PB97-963801
EPA/541/R-97/009
November 1997
EPA Superfund
Record of Decision:
Federal Aviation Admin Tech Center,
(Area P) (Building 204) (Fuel Spill Area),
Atlantic County, NJ
2/13/1997
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
AREA?
BUILDING 204
FUEL SPILL AREA
FAA WILLIAM J. HUGHES TECHNICAL CENTER
ATLANTIC CITY INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
NEW JERSEY
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
DECLARATION FOR THE RECORD OF DECISION
DECISION SUMMARY FOR THE RECORD OF DECISION
I. SITENAME, LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION 1
H. SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES 4
A Land Use 4
B. Initial Investigations 4
C. Environmental Investigation 5
III. HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION 12
IV. SCOPE AND ROLE OF RESPONSE ACTION 12
V. SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS 12
VI. SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS 14
VII. DESCRIPTION OF THE "NO ACTION" ALTERNATIVE 16
VIII. DOCUMENTATION OFNO SIGNIFICANT CHANGES 16
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY FOR THE RECORD OF DECISION
I. OVERVIEW 1
II. BACKGROUND ON COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT 1
m. SUMMARY OF MAJOR QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS 2
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
LIST OF FIGURES
1 Area P - Site Location Map 2
2 Area P - Building 204 Fuel Spill Area : 3
3 Area P - Soil Boring Locations 6
4 Area P - Monitoring Well Locations ... 7
5 Area P - Surface Water/Sediment Sample Locations 8
6 Area P - No Action Sampling Locations 11
APPENDICES
A NJDEP AND PINELANDS COMMISSION LETTERS OF CONCURRENCE
B PUBLIC MEETING ATTENDANCE LIST
C PUBLIC MEETING TRANSCRIPT
in
-------
DECLARATION FOR THE RECORD OF DECISION
Area P - Building 204 Fuel Spill Area
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 AND PURPOSE
This decision document presents the selected remedial action for Area P, the Building 204
Fuel Spill Area 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 (NCP). This decision is based on the administrative record for Area P.
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 AND CONTINGENCY REMEDY
The selected remedy for Area P is no further action.
DECLARATION OF STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
The Federal Aviation Administration and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
Region 2 have determined that no remedial actions are necessary at Area P to ensure protection of
human health and the environment Pursuant to Section 121(c) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9621(c) and
Section 300.430(f)(4)(ii) of the National Contingency Plan, 40 C.F.R Section 300.430(f)(4)(ii), the
site is not limited with respect to future use or access and, therefore, a five-year review of the selected
remedial action is not required.
(Signature) / ' (Date)
Gary E. PouUen, P.E., Manager
Facility Engineering and Operations Division
FAA William J. Hughes Technical Center
(Signature) /'"// \f (Date)
Jeanne M. Foy'
Regional Administrator
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region JJ
Declaration -1
-------
DECISION SUMMARY
RECORD OF DECISION
Area P - Building 204 Fuel Spill Area
FAA William J. Hughes Technical Center
I. 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, 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 of 10 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 is 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 or otherwise isolated from the ground water flow at the FAA Technical Center.
Area P is located at Building 204 in the Research and Development (R&D) area of the FAA
Technical Center, south of the Upper Atlantic City Reservoir, as indicated in Figure 1. The building
is used to conduct velocity experiments on various aircraft components. A small, unnamed stream
is located east of Area P and drains into the Upper Atlantic City Reservoir, as indicated in Figure 2.
Card Road borders the site to the north.
Decision Summary - 1
-------
SCALE
FAA
TECHNICAL
CENTER
TRC Enwontncntci
5 Waterside Crossing
Windsor. Ct 06095
(860) 2894631
FAA TECHNICAL CENTER
RECORD OF DECISION
FIGURE 1.
AREA P SITE LOCATION MAP
Date: 7/96
| Drawing No. 01040-0010-00714
Decision Summary - 2
-------
VALVE PIT
(SOURCE OF
LEAK)
FORMER JP-4
UNDERGROUND
STORAGE TANKS
LANDSCAPING
RM
FOOTING
EXCAVATION FOR
BUILDING 204
ADDITION
SCALE FEET
TWC Environmental
Corporation
5 Waterside Crossing
Windsor, Ct 06095
(860) 289-8631
FAA TECHNICAL CENTER
RECORD OF DECISION
FIGURE 2.
AREAP
BUILDING 204 FUEL SPILL AREA
Date: 7/96
I Drawing No. 01040-0010-00714
Decision Summary - 3
-------
H. SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
A. Land Use
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. In 1958, the Navy transferred its interests to the Airways
Modernization Board (AMB).
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.
In May 1987, during the excavation of a footing for an addition to Building 204, construction
contractors encountered a significant quantity of fuel in the soils southeast of the building at a depth
of three to four feet. The source of this fuel was determined to be a leak in a valve pit near the
southeast comer of Building 204. The valve pit was associated with piping which passed from two
10,000-gallon underground P-4 jet fuel storage tanks to Building 204. The locations of the footing
excavation, valve pit area and underground storage tanks in relation to Building 204 are provided in
Figure 2. The two underground jet fuel storage tanks were removed on October 28 and November
7, 1991, as part of the FAA's ongoing underground storage tank management program.
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.
B. Initial Investigations
In 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, limited field investigation of these sources, and soil and ground water
sampling at five areas considered most threatening to ground water supplies in the area. The entire
FAA Technical Center was included in the Weston Study, and the five areas identified by Weston
were all located on the FAA property. 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 Area P, identified by the FAA.
Decision Summary - 4
-------
C. Environmental Investigation
The FAA initiated the El study of Area P immediately after the identification of the fiael spill.
The El included four separate phases of investigation conducted between May 1987 and November
1994. The scope of these investigations is described below.
Phase I
The Phase I El included soil gas sampling, subsurface soil sampling, and ground water
sampling, which were conducted in May and June of 1987. A surface water sample and sediment
sample were also collected from the small stream east of Area P in April 1987 as part of a facility-
wide surface water and sediment quality investigation conducted during the Phase I EL Each of these
Phase I El components is discussed briefly below. Figures 3,4 and 5 provide the Phase I El sampling
locations.
A soil gas survey was conducted within the footing trench area to identify the direction of
contamination movement through the presence of elevated levels of volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) within the soil's pore space. The results of the survey indicated that the
contamination associated with the fuel spill was migrating to the northeast, in the direction
of the area where the adjacent small stream discharges into the Upper Atlantic City Reservoir.
s
Six subsurface soil samples (P-l through P-6) were collected at Area P, with five of the
samples collected from the footing trench based on the results of the soil gas survey and the
sixth sample collected approximately 50 feet north-northeast of the footing trench. All of the
samples were collected at a depth of 3.0 to 3.5 feet, just above the water table, and analyzed
for total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH). Each of the samples exhibited the presence of TPH
compounds.
Twelve soil borings (B-l through B-12) were drilled to a depth at least two feet below the
water table, and headspace readings were measured for each two-foot split-spoon sample to
define the lateral extent of contamination. No subsurface soil samples were collected from
the soil borings. Elevated organic vapor levels were detected over an area extending
approximately 150 feet to the northeast of the valve pit area.
,'
Three shallow monitoring wells (P-MW1S, P-MW2S and P-MW3S) were also installed
between the fuel spill area and the Upper Atlantic City Reservoir during the Phase I EL All
ground water samples were submitted for priority pollutant VOC, total xylene and TPH
analyses. The analytical results indicated that the downgradient impacts to ground water
quality were minimal, with TPH and methylene chloride being the only consistently detected
contaminants. Benzene, ethylbenzene and total xylenes were also detected in the monitoring
well (P-MW3S) located closest to the fuel spill area.
One surface water sample (SW-4) and one sediment sample (SD-4) were collected during the
Phase I El from the small unnamed stream which enters the Upper Atlantic City Reservoir just
to the northeast of Area P. Both of these samples were analyzed for priority pollutants plus
40 additional compounds (PP+40). Analysis of the surface water sample revealed the
Decision Summary - 5
-------
V \
\ \
\ \
VALVE PIT
(SOURCE OF
LEAK)
FOOTING
EXCAVATION FOR
BUILDING 204
ADDITION
FORMER JP-4
UNDERGROUND
STORAGE TANKS
LEGEND
Soil Boring, Phase I
O Soil Boring, Supplemental Investigation
TWC Environmental
Corporation
5 Waterside Crossing
Windsor. Ct 06095
(860) 28^8631
FAA TECHNICAL CENTER
RECORD OF DECISION
FIGURE 3.
AREAP
SOIL BORING LOCATIONS
Date: 7/96
Drawing No. 01040-0010-00714
Decision Summary - 6
-------
VALVE PIT
(SOURCE OF
LEAK)
FORMER JP-4
UNDERGROUND
STORAGE TANKS
LEGEND
FOOTING
EXCAVATION FOR
BUILDING 204
ADDITION
Monitoring Well
(Phase I)
Monitoring Well
(Phase II)
Monitoring Well Abandoned
During Phase II
TRC Environmental
Corporation
5 Waterside Crossing
Windsor. Ct 06095
(860)289-8631
FAA TECHNICAL CENTER
RECORD OF DECISION
FIGURE 4.
AREAP
MONITORING WELL LOCATIONS
Date: 7/96
I Drawing No. 01040-0010-00714
Decision Summary - 7
-------
VALVE PIT
(SOURCE OF
LEAK)
FORMER JP-4
UNDERGROUND
STORAGE TANKS
FOOTING
EXCAVATION FOR
BUILDING 204
ADDITION
--=5^» 1 \
rSW-4/SD-4 \
AND \ \
SW-19 \ o \
\^\
' ^
\£\
\o I
SD-20
100
SCALE FEET
LEGEND
Phase I and Phase II Surface
Water/Sediment Sample Location
Supplemental Investigation
Sediment Sample Location
TRC Environmental
Corporation
5 Waterside Crossing
Windsor, Ct 06095
(860) 289-8631
FAA TECHNICAL CENTER
RECORD OF DECISION
FIGURE 5.
AREA P SURFACE WATER/
SEDIMENT SAMPLE LOCATIONS
Date: 7/96
Drawing No. 01040-0010-00714
Decision Summary - 8
-------
presence of the pesticide 4,4-DDT, semi-volatile organic compound (SVOC) tentatively
identified compounds (TICs) and zinc. The sediment sample collected at the same location
as the surface water sample exhibited methylene chloride, VOC TICs, SVOC TICs, chromium
and lead.
The Area P boring logs and slug tests in combination with geophysical surveys and pump tests
performed at Area 27, located to the west and northwest of Area P, provide geologic and
hydrogeologic information on the area. Most of the Area P borings were located in and
around a landscaped berm located to the northeast of the spill area. The fill comprising the
berm consists primarily of fine sand, with medium to coarse sands with some gravel
underlying the fill material. The medium to coarse sands extend to a depth of about 14 feet
near the reservoir but extend to a depth of about 20 feet closer to the spill area. These sands
are underlain by fine sand with some silt. About 300 feet to the northwest of Area P, tight
silty clay was encountered from a depth of 37 to 52 feet at an Area 27 well location. It is
likely that this layer, which comprises the Upper Cohansey Clay, is present at similar depths
at Area P. The water table at Area P was encountered at depths of 3 feet to 7 feet during the
Phase I EL Ground water flow at the site is northeast, in the direction of the confluence of
the unnamed stream and the Upper Atlantic City Reservoir.
Interim Removal Actions
To allow the construction of the Building 204 addition to proceed, interim contaminated soil
and ground water removal activities were conducted at Area P. The removal activities consisted of
the excavation of 278 cubic yards of soil in the footing trench area to a depth of two feet below the
water table (5 to 7 foot total depth). Based on chemical analyses of the excavated soils,
approximately 180 cubic yards of soil were classified as non-hazardous and disposed of at the
Pinelands Park industrial waste landfill in Egg Harbor Township, New Jersey, while approximately
98 cubic yards of soil were classified as hazardous by NJDEP (based on a TPH level of greater than
three percent, considered by NJDEP to represent saturation) and transported to Waste Conversion
in Hatfield, Pennsylvania for subsequent landfill disposal as a hazardous waste. Ground water which
collected within the excavation area during this period was removed, with approximately 5,000
gallons transported off-site for treatment at the DuPont wastewater treatment facility in Deepwater,
New Jersey.
Phase n
The Phase JJ El was conducted at Area P in 1988 to characterize any changes in contaminant
concentrations subsequent to the Phase I ground water sampling effort. Phase n activities included
the installation of a replacement well (P-MW4S) to take the place of monitoring well P-MW3S,
which was damaged during the construction activities at Area P, and the installation of an additional
monitoring well (P-MW5S). Due to the presence of newly installed underground utilities in the
vicinity of the original P-MW3S well location, P-MW4S was located approximately 25 feet southeast
of the original location. The other new monitoring well, P-MW5S, was located northeast of Area
P, approximately 45 feet west of the small stream which flows into the Upper Atlantic City Reservoir.
Monitoring well locations are indicated in Figure 4. Phase JJ ground water samples were analyzed
for priority pollutant VOCs, total xylenes, and TPH. Benzene and ethylbenzene were identified in
Decision Summary - 9
-------
the sample collected from monitoring well P-MW2S, but at concentrations which were below the
analytical detection limits. Well P-MW2S also exhibited VOC TICs and TPH while monitoring well
P-MW4S also exhibited the presence of TPH.
During the Phase n El, a surface water sample (SW-19) and a duplicate sample were
collected for 4,4-DDT analysis from the location of the Phase I surface water sample in which 4,4-
DDT had been detected, as indicated in Figure 5. No 4,4-DDT was detected in the resampling effort.
Supplemental Investigation
A Supplemental Investigation was performed at Area P in 1989 to further define subsurface
soil quality in the area where elevated subsurface organic vapor levels had been detected during the
Phase I investigation. The Supplemental Investigation included the drilling of two soil borings and
the collection of three subsurface soil samples for PP+40 analysis. Both borings, P-B13 and P-B14,
were drilled through the berm to the northeast of the footing trench, approximately halfway between
monitoring wells P-MW3S and P-MW2S (see Figure 3). A soil sample was collected at the water
table from boring P-B13. Soil samples were also collected at the water table and in the zone 2 to 4
feet above the water table at boring P-B14. Methylene chloride, bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, di-n-
butylphthalate, VOC TICs, SVOC TICs and inorganics were detected in the subsurface soil samples.
The Supplemental Investigation also involved the collection of a sediment sample (SD-20)
from the shoreline of the Upper Atlantic City Reservoir, near Area P (see Figure 5). The sample was
collected during the summer of 1989 when the reservoir was drained for repairs to the dam. Analysis
revealed that no priority pollutant organic compounds were present at levels above the analytical
detection limit, although inorganic analytes were detected in the sample. The sediment sample also
exhibited SVOC TICs.
Additional Investigations
Prior to concurring with a "No Action" finding, the EPA required resampling at proposed "No
Action" areas, including Area P. These investigations, conducted in 1992, included the collection of
three subsurface soil samples (two samples and a duplicate sample) at a depth of 8 to 10 feet from
two soil borings (P-B15 and P-B16) drilled in the bermed area northeast of Building 204, the
collection of ground water samples from each of the four ground water monitoring wells (P-MW1S,
P-MW2S, P-MW4S, andP-MW5S), and the collection of two sediment samples (SD-25 and SD-26)
from the small stream adjacent to Area P. The sampling locations are identified on Figure 6.
All of the subsurface soil, ground water, and sediment samples were analyzed for priority
pollutant VOCs. Due to the EPA's concern that the laboratory detection limits for the ground water
analyses were not low enough, the four Area P wells were resampled in November 1994 and the
samples were analyzed using a low concentration volatile organic analysis method which was
modified to include the analytes previously included in the priority pollutant VOC analysis.
No priority pollutant VOCs were detected in the three subsurface soil samples or two
sediment samples although VOC TICs were detected in one subsurface soil sample and one sediment
sample.
Decision Summary - 10
-------
THC Environmental
Corporation
5 Waterside Crossing
Windsor, Ct 06095
(860) 289-6631
FAA TECHNICAL CENTER
RECORD OF DECISION
FIGURE 6.
AREAP
NO ACTION SAMPLING LOCATIONS
Date: 7/96
I Drawing No. 01040-0010-00714
Decision Summary - 11
-------
Priority pollutant VOCs detected in ground water samples during the "No Action" area
investigations include ethylbenzene and chloroform. VOC TICs were also detected in the samples
from two wells.
HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
A newspaper notification of the availability of the Proposed Plan for Area P was published
in the Atlantic City Press on July 24, 1996. The notice invited the public to comment on the EI/FS
and Proposed Plan. The public comment period was held from July 24, 1996 through August 23,
1996. 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 August 15, 1996 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 Area P. 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 no further action alternative for Area P 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 Area P is based on the
administrative record.
IV. SCOPE AND ROLE OF RESPONSE ACTION
Based upon a comparison of the constituents detected at Area P to relevant regulatory or
background levels, no principal threats to human health or the environment have been identified at
Area P, thereby providing the basis for the "no further action" decision. It should be noted that Area
P represents only one of more than 20 areas of potential environmental concern identified at the FAA
Technical Center. This document addresses only Area P, 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 (i.e., soil, ground water, surface water and sediment) sampled
at Area P, detected concentrations of contaminants are summarized below. Based on the subsurface
nature of the contamination detected at Area P, surface soils were not characterized during the El.
Decision Summary - 12
-------
Soil
During the El activities at Area P, a total of twelve subsurface soil samples were collected for
chemical analysis. The only priority pollutant VOC detected was methylene chloride. Methylene
chloride, considered by the EPA as a common laboratory contaminant, was also detected in blank
samples associated with the subsurface soil samples at levels which exceeded 10% of the highest level
detected in the subsurface soil samples. Therefore, methylene chloride was eliminated from the set
of subsurface soil sample results. The maximum total VOC concentration detected in subsurface
soils, including VOC TICs, was 17.7 ppm. VOC TICs detected in subsurface soils primarily
consisted of cycloalkanes, hydrocarbons and other unknowns.
Area P subsurface soil samples were analyzed for non-VOC priority pollutant organics during
the Supplemental Investigation only. SVOC priority pollutant compounds detected in the subsurface
soils include di-n-butylphthalate and bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, detected at concentrations ranging
from 0.084 ppm to 1.2 ppm. However, the presence of these compounds in the field blank and/or
method blank allowed for their elimination from the subsurface soil data set. Tentatively identified
SVOC compounds were also detected in subsurface soil samples at total concentrations ranging from
4.9 ppm to 374.9 ppm. The SVOC TICs primarily consisted of unknowns, with alkanes,
hydrocarbons and aldol condensates. No PCBs or pesticides were detected in the subsurface soil
samples.
Inorganics detected in the Area P subsurface soils include chromium, lead, antimony and zinc
at maximum concentrations of 2.6 ppm, 3.3 ppm, 10.6 ppm and 5.3 ppm, respectively. Chromium
and lead were each detected in all three samples while antimony and zinc were detected in one sample
only.
During the Phase I El, five subsurface soil samples were collected from the footing trench and
analyzed for TPH, with detected TPH levels ranging from 6.9 ppm to 43,900 ppm. These soils were
removed during the subsequent interim soil removal action. An additional subsurface sample was
collected from a smaller trench located north-northeast of the footing trench. It exhibited TPH at a
level of 6.2 ppm.
Ground Water
Ground water samples were collected from a total of five monitoring wells at Area P. during
the El and were analyzed for priority pollutant VOCs, total xylenes and TPH. Constituents detected
in the ground water at Area P included benzene, ethylbenzene, chloroform and total xylenes.
During the Phase I investigation, benzene, ethylbenzene and xylenes were detected in the
monitoring well located closest to the spill area (P-MW3S) at levels of 30 parts per billion (ppb), 13
ppb and 71 ppb, respectively. TPH was detected in each of the three monitoring wells at levels
ranging from 2,100 ppb to 8,000 ppb. Methylene chloride was also present in each of the monitoring
well samples at a level of 4 ppb but its presence in the trip blank allowed for its elimination from the
data set. The analysis of Phase n ground water samples revealed that no VOCs were present at levels
above the analytical detection limits, although trace levels of benzene (2 ppb) and ethylbenzene (2
ppb) were identified in well P-MW2S. Monitoring well P-MW2S also exhibited VOC TICs,
Decision Summary - 13
-------
consisting entirely of acetone, at a concentration of 110 ppb. However, the presence of acetone in
the field blank allowed for its elimination from the data set. Monitoring wells P-MW2S and P-MW4S
also exhibited TPH at 1,200 ppb and 3,300 ppb, respectively. Priority pollutant VOCs detected in
ground water samples during the subsequent "No Action" area investigations include ethylbenzene,
detected at a concentration of 0.8 ppb at well P--MW2S, and chloroform, detected at a concentration
of 0.6 ppb at well P-MW5S. VOC TICs were also detected in the samples from wells P-MW1S and
P-MW2S at total concentrations of 9 ppb and 64 ppb, respectively.
Surface Water and Sediment
A total of three surface water samples were collected from the small unnamed stream which
enters the Upper Atlantic City Reservoir just to the northeast of Area P. Analysis of surface water
sample SW-4, collected during the Phase I El, revealed the pesticide 4,4-DDT at 0.15 ppb and zinc
at 35 ppb. Additional SVOC TICs were also detected in this sample at a total concentration of 25
ppb, but could not be specifically identified. The environmental fate of 4,4-DDT is strongly
controlled by adsorption to sediment and suspended particles. It seemed likely, therefore, that the
detected 4,4-DDT may have been adsorbed to sediment suspended in the sample rather than dissolved
in the surface water. A Phase n surface water sample (SW-19) and a duplicate sample (SW-19A)
were collected for 4,4-DDT analysis at the same location where the Phase I surface water sample was
collected. No 4,4-DDT was detected in the resampling effort, confirming that the 4,4-DDT detected
in the surface water sample during Phase I was an anomalous result.
A total of four sediment samples were collected from the unnamed stream or the edge of the
Upper Atlantic City Reservoir adjacent to the stream's discharge point. The Phase I El sediment
sample collected at the same location as the Phase I El surface water sample exhibited methylene
chloride at a concentration of 9 ppb, but its presence in the field blank allowed for its elimination from
the data set. Other constituents detected in the sediment sample included VOC TICs at 0.022 ppm,
SVOC TICs at 37.3 ppm, chromium at 4.1 ppm, and lead at 2.5 ppm. The VOC TICs and SVOC
TICs consisted primarily of unknown organic compounds. During the Supplemental Investigation,
the sediment sample (SD-20) collected from the shoreline of the Upper Atlantic City Reservoir near
Area P exhibited no priority pollutant organic compounds at levels above the detection limit and
contained inorganic analytes (including chromium, copper, lead and zinc) at concentrations ranging
from 6.9 ppm to 11.2 ppm. The sediment sample also contained SVOC TICs at a total concentration
of 12.2 ppm. These compounds included unknowns, adipate, and alkanes. During the "No Action*
investigation, no priority pollutant VOCs were detected in the two sediment samples which were
collected. Terpene, a VOC TIC, was detected at an estimated concentration of 0.006 ppm in the
sediment sample collected upstream of Card Road.
VL SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS
To evaluate potential risks associated with the environmental media at Area P, a comparison
of detected subsurface soil, ground water, surface water and sediment constituents to chemical-
specific applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs) and to-be-considered criteria
(TBCs) was conducted.
Decision Summary - 14
-------
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. In Area P soils, the NJDEP soil cleanup criteria were not exceeded.
However, at the time the sampling was conducted, other New Jersey soil action levels were applicable
to soil evaluations. The maximum total concentrations of VOCs and SVOCs exceeded these soil
action levels. The majority of the constituents which comprise the total VOC and S VOC compounds
detected at Area P are unknowns, and therefore cannot be classified as carcinogens or
noncarcinogens. However, the priority pollutant analyses determined that the known priority
pollutant VOC and SVOC carcinogens are typically absent in these samples. Considering the general
lack of priority pollutant carcinogenic VOCs and SVOCs, the low concentrations of unknown
compounds, and the fact that contaminant concentrations do not conflict with current New Jersey soil
cleanup criteria, soil at Area P evidences no significant threat to human health or the environment.
Promulgated state and federal standards (i.e., 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 in the case of Area P, 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.
One ground water sample collected at monitoring well P-MW3S exhibited benzene at a
concentration which exceeded the federal MCL and total xylenes at a concentration which exceeded
the New Jersey MCL. As a result of site construction activities, monitoring well P-MW3S was
destroyed and subsequently replaced with monitoring well P-MW4S; therefore, well P-MW3S could
not be resampled. Samples collected from well P-MW4S during the Phase JJ El and "No Action"
area investigations did not exhibit concentrations of benzene and total xylenes above the federal or
state MCLs or PQLs. Analysis of a ground water sample collected at well P-MW2S during the Phase
n El revealed a concentration of benzene (2 ppb) slightly above the New Jersey MCL and PQL of
1 ppb. Subsequent sampling, however, did not confirm this result. While Phase I and Phase II
ground water samples exhibited TPH at levels of 1,200 ppb to 8,000 ppb, no state or federal
standards or guidelines were identified for TPH concentrations in ground water, and subsequent
sampling did not identify the presence of VOCs at elevated levels.
A surface water sample collected from the str,eam adjacent to Area P during the Phase I El
exhibited 4,4-DDT at a level of 0.15 ppb, which exceeds federal Ambient Water Quality Criteria and
State Surface Water Quality Standards. However, resampling during the Phase n El did not confirm
the presence of this pesticide in the surface water. Zinc, the only other constituent detected in the
surface water, did not exceed current surface water quality criteria. Sediment samples exhibited
organic TICs, for which there are no sediment quality screening criteria, and inorganics which do not
exceed current sediment quality screening criteria.
In conclusion, based on an analysis of the levels of organic and inorganic constituents detected
in subsurface soils, ground water, surface water and sediment at Area P, the environmental media at
Area P evidence no significant threat to human health or the environment.
Decision Summary - 15
-------
VH. DESCRIPTION OF THE "NO ACTION" ALTERNATIVE
The preferred alternative for Area P at the FAA Technical Center is No Further Action.
Results obtained from the environmental investigations have shown that the levels of contamination
are generally below background levels or current NJDEP soil cleanup criteria and are less than federal
and state ARARs. Total contaminant levels in subsurface soil for certain classes of chemicals slightly
exceeded former action levels, which served as an indicator of the need for further investigations.
The compounds which comprise the total values for these chemical classes, however, generally
consist of non-carcinogenic priority pollutants or unknown tentatively identified compounds.
Considering the general lack of priority pollutant carcinogenic VOCs and SVOCs, the low
concentrations of unknown compounds, and the fact that contaminant concentrations do not conflict
with current New Jersey soil cleanup criteria, soil at Area P evidences no significant threat to human
health or the environment. In the ground water at Area P, the previous detection of organics at levels
exceeding federal or state standards was not confirmed in recent sampling rounds. Surface water and
sediment quality has also met existing criteria during recent sampling events. Based on this
evaluation, it has been determined that Area P presents no significant threat to human health and the
environment. Therefore, no further remedial activities, exposure controls or monitoring are necessary
at Area P.
After reviewing the existing data base for Area P, the NJDEP and Pinelands Commission have
indicated concurrence with the Proposed Plan of No Further Action. Copies of the declarations of
concurrence are attached as Appendix A.
. DOCUMENTATION OF NO SIGNIFICANT CHANGES
The Proposed Plan for Area P was released for public comment on July 24, 1996. The
Proposed Plan concluded that No Further Action is required to ensure protection of human health
and the environment at Area P. The FAA received no written or verbal comments on the Proposed
Plan, either during the public meeting of the subsequent 30-day comment period. Consequently, it
has been determined that no significant changes to the remedy, as originally identified in the Proposed
Plan, are necessary.
Decision Summary - 16
-------
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
RECORD OF DECISION
Area P - Building 204 Fuel Spill Area
FAA William J. Hughes Technical Center
The purpose of this Responsiveness Summary is to review public response to the Proposed Plan for
Area P. 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 Area P.
Background on Community Development - This section provides a summary of community
interest in Area P and identifies key public issues. It also describes community relations
activities conducted with respect to this area of concern.
Summary of Major Questions and Comments - This section summarizes verbal and written
comments received during the public meeting and public comment period.
I. OVERVIEW
The FAA William J. Hughes Technical Center is located at the Atlantic City International
Airport in Atlantic County, New Jersey. Area P is located at Building 204 in the Research and
Development area of the FAA Technical Center, south of the Upper Atlantic City Reservoir. This
Responsiveness Summary addresses public response to the Proposed Plan for Area P only. The
Proposed Plan and other supporting information for Area P are available for public review at the
Atlantic County Library, 2 South Farragut Avenue, Mays Landing, New Jersey.
H. BACKGROUND ON COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT
This section provides a brief history of community participation in the Environmental
Investigation/Feasibility Study (EI/FS) activities conducted at Area P.
Throughout the investigation period, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), New
Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP), Atlantic County Department of Health and
the Pinelands Commission have been directly involved through proposal and project review and
comments. Periodic meetings have been held to maintain open lines of communication and to keep
all parties abreast of current activities.
On July 24, 1996, a newspaper notification was published in the Atlantic City 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 remedial action, the
location of the information repository, the length of the public comment period, and the address to
Responsiveness Summary -1
-------
which written comments could be sent. Public comments were accepted from July 24, 1996 through
August 23, 1996.
A public meeting was held on August 15, 1996 at the Atlantic County Library in Mays
Landing, New Jersey. The Area P EI/FS results were discussed. The FAA was represented by Keith
C. Buch, Program Manager, Environmental Section. Betsy Donovan, Remedial Project Manager,
Federal Facilities Section represented the EPA Emergency and Remedial Response Division, and Ian
Curtis, Case Manager, represented the NJDEP Bureau of Federal Case Management. Sean Clancy
represented the Atlantic County Health Department. 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.
HI. SUMMARY OF MAJOR QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS
No questions or comments with regard to the Proposed Plan for Area P were raised at the
public meeting held on August 15, 1996. 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
-------
OKI-:;;.< lo.l.l U hum.in
of KiM-iriMinii.'iiMl !'r>>ti!Cti.>(i
K»l«rr;
Mr. Keith Such
FAA Technical Center
Environmental Programs Branch
ACM-440
Atlantic City International Airport. N.J. 08405
Dear Mr. Buch,
APR ' 3 S96
Re: Area P Proposed Plan
FAA Technical Center
Egg Harbor Township. Atlantic County
The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) has reviewed the Draft Final No Further Action
Proposed Plan for Area P of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Superfund Site located in Egg Harbor Township.
Atlantic County and we have no comments on the submitted document.
Background
Area P is located at Building 24 in the Research and Development area south of the Upper Atlantic City Reservoir. The
building is used to conduct velocity experiments on various aircraft components. During excavation of a footing for an
addition to Building 204, construction contractors encountered a significant quantity of fuel in the soils southeast of the
building at a depth of three to four feet. The source of this fuel was determined to be a leak in a valve pit near the
southeast corner of Building 204. The valve pit was associated with piping which passed from two 10.000-gallon
underground JP-4 jet fuel storage tanks to Building 204. The two underground jet fuel storage tanks were removed on
October 28 and November 7, 1991 as part of the ongoing storage tank management program.
After excavating contaminated soils, numerous investigations of soil, ground water, sediment and surface water, was
conducted. Minor contamination was revealed in the soils and ground water. However, none of the contaminants were
consistently found to occur in either media. In 1994. ihe USEPA required the FAA to sample all proposed 'no further
action* areas (Area P being one such area). This investigation concluded that the levels of organic and inorganic
constituents detected in subsurface soils, ground water, surface water and sediment at Area P were below New Jersey
required contaminant concentrations.
Conclusion
The Proposed Plan appropriately addresses New Jersey regulation and policy. By the letter dated March 4. 1996 from
Todd DeJesus of the Pinelands Commission, it is our understanding that the Pinelands Commission approves of the
Proposed Plan. Therefore, based on the Site Remediation Programs review we have no comments on the Proposed Plan
submitted. Concurrence is reserved for the final Record of Decision. If you should have any questions or require
additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me at (609) 633-7232.
Siocurely,
) Y
'-
i-
Ian R. Curtis, Case Manager
Bureau of Federal Case Management
c. Todd DeJesus, Pinelands Commission
Betsy Donovan. USEPA - Region II
Steve Byrnes, BEERA
George Nicholas. BGWPA
WCtWCMfAASriHC
Neoffetsey is in Eqa*l Opportunity Employer
Recycled Ptprr
-------
2
If you have any questions, please contact our development
review staff.
Sincerely,
William F. Harrison, Esq.
Assistant Director
WFH/TD
cc: Keith Bueh
Jean Oliva
-------
3«rseg
THE PINELANDS COMMISSION
POBox7
NEW LSBONNJ 08064
(609)894-9342
CHRISTINE Tooo WHITMAN
Governor
June 11, 1996
Ian Curt: is
NuDEP
CN 028
401 East State Street
Trenton, NJ 08625-0028
Please Always Refer To
This Application Number
RE: App.'No. 87-0046.13
FAA Technical Center
Area P, Building 204
Fuel Spill Area
Egg Harbor Tswr.ship
Dear Mr. Curtis:
The Commission staff has reviewed the May, 1996 Draft Final
Superfund Proposed Plan regarding the claanup of hazardous sub-
stances on the above referenced site.
The Plan and proposed "no further action" recommendation
does not raise any significant issues regarding compliance with
the standards of the Pinelands Comprehensive Management Plan. In
accordance with the Memorandum of Agreement between our two
agencies, no further action is necessary by the Pinelands Commis-
sion.
The Commission must be copied on all future monitoring
reports or any additional correspondence between the DEP and any
other involved parties. Specifically, we will need a copy of the
proposed Record of Decision. Please be advised that if any
remediation is necessary in the future, an application to the
Commission will be required.
The Pinelands Our Country's First National Reserve
and an International Biosphere Reserve
New lerseu Is An Eoual Oooortunitv Emolover Printed on Recycled and Rtcvclable Paper
-------
APPENDIX B
PUBLIC MEETING ATTENDANCE LIST
-------
SIGN-IN SHEET
PUBLIC MEETING
AUGUST 15,1996
PROPOSED PLAN PRESENTATION FOR
AREAS A, J, N & P
FAA TECHNICAL CENTER
ATLANTIC CITY INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, NEW JERSEY
WrU;rA^\v^/»* T(VU 'CC
k-
-------
APPENDIX C
PUBLIC MEETING TRANSCRIPT
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
Area P - Building 204 Fuel Spill Area
7
PUBLIC MEETING
To Discuss the Proposed Remedial Action at
Area A - R&O Navy Landfill
Area J - Excavation Area Near Runway
Area N - Catapult Test Area At Building 214
8
FAA TECHNICAL CENTER
Atlantic City International Airport, NJ
9
Thursday, August 15, 1996
2:00 p.m.
Atlantic County Library
2 South Farragut Avenue
Mays Landing, NJ 08330
10
11
12
13
14 .,
FAA Technical Center
15
"APPEARANCES'
For the FAA Technical Center; KEITH C. BUCK, Program Manager
For TRC Environmental Corp.: LARRY BUTLIEN, Project Hydro-
geologist, TRC Environmenta
Corporation
JEAN M. OLIVA, P.E., Project
Engineer, TRC Environmental
Corporation
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
1-800-471-0299
25
GCI TRANSCRIPTION AND RECORDING SERVICES
505 HAMILTON AVENUE, Suite 107
LINWOOD, NEW JERSEY 08221
(609) 927-0299 FAX (609) 927-6420
-------
Page 2
1 INDEX
2 Opening Remarks and Introductions Page 3
Keith C. Buch, Program Manager
3 FAA Technical Center
4 Proposed Plan Presentation Page 3
Areas A and J
5 Larry Butlien/ Project Hydrogeologist
TRC Environmental Corporation
6
Proposed Plan Presentation Page 6
7 Areas N and P
Jean M. Oliva, P.E., Project Engineer
8 TRC Environmental Corporation
Final Remarks Page 10
10 Questions and Answers None
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
'24
25
8-15-96
-------
Page 3
1 (Tape SCP-12-96, Index #0200 - 2:00 p.m.)
2 MR. BUCK: Good afternoon. My name is Keith Buch.
3 I'm the Superfund Program Manager for the William J. Hughes
4 Technical Center in Egg Harbor Township. The purpose of
5 today's meeting is to solicit public input on our no action
6 areas, Areas A, J, N and P. The public comment period will
7 close on Oct excuse me, August 23rd, 1996. Notice of this
8 meeting today was duly advertised in the Press of Atlantic
9 City. Welcome. At this point, I shall introduce Larry
10 Butlien, the Project Hydrogeologist from TRC, to go over
11 geological aspects of Areas A, J, N and P. Afterwards, Jean
12 Oliva, a Project Engineer from TRC, will speak on the risk
13 assessments aspects A, J, N and P. Larry, welcome.
14 MR. BUTLIEN: Thank you, Keith. As Keith men-
15 tioned, my name is Larry Butlien. I'm the Hydrogeologist
16 with TRC Environmental Corporation. Today Jean Oliva and
17 myself will be discussing the background and history of envi-
18 ronmental investigations at four areas of concern at the
19 William J. Hughes Technical Center. The first area is Area A
20 - the R&D Navy Landfill; Area J - the Excavation Area near
21 the Runway; Area N - the Catapult Test Area at Building 214;
22 and finally, Area P which is the Building 204 Fuel Spill
23 Area. Each site will be discussed separately beginning with
24 Area A.
25 ************
i
8-15-96
-------
Page 4
1 I (SLIDE PRESENTATION)
2 Area A is located in the Research and Development
3 portion of the Technical Center, south of the Upper Atlantic
4 City Reservoir.
5 Area A is referred to as the R&D Navy Landfill because
6 waste disposal activities occurred in the northern part of
7 the site during the 1940s and 1950s. A borrow pit area was
8 located in the southern portion of the site and some
9 construction debris was also disposed of in this area.
10 Currently, a firing range is located within the borrow pit
11 area. The ground water production well which is used only
12 for sanitary purposes is located in Building 224, north of
13 the firing range.
14 This photograph was taken in 1987 and shows the northern
*
15 part of Area A where disposal activities took place. Note
16 how the area has become heavily overgrown with trees and
17 undergrowth.
18 This photo was also taken in 1987 and shows the southern
19 portion of Area A where the firing range is currently
20 located. This view is looking toward the southwest.
21 Area A was investigated to determine if past disposal
22 practices had impacted soil or ground water quality.
23 Investigations included various site surveys and soil and
24 ground water sampling.
25 This slide shows the various sampling locations at Area
8-15-96
-------
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
Page 5
A. A soil gas anomaly was identified in the southern portion
of the site and it was determined to be attributable to
naturally decaying material. The ground water flow direction
is toward the northeast/ as depicted by this yellow arrow,
and quarterly ground water sampling of monitoring wells 3S
and 4S, which are these two right here, that's 38 and 4S,
have been conducted since February of 1993.
This photograph shows the installation of monitoring
well 4S which is located near Building 224.
All the soil borings generally did not identify the
presence of subsurface waste materials. While PCBs were
detected in one subsurface soil sample at an elevated level,
their presence was not confirmed by resampling. Similarly,
elevated levels of inorganics were initially identified in
ground water samples, but also they were not confirmed
through subsequent sampling. Chloroform was the only
contaminant consistently detected in two wells above State
ground water quality standards.
The Area A risk assessment concluded that the site poses
no unacceptable risks to human health or the environment,
although the consistent detection of chloroform in the two
wells at levels exceeding the State ground water quality
standard justifies the performance of continued ground water
monitoring.
Therefore, the proposed plan for Area A is continued
8-15-96
-------
Page 6
1 ground water monitoring to ensure the contaminant
2 concentrations do not pose a threat to the human health or
3 the environment in the future.
4 The next area which we will discuss is Area J, the
5 Excavation Area near the Runway. As you can see in this site
6 plan, Area J is located adjacent to the main runways at the
7 airport.
8 Area J was the site of a large excavation in 1962 which
9 was based on a review of aerial photographs. In 1974 the
10 area had been graded and seeded and is currently grass-
11 covered.
12 It's pretty dark, but this photograph was taken in 1987
13 and shows the grass-covered Area J in the foreground with the
14 Atlantic City International Airport plane taxiway, ramp and
15 tarmac in the background.
16 Area J was investigated to determine if the area Lad
17 been used as a landfill and if any environmental impacts had
.18 been subsequently occurred. Investigations included various
19 site surveys and the installation and ground water sampling
20 of three monitoring wells.
21 This slide shows the locations of the three monitoring
22 wells at Area J. These as I said before, these wells were
23 installed to characterize the quality of ground water at the
24 site, and as depicted by this yellow arrow, ground water flow
25 is generally in the southeast direction.
8-15-96
-------
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
Page 7
This photograph shows one of the monitoring wells being
installed at Area J. The view is toward the southeast
showing the Atlantic City International Airport Terminal
building in the background.
Soil borings generally did not identify the presence of
subsurface waste materials and no significant ground water
contamination was detected.
In general, contaminant levels at Area J are below
applicable regulatory cleanup levels or, where detected at
elevated levels, could not be confirmed by resampling.
Therefore, the Area J risk assessment concluded that the site
poses no unacceptable risk to human health or the environ-
ment. Therefore, the preferred remedy for Area J is no
action.
I would now like to turn the presentation over to Jean
Oliva who will discuss the background and environmental
investigation results at Areas N and P.
MS. OLIVA: Okay. Thank you, Larry. As Larry
said, I'm going to be discussing, first of all, Area N, which
is the Catapult Test Area at Building 214.
(SLIDE PRESENTATION CONTINUED)
Area N is located in the Research and Development
portion of the Tech Center, south of the Upper Atlantic City
Reservoir and west of Area A.
At Area N, gelled fuel was tested by using a catapult to
8-15-96
-------
Page 8
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
propel a 120-gallon tank of fuel down a ramp and past an
ignition source. The result was a large fireball and
explosion which occurred down in this area that was
surrounded by an earthen benn. These tests were conducted in
the early 1960s and were followed by the performance of
vehicle crash tests in the same area.
This slide is a file photo taken in the early 1960s of
one of the fuel test experiments and as you can see it
resulted in a rather large fireball. And this is just
another view of the fireball.
And this is a photo of the site as it appeared in 1988
with the earthen benn and the end of the catapult ramp where
the explosions occurred.
Area N was investigated to determine if the fuel testing
or vehicle crash tests had resulted in contamination to soil
or ground water. The site investigations included a site
survey, soil borings, and monitoring wells.
This slide shows the locations at which sampling was
conducted at Area N. An area of elevated soil gas readings
was identified in the western portion of the site. Soil
samples were collected from around the earthen benn and from
the area of the elevated soil gas readings. A boring was
drilled through the earthen benn and wells were installed
north of the area in the anticipated direction of ground
water flow.
8-15-96
-------
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
Page 9
Site investigations did not identify the presence of
significant soil or ground water contamination. While
elevated inorganic levels were detected in the ground water
during the first round of sampling/ these levels were not
confirmed by during resampling efforts.
In general, the contaminant levels at Area N are below
applicable regulatory standards and where elevated levels
were detected they could not be confirmed through resampling.
Therefore, the risk evaluation for Area concluded that the
site does not pose an unacceptable risk to human health or
the environment. And, therefore, the preferred remedy for
Area N is no action.
The last site we'll discuss is Area P, the Building 204
Fuel Spill Area. Area P is also located in the Research and
Development portion of the Tech Center. Again, south of the
Upper Atlantic City Reservoir and between Areas A and N.
In 1987, during the excavation of a footing for a
building addition, a subsurface fuel spill was discovered at
Area P. The source of the spill was determined to be a valve
pit which was associated with two underground JP-4 jet fuel
storage tanks which have since been removed.
This is a photograph taken of the footing excavation in
which the contamination was discovered.
And this is a photograph of the valve pit which was
determined to be the source of the contamination.
8-15-96
-------
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
Page 10
Upon discovery of the fuel spill, soil sampling was
conducted in the footing excavation to determine the nature
and extent of the contamination. Based on those soil sample
results an interim removal action was taken which consisted
of soil and ground water removal and off-site disposal. And
following that effort additional investigations were
conducted downgradient of the valve pit including soil
borings, monitoring wells, and sediment and surface water
sampling.
This photo was taken during the interim soil removal
effort. You can see the backhoe excavating the soil.
And this slide shows the sampling locations at Area P.
The ground water flow direction at Area P is to the northeast
so most of the investigations were centered around the area
downgradient of the valve pit source area.
Site investigations indicated that the interim removal
actions had removed the most highly contaminated materials
and no long-term environmental impacts could be identified.
In general the contaminant levels at Area P are below
regulatory cleanup standards or, where detected at
elevated levels, could not be confirmed by resampling.
Therefore, the Area P risk evaluation concluded that the site
does not pose unacceptable risks to human health or the
environment. And the preferred remedy for Area P is no
further action.
8-15-96
-------
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
Page 11
In summary, the preferred remedy for Areas J, N and P is
no further action and the preferred remedy for Area A is
continued ground water monitoring. The EPA and New Jersey
DEP have indicated concurrence with this proposed plan
pending public comment.
And this last slide summarizes the decision process
which will be used to develop the final Record of Decision.
Public comments will be accepted. Written comments will be
accepted through August 23rd and verbal comments will be
accepted here this afternoon. And those comments will be
documented in the final Record of Decision and Responsiveness
Summary which will be available here in the Administrative
Record at the Atlantic County Library reference section, and
the notice will appear in the Press of Atlantic City.
Keith, I will now turn the presentation back to you.
MR. BUCH: Thank you, Jean and Larry, for the
comprehensive but brief explanation of our investigation and
decision making process for A, J, N and P. At this point
I'11 open up the floor to any questions that interested
members of the public may pose to either myself, as of an
administrative nature, or to Jean or Larry of the technical
nature. Seeing no questions, the public portion of the
meeting is now closed and the meeting is over. Have a safe
trip home.
(End - Tape CP-12-96, at Index #0706 - 2:25 p.m.
8-15-96
-------
Page 12
1
2 CERTIFICATION
3 I, CAROL PLATT, agent for GCI TRANSCRIPTION AND
4 RECORDING SERVICES, a Notary Public and State- and Federal-
5 ly-Approved Sound Recording operator and transcriber, do
6 hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and accurate
7 transcript of the PUBLIC MEETING OF THE TRC ENVIRONMENTAL
8 CORPORATION taken by electronic sound recording at the time,
9 place, and on the date hereinbefore set forth.
10
11
12 CAROL PLATT
Notary Public of New Jersey
13 My Commission expires July 8, 1997
14 Dated: August 22, 1996
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
8-15-96
-------
ROD FACT SHEET
SITE
Name: FAA Technical Center
Area P - Building 204 Fuel Spill
Location: Atlantic County, NJ
EPA Region: U.S. EPA Region II
MRS Score: 39.65; 12/09/88
NPL Listing: 8/30/90
Site ID #: NJ9690510020
ROD
Date Signed: EPA 2/13/97
FAA 1/13/97
Remedy: No Further Action
LEAD
Remedial: Federal Facility (Federal Aviation Administration)
Primary contact: Keith Buch, Project Manager, FAA (609) 485-6644
Secondary contact: Betsy Donovan, RPM, EPA (212) 637-4303
WASTE
Type: VOCs - below federal & state standards
Media: ground water, soils, sediment
Origin: jet fuel
Quantity: unknown
------- |