discussing today is Area 27, which is known as
the Fuel Mist Test Area.
Area 27 is located south of the
upper Atlantic City reservoir in the research and
development portion of the Technical Center.
Anti-misting additives to jet fuel were tested at
Area 27 in a designated test area from 1979 until
1986 .
Also, in 1986, a fuel spill occurred
in which fuel drained into a catch basin down
through a storm drain and into a downgradient
drainage swale.
Contaminated soils were excavated
from the drainage swale and disposed of in
accordance with appropriate regulatory requirements
after the spill.
This is a photograph of one of the
fuel mist tests being conducted at Area 27.
ATLANTIC CITY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC.
-------
1 At Area 27, several phases of
2 investigation were conducted to determine if the
3 fuel mist testing or the historic fuel spill had
4 impacted the environment. It included studies of
5 soil, groundwater, sediment and surface water
6 quality.
7 This is a photograph of one of the
8 wells being installed at Area 27, and over in this
9 area to the right of the red van is the drainage
10 swale where some of the contaminated soils were
11 removed.
12 The studies conducted at Area 27
13 concluded that there was no significant
14 contamination associated with the Fuel Mist Test
15 Area, itself.
16 However, it did identify the
17 presence of residual petroleum contamination within
18 the storm drain and the drainage swale. The storm
19 drain was flushed out and residual contaminants
20 were removed from the drainage swale and disposed
21 of off site.
22 Also, during the investigations,
23 polychlorinated biphenyls, or PCBs, were detected
24 in one groundwater sample.
25 However, their presence was not
ATLANTIC CITY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC.
-------
1 confirmed by subsequent groundwater sampling.
2 A risk assessment was conducted for
3 Area 27 which concluded that human health -and
4 ecological risks were within acceptable risk
5 guidelines under continued government use.
6 Therefore, no remedial activities or continued
7 monitoring were warranted.
8 Because the risk assessment in Area
9 27 was based on continued government use of the
10 site as a nonresidential area, the proposed plan
11 for Area 27 consists of Residential Site Use
12 Restrictions.
13 MR. BUTLIEN: The next area that
14 we're going to discuss today is Area 56, which is
15 known as the Abandoned Navy Landfill.
16 Area 56 is located in or adjacent to
17 the airport operations area south of the major
18 east-west runway and immediately southwest of the
19 FAA hangar.
20 Area 56 was the site of a closed
21 landfill which was operated by the Navy from 1943
22 to 1958. The nature and total volume of the land
23 fill material is unknown.
24 Currently, the 11-acre site is used
25 as a parking lot and Softball field.
ATLANTIC CITY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC.
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1.5
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I don't know. It's supposed to be a
photograph of -- wait a minute. Okay. Technical
difficulty. This is supposed to be a photograph of
Area 56 showing the general layout of the site with
the softball field and the parking lot.
Here is a photograph on the ground
level showing the softball field looking toward the
southwest.
There were several phases of
remedial investigation which took place at Area 56
within and downgradient of the landfill area. The
studies included surface soil, subsurface soil and
groundwater quality testing.
In addition, a program of quarterly
groundwater monitoring began during May of 1994.
The results of the investigation did
not identify the presence of environmental impacts
to the site soils. There were several inorganic
contaminants which were identified in the
groundwater from the shallow aquifer above state
groundwater limits, which are known as PQLs.
Also, there were several volatile
organic compounds known as VOCs, which were
identified in the groundwater from the intermediate
aquifer above PQL area.
ATLANTIC CITY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC.
-------
1 However, the results from the
2 quarterly groundwater sampling program has
3 indicated that there's been a significant decrease
4 in the levels of VOCs and inorganics over time.
5 This is a slide of a histogram, or
6 bar chart, which clearly indicates the downward
7 trend of inorganics in the shallow aquifer, which
8 is represented by the upper two bar charts, and the
9 decrease in VOCs in the intermediate aquifer, 'which
10 is represented by the lower bar chart.
11 The results of the risk assessment
12 indicated that human health and ecological risks
13 were within acceptable risk guidelines under a
14 continued government use scenario.
15 However, the continuation of
16 groundwater monitoring is justified due to the
17 presence of VOCs and inorganics above state
18 groundwater limits.
19 Therefore, the proposed plan for
20 Area 56 consists of Residential Site Use
21 Restrictions since the risk assessment was based on
22 continued government use as a nonresidential area
23 and continued groundwater monitoring to ensure that
24 contaminant concentrations do not pose a threat to
25 human health and environment in the future.
ATLANTIC CITY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC.
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. OLIVA: The next area of
discussion is Area F, which is referred to as the
Air Blast Facility.
Area F is located north of the
east-west runway in the airport operations area of
the Technical Center.
Area F was a testing area where air
was blasted at high velocities at jet fuselages,
which were located on a concrete pad.
Area F was also the site of
underground storage of jet fuel in original storage
tanks and replacement storage tanks, each of which
have subsequently been removed from the site. In
the late 1980s, Area F was also the proposed
location of a laboratory building.
This was to be a photograph of
historic air blast testing activities at the site.
Area F was investigated to determine
if the air blast testing or fuel storage activities
had impacted the environment.
The investigation was also conducted
to characterize the proposed laboratory building
site to ensure that if the building was
constructed, that the occupants would not be
exposed to unhealthy conditions.
ATLANTIC CITY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC.
-------
10
The area of investigation includes
studies,of soil and groundwater quality.
The studies conducted at Area F did
not identify the presence of environmental impacts
associated with either the air blast test area or
the underground fuel storage area, and no
environmental impacts were identified in the
proposed laboratory building area.
A human health risk assessment was
conducted which concluded that the site -- that
human health risks were within acceptable risk
guidelines under continued government use and that
the site posed no significant risk to ecological
receptors.
Therefore, no remedial activities or
continued monitoring are warranted. Because the
area of risk assessment was based on continued
government use of the site as a nonresidential
area, the proposed plan for Area F consists of
Residential Site Use Restrictions.
MR. BUTLIEN: The next area that
we'll be discussing is Area R, which is known as
the Trash Dump.
Area R is located in a relatively
undeveloped portion of the FAA facility west of
ATLANTIC CITY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC.
-------
11
1 Tilton Road.
2 Area R was the site of a former
3 borrow pit until 1958 when the Area 56 landfill was
4 closed.
5 The Area R landfill was operated by
6 the FAA from 1958 to 1978 or 1979 when it was
7 closed by a fire. The landfill material consists
8 of over 26,000 cubic yards of wood, brush, paper
9 and assorted construction debris. The western
10 portion of the site consists of fill material and
11 is higher in elevation and the eastern portion of
12 the site did not undergo significant filling and
13 occasionally contains ponded water. The entire
14 seven-acre cleared area is surrounded by dense
15 woods.
16 This was to be a photo of the
17 entrance to Area R.
18 We got one photo. This is a photo
19 of the general layout of the site showing the lower
20 area to the left and the higher filled area to the
21 right-side of the photo.
22 This is a close-up shot of some
23 construction debris that's on the ground surface in
24 the filled area. What you see is some concrete
25 blocks and there are some asphalt fragments that
ATLANTIC CITY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC.
-------
12
1 make up a majority of the construction materialBIn
2 the surface of the ground.
3 There were several phases of
4 investigation which took place within and
**
5 downgradient of the landfill area. The studies
6 included surface soil, subsurface soil and
7 groundwater sample testing.
8 In addition, a program of quarterly
9 groundwater monitoring began during May of 1993.
10 The studies indicated that the
II site's surface soils exhibited semi-volatile
12 organic compounds known as SVOCs above soil cleanup
_
14 However, this was due to an
15 abundance of asphalt fragments which were found in
16 the fill area surface soils. There was only one
17 subsurface soil sample which exceeded the soil
18 cleanup criteria for Beryllium. Also, there were
19 select VOCs and Inorganics which exceeded PQLs in
20 the shallow groundwater at the site.
21 Quarterly groundwater s.ampling has
22 been used to confirm that VOCs have not migrated
23 outside of the fill area.
24 This is a histogram of a monitor!
25 well located in the fill area indicating a
ing
ATLANTIC CITY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC.
-------
1 consistent level of VOCs over time.
2 The results of the risk assessment
3 indicated that human health risks were within
4 acceptable risk guidelines under a continued
5 government use scenario.
6 In addition, there were no
7 significant risks to ecological receptors.
8 However, the continuation of
9 groundwater monitoring is justified due to the
10 presence of VOCs above state groundwater limits.
11 Furthermore, since the groundwater
12 ingestion risk at Area R is at the upper end of
13 EPA's acceptable cancer risk range, groundwater use
14 restrictions will be established for the site.
15 Therefore, the proposed plan for
16 Area R consists of Residential Site Use
17 Restrictions since a risk assessment was based on a
18 continued government use as a nonresidential area,
19 continued groundwater monitoring to ensure the
20 contaminants do not migrate outside of the fill
21 area and do not pose a threat to human health or
22 the environment and, finally, government or
23 groundwater use restrictions to prevent future
24 employee exposure to the ground water at the site.
25 MS. OLIVA: Our last area of
ATLANTIC CITY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC.
-------
14
discussion is Area S, which is referred to as the
Excavated Area West of Tilton Road. It's located
in an undeveloped portion of the facility just
south of Area R.
The historic use of Area S is
unknown. The site was identified on the basis of
an EPA review of historic aerial photographs which
identified the presence of areas of standing
liquid/ stained areas and mounded material. The
site is currently characterized by areas of ponded
water and a few mounded areas.
Area S was investigated to determine
if the historic site use had impacted the
environment. The site investigations included
characterization of soil, groundwater, sediment and
surface water quality. Some of the mounded areas
at the site were investigated by digging test
pits.
This slide showed what some of the
test pits encountered and some of the test pits in
their debris, such as cable and wood was
encountered. Other test pits simply encountered
soil materials.
The studies conducted at Area S did
not identify the presence of any environmental
ATLANTIC CITY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC.
-------
15
1 impacts associated with its historic site use.
2 Toluene was detected in two sediment samples
3 collected at the site.
4 However, its presence was not
5 confirmed by subsequent sampling.
6 The Area S risk assessment concluded
7 that the site poses no significant risks to human
8 health or to ecological receptors and, therefore,
9 no remedial activities or continued monitoring is
10 warranted.
11 Because the Area S risk assessment
12 was based on continued government use of the site
13 as a nonresidential area, the proposed plan for
14 Area S consists of Residential Site Use
15 Restrictions.
16 In summary, the preferred remedy for
17 each of the areas includes Residential Site Use
18 Restrictions.
19 In addition, Area 56 includes
20 continued groundwater monitoring and Area R
21 includes both continued groundwater monitoring and
22 groundwater use restrictions.
23 The EPA, New Jersey DEP and the
24 Pinelands Commission have all provided concurrence
25 with this proposed plan.
ATLANTIC CITY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC.
-------
16
r
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
This slide summarizes the decision
process which will be used to develop the final
Record of Decision, or ROD, for the site.
Based on verbal public comments
which will be accepted here this afternoon, as well
as written public comments, which will be accepted
through March 15th, the final ROD will be
developed.
Public comments will be addressed
within the responsiveness summary section of the
ROD, which will be made available here at the
Atlantic County Public Library.
When the ROD is finalized, a notice
will also be placed in the Press of Atlantic City.
With that, I'll turn the
presentation back to Keith.
MR. BUCK: Why don't we attempt to
take about two minutes to see if we can resurrect
those photos that we weren't able to see?
If we're unsuccessful after two
minutes, I'll close the meeting.
(Pause.)
MR. BUTLIEN: There it is. Okay.
MR. BUCK: Why don't we go through
the photos we weren't able to see and, Larry and
ATLANTIC CITY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC.
-------
1 7
1 Jean, you can just describe them to the audience so
2 they have a record of what was shown.
3 MR. BUTLIEN: Now, this is a
4 photograph of Area 56, which was taken from atop
5 the FAA hangar. It's a nice panoramic shot showing
6 the parking lot to the left-side and the Softball
7 field to the right-side of the photo.
8 MS. OLIVA: This is a photograph at
9 Area F of one of the air blast tests being
10 conducted on the concrete pad.
11 MR. BUTLIEN: Yes. This is a
12 photograph at the entrance to Area R indicating
13 that it is a superfund site.
14 MS. OLIVA: And this is a photograph
15 of the test pits at Area S. It's not very clear,
16 but in this test pit right in this area, there are
17 a number of cables that you can see.
18 MR. BUCK: Yes.
19 MS. OLIVA: And pieces of wood.
20 This test pit, which was dug in a mounded area,
21 simply consisted of soil materials, and that should
22 be all the photographs.
23 MR. BUTLIEN: Those were the missing
24 photos.
25 MR. BUCK: Very good. Sorry for the
ATLANTIC CITY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC.
-------
18
technical difficulty, but machines will be
machines.
That concludes our public hearing.
As Jean said, comments can be sent to my address,
which would be Keith C. Buch, Project Manager,
Federal Aviation Administration Technical Center at
630 Atlantic City International Airport, New Jersey
08405.
Written comments may be sent to me
as long as they arrive postmarked on or before
March 15th, 1999.
Thank you very much for coming out
today and have a safe trip home. This meeting is
adjourned.
(Meeting adjourned at 2:28 p.m.)
ATLANTIC CITY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC.
-------
19
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CERTIFICATION
I', BETTY ANN WASILEWSKI, a Certified
Shorthand Reporter of the State of New Jersey, do
hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and
accurate transcript of the testimony as taken
stenographically by and before me at the time,
place and on the date hereinbefore set forth.
I DO FURTHER CERTIFY that I am neither a
relative nor employee nor attorney nor counsel of
any of the parties to this action, and that I am
neither a relative nor employee of such attorney or
counsel, and that I am not financially interested
in this action.
INN WASILEWSKI
Cef^ti-fied Shorthand Reporter
License No. XI01032
Certificate of Merit
Registered Professional Reporter
My Commission expires 12/18/03
DATED: March 4, 1999.
ATLANTIC CITY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC.
-------
-------
APPENDIX D
DATA SUMMARY TABLES
-------
-------
TABLE 10-3. SURFACE SOIL SAMPLES SITE 27
Sample ID
27-SS1
27-SS2
27-SS3
27-SS4
27-SS5
27-SS6
27-SS7
27-SS8
27-SS9
27-SS10
27-SS1I
27-SS12
27-SS13
27-SS14A
27-SS14B
27-SS1S
27-SS16
41-FB2
TB- 100-7
Date
Taken
3/25/87
3/25/87
3/25/87
3/25/87
3/25/87
3/25/87
3/25/87
3/25/87
3/25/87
3/25/87
3/25/87
3/25/87
3/25/87
3/26/87
3/26/87
3/25/87
3/25/87
3/25/87
3/26/87
New Jersey
Grid Coordinates
N
219.294
219,324
219,346
219,413
219,350
219,377
219,354
219,433
219.302
219,932
219,566
219,505
219.198
219,614
219,614
219,778
219.528
Field
Trip
E
2.032,044
2.032.161
2,032.087
2,032,145
2,032,029
2,032,050
2,031,877
2,031,064
2.032,004
2,031.937
2,032.058
2,032,068
2.031.823
2,031,946
2.031,946
2,031,962
2.031.891
Blank
Blank
Depth (ft)
0-2
0-2
0-2, VGA e .5-1
0-2
0-0.5 (to liner)
0-0.5 (to Tiner)
0-2, VOA ? .5-1
0-2
0-2
0-2
0-2. VOA e .5-1
0-2
0-2. VOA 9 .5-1
0-1
0 - 1
0 - 1
0 - 1
______
Analysis
HCIR
HCIR
PP+40
HCIR
HCIR
PP+40
PP+40
HCIR
HCIR
HCIR
PP+40
HCIR
PP+40
JFC
JFC
JFC
JFC
VOA
VOA
Constituents
Detected?
(V/N) Notes
N
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y DUPLICATE OF 27-SS14A
N
N
Y
N
Analysis:
HCIP = Petroleum hydrocarbons
PP+40 - Priority pollutants plus 40 additional peak
VOA = Volt.ile organic analysis
JFC e Jet fuel chronatograph fingerprinting
-------
TAKE 10-4
CONSTITUENTS OEICCTEO m SURFACE SOIL
SITE 17
SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION:
SAWLE DEPTH (FT):
SAMnE ANALYSIS:
VOA (PH> «»**»
MCTHVLENE CHLONIK
TETRACHLONOCTHENE
10LUEHE
ADDITIONAL VOA PEAKS
IRA (PPiJ »
ADDITIONAL IRA PEAKS
« PEST/PCI
4 4'- DOE ..
4. 4' -DOT
HETALS «PPH)
to
tn
tu . .
pg
IN
CYANIDE (PPH)
PHENOL tPPH)
tl-SSr Z7-SS3 Z7-SS4 W-SS* W-SS7 Z7-SS8
0-t 1-2 9-Z 0-? 0-t 0-2
HCIR PP440 KCIR PN4D PP»10 HCIP.
It 21
11
7.1
1 141 0
(41MO 731000 8040
I.I
1. 2.4 1.
10. H 4.
7. 1.7 S.
1. t.l f.
12. r.
0.47
27-SSf Z7-SS10 27-SSI1 27-SSI2 27-SS13 27-SSI4A 27-SSMI
0-2 0-2 0-2 0-2 0-2 0-1 0-1
HCIR HCIR PPHO KCIR PP«40 JFC J'C
11 &
5.1
1(0 0
0 0
51
ISO
1.1 1.7
4.3 12
S.» 7.1
7.5 8.7
C.I f
41-FB2
BLANK
VOA
7.1
110
PCTROLEUN HfDROCARMK IPPH)
4.2
14
S.I
1(000
11000
NOTE: ONLT CONCERTUTIOIS ABOVE THE DETECTION LINITS ARE SHONN
-------
TABLE 10-6. SOIL BORING SAMPLES SITE 27
Sample ID
27-81-3
27-B1-5
27-B2-3
27-B2-5
27-B3-2
27-B3-5
27-84-3
27-84-5
Z7-81-FB16
4I-B2-TBB
27-B3-FB30
FAA-TB5
27-B4-FBU
Z9-83-TB6
Date
Taken
6/08/87
6/08/87
6/01/87
6/01/87
6/30/87
6/30/87
6/01/87
6/01/87
6/08/87
6/09/87
6/30/87
7/01/87
6/01/87
6/03/87
New Jersey
Grid Coordinates
N
219,347
219,347
219,312
219.312
219.375
219,375
219.495
219,495
E Depth (ft)
2,031,922 4-6
2.031,922 8-10
2.032,109 4-6
2,032,109 8-10
2,032.045 2-4
2,032,045 8-10
2,032,048 4-6
2.032,048 8-10
Field Blank
Trip
Field
Trip
Field
Trip
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Analysis
PP+40
BNA, VOA
PP+40
BNA, VOA
PP+40
HCIR
PP+40
BNA, VOA
VOA
VOA
VOA
VOA
VOA
VOA,
Constituents
Detected?
(Y/N) Notes
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
N
Y
N
N
Y
Analyses:
PP+40 = Priority pollutant plus 40 additional peaks
BNA z Base/neutral and acid extractables
VOA = Volatile organicj
-------
TABLE 10-7
COKTITUEinS DETECTED IK SOU. BOR1KC SAMPLES -- SITE 2?
SAMPLE IOmiFKATIO«:
SAWLE OtPTH (FT):
KETHUtME CHLORIDE
AOOITIMAl VOA KAIS
** IDA tttt) «
AOOITIMAl t*A KAB
FCST/KI IFPII "«
KETALS (PPH) "*
CR .
CU
H
CVANIDC irmt
4-« - " <-« i-10 Z-4 8-10 4-( a - J0
rmt WA.»OA rwo INA.VOA pp+40 awA.voA FPMO BNA.VOA
' 10 19 7 (
"000800
3100 1600 10(00 1200 6(t(0 43970 1000 11100
*' 3-s <-J (.1
' t.t
3 2.5 4 34
11 * c
11 '* lf.4 a
»OA
(1
44
WTE: MLT CMKEKTUTIOtlS MOVE THE DETECTION LINUS ARE SHOW
-------
TABLE 10-8. GROUND WATER SAMPLES ~ SITE 27
Sample 10
27-MW-1S
27-HW-2S
27-MW-3S
27-MW-4S
27-HW-5S
27-HW-6S
27-MH-FB6
MW-TB4
27-HW-FB4
FAA-TB3
Date
Taken
6/25/87
6/2S/87
6/29/87
6/29/87
6/25/87
6/25/87
6/29/87
6/29/87
6/25/87
6/25/87
Mew Jersey
Grid Coordinates
N
219.261
219.564
219,697
219.861
219,405
219,336
Field
Trip
Field
Trip
£ Depth (ft)
2.031.950 7.0 - 27.0
2,031,986 5.0 - 25.0
2,031,877 5.0 - 25.0
2,031.924 3.0 - 23.0
2,032,100 5.0 - 25.0
2.031,758 10.0 - 30.0
Blank
Blank
Blank
Blank
Constituents
Detected?
Analysis (Y/N) Notes
PP+40
PP+40
PP+40
PP+40
PP+40
PP+40
PP Organ its
PP Organ ics
PP Organ ics
PP Organ ics
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Analyses:
PP+40 = Priority pollutant plus 40 additional peaks
PP Organics = Priority pollutant organics
-------
" PtST/PCB (P«)
ARDCLOR-1»Z
UllE !»
COKTITUENrS DETECTED IN CROWD »AT£* - SHE 27
SAMPU IDCITlnCAMM:
SAMPLE DIPIH (FII:
SAMPLE ANALYSIS:
WA (PPt)
HETHHENE CHLORIDE
tNLONOFORH
ADDITIONAL »OA PEAKS
INA (PPB»
ADDITIONAL MA PEAKS
Z7-NMS 27-HHZS Z7-W.3S 27-HII4S 27-HHSS Z7-WK
7-27 i ZS 3-18 3 - ZJ S - 25 10 3D
PP»4I PP*4B PH40 PP+40 PP*40 ' PP«40
|
006 Jfij 48 48
27-NB.fM W-HM-FIS
8LANK RUXK
PP*40 PP+40
(7
0
"" KHALS (PHI
IE
HE
U
CYANIDE fPPi)
PHtMOl IPPI)
PH (STANDARD UNITS)
CONDUtmm (NICROMIOS/CHI
0.81
13.3
O.M
11 '1 '-* .* 10. J
2(1 IDS 2B.I
1 OAT* NOT REPORTED
MTt: mi eWClBTBftTIWS ftSWE THE 8ETEC110S IIHITS ARE MOirS
IW-T83 FM-MW-IM
HANK BLANK
PP«4D PP44D
1(0
0
11
14(
-------
TABLE 3-1
PHASE II SAMPLES - AREA 27
SAHPLE
NUMBER
MATRIX
27-HWSS WATER
27-MW5SB WATER
20A-HW-FB3 WATER
27-MW-FB6 WATER
SW-9
SD-9
SW-10
SO- JO
SD-FB1
SD-TB1
ANALYSIS
WATER
SEDIMENT
WATER
SEDIMENT
WATER
WATER
COOES:
NJ GRID COORD
DATE NORTH EAST
11/30/88 219,405 2,032.100
12/5/88 219.405 2,032,100
11/30/88 FIELD BLANK
12/5/88 FIELD BLANK
09/21/88 220.012 2,031,943
09/21/88 220.012 2,031.943
09/21/88 219.832 2.031,950
09/21/88 219.832 2,031.950
09/21/88 FIELD BLANK
09/21/88 FIELD BLANK
HCIR TOTAL PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS
DEPTH
ANALYSIS
5.0 - 25.0 PCB
5.0 - 25.0 PCB
PP+40
0.5
0 - 0.5
0.5
0 - 0.5
w
-
PCB
VOA
HCIR
VOA
HCIR
PP+40, HCIR
VOA
NOTES
WELL 27-MW5S
RESAMPLE OF 27-MW5S
SURFACE WATER. AREA 27 SWALE DOWNSTREAM
SEDIMENT. AREA 27 SWALE DOWNSTREAM
SURFACE WATER. AREA 27 SWALE UPSTREAM
SEDIMENT, AREA 27 SWALE UPSTREAM
PCB POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS (AROCLOR)
VOA VOLATILE ORGANIC ANALYSIS
PP-MJO PRIORITY POLLUTANTS PLUS 40 ADDITIONAL
PEAKS
-------
TABLE 3-2
CONSTITUENTS DETECTED IN GROUND WATER. SEDIMENT, AND SURFACE WATER - AREA 27
(PAGE I OF 2)
SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION:
SAMPLE DEPTH (FT):
SAMPLE ANALYSIS:
DATE:
CHLOROFORM
ADDITIONAL LEKS
AROCLOR-1242
PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS (PPM)
PH (STANDARD UNITS)
CONDUCTIVITY (HICROMHOS/CH) .
GROUND WATER BLANK
27-MW5S 27-HH5S-A 27-MW5S-8 20A-MWFB3 27-MW-FB6
5-25 5-25 5-25 BLANK BLANK
PP+40 PCB PCB PP+40 PCB
1987 1988 1988 1988 1988
5
120
-""j-jUijj-Lj - »«.. «»..._ ,**m*m,*mm,mm~^ j
OftT un un kit* ..«.
*OJ HU NO NO NO
-,~ ____ ».....,.« _ *-.. -«.... ,_^MM(
H . O J «4 , D ^.1
"9 15 35
SEDIMENT BLANK
SD-9 SD-9 SD-10 SD-FB1 SD-TB1 NJDEP
0.0-0.5 DUPLICATE 0.0-0.5 BLANK BLANK SOIL
HCIR HCIR HCIR PP+40.HCIR- VOA CLEANUP
1988 1988 1988 1988 1988 OBJECTIVE
""' ~.
270
nuMHw.aH1_v^M
.1 > _ rT,,,^.
HO 89 350 100
NOTE: ONLY CONCENTRATIONS ABOVE THE DETECTION LIMITS ARE SHOWN
ND = NOT DETECTED
ONLY VOLATILE. PCB. AND PETROLEUM HYDROCARBON DATA SHOWN FOR BLANKS
-------
TABLE 3-2
CONSTITUENTS DETECTED IN GROUND WATER. SEDIMENT, AND SURFACE WATER - AREA 27
(PAGE 2 OF Z)
SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION:
SAMPLE DEPTH (FT):
SAMPLE ANALYSIS:
DATE:
SURFACE WATER
SW-9
0.5
VOA
1988
SW-9
DUPLICATE
VOA
1988
SW-10
0.5
VOA
1988
VOA (PPB)
NO
ND
-------
TAKE 1
CORSTlTUmS DETECTED III SEDINOT SAMPLES « AHEA 27
SAMPLE lOERTinCATIORj
SAMHE OEFTH (FT)i
SANfLE ARAtYSISi
****** »OA (PPI) ********
HETHYIEK CHLORIDE
APOmOKAL »OA PEAKS
***** BRA (MB) **«**
ADDITIORAt IDA PEAKS
***** PEST/PCB (PPB) *****
27.5012 27-SDI3 27-SD14 27-5015
0-1 0-1 0-1 0-1 0-1
TPII PP+40 TPH WH TPH
;
,2 ,
ZODO
27-FB1 27-TB1
IUKK ILAKK
VPA
,
***** METALS IPPH) ******
CR....,
P8
»
CYARIDE
-------
TABLE 1
TOTAL PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS DETECTED IN SUBSURFACE SOIL SAMPLES - AREA 27
SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION:
SAMPLE DEPTH (FT):
SAMPLE ANALYSIS:
27-B5 27-B6 27-B7 27-B8 27-B9 27-B10 27-B11
2-4 2-4 0-2 0-2 2-4 2-4 0-2
TPH TPH TPH TPH TPH TPH
TPH
PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS (PPM) 390 110 190
1500
35
9.2 690
SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION:
SAMPLE DEPTH (FT):
SAMPLE ANALYSIS:
27-B12 27-B13 27-B14 27-B15 27-B16 27-FB
2-4 2-4 0-2 0-2 2-4 2-4
TPH TPH TPH TPH TPH TPH
PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS (PPM) 72 150 210
95
100
1.0 U
U « Not detected to the reported detection limit
-------
TABLE 13-3. SURFACE SOIL SAMPLES SITE 56
Sample ID
56-SS1A
56-SS1B
56-SS2A
56-SS2B
56-SS1
56-SS2
41-FB2
TB-100-7
Date
Taken
3/25/87
3/25/87
3/25/87
3/25/87
3/25/87
3/25/87
3/25/87
3/26/87
New Jersey
Gfid Coordinates
N
224,023
224,139
223,910
223,730
224,023
224,139
223,910
223,730
Field
Trip
£ Depth (ft)
2,027,479 .5 - 1
2.027,459 .5 - 1
2,027,532 .5 - 1
2,028.171 .5 - 1
2,027.479 0-2
2,027.459
2,027.532 0-2
2,028,171
Blank
Blank
Constituents
Detected?
Analysis (Y/N) Notes
VOA N
VGA Y CONSTITUENT ALSO IN BLANK
VOA N
VOA N
PP+40 Y NO VOA ANALYSIS
COMPOSITE OF 1A+1B
PP+40 Y NO VOA ANALYSIS
COMPOSITE OF 2A+2B
VOA Y
VOA N
Analysis:
PP+40 s Priority pollutant plus 40 additional peaks
VOA = Volatile organics
-------
TABLE I? 4
CONSTITUENTS DETECTED 111 SURFACE SOU -- SITE SI
SAHNE IKRTIFIMTIM:
SAMPLE OfPIH (FT):
S«Hi>LE ANAITSIS:
...... fOA (ppt) ........
HCTHHCKE CHIORIOC
ADDITIONAL VOA PEAKS
* MA IPPB) *
llSd-f THTlHf ITOPHIHAIATE
AOOIT1MAI MA PEAKS
PEST/KI (PH)
* HtTAlS IPPHJ *
[»
n
in ...
CTANIOE (PPH>
PHENOL (PPHI
it -SSI it -SSI A M-SS1I S(-SSI Sl-SSZA Sf-SSZB
0 - t O.i-l.O O.S-l.O 0 I 0.5-1.0 0.5-1.0
PP»40 VOA VOA PP*«0 VOA VOA
f
00 00
710000 fZOO
5.1 B
I.I (.2
I.I 10
41-FBI
BURK
VOA
7.1
ROTE: ONLY CONCENTMTIONS ABOVE THE DETECTION UNITS ANE SHOW)
-------
TABLE 13-6. SOIL BORING SAMPLES SITE 56
Sample 10
56-B1-4
56-Bl-ll
56-B2-5
56-B2-9
56-83-2
56-63-12
56-B4-2
56-B4-8
56-B3-FB5
56-B4-FB6
56-B4-TB3
0-B3-FB7
D-B2-TB4
56-BI-FB31
FAA-TB5
56-BI-FB32
56-B3-TB3
DaU
Taken
7/01/87
7/01/87
5/26/87
5/26/87
5/21/87
5/21/87
5/21/87
5/21/87
5/21/87
5/22/87
5/22/87
5/26/87
5/27/87
7/01/87
7/01/87
7/01/87
5/21/87
New Jersey
Grid £p/ordi nates
N E Depth (ft)
224,231 2,027,568 6-8
224,231 2.027.568 20 - 22
223,857 2.027.516 8-10
223.857 2.027,516 16 - 18
223,867 2,028,187 2-4
223.867 2,028,187 22-24
223,687 2,027,826 2-4
223,687 2,027,826 11-16
Field Blank
Field Blank
Trip Blank
Field Blank
Trip Blank
Field Blank
Trip Blank
Field Blank
Trip Blank
Constituents
Detected?
Analysis (Y/N) Notes
PP+40
BNA, VOA
BNA
PP+40
PP+40
BNA
PP+40
BNA
VOA
VOA
VOA
VOA
VOA
VOA
PP Organ ics
VOA
VOA
V
Y CONSTITUENT ALSO IN BLANK
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
N
Analyses:
PP+40 = Priority pollutant plus 40 additional peaks
BNA = Base/neutral and acid extractable*
VOA = Volatile organic*
PP Organ!cs a priority pollutant organ!cs
-------
TABLE 13 7
DETECTED IN SOIL BOHIBSS
SITE 54
SAHPU IDFNTiriCAHOK:
SAMPLE DEPTH (Fl):
SAMPLE ANALYSIS:
****** yQA fpPB) *
MriHVlCNI CHLORIDE
ADOI1IONAL VOA PIAKS
"" iNA (PPB) ««
8ISC2 EtHYlHfnDPHIHALATE. .. .
ADDITIONAL INA PEAKS
***** PCST/PCB (PPB) *****
HtTALS (PPN)
C«
n
CYANIDE CPPH)
PMINOl (PPNI
il-ll-l Si-il-11 Sf MS S«-M-» S« B3-t S«-83-12 &S-B4-2 » B4 1 SC-Bl-FBIl SS-B1-FB32 SJ-B3-FB5 S«-B4-FB6 SS-B4 -T83 0-83-FB; 0-B2-TB4
Z - 4 18 . » 8 - 1« 1C - IB 2-4 22-24 » - 4 14-lt BLANK BLANK BLANK BLANK BLANK BLANK BLANK
W+40 MU.VOA «NA PP*40 W>+40 BNA PP*40 BNA VOA VOA VOA VOA VOA VOA VOA
W ffl 31 17 0 2*0 210 US 3S 100 81 (U
1900 Ttrtft
42 AC *
** 4.f J.I
21 3 t i i ,
NOTE: ONlf COKCWRATIOKS A80VC THC OCTKtlON UNITS ARC SHOWN
-------
TABLE 13-6. GROUND WATER SAMPLES SITE 56
Sample 10
56-HH-1S
56-HH-20
56-MH-2S
56-HW-3S
56-MW-4D
56-MH-4S
56-HW-5S
56-HW-FB2
29-MW-FB3
FAA-MW-TB2
Date
Taken
6/24/87
6/24/87
6/24/87
6/23/87
6/23/87
6/23/87
6/23/87
6/23/87
6/24/87
6/24/87
New Jersey
Grid Coordinates
N
224,670
223,864
223,855
223,772
223.843
223,857
223,547
Field
Field
E
2,027,348
2.027,573
2,027,594
2,028,025
2.028,377
2,028,369
2,028.015
Blank
Blank
Trip Blank
Constituents
Detected?
Depth (ft) Analysis (Y/N) Notes
8.0 - 28.0 PP+40
75.0 - 95.0 PP+40
11.5-31.5 PP+40
17.0 - 37.0 PP+40
80.0 - 100.0 PP+40
18.9 - 39.2 PP+40
18.6 - 38.8 PP+40
PP Organic*
PP Organ its
PP Organ ics
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
N
Analyses:
PP+40 = Priority pollutant plus 40 additional peaks
PP Organic* = Priority pollutant organics
-------
TABLE 13-1
CONSTITUENTS DETECTtD IN MO* HOB IN6 VEILS SITE »
SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION:
SAMPIE DEPTH (FT):
SAMPLE ANALYSIS:
****** fOA (Ml) «»
MFIHnCHt CHLONIDE
1 .1 -DICHLOMETHUE
1.1.1-TIICHlOROETHUE
ADDITIONAL VOA PEAKS
N UnNKOOIPHENnAHINE.,
BISft-ETHUMEIVDPHTHALATE
ADDITIONAL SNA PEAKS
..... PEST/KB (PP8)
METALS (PPB)
IE
to
CU
HC
Nl
PB
S£
Ill
CYANIDE (PPB)
PHENOL C»PB>
PH (STANDARD UNITS)
CONDUCTIVITY (MICROHHOS/CM)
SS-MH-1S K-IWJS M-HH 20 M-NH-3S »-W 4S »-m-4D $(-NH.(S
B - ?B 11. 5-31. S 75 -IS 17 37 1B.I-39.Z BO - 100 lS.t-38.8
PP+40 PP+40 PP*40 PP+40 PP»40 PP+40 PP+40
Zlf
*' 3' '2 ( 204 18.2 10. t
JJ '" 3D ZJ 415 40 42
Ci 1C7 CC. 1 9L nn «ar »
PLANK
PP»«0
180
43
14
0
-------
TABLE 6-1
GROUND WATER SAMPLES - AREA 56
SAMPLE
NUMBER
56-MWIS
56-MW2S
56-MW3S
56-HW5S
56-MW-FB6
56-HW4S
56-MW4SFB
ANALYSIS CODES:
«J GRID COORD
DATE NORTH EAST
2/5/88 224.670 2,027,318
2/5/88 223,855 2,027,594
2/5/88 223,772 2,028,025
223'547 2,028.015
FIELD BLANK
1/25/B9 223.857 2,028.369
1/25/89 FIELD BLANK
DEPTH .(FT)
8.0 - 28.0
11.5 - 31.5
17.0 - 37.0
18.6 - 38.8
18.9 - 39.2
ANALYSIS
GWQP
GWQP
GWQP
GWQP
GWQP. PP METALS
NOTES
(U/F)
GWQP. PP METALS (U/F)
GWQP. PP METALS (U/F)
(U/F)
s T°TAL °RGAN1C CARBON> NITRATE' NITROSGEN' TOTAl- SUSPENDED SOLIDS
UNFILTERED SAMPLE/FILTERED SAMPLE
-------
TABLE 6-2
CONSTITUENTS DETECTED IN MONITORING WELLS AREA 56
SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION:
SAMPLE DEPTH (FT):
SAMPLE ANALYSIS:
56-MW-1S 56-MH-2S 56-MW-3S 56-MW-4SU S6-MW-4SF
8-28 11.5-31.5 17 - 37 18.9-39.2 18.9-39.2
GWQP GWQP GWQP GWQP METALS
METALS (DISS.)
(TOTAL)
56-MW-5S
18.6-38.8
GWQP
56-MW-FB6 56-MW4SFB
BLANK BLANK
GWQP GWQP
METALS
(DISS.)
WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS (PPM)*
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
AMMONIA AS N
NITRATE, AS N
TOTAL ORGANIC NITROGEN
TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
0.85
1.3
11.0
13.2
0.47
0.27
2.4
45.0
11.2
2.2
1.3
206
4.6
1.5
248
1.6
0.13
1.3
13.0
0.52
"" METALS (PPB)
CR.
CU.
HG.
NI.
PB.
ZN.
237
32.3
0.23
306
114
183
79.7
69.7
249
62.4
PH (STANDARD UNITS)
CONDUCTIVITY (MICROMHOS/CH).
4.85
45
5.7
182
4.2
120
5.6
120
5.0
80
NOTE: ONLY CONCENTRATIONS ABOVE THE DETECTION LIMITS ARE SHOWN
GWQP = GENERAL WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND, TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON, TOTAL SUSPENDED SOILDS, NITRATES, NITROGEN
-------
TABLE 8-3
FAA TECHNICAL CENTER
NO ACTION AREA INVESTIGATIONS SAMPLE SUMMARY
AREA 58 - ABANDONED NAVY LANDFILL
Sample
56-B5
56-B6
56-B7
56-MW1S
56-MW2S
56-MW2D
56-MW3S
56-MW4S
56-MW4D
56-MW5S4
FB-102992
TB-110492
Sample JH;
Soil Boring
Soil Boring
Soil Boring
Ground Water
Ground Water
Ground Water
Ground Water
Ground Water
Ground Water
Ground Water
Field Blank
Trip Blank
ft ' ' -j -
10/29/92
10/29/92
10/29/92
11/04/92
11/04/92
11/04/92
11/04/92
11/04/92
11/04/92
11/04/92
10/29/92
11/04/92
\ New Jersey Grid Coordinates ,
N
223,858.50
223,883.65
223,690.77
224,670.80
223,855.12
223,864.21
223,772.70
223,857.69
223,843.97
223,547.08
_
E
2,027,522.98
2,028,181.00
2,027,826.77
2,027,348.46
2,027,594.37
2,027,573.24
2,028,025.97
2,028,369.67
2,028,377.78
2,028,015.36
^
*
Ground
Surface
Elevation1
(ft) -
51.48
60.60
5255
5937
5229
51.86
57.16
61.15
61.16
4250
_
"
Well . :
Sample Screened
.' Depth1 - Interval1 :
(ft) '- (ft)
16-18
16-18
26-28
8-28
115-31.5
75-95
17-37
19-39
80-100
18.6-38.8
_
"
: Analysis'-
PPVOA+20
PPVOA+20
PPVOA+20
PPVOA+20
PPVOA+20
PPVOA+20
PPVOA+20
PPVOA+20
PPVOA+20
PPVOA+20
PPVOA+20
PPVOA+20
Notes:
1 Ground Surface Elevation in Feet Above Mean Sea Level
2 Sample Depth and Wad Screened Interval in Feet Below Ground Surface
3 PPVOA+20 - Priority Pokltant Volatile Organic Analysis Plus 20 Peaks
4 MS and MSD samples taken at 56-MW5S
-------
TABLE 8-4
FM TECHNICAL CENTER
NO ACTION AREA INVESTIGATIONS
SOIL BORING ANALYTICAL RESULTS
AREA 56 - ABANDONED NAVY LANDFILL
SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION: 5P§5 56-B656-B7 FB-102992
SAMPLE DEPTH (FT): 16-18 16-18 26-28 FIELD BLANK
SAMPLE ANALYSIS: PPVOA + 20 PPVOA + 20 PPVOA + 20 PPVOA + 20
VOAfppb)
Methyiene Chloride 4J
Tentatively Identified Compounds (TICs) 71 C
J - Analyte present. Reported value may not be accurate or precise.
C - Response factor from daily standard
-------
TABLE 8-5
FAA TECHNICAL CENTER
NO ACTION AREA INVESTIGATIONS
GROUND WATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS
AREA 56 - ABANDONED NAVY LANDFILL
Sample WentlicaUon: > 56-MW1S* -58-MW2S sf58-MW2D 56-MW3S 56-MW4S 68-MW4D 56-MW5S TB-110492nj
Sample Depth (fl): - *» 8-28 ^^11.5-31 .5 ;*' 75-95 17-37 , 19-39 80-100 18.6-38.8 -TRIP BUN 1C
Sample Analysis; -- .v; ' PPVOA 4- a>>:ff PPVOA + 20 -PPVOA^- 20 PPVOA* 20 PPVOA -f 20, PPVOA -f 20 PPVOA -f 20 PPVOA4-20
VOA (PPb)
CWorobenzene 6J
1,1-Dichloroethane 19
1,1-Dichloroethene 4J
1.4-Dichloroberugene 4J
Methylene Chloride 5J
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane 28
J - Analyte Present. Reported Value May Not Be Accurate or Precise
-------
TABLE 22
COMPARISON OF HISTORIC GROUND WATER VOC/INORGANIC ANALYTICAL RESULTS - AREA 56
VOLATILE ORGANICS (ppb)
1,4-DICHLOROBENZENE
CHLOROBENZENE
Water Quality Parameters (ppm)
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
AMMONIA AS N
NITRATE, AS N
TOTAL ORGANIC NITROGEN
TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
NOTES: ONLY CONCErmWTONS THAT/WE ANALYTICAL
SAMPIE ANALYSIS: WOA - VoMH* Organic Anaty^t, EPA CLP (3190 SOW)
LCW - EPA Low ConowKraHon W*w VoMto Otpmlc Amlytls (CLP SOW OLC 02.1)
OWQP - OMtral W«tar QiM
-------
TABLE 22 (continued)
COMPARISON OF HISTORIC GROUND WATER VOC / INORGANIC ANALYTICAL RESULTS - AREA 56
VOOTLE OROAMCS (ppb)
1.1-DKJHLOROETHENE
1.1-MCHLOROeTHANE
1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
TOLUENE
DIBROMOCHLOROMETHANE
BROMOFORM
TOTAL XYLENES
BROMOCHLOROMETHANE
WORQAMCS
Priority PeButint HM«li fpph)
Coppw
Morcury
NleM
LMd
Zinc
WitefQuilltyPi
HEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
AMMONIA, ASM
NITRATE. AS N
TOTAL ORGANIC NITROGEN
TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOUDS
4J
28 10
27 28
3J
12
10
2 2
11 12
12 22
334
16 17 27
10 21 36
NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
NANANANANANANANA
NA
0.11
7.2
0.22
n.7
2.0 0.9
10.4 12.5
NA NA
1 1 1J 0.8 J 1 0.7J 0.7J 0.1J
16
17 13
13 10
0.1J
12
9
10
B
2
D.9J
0.1J
0.2J
0.1J
0.3J
NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
NA
NA NA NA
NA
1.6
0.13
1.3
13.0
NA
20
1000
0.5
10
10
30
0.4
(ppm)
NOTES OWY CONCENTRATORS TOT WE «NUYT10UiYVAU>»« WOVE TOED^^
SAMPLEWMY38: VM-WMMOrganicAulph,EPACIP(MO3OW)
LCW GPA low Gcnctntrauon WMM Vetett* Ocgvnlc Analy* (CtP SOW QIC 02.1J
ICW«3 - ICW pU Aoetoh, ttqrIOMtM. >M l-Ct**Mrj< ytayl Mm
6WQP - (toninl Vnki Ou«y PUMMKI
fm. ma, rakoni IMU» pi - UMIIKM, f - FHmdxanuiM.0
-------
TABLE 22 (continued)
COMPARISON OF HISTORIC GROUND WATER VOC/INORGANIC ANALYTICAL RESULTS - AREA 56
VOUTU OMAMCI **)
t.l.l-TRICHtOROETHANe
TOLUENE
TOTM.XVIENES
ADDITIONAL VOAPGAK*
12.2 5,9
147 14.0
0.12 0.1
111 12.6
m> it.o
CHEMCM. OXYGEN DEUMH)
AMMONIA, ASN
NITRATE. AS N
TOTAL OROAMC WTBOO6M
TOTAL ORGANIC CARSON
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
KOI IM> mtlBIMOO MUJ
-------
TABLE 19-2
SURFACE SOIL SAMPLES
SITE F
SAMPLE
ID
F-LAB1
F-LAB2
F-LAB3
F-LAB4
F-LAB5
F-LAB6
F-IAB7
F-LAB8
F-LAB9
F-LAB10-1
F-LAB10-2
F-LAB11-1
F-LAB11-2
F-LAB12-1
F-LAB12-2
F-LAB13-1
F-IAB13-2
F-LA814-1
F-LABH-2
F-IAB15-1
F-LAB15-2
F-LAB16-1
F-LAB1S-2
F-LAB17-1
F- LABI 7 -2
DATE
TAKEN
1/15/87
1/15/87
1/15/87
1/15/87
1/15/87
1/15/87
1/15/87
1/15/87
1/15/87
11/19/87
11/19/87
11/19/87
11/19/87
11/19/87
11/19/87
11/19/87
11/19/87
11/19/87
11/19/87
11/19/87
11/19/87
11/19/87
11/19/87
11/19/87
11/19/87
NEW JERSEY
GRID COORDINATES
N E
227,996
227.964
227.953
228.044
228.009
227.975
228.090
228.057
228.022
228.030
228.030
228.010
228.010
227.990
227.990
228.047
228.047
228.027
228.027
228.006
228.006
228.063
228.063
228.043
228.043
2.030.556
2.030.507
2.030.455
2.030.522
2.030.467
2.030.424
2.030.485
2,030.438
2.030.389
2.030.349
2.030.349
2.030.365
2.030.365
2.030.381
2.030.381
2.030.368
2.030.368
2.030.384
2.030,384
2.030.400
2.030.400
2.030.387
2.030.387
2.030.404
2.030.404
DEPTH (FT)
0-2. -6 composite
0-2. -6 composite
0-2, -6 composite
0-2. -6 composite
0-2. -6 composite
0-2. -6 composite
0-2. -6 composite
0-2, -6 composite
0-2. -6 composite
0 - 2
4-6
0 - 2
4 - 6
0-2
4 - 6
0 - 2
4-6
0 - 2
4-6
0 - 2
4 - 6
0 - 2
4 - 6
0 - 2
4 - 6
ANALYSIS
PP+40. HCIR
PP Metals. HCIR
PP Metals. HCIR
PP Metal s. HCIR
PP+40. HCIR
PP Metals. HCIR
PP Metals. HCIR
PP Metals. HCIR
PP+40. HCIR
Cadmium
Cadmium
Cadmium
Cadmium
Cadmium
Cadmium
Cadmium
Cadmium
Cadmium
Cadmium
Cadmium
Cadmium
Cadmltn
Cadmium
Cadmium
Cadmium
CONSTITUENTS
DETECTED?
CY/N) NOTES
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
H
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
(CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE)
-------
TABLE 19-2
SURFACE SOIL SAMPLES
SITE F
(CONTINUED)
F-LAB1B-1 ~"
F-LAB18-2
F-LAB19-1
F-LAB19-2
F-LAB20-1
F-LAB20-2
F-LAB21-1
F-LAB21-2
F-LAB22-1
F-LAB22-2
F-LAB23-1
F-LAB23-2
F-LAB24-1
F-LAB24-2
F-LAB25-1
F-LAB25-2
F-SS1
F-FB1
F-TB1
29-FB1
29-TB1
11/19/8?
11/19/87
11/20/87
11/20/87
11/20/87
11/20/87
11/20/87
11/20/87
11/20/87
11/20/87
11/20/87
11/20/87
11/20/87
11/20/87
11/19/87
11/19/87
3/24/87
1 /IS/87
1/15/87
3/24/87
3/24/87
228,023
228.023
228.078
228.078
228.0S8
228.058
228.038
228.038
228.094
228.094
228.073
228.073
228.053
228.053
228.027
228.027
227.980
FIELD
TRIP
FIELD
TRIP
2.030.420
2.030.420
2.030.406
2.030,406
2.030.422
2.030.422
2.030.439
2.030.439
2.030.426
2.030.426
2.030.442
2.030.442
2.030.459
2.030.459
2.030.384
2.030.384
2.030.555
BLANK
BLANK
BLANK
BLANK
0 -
4 -
0 -
4
o
4 -
0 -
4 -
0
4 -
0 -
4 -
0 -
4 -
0 -
4 -
0-2. VOA
* .
-
--
2
6
2
6
2
6
2
6
2
6
2
6
2
6
2
6
t 0.5-1
Cad»1 urn
CadMlim
CadMlun
Cadniun
CadilUM
CidnluM
Cadnlu*
CadnlUM
Cadalim
CadnliM
CadBlun
Cadaiini
Cadni un
Cadnl UM
Cadnlun
earful un
PP+40
HCIR
HCIR
VOA
VOA
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N DUPLICATE OF F-LAB14-1
N DUPLICATE OF F-LAB14-2
y
N ,
N
H
N
-------
TABLE 19-3
CONSTITUENTS DETECTED IN SURFACE SOIL SAMPLES- SITE F
SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION:
SAMPLE DEPTH (FT):
SAMPLE ANALYSIS:
F-LAB1 F-LAB2 F-LAB3 F-LAB4 F-LAB5 F-LAB6
0-2,4-6 0-2.4-6 0-2.4-6 0-2.4-6 0-2.4-6 0-2.4-6
PP+40 HCIR HCIR HCIR PP+40 HCIR
METALS METALS METALS METALS
F-LAB7 F-LABB F-LAB9 F-SS1
0-2.4-6 0-2.4-6 0-2 0-2
HCIR HCIR PP+40 PP+40
METALS METALS
****** VOA (PPB) ********
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
ADDITIONAL VOA PEAKS
9.3
o
6.6
0
7 7
o
11
12
***** BNA (PPB) *******
ADDITIONAL BNA PEAKS
1900
2400
2500
8100
***** PEST/PCB (PPI) *****
***** METALS (PPM) ****'
AS ;
CD
CR
CU
PB
HG
HI ,
ZH
k
o
o
3
3
2
5
a
3
4
.1
3
0 7
2 0
g n
3c
3 3
4 £
0 9
1 3
6g
9 a
3 a
3 g
05
2 1
7 4
? 1
? 8
01
3 2
Oa
I 7
60
2 A
1 C
> 7
1 0
2 6
Un
a 3
3 1
7 2
7 4
07
? 4
84
2 G
6 7
3 9
0 8
3 6
13 0
2 3
2 4
7 6
4 4
1 i
4 9
19 0
3 H
6 0
8 8
7 5
i 7
Hi
10 7
10 7
19 1
CYANIDE (PPM)
PHENOL (PPM)
PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS (PPM)
0.39
0.47
0.56
1.3
NOTE: ONLY CONCENTRATIONS ASOVE THE DETECTION LIMITS ARE SHOW!
-------
TABLE 19-5
SOIL BORING SAMPLES
SITE F
SAMPLE
ID
F-B1-9
F-B1-11
F-B2-4
F-82-7
F-B3-3
F-B3-7
F-B4-?
F-B4-11
F-B5-4
F-B5-7
29-B4-FB29
HW-TB4
F-B3-FB32
FAA-TB5
DATE
TAKEN
6/30/87
6/30/87
6/29/87
6/29/87
7/02/87
7/02/87
7/13/87
7/13/87
6/29/87
6/29/87
6/29/87
6/29/87
7/02/87
7/01/87
NEK JERSEY
GRID COORDINATES
N E
227.731 2.030.322
227.731 2.030.322
227.828 2.030.337
227.826 2.030.337
227.781 2.030.392
227.781 2.030.392
227.762 2.030.365
227.762 2.030.365
227.828 2.030.337
227.828 2.030.337
FIELD BLANK
TRIP BLANK
FIELD BLANK
TRIP BLANK
DEPTH (FT)
16-18
20-22
6-B
12-14
4-6
12-14
12-14
20-22
6-8
12-14
. .
--
--
--
ANALYSIS
HCIR
HCIR
PP+40
HCIR
HCIR
HCIR
HCIR
HCIR
PP+40
HCIR
VOA
VGA
VOA
PP+40
CONSTITUENTS
DETECTED?
(Y/N)
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
N
Y
N
NOTES
DUPLICATE OF F-B2-4
DUPLICATE OF F-B2-7
-------
TABLE 1S-S
CMSTITUEITS DETECTED IN SOIL BORING SAMPLES
SITE F
SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION:
SAMPLE DEPTH (FT):
SAMPLE ANALYSIS:
F-ll-J
1C-1B
HCIR
F-ll-11
20-22
HCIR
F-B2-4
C B
pp+40
F-B2-7
12 - 14
HCIR
F-B3-3
4 £
HCIR
F-13-7
12-14
HCIR
F-B4-7
12-14
HCIR
F-M-11
20-22
HCIR
F-15-4 F-B5-7
6 B 12-14
PP+40 HCIR
F-B3-FI32
BLANK
VOA
********
METHYLENE CHLORIDE...
ETHYLIENZENE
ADDITIONAL VOA PEAKS.
1300
1000
39900
1300
1400
61300
BIO
0
** INA (PPI) «*
NAPHTHALENE
ADDITIONAL SNA PEAKS.
(4440
540
24(000
* PEST/PCB (PPI) **
AROC10R-1242
330
METAIS (PPM) *
CR.
PB.
ZN.
5.B
6.3
7.9
5.5
5.2
6.1
CYANIDE (PPM)
FHESOL (PPM)
PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS (PPM)
130
2920
NOTEt ONLY CONCENTRATIONS ABOVE THE DETECTION LIMITS ARE SHOWN
-------
TABLE 19-7
GROUND WATER SAMPLES
SITE F
SAMPLE
ID
F-HU1S
F-HV2S
F-MU3S
F-MW4S
29-KM-FB3
FAA-MW-TB2
DATE
TAKEN
6/24/87
6/24/87
6/24/87
6/24/87
6/24/87
6/24/87
NEH JERSEY
6RID COORDINATES
N E
227.725 2.030.245
227.783 2.030.382
227.820 2.030.338
227.783 2.030.382
FIELD BLANK
TRIP BLANK
DEPTH
10.0 -
2.3 -
2.0 -
2.3 -
..
-
(FT)
30.0
12.3
12.0
12.3
-
ANALYSIS
PP+40
PP+40
PP+40
PP+40
PP ORGAN ICS
PP ORGAN ICS
CONSTITUENTS
DETECTED?
(Y/N) NOTES
t
Y
Y
Y
Y DUPLICATE OF F-HW-2S
Y
Y
-------
TABLE 19-s
CONSTITUENTS DETECTED IN GROUND MATER -- SITE F
SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION:
SAMPLE DEPTH (FT):
SAMPLE ANALYSIS:
*..*». yg^ (PPB) »«.*.»..
ADDITIONAL VOA PEAKS
""* SNA (PPB)
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)PHTHALATE
ADDITIONAL BNA PEAKS
..... PEST/PCB (PPB) *-«
*** METALS (PPB) *«
CD
CR
CU
He
SE
ZN
CYANIDE (PPI)
PHENOL (PPI)
PH (STANDARD UNITS)
CONDUCTIVITY (NICROHHOS/CM)
F-MH1S F-MH2S F-MU3S F-MW-4S
10-30 2.3-12.3 2-12 2.3-12.3
PP+40 PP+40 PP*«0 pp+40
G7 9fi 1£ ^n
of £9 1§ IQ
J71 Q 1 41tC taa n
M4£
» 0.31 0.2C 0.4
/.* OO.D JO. a
S.I
W* IBS 75 45
87 c t *
Ml ift en
WTE: ONLY CONCENTRATIONS ABOVE THE DETECTION LIMITS ARE SHOWN
29-HH-FB3 89-MH-TB2
BLANK BLANK
PP ORS PP ORC
90
13
-------
TABLE 12-3
SOIL BORING SAMPLES - AREA F
SAMPLE
NUMBER
F-B5-5
F-B6-4
F-B7-5
F-B8-9
F-89-9
F-FB1
F-FBZ
DATE
09/26/88
09/26/88
09/27/88
09/27/88
09/27/88
09/26/88
09/27/88
NJ GRID COORD
NORTH EAST
227,800 2,030,272
227,890 2,030,315
227,855 2.030.388
227,788 2,030,430
* 227,682 2.030.369
FIELD BLANK
FIELD BLANK
DEPTH
8.0
6.0
8.0
16.0
16.0
_
- 10.0
- 8.0
- 10.0
- 18.0
- 18.0
ANALYSIS NOTES
HCIR
HCIR
HCIR
HCIR
HCIR
HCIR
HCIR
ANALYSIS COOES:
HCIR
TOTAL PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS
-------
TABLE 12-4
CONSTITUENTS DETECTED IN SOIL BORING SAMPLES ~ AREA F
SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION:
SAHPLE DEPTH (FT);
SAMPLE ANALYSIS:
F-B5-5
8-10
HCIR
F-B6-4
6-8
HCIR
F-B7-5
8 - 10
HCIR
F-B8-9
16 - 18
HCIR
F-B9-9
16 - 18
HCIR
NJOEP
F-FB1 F-FB2 SOIL
BLANK BLANK CLEANUP
HCIR HCIR OBJECTIVE
PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS (PPM)
too
NOTE: ONLY CONCENTRATIONS ABOVE THE DETECTION LIMITS ARE SHOWN
HCIR = TOTAL PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS
-------
TABLE 12-5
GROUND WATER SAMPLES - AREA F
SAMPLE
NUMBER
F-MW2S
F-MW4S
DATE
12/5/88
12/01/88
NJ GRID COORD
NORTH EAST
227
227
,783
,776
2.030,
2.030,
382
385
2
22
DEPTH
.3
.5
- 12
- 42
.3
.5
ANALYSIS
PP METALS
PP+40
NOTES
(U/F).TSS
F-HW-FB4
20A-HW-TB2
56-MW-FB6
12/01/88
12/01/88
12/5/88
FIELD BLANK
TRIP BLANK
FIELD BLANK
PP+40
VOA
GWQP, PP METALS (U/F)
ANALYSIS CODES:
VOA VOLATILE ORGANIC ANALYSIS
PP+40 PRIORITY POLLUTANTS PLUS 40 ADDITIONAL PEAKS
PP METALS PRIORITY POLLUTANT METALS
(U/F) UNFILTERED SAMPLE/FILTERED SAMPLE
GHQP GROUND WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND, TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON, NITRATE. NITROGEN, TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
-------
TABLE 12-6
CONSTITUENTS DETECTED IN GROUWO WATER SAMPLES - AREA F
SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION:
SAMPLE DEPTH (FT):
SAMPLE AHALYSIS:
VOA (PPB) *.«
CHLOROFORM.
ADDITIONAL VOA PEAKS.
BNA (PPB)
BIS(2-ETHVLHEXYL)PHTHALATE.
ADDITIONAL BNA PEAKS
F-HH2S F-HH4S
2.3-12.3 22.5-42.5
METALS PP+40
TOTAL DISSOLVED
3400
F-MH-FB4 20A-HW-TBZ
BLANK BLANK
PP+40 VOA
7
S3
56-HHFB6
BLANK
METALS
DISSOLVED
PEST/PCB (PPB) "«
13
""" METALS (PPB)
CR
CU " ,07 or'4 23
NI 39.7 25.5
Pfl "" 7,
2N . ".8 25.2
92.0 35.5 192.0 117
~* -"'""*. «-!-». .^u ,_
CYANIDE (PPB)
PHENOL (PPB)
. .
PH (STANDARD UNITS) c A
CONDUCTIVITY (MICROMHOS/CM) ,n
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS (PPM) )46o
^^**""^^^^""^^*"
69.7
249.0
~~""*~"** "*""* "*~
NOTE: ONLY CONCENTRATIONS ABOVE THE DETECTION LIMITS ARE SHOWN
-------
TABLE B-2
GROUND WATER ORGANIC AND INORGANIC SAMPLE SUMMARY
AREA F - AIR BLAST FACILITY
August 8,1996
; :- < > v !; :NJ PLANE COORDINATES^' f-
SAMPLE SAMPLING : ^:^r <
NUMBER, ::^ DATE : NORTH : EAST A \2 DEPTH (i)
AREA!
F-MW2S
F-MW3S
F-MW4S
F-MW4SMS
F-MW4SM3D
F-MW5S
QA/QC BLANKS
FB-OB0896
TB-080B96
08/08/96
08/08/96
06/08/96
08/08/96
08/08/96
08/08/96
08/08/96
03/06/96
227,784
227,820
227,776
227,776
227,776
227,776
..
2,030.383
2,030,339
2,030,385
2,030,385
2,030,385
2,030,385
- .
2.3-12.3
2.0-12.0
22.5-42.5
22.5-42.5
22.5-42.5
22.5-42.5
:A^^^ ^*NAL^
LCW+3, PPMET (unfiltered)
LCW+3, SVGA, PEST/PCBs, PPMET, CN, PN
LCW+3, SVGA, PEST/PCBs, PPMET, CN, PN
LCW+3, SVOA, PEST/PCBs, PPMET, CN, PN
LCW+3, SVOA, PEST/PCBs, PPMET, CN, PN
LCW+3, SVOA, PEST/PCBs, PPMET, CN, PN
LCW+3, SVOA, PEST/PCBs, PPMET, CN, PN
LCW+3
MATRIX SPIKE
MATRIX SPIKE DUPLICATE
DUPLICATE OF F-MW4S
FIELD BLANK
TRIP BLANK
NOTES:
(1) DEPTH IS SCREEN INTERVAL MEASURED FROM GROUND SURFACE
<2) ANALYSISCODC: LCW
SVOA - SwntoMto Organic Analysis. EPA CLP 3/90 OLM01 .8
PEST/PCBs - PMUcMM and Polychlorinatai Blpnenyfa, EPA CLP 3/90
PPMET - Priority PoMant Metals Analyses. UnfiRamJ, CLP 3/90 ILM03.0
CN - CyanMa, CLP 3/90 ILM04.0
PN - Phenol, EPA Method 420.2
(3) Horizontal Datum: NJSWt Plans Cowclnatw NAD 27
-------
VALIDATED GROUND WATER SAMPLE ORGANICS / INORGANICS ANALYTICAL RESULTS
AREA F - AIR BLAST FACILITY
August 8,1996
*""*?_... -iri IMM
Bis (2T:thylhexyi)Phlhalale
^i »_. t .1 i»
Arsflnlc
Beryllium
admlum
hromhim
opppr
.ead
Mercury
Nickel
elenium
Zinc
yanide
13.5
16.0B
15.4 J2
0.31
8.3 B
1.8J1.3
18.1 B
pa
CRDL STANDARD WAS ABOVE THE UPPER CONTROL LIMIT
§&ras»^SS!&^^~^e"mi*i"t
-------
TABLE 19-3
SOIL BORING SAMPLES - AREA R
SAMPLE
NUMBER
R-B1-7
R-B2-6
R-B3-7
R-B4-11
R-B4-12
R-B5-M
R-B5-8
R-86-12
R-TB-4
R-FB-1
R-TB-2
R-FB-2
R-FB-3
ANALYSIS
DATE
12/9/88
12/9/88
12/8/88
12/8/88
12/8/88
12/7/88
12/7/88
12/7/88
12/7/88
12/7/88
12/8/88
12/8/88
12/9/88
CODES:
NJ GRID COORD
NORTH CAST DEPTH
227,541 2.018,225 12.0 - 14.0
227,524 2.018,146 10-14, 10-12
227,380 2,018,212 12.0 - 14.0
227,297 2,017,921 20.0 - 24.0
227,297 2,017,921 20.0 - 24.0
227.442 2,017,968 20.0 - 22.0
227,442 2,017,968 14.0 - 16.0
227,587 2,017,902 22.0 - 24.0
TRIP BLANK
FIELD BLANK
TRIP BLANK
FIELD BLANK
FIELD BLANK
ANALYSIS NOTES
PP+40
PP+40 PP+40 FROM 10-14', VOA FROM 10-12'
PP+40
PP+40 DUPLICATE OF R-B4-12
PP+40
PP+40
VOA, BNA
PP+40
VOA
VOA
VOA
VOA
VOA
PP+40 PRIORITY POLLUTANTS PLUS 40 ADDITIONAL PEAKS
VOA VOLATILE ORGANIC ANALYSIS
BNA BASE NEUTRAL/ACID EXTRACTABLE
COMPOUNDS
-------
TABLE 19-4
CONSTITUENTS DETECTED IN SOIL BORING SAMPLES
AREA R
SAHPLE IDENTIFICATION: R-B1-7 R-B2-6 R-B3-7 R-B4-12 R-B4-12 R-B5-8 t
SAHPLE DEPTH (FT): 12-14 10-12 12-14 20-24 20-24 14-16
SAMPLE ANALYSIS: PP+40 PP+40 PP+40 PP+40 PP+40 BNA.VOA
OUPL.
...... VQ^ (ppB) «
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
CHLOROFORM
CHIOROBENZENE
ADDITIONAL VOA PEAKS 0 290 0 0 91
BNA (PPB) *
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)PHTHALATE 700 470
BENZO(B)FLUORANTHENE
ADDITIONAL BNA PEAKS 400 500 100 1300 600 4400
..... PEST/PCB (PPB) "
METALS (PPM)
BE
CR 2.7 5.7 2.7 7.3 5.9
CD.... 5.7
NI 9.8 12.9
PB 2.5 1.1 1.4 1.2
2H 12.1 17.2 4.3 41.8
CYANIDE (PPM)
PHENOL (PPM) 0.36 0.25 0.26 0.3 0.21
NJDEP
i-B5-11 R-B6-12 R-TB2 R-TB4 R-FB1 R-FB2 R-FB3 SOIL
20-22 22-24 BLANK BLANK BLANK BLANK BLANK CLEANUP
PP+40 PP+40 VOA VOA VOA VOA VOA OBJECTIVE
11 10
17 12
6
110 100 110 . 374 429 189 2934 1000
1100
490
1100 200 10000
1.3
6.1 4.7 3
7.3 6.1 170
11.5 8.1 100
2.2 1.4 250-1000
8.6 17.5 350
12
0.28 0.22
NOTE: ONLY CONCENTRATIONS ABOVE THE DETECTION LIMITS ARE SHOWN
-------
TABLE 19-5
GROUND WATER SAMPLES - AREA R
SAMPLE
NUMBER
R-MW1S
R-MH2S
R-HW3S
R-HW14S
R-MWFB
TB-1
R-MW1SA
R-HH2SA
R-MWFB2
R-TB2
ANALYSIS
DATE
1/25/89
1/25/89
1/25/89
1/25/89
1/25/89
1/25/89
3/22/89
3/22/89
3/22/89
3/22/89
COOES:
NJ GRID COORO
NORTH EAST
227.487 2.017,866
227.268 2,018,091
227,895 2,018,196
227,268 2,018.091
FIELD BLANK
TRIP BLANK
227,487 2,017,866
227,268 2,018,09)
FIELD BLANK
TRIP BLANK
DEPTH (FT)1
17.0 - 37.0
15.0 - 35.0
17.0 - 37.0
15.0 - 35.0
17.0 - 37.0
15.0 - 35.0
PP+40 PRIORITY POLLUTANTS PLUS 40
VOA VOLATILE ORGANIC ANALYSIS
ANALYSIS
PP+40
PP+40
PP+40
PP+40
PP+40
VOA
VOA
VOA
VOA
VOA
ADDITIONAL PEAKS
NOTES
DUPLICATE OF R-MH2S
RESAMPLE OF R-MW1S
RESAMPLE OF R-MW2S
SCREEN DEPTH IN FEET BELOW GROUND SURFACE
-------
TABLE 10-6
CONSTITUENTS DETECTED IN GROUND HATER SAMPLES
AREA R
SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION:
SAMPLE DEPTH (FT):
SAMPLE ANALYSIS:
COLLECTION DATE:
ETHYLBENZENE
CHLOROBENZENE
1 4-DICHLOR08CNZENE
AUDI T IONAL VGA PEAKS
R-HW1S
17 - 37
PP+40
1/25/89
9
t4
20
R-MWISA
17 - 37
VOA
3/22/89
RCSAHPLE
14
42
13
63
R-HW2S
15 - 35
PP+40
1/25/89
I*
5
49
R-HW2S
15 - 35
PP+40
1/25/89
DUPLICATE
Zl
30
R-HW2SA
15 - 35
VOA
3/22/89
RESAMPLE
18
95
R-HH3S
17 - 37
PP+40
1/25/89
13
R-HHFB
BLANK
PP+40
1/25/89
14
TB-1
BLANK
VOA
1/25/89
93
R-HWFB2
BLANK
VOA
3/22/89
19
R-TB2
BLANK
VOA
3/22/89
25
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)PHTHALATE.
ADDITIONAL BNA PEAKS
11
PEST/PCB (PPB)
TOTAL METALS (PPB)
CR .
(U
HI
PB
ZN
CYANIDE ( PPM)
PHENOL ( PPM)
PH ( STANDARD UNITS)
CONOUCMVITY (MICROMHOS/CM)
31 2 IB S l"i <)
15.6
112 47 8 81 4
10.4
181 120 166 204 133
56 5 Q - 49
112 HO
NOTE: ONLY CONCENTRATIONS ABOVE DETECTION LIMITS ARE SHOWN
-------
TABLE 5-2
GROUND WATER SAMPLES
AREA R
NEW JERSEV
SAHPLE
ID
R-MW4S
R-MW5S
R-MW6S
41-FB1
41-TB1
ANALYSIS
DATE
TAKEN
10/17/89
10/17/89
10/17/89
10/17/89
10/17/89
COOES:
GRID COORDINATES DEPTH
N E (FT) ANALYSIS
227,616
227,095
227.541
PP+40
VOA
2,017,678 12-32
2.018.193 8-28
2.018,322 5-25
_ .
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS PLUS 40
VOLATILE ORGANIC ANALYSIS
PP+40
PP+40
PP+40
PP+40
VOA
ADDITIONAL
NOTES
SLIGHTLY SILTY SAMPLE
CLEAR SAMPLE
CLEAR SAMPLE
FIELD BLANK
TRIP BLANK
PEAKS
-------
en
J,
UJ
CD
h-
oe
«£
UJ
^r
1
ce
UI
i
s
^3
o
Z
O
UJ
^ji
UJ
i
>
X
UJ
frm
^_
10
i
u
u
n
it
n
n
n
n
u
u
n
u
u
n
n
n
u
n
n
it
n
n
n
n
n
n
ii
ti
n
u
n
n
n
n
n
n
it
n
n
n
u
u
n
n
u
u
u
n
H
It
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
tl
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
tt
tl
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
tt
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
It
It
II
II
II
II
II
II
CO
i 3i
CD <
u. _J
CD
in in
vO CM
X ui
CX
IACO
in CM
XCO
I
ee.
in CM
12
OS
1
J ^*
* u.
u.
UICL
OU.
UIU.
Vttf
II
< 11 O
O II
> II
II
II
II
tl
11
II
II
II
O 11 vO
V II
+ II
CL II
CL II
II
II
II
II
II
o ii in CT*
T II
+ II
a. n
CL II
n
n
n
n
n
O II
TT n
ct !!
CL II
11
II
II
II
II
O II
^ II
+ II
0. II
CL II
11
II
11
II
II
II
II
II
II
11
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
||
11
II
II
II
II
II UI
II O
II CO
in u CL ae
It C. O
II » 1
> II X
g ;:§ u«
1 !!> zg
11 UI U
UI II « -J C
_i ii < > a
til XC
II *- _
II UJ. 2
tn n Xc
n n
ii i
M i
n i
n i
n i
n i
n i
n i
u u
n n
u u
n u
n i
II 1
n 1
u i
n i
II u
u u
n u
II u
it n
u n
it t
ti t
tl I
n I
n 1
n H
II u
n n
li n
n II
u n
u n
u n
u it
n II
n u
u n
II n
n II
li n
n n
u n
n u
n ii
n n
n II
n it
n II
n n
n II
n H
n n
n n
n n
n u
li II
n n
II n
u u
II u
II u
II n
n u
n u
n li
n n
n n
it n
n II
n li
n n
in n M
< u n
UI II II
0. II II
n ca n
§11 CL II
n a. li
> li *" n
n n
:_ n < M
: < ii X ii
> Z n CO n
.On n
i n n
: ^ u « ii
> n « n
JO" H
: o ii n
i « M n
ii
n
ii
u
u
u
n
n
n
n
n
M
ii
u
u
u
u
u
r*> n
n
it
ro u
tl
u
i
i
i
i
i
JIM 1 l_l
II
II
II
II
1
1
I
1
I
I
i
1
I
I
1
1
1
i
II
tl
II
11
II
II
II
11
II
II
tl
II
II
II
1
I
i
1
f
1
i
I
t
1
1
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
11
II
II
II
tt
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
~ II
Sll
II
EX. H
II
II
1 II
g n
Z. n
L n
li
n
u
u
n
u
' n
H
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
11
*O O CO ii
n ii
^ n
n
n
n
n
n
u
M
in o !* n
- m ti
^ ii
II
u
ii
ii
n
n
n
f*i in f** n
CM II
in n
1 n
n
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
u
u
u
ii
n
n
u
ii
u
11
X II
<_> II
^ II
t/-> II
fll
ee ii
^- o in ii
~ . _i u
SX ui u
<_> n
u
O >- II
ae t ui ii
< ce n
0 > =3 IJ
«t ^- < ii
U DC II
1/1 Z3 UI II
O SL II
Z X it
X O UI II
a. <_> > ii
i
1
* ,
UJ
ae
4ft Z
^ <£
SI 32
^m UJ
UJ Z
UJ
00
UI
UJ *
X U>
1 UI
bJ UI
> O
O
§
^
/>
§UJ
o
1 Of
«t o
ce i
t- Z
UJ
UJ UJ
OuJ
os:
UJ
i
-------
TABLE 6-3
FAA TECHNICAL CENTER
NO ACTION AREA INVESTIGATIONS SAMPLE SUMMARY
AREA R - TRASH DUMP
Sample
Identification
R-B7
R-B8
R-B9
R-B10
R-MW1S
R-MW2S
R-MW4S
R-MW5S
FB -102892
TB- 11 0592
Sample
Tvoe:
Soil Boring
Soil Boring
Soil Boring
Soil Boring
Ground Water
Ground Water
Ground Water
Ground Water
Field Blank
Trip Blank
Date
Sampled
1Q/2Q/92
10/26/91
10/28/92
10/28/92
11/05/92
11/05/92
11/05/92
11/05/92
10/28/92
11/05/92
New Jersey Grid
N
227,512.18
227,298.07
227,368.46
227,59232
227,486.64
227,268.08
227,616.15
227,095.11
~»
""
Coordinates
E
2,018,149.01
2,017,932.06
2,018,214.26
2,017,890.62
2,017,865.77
2,018,090.53
2,017,678.28
2,018,193.04
_
«
Ground
Surface
Elevation1
(ft)
62.74
73.89
62.82
74.23
73.42
70.48
72.97
72.51
_
~
Sample
Depth2
(ft)
8-10
19-21
7-9
16-18
_
-
w
Well
Screened
Interval2 :>
(ft) j-
_
17-37
15-35
12-32
8-28
_
Analysis* :
PPVOA+20
PPVOA+20
PPVOA-l-20
PPVOA+20
PPVOA+20
PPVOA+20
PPVOA+20
PPVOA+20
PPVOA+20
PPVOA+20
Notes:
1 Ground Surface Elevation Id Feet Above Mean Sea Level
2 Sample Depth and Well Screened interval h Feet Below Ground Surface
1 PPVOA+20 - Priority Pollutant Volatile Organic Analysis Plus 20 Peaks
-------
TABLE 6-4
FAA TECHNICAL CENTER
NO ACTION AREA INVESTIGATIONS
SOIL BORING ANALYTICAL RESULTS
AREA R-TRASH DUMP
Sample Identification:;
Sample Depth (ft): -{I
Sample Analysis:
. R-B7
/8-10
PPVOA + 20
R-B8 :;v\:; R-B9 , R-B10 FB-102892
19r-21J&-^::v.-7~9 ! 16-18 FIELD BLANK
PPVOA +^20 i PPVOA + 20 .PPVOA + 20 PPVOA + 20
VOAfopb)
Methylene Chloride
Tentatively Identified Compounds (TICs)
5J
390 CJ
94C
200 C
J - Analyte present. Reported value may not be accurate or precise.
C - Response factor from daily standard
-------
TABLE 6-5
FAA TECHNICAL CENTER
NO ACTION AREA INVESTIGATIONS
GROUND WATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS
AREA R-TRASH DUMP
Sample Identification:
Sample Depth (ft):
Sample Analysis:
VOAfoDb)
Chlorobenzene
1 ,2-Dichlorob9nzene
1 ,4- Dichlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
Methylene Chloride
R-MW1S
17-37
PPVOA + 20
35
2J
5J
9J
R-MW2S
15-35
PPVOA + 20
12
2J
9J
R-MW4S R-MW5S
12-32 8-28
PPVOA + 20 PPVOA + 20
1J
TB-110592
TRIP BLANK
PPVOA + 20
4J
J - Analyte present. Reported value may not be accurate or precise.
-------
IMOLCA-I
FAA TECHNICAL CENTER
August 1934
-------
TABLE 19
COMPARISON OF HISTORIC GROUND WATER VOC ANALYTICAL RESULTS - AREA R
SAMPLE IOCNTWM
SAMPLE DEPTH:
VOLATILE OKOANICS (ppb)
ACETONE 40
BENZENE 2J 3J
ETHYLBENZENE 24 14 0 7 16
TOLUENE
TOTAL XYLENES
1.1-DICHLOROETHANE
TETRACHLOROETHENE
CtS-U-dCHLOROETHENE 2J 2J
CHLOROFORM
2-BUTANONE 330=
CHLOROBENZENE 9 42 38 36 56
1>ttCHLOROBENZENE
,2-DICHLOROBENZENE 2 2J 4
,4-CHCm.OROeeNZENE 13 5 5 8
ADOmONALVOA PEAKS 20 63
3J
52
18
1
110 24
5 2
15
23
3
15
2J
54
3
7
11
2
18
2
41
3
8
3
14
12
2
47
3
7
2
48
4J
2
20
1
12
1J
4
2J
14
» 1
2
75
4
13
0.1J 0.4J 0.9J
2J
73
82J 68J 58J 44J 29J 35J 69J 224J 28J
1 0.5J U
1
9J
59 76 38
0.2J
332
12 6
3J
3J
10
2J
23
2J
83
4J
9
2J
19
11
2J
2J
23
12
2J
2J 01J 2J
30 0.8J
28 0.2J
0.2J
1J 0.1J
5
68 65 73 8
0.3J
4J 3 4J 0.4J
11 10 10
49J 58J 10J 103J 53J
16
1J
64
0.3J
4
9
66J
2J
19
2J
1J
50
3J
6
1J
34
U
47
4
7
72J
0.9J 1 U
22 22 16
0.1J
0.5J
0.3J
0.6J 1
0.5J
58 75 74
0.4J 0.4J
455
12 15 17
18J 59J
VOLATILE OftGAMCS (ppb)
VINYL CHLORtDE
CHLOROETHANE
CARBON DtSULFDE
ACETONE
BENZENE
ETHYLBENZENE
TOLUENE
1,1-aCHLOROETHANE
CIS-1.2-DICHLOROETHENE
CHLOROFORM
CHLOROBENZENE
1,3-OtCHLOROBENZENE
U-OCHLOROBENZENE
1,4-OCHLOROBENZENE
TOTAL XYLENES
ADDITIONAL VOA PEAKS
3
0.4J
0.1J
0.8J
24 21
0.7J 1
18
49 30 95
0.7J
12 O.SJ 6
O.SJ
2 1
4J
O.SJ 3
1 0.6J
11
2
3
20
21
1
3
13
51
2J 8J 13J
4
9
6
84J 37J
8
2
3
18
13
2
3
15
20J
7
2
2
10
2
0.3J
0.2J
0.1J
2
50
0.4J
5
21
O.SJ
0.3J 1 0.1J
O.SJ
0.2J 0.7J 2 0.2J
0.2J 0.1J 1
1
2 0.5J 4 22 ....
03J 0.6J O.SJ
07J 0.2J 0.7J 3 0.3J
0.9J 0.7J 7 20 2 0.7J
0.1J 0.3J 0.6J
0.4J
0.1J
0.3J 0.3J O.SJ
0.6J 4
246
0.4J 0.4J 0.3J
0.4J 0.7J 1
465
O.SJ
4J
O.SJ 1
0.4J 0.2J
2J
7
1
0.2J
1
0.2J
1
0.1J
6
1
1
15
3J
0.4J
2
22
27
-------
. TABLE 19 (Continued)
COMPARISON OF HISTORIC GROUND WATER VOC ANALYTICAL RESULTS - AREAR
VOLATILE OKOAMC8 (ppb)
CARBON DtSlAFIDe
CH8ROMOCHLOROMETHANE
BROMOFORM
TOLUENE
CHLOROFORM
TOTAL XYLENES
ADDITIONAL VOA PEAKS
13 10 8 11 15 12 14 22 8
0.1J
9 10
0.1J
0.1J
0.3J
13
17 18 17 23 18 7 12 IS 12
0.1J
5
0.4J
11
1
0.8
5
1
2
(ppb)
CHLOROFORM
ADOmONAL VOA PEAKS
0.9J
O.BJ
3J
O.BJ 0.5J 0.6J 2 O.SJ 0.7J 0.7J 0.4J 0.4J
0.9J
O.SJ 0.4J 0.6J
!E:^X,S^NIS!£2!? TH*T ARE ANALYTICALLYVAUD AND ABOVE THE DETECTION LMT ARE SHOWN
^EW^DH
R
LCW - EPA Low Coocootrrton Water VotaSto Orgmlc Aralysls (CLP SOW OLC 02.1)
- W"M'1'
-------
VOLATILE OROAMCS (ppb)
VINYL CHLORIDE
ACETONE
CHLOROFORM
BENZENE
TOLUENE
CHLOROBENZENE
ETHYLBENZENE
08-1,2-OICHLOROETHENE
1,3-OICHLOROeENZENE
U-aCHLOROBENZENE
1.4-DICHLOROBENZENE
TABLE 19 (Continued)
COMPARISON OF HISTORIC GROUND WATER VOC ANALYTICAL RESULTS - AREAR
4J
75 ^674352 67359354
1
0.1J
><" 1 25
02J
02J 1
0.2J 0.3J
0.3J 3
0.6J 1 12
684
1
1
5
2
5
2
5
5
5
VOLATILE ORGANIC* (ppb)
ACETONE s
SSS5SS, '»«'., T . .11 ,.,... .
TETRACHLOROETHENE '
1.4-DKHLOROBENZENE 02J °*J
0.1J
r^c-oss^^,,.
-------
TABLE 6-2
TEST PIT & SURFACE SOIL SAMPLES
AREA S
NEW JERSEY
SAMPLE DATE GRID COORDINATES DEPTH
I» TAKEN N E (FT) ANALYSIS
S-TP4 08/16/89 225,410 2,018,075 1.0-1.3 PP+40
S-TP9 08/16/89 224,960 2.018,030 4.0 PP+40
S-TP11 08/16/89 225,495 2.018.990 1.0-1.5 PP+40
S-TP12 08/16/89 225.830 2.018.760 2.0-2.5 PP+40
S-5S1 08/16/89 225,170 2.018,450 0-2 PP+40
S-SS2 08/16/89 225.960 2.018.065 0-2 PP+40
S-SS99 08/16/89 225,960 2,018,065 0-2 PP+40
S-FB1 08/16/69 pp+4Q
S-IBI 08/16/89 VOA
ANALYSIS COOES: PP+40 PRIORITY POLLUTANTS PLUS 40 ADDITIONAL
VOA VOLATILE ORGANIC ANALYSIS
TEST PIT 4 -
TEST PIT 9 -
TEST PIT 11 -
TEST PIT 12 -
SURFACE SOIL
SURFACE SOIL
DUPLICATE OF
FIELD BLANK
TRIP BLANK
PEAKS
NOTES
DARK LAYER FROM 1.0-1.3
SANO IMMEDIATELY BENEATH REFUSE PILE
- BLACK SANO (STAINING ON 1960 AIR PHOTO?)
- WITHIN CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS
NEAR S-TP8
NEAR S-TP9
S-SS2
-------
TABLE 6-3
CONSTITUENTS DETECTED IN TEST PIT i SURFACE SOIL SAMPLES - AREA S
TEST PIT SAMPLES
luRFAcTsOIL=== =========================
SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION:
SAMPLE ANALYSIS:
S-SS2
S-FB1
BLANK
S-TBl
BLANK
pp^,0 p^ pp,<0 pp^0
« ~~"~~" " ~ - ~ ========================s=====s==r===s:r=s==== i========= = - = ss====z==
MCTHVLENE CHLORIDE
ADDITIONAL VGA PEAKS
24
,9
27
|Q
"
'
20
16
78
6 (1) 27 (I)
FLUORANTHENE
PVREME
BIS(2-ETHyLHXYL)PMTMALATE
420
560
19flo° I480°
..... PEST/PC{PP8) " "~"===="===="===========«========s================
======sss=======s=========.-=-..-.....=s___..._....__.__.....____ ............... ______
"" METALS (PPM) « ~ ....... ======«===================
2.9 3.4
S
ZN
CYANIDE (PPM).
j-j
8'4
'
5.8
2-2
8.8
0.22
5.7
5.2
8-2
18
0.19 0.3. 0.2 0.56 o.« 0.47
NOTE: ONLY CONCENTRATIONS ABOVE THE DETECTION LIMITS ARE SHOWN
METHYLENE CHLORIDE WAS ALSO DETECTED IN METHOD BLANK
(I) Additional VOA peaks due entirely to the presence of acetone.
-------
TABLE 6-4
SOIL BORING SAMPLES
AREA S
SAMPLE
ID
S-B1-4
S-B2-3
41-FB3
41-TBI
ANALYSIS
DATE
TAKEN
09/12/89
09/12/89
09/12/89
09/12/89
CODES:
NEW JERSEY
GRID COORDINATES DEPTH
M E (FT)
225.410 2.018,075 6-10
225.830 2.018.760 4-6
ANALYSIS NOTES
PP+40 VOA 6-8, PP+40 8-10
PP+40
PP+40 FIELD BLANK
VOA TRIP BLANK
PP*40 PRIORITY POLLUTANTS PLUS 40 ADDITIONAL PEAKS
VOA VOLATILE ORGANIC ANALYSIS
-------
TABLE 6-5
CONSTITUENTS DETECTED IN SOIL BORING SAMPLES AREA S
SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION: S-BJ-4 S-B2-3 4I-FB3 4J-TB1
SAMPLE DEPTH (fT): 6-10 4-6 BLANK BLANK
SAMPLE ANALYSIS: PP*40 PP+40 PP+40 VOA
VOA (PPB) ==========
METHYLENE CHLORIDE 17 20 57
ADDITIONAL VOA PEAKS 180 50 25(1)
*""*" BNA (PPB)
DI-N-BUTYLPHTHALATE 3JQO 3900
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)PHTHALATE 390
ADDITIONAL BNA PEAKS 4300 5)00
PEST/PCB (PPB) *«
" METALS (PPH) «*
52 0.96 2.7
:.::::::::;;::::::::;;:;: 2*-s 0-0234
CYANIDE (PPM)
PHENOL (PPM) I." 0 24 0 2
NOTE: ONLY CONCENTRATIONS ABOVE THE DETECTION LIMITS ARE SHOWN
METHYLENE CHLORIDE AND DI-N-BUTYLPHTHALATE WERE ALSO DETECTED IN METHOD BLANK
(1) Additional VOA peaks due entirely to the presence of acetone.
-------
TABLE 6-6
GROUND WATER SAMPLES
AREA S
SAMPLE
ID
S-MW1S
S-HW2S
S-HW3S
41-FBI
41-Tfll
ANALYSIS
DATE
TAKEN
10/17/89
10/17/89
10/17/89
10/17/69
10/17/89
COOES:
NEW JERSEY
GRID COORDINATES
N £
226,035
225.043
225.024
PP+40
VOA
2
2
2
.019
.018
.017
PRIORITY
VOLATILE
.H2
,500
.759
DEPTH
(FT) ANALYSIS
10-30
4-24
4-24
POLLUTANTS PLUS 40
ORGANIC ANALYSIS
PP+40
PP+40
PP+40
PP+40
VOA
ADDITIONAL
NOTES
CLEAR SAMPLE
SLIGHTLY SILTY SAMPLE
CLEAR SAMPLE
FIELD BLANK
TRIP BLANK
PEAKS
-------
TABLE b-7
COMSTITUENTS DETECTED IN GROUND WATER - AREA S
SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION: S-MWIS S-HW2S" S-MW3S FB-I TB-I
SAMPLE DEPTH (FT): I0-3fr 4-24 4-24 BLANK BLANK
SAMPLE ANALYSIS: pp+40 PP+40 PP+4Q pp+4Q VOA
VOA (PPB)
HETHYLENE CHLORIDE
AOOUIONAL VOA PEAKS 26
.......
PEST/PCB (PPB)
"" METALS (PPB) "
CR
""- 30.4
ZN 88.4
CYANIDE (PPB)
PHENOL (PPB) 9 ,
PH (STANDARD UNITS) 5 4.9 53
CONDUCTIVITY (MICROMHOS/CM) 3, -J0 30
TEMPERATURE (CELSIUS) . 17 I8 ,8
NOTE: ONLY CONCENTRATIONS ABOVE THE DETECTION LIMITS ARE SHOWN
METHYLENE CHLORIDE WAS DETECTED IN METHOD BLANK
' THE BNA FRACTION FOR S-MW2S WAS RE-EXTRACTED.
-------
TABLE 6-8
SURFACE MATER t SEDIMENT SAMPLES
AREA S
SAMPLE
ID
S-SWI
S-SW2
S-SW3
S-SD1
S-SD2
S-S03
S-SD4
S-SD5
S-S06
S-fBI
S-TBI
S-FB2
ANALYSIS
DATE
TAKEN
08/16/09
10/16/89
10/16/89
08/16/89
08/16/89
10/16/89
10/16/89
10/16/89
10/16/89
08/16/69
08/16/89
10/16/89
CODES:
B
DEPTH (FT)
0.5
0-0.5
0-0.5
0-0.5
0-0.5
0-0.5
0-0.5
0-0.5
0-0.5
_
PP*40 PRIORITY
VGA VOLATILE
ANALYSIS
PP*40
VOA
VOA
PP+40
PP+40
VOA
VOA
VOA
VOA
PP+40
VOA
VOA
POLLUTANTS
NOTES
LARGE POND IN SW OF SITE
100' ABOVE AREA S CONFLUENCE
IMMEDIATELY BELOW CONFLUENCE
40 FT DOWNSTREAM OF S-S02
S. BRANCH AT CONFLUENCE WITH AREA S DRAINAGE
S. BRANCH - 100' ABOVE AREA S CONFLUENCE
S. BRANCH - SO* ABOVE AREA S
S. BRANCH (SO 2 LOCATION)
S. BRANCH (SD 1 LOCATION)
FIELD BLANK
TRIP BLANK
FIELD BLANK
PLUS 40 ADDITIONAL PEAKS
CONFLUENCE
ORGANIC ANALYSIS
-------
TABLE 6-9
CONSTITUENTS DETECTED IN SURFACE WATER - AREA S
SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION: S-SW1 S-SW2 S-SW3 S-FBI S-FB2 S-T81
SAMPLE DEPTH (FT): BLANK BLANK BLANK
SAMPLE ANALYSIS: PP+40 VOA VOA PP+40 VOA VGA
VOA (PPB) "
METHYIENE CHLORIDE 6 7 180 8
CHLOROFORM 12
ADDITIONAL VOA PEAKS .(1) 13 6 6 6 29 27
BNA (PPB)
(PPB)
""" METALS (PPB) """
CU 50.7
ZN 20.2 23.6
CYANIDE (PPB).
PHENOL (PPB)..
NOTE: ONLY CONCENTRATIONS ABOVE THE DETECTION LIMI1S ARE SHOWN
METHYLENE CHLORIDE WAS DETECTED IN THE METHOD BLANK
(I) All additional VOA peaks due to the presence of acetone
-------
~
u
e concentrat
a
a
o
«^
IV
0.
c^.
»
^*
o
fc*
2
Sr
*
**
c1
<
e
**
^^
19
JJ
«
3
rt
Z Z " "*
W O il 1
3 ? n 2
^ M f-
m o ii
z z ii
ft r- n ^
So" I
r" O tt
SS 5
55 :;
r*» ^ it
S > ii
t* M u
Sn
r- v. ;:
8 > ::
__ 52 1*
m < H
*^* ^^ ||
rjj ii
5 " S
^* u
a M
5? r** *'
X o u
m « it
^ »« n
1 s ii
> 2 B o
£ j; *
2 '
~ tt
n
Z " °
S M *
H
"l
n
M
II
;| j
O t
m 11
ti
t ^ ti
s ::
X u
u
H
II
n
»
ii
M
n
n
n
n
ii
11
M
U
U
n
»
n
u
ii
n
ii
u
n
u
»
ii
u
n
n
H
u
II U
!! 3
it
n
u
it
n
n
ii
H h.
u * i!
CO ||
II
CO ii
II
II
II
II
o
fSJ
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
It
II
II
II >. r-
it a 2
n S ^
n e
11-4 3
:: o s
H i i
u <
H O
II >
II
U ^
= >
II VI
n
n
H
u
n
it
N
H
M
N
a
H
n
H
II
II
U
M
II
H
U
H
II
II
II
It
II
H
M
M
II
II
H
II
n
ii
H
H
II
U -J
U O
II
II
Jl
H
II
M
II
II *
II O
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
11
II
IJ
II O>
II 9*
II Jk
II
II
II
II
II
It U
e
n
ii
ii
»
it
I!
u
it
n
ii
n ^*
n
n -»
n
ii
u
n
n
II ISJ
II -*J
II
It
II *_
II
II
II
li r-o _
11
153 :
11 '
G
i i
o
m
vo ro
VI O
M
rs>
o
u
Ct>
in
o r
0 0
.
3
i
i
i
t
i
t
0>
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
-J 1
t
1
1
II
II
II
II
II
II
CD ti
n
n
'
n
n
n
5 !!
0 ii
11
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
H
II
tl
II
II
M
H
II
||
It
||
||
II
ft
f|
II
||
||
||
||
H
H
n
M
H
II
II
|4
II
II
II
II
II
II
U
II
It
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
1
II
II
11
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
II!
iii
^ s» ^
uv *
«M
^^ ^3 CA
o~2
*V O C/k
o « ro
0 in
5» 4^ ^^
0 «,
Hi
S
*0 U%
< 1 cn
"TJ CD U«
? > ii
Xh g OB
r* t
O Z CD
CO
r -n
S 2 ?
^* P^ f^
M
M
M
M
n
n
u
H
n
M
II
N
U
H
H
»
H
U
U
a
u
H
H
M
H
H
H
II
M
II
n
n
n
n
n
it
U
u
u
ii
n
n
N
u
u
it
M
»
n
U
it
ii
n
n
H
it
H
u
u
ii
u
n
n
H
it
»
u
u
u
It
n
M
U
U
tl
II
H
n
u
11
M
n
H
H
n
N
n
H
u
I
I/I
a
m
-*
m
o
v>
I
-------
TABLE 7-3
FAA TECHNICAL CENTER
NO ACTION AREA INVESTIGATIONS SAMPLE SUMMARY
AREA S - EXCAVATED AREA WEST OF TILTON ROAD
Sample
Identification
S-SS3
S-SS4
S-SS5
S-SS64
SD-7
SD-8<
SD-9
SD-105
S-B3
S-B44
S-B5
S-MW1S
S-MW2S
S-MW3S
S-MW1S
S-MW2S
S-MW3S
S-MW4S4
S-MW5S
S-MW6S
S-MW7S8
FB-102192
FB-1 02292
FB-1 03092
TB-110592
FB-071095
TB-071095
Sarnpta - (^ ",., ,\ Date - ,
Tvoa /' .. Sampled
Surfaco Soil
Surface Soil
Surface Soil
Surface Soil
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
Soil Boring
Soil Boring
Soil Boring
Ground Water
Ground Water
Ground Water
Ground Water
Ground Water
Ground Water
Ground Water
Ground Water
Ground Water
Ground Water
Field Blank
Field Blank
Field Blank
Trip Blank
Field Blank
Trip Blank
10/21/92
10/22/92
10721/92
10/21/92
10/22/92
10/22/92
10/22/92
10/22/92
10/30/92
10/30/92
10/30/92
11/05/92
11/05/92
11/05/92
7/10/95
7/10/95
7/10/95
7/10/95
7/10/95
7/10/95
7/10/95
10/21/92
10/22/92
10/30/92
11/05/92
07/10/95
07/10/95
Ground
New Jersey <3r}d Coordinates ; Surface -
" \ BeVatidn1
ti
225,130.14
224,933.08
225,338.70
225.423.28
224,656.45
224,714.07
224,857.89
224,656.45
225,330.74
225.776.36
225,429.25
226,034.64
225,042.97
225.024.48
226.034.64
225.042.97
225,024.48
224.802.39
224,892.84
225.073.31
224.892.84
fc
-
.
-
.
6
2.018,388.17
2,018,107.70
2,018.125.18
2,018,949.29
2.017,591.13
2.017.531.60
2,017,196.88
2.017,591.13
2,018.116.66
2.018.763.49
2.018,958.37
2,019.112.21
2.018,499.98
2.017.758.89
2,019,112.21
2.018.499.98
2.017.758.89
2,018,122.56
2.018,508.05
2,018,856.33
2,018.508.05
.
.
.
.
*
{ft)
58.06
55.65
55.68
62.51
51.32
51.09
51.48
51.32
56.15
57.07
61.98
67.54
58.77
56.90
67.54
58.77
56.90
56.07
58.50
61.97
58.50
w
.
.
»
-
, Sample
' DftpTh* *
f 00 ;
0.5-1.0
0.5-1.0
0.5-1.0
0.5-1.0
0.0-0.5
0.0-0.5
0.0-0.5
0.04.5
4-6
4-6
12-14
.
-
-
.
-
.
-
.
.
_
-
.
-
.
* -WaH
Screened
Interval*
(ft>
-
-
.
-
-
.
-
10-30
4-24
4-24
10-30
4-24
4-24
4.5-14.5
7-17
10-20
7-17
.
.
.
-
.
Analyst^
PPVOA+20
PPVOA-t-20
PPVOA+20
PPVOA+20
PPVOA+20
PPVOA+20
PPVOA+20
PPVOA+20
PPVOA+20
PPVOA+20
PPVOA+20
PPVOA+20
PPVOA+20
PPVOA+20
LCW+3
LCW+3
LCW+3
PP+40
PP+40
PP+40
PP+40
PPVOA+20
PPVOA+20
PPVOA+20
PPVOA+20
PP+40
LCW+3
Noteq: ' Ground Suclac* Elevation In F«»t Abovs Mean Sea Lavrt
2 Sampta Depth and WM ScrMntd Interval In Ftel Below Ground Surtaci
3 PPVOAtZO- Priority Pohitanl Volattto OfoflnteAnal)rslf Plus 20 Ptaks; PP+<0 Prtotlty PoKutanls phis 40 peaks;
LCW+3 EPA Lo* Concentfatlon Waw Volaiito Organic Analysis (10«2 SOW SAM) plus AcraKrin. Acrytoniiril*. and 2-Chkxo*hyl vinyl «h«
4 Matrix Sptki and Matrix Spikt OupNcatt (MSMSO) samptos ooltctwt
5 DupfcMi Sample ol SD-7
6 Duple** Sample ol S-MW5S
-------
TABLE 7-4
FM TECHNICAL CENTER
NO ACTION AREA INVESTIGATIONS
SEDIMENT ANALYTICAL RESULTS
AREA S - EXCAVATED AREA WEST OF TILTON ROAD
Sample Dentation: , * < ^ SD-7. .SD^8~~ SD-9 --,:,; SD-,10 FB-102292
SamptoDeptoflQ:, %;*, ,, >>.,, ^: 0.0-0.5 4 0.0-0.5, ; aO-a5=:W 0.0-6.5 "FIELD BLANK
Sample Analysis: ^ PPVOA-f20. PFVOA + 20 PPVdA^gotpPVQA^gQ ppvOA + 20
VOA(ppb)
Methylene Chloride 23 U 25 U 7J
Trichloroftuoromethane 5 j
J - Analyte present. Reported value may not be accurate or precise.
U - Not detected substantially above the level reported in laboratory or field blanks.
e . . e
-------
TABLE 7-5
FAA TECHNICAL CENTER
NO ACTION AREA INVESTIGATIONS
SURFACE SOIL ANALYTICAL RESULTS
AREA S - EXCAVATED AREA WEST OF TILTON ROAD
Sample Wa^xataK-s^^^^^^M9-S^- S^SS4S^S^ S^SS6 FB£1p2192;, ,FB-102292;
Sample Depth (ft): ''.'-a^$?4-^v^;^tt5-1j0 0.5-1.0 0.5-1.0 0.5-1.0 FIELD BLANK FIELD BLANK
Sample Analysis: :v:h^:- ^:PJ3VOA4-20 PPVOA4-20 PPVQA + 20 PPVOA + 20 PPVOA "j 20 PPVOA + 20
VOA(ppb)
Methylene Chloride 4J 7J
Toluene 1 J 2J U
Tentatively Identified Compounds (TICs) 120C 8J
112J
J - Analyte present Reported value may not be accurate or precise.
C - Response factor from daily standard
-------
TABLE 7-6
FM TECHNICAL CENTER
NO ACTION AREA INVESTIGATIONS
SCHL BORING ANALYTICAL RESULTS
AREAS - EXCAVATED AREA WEST OF TILTON ROAD
Sample Identification:^ ,/w<;.; - ,S-B3 (MJ4S^FB-103092
SarnieC^th(ft)::/;:; 4^6 4-6 ' 12-14, r , FIELbBLANK
Sample Analysis: >' -\ ^/ /.?/, PPVQAH.20 PPVOA4-20 PPVOA-f20 PPVOA + 20
VOAfppb)
Methylene Chloride 3 j
Tentatively Identified Compounds (TlCs) 450 C
10J
J -Analyte present. Reported value may not be accurate or precise.
C-Response factor from daily standard
-------
TABLE 1-1
FAA TECHNICAL CENTER
NO ACTION AREA INVESTIGATIONS
GROUND WATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS
AREA S - EXCAVATED AREA WEST OF TILTON ROAD
Sample Identification:
Sample Depth (ft):
Sample Analysis:
S-MW1S
10-30
PPVOA + 20
S-MW2S S-MW3S TB-110592
4-24 4-24 TRIPBtANK
PPVOA + 20 PPVOA+ 20 PPVOA+ 20
VOAfppb)
Methylene Chloride
4J
J - Analyte present. Reported value may not be accurate or precise.
-------
TABLE 7-8
FM TECHNICAL CENTER
GROUND WATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS
SUPPLEMENTAL "NO ACTION- AREA INVESTIGATION
AREA S - EXCAVATED AREA WEST OF TILTON ROAD
July 10,1995
SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION:
SAMPLE DEPTH (PT)t
SAMPLE ANALYSIS: ,> ><
VOLATILE OROANIC8 (ppb)
Chloroform
Tolu»n»
SEMI-VOLATILES (ppb)
Bu1ylb«nzyiphth«late
TIC*
PESTICIDES/PCB* (ppb)
INORGANICS (ppb)
Mfltali - UnfiNmd:
Chromium
L**d
Nickel
Coppar
CYANIDE
PHENOL
'LCW + 3
4
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
'*g|f
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
":3S;
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
'S-MW45
"4.5 -14.5
^ *
0.1J
-
u
5J
-
10.5
6.8 f-3-*
0.0 B
8.0 B
28.6 R
-
P*!&
0.2 J1
1 J
173 J
-
5.7 B
18.0 f-3-*
9.4 B
7.6 B
47.9 R
-
10-- 20
^^
-
10 J
-
8.1 B
4.1 J^3
11.5B
14.7 B
8Z9R
-
3up.ofMW53
0.2 J
8J
-
4.9 B
17.2 J*W
13.1 B
4.8 B
34.3 R
-
Field Blank
s PP ! 40*
_
0.1J
-
-
2.4J^3
2.0 B
23.4 J3
-
Trip Blank
LCW + 3
-
NA
NA
NA
nn
NA
PQU*
"(ppb)
5
_
10
10
10
1000
30
-
HOTOJ:
J -
J1 -
J* -EilkiM^MdMdMtolwdupfcMiMlyriiouWctoteoanMlmt.
J* -
J»-
B -
R -
HA -
*sdC^ctkr,Lhi!seCRCtJ.
nhmMion.
ANALYSIS:
LCW+ 3 -EPALowCe
nWianVWMwVbh
-^^^
. ,1
-------
ROD FACT SHEET
SITE
PAA Technical Center
Atlantic County, NJ
II
39.65 (12/09/88)
NJ9690510020
Name :
Location/State :
EPA Region :
HRS Score (date):
Site ID # :
ROD
Date Signed: EPA - 09/28/99
Remedy/ies: Institutional control, ground water monitoring
Operating Unit Number: OU-11
Capital cost: N/A
Construction Completion: N/A
O & M: N/A
Present worth: N/A
LEAD
Remedial/Enforcement Federal Facility Agreement
EPA/State/PRP: EPA Federal Facilities
Primary contact: Keith Buch, FAA (609-485-6644)
Secondary contact: Julio F. Vazquez, EPA (212-637-4323)
Main PRP(s): Federal Aviation Administration Tech Center
PRP Contact:
Keith Buch, FAA (609-485-6644)
WASTE
Type:
Medium:
Origin:
Est. quantity:
Volatile Organic Compoundss
Ground water
disposal activities, landfill operations
unknown
-------
-------
0
--
-------
V
------- |