PB97-963809
EPA/541/R-97/083
January 1998
EPA Superfund
Record of Decision:
Federal Aviation Administration Technical
Center (Areas A, J, and N)
Atlantic County, NJ
7/21/1997
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
AREA A - R&D NAVY LANDFILL,
AREA J - EXCAVATION AREA
NEAR THE RUNWAY AND
AREA N - CATAPULT TEST AREA
AT BUILDING 214
FAA WILLIAM J. HUGHES TECHNICAL CENTER
ATLANTIC CITY INTERNATIONAL AD3PORT
NEW JERSEY
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DECLARATION FOR THE RECORD OF DECISION
DECISION SUMMARY FOR THE RECORD OF DECISION
I. SITENAME, LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION ; 1
II. SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES ..: 3
A Land Use 3
B. Initial Investigations 5
.C. Environmental Investigation 5
III HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION 16
IV. SCOPE AND ROLE OF RESPONSE ACTION ; , 16
V. SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS '.....' 17
A Area A 17
B. Area J 19
C. Area N 19
VI. SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS 20
A. Area A 20
B. Area J .29
C. Area N i 30
MI DESCRIPTION OF "NO ACTION" ALTERNATIVE 30
Mil. DOCUMENTATION7 OF NO SIGNIFICANT CHANGES 31
RESPONSnTSESS SUMMARY FOR THE RECORD OF DECISION
I. OVERVIEW .',"' 1
II. BACKGROUND ON COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT 1
III. SUMMARY OF MAJOR QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS 2
11
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
LIST OF FIGURES
1 Areas A, J and N - Site Location Map 2
2 R&D Navy Landfill - Area A , 4
3 Excavation Area Near Runway - Area J 6
4 Building 214 Catapult Test Area - Area N 7
5 Sampling Locations - Area A ; 8
6 Sampling Locations Area J ; 12
7 Sampling Locations - Area N 14
LIST OF TABLES
1 Exposure Assessment Input Parameters Used in the HHRA Area A ' 23
2 Toxicity Values Used in the HHRA - Area A 24
3 Summary of Estimated Human Health Risks - Area A : 26
APPENDICES
A NJDEP AND PINELANDS COMMISSION LETTERS OF CONCURRENCE
B PUBLIC MEETING ATTENDANCE LIST
C PUBLIC MEETING TRANSCRIPT
111
-------
DECLARATION FOR THE RECORD OF DECISION
Area A R&D Navy Landfill
Area J - Excavation Area near the Runway, and
Area N - Catapult Test Area at Building 214
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 no further action decision for Area A, the R&D Navy Landfill;
Area J, the Excavation Area near the Runway, and Area N, the Catapult Test Area at Building 214 at the FAA
Technical Center, Atlantic City International Airport, New Jersey. The no further action decision was chosen
in accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA),
as amended by the Super-fund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA), and, to the extent practicable,
the National Contingency Plan. This decision is based on the administrative record for Areas A, J and N.
The Commissioner of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection concurs wiih the
selected remedy (Appendix A).
DESCRIPTION OF THE SELECTED REMEDY
The selected remedy for Areas A, J and N is no further action, with ground water monitoring at
Area A
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 Areas A, J and N 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)(4Xii), the sites are not limited
with respect to future use or access and, therefore, a five-year review of the selected remedial action is not
required.
(Signature) ~7 (Date)
Gary E Poulsen, P.E., Manager
Facility Engineering and Operations Division
FAA William J Huches Technical Center
(Signature)
Jeanne M. Fox
Regional Administrator"
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region II
Declaration -1
-------
DECISION SUMMARY
RECORD OF DECISION
Area A - R&D Navy Landfill
Area J - Excavation Area near the Runway
Area N - Catapult Test Area at Building 214
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 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 iorested 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 re: ervoir. 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 A is located south of the Upper Atlantic City Reservoir, as indicated in Figure 1, in the
Research and Development (R&D) portion of the FAA Technical Center. While Area A is referred
to as the R&D Navy Landfill, it consists of two separate investigation areas: the former R&D Navy
Decision Summary - 1
-------
Upper
Atlantic Crty
Reservoir
TJtC Environmental
CorporoiMfi
S Watersidt C'O»$mg
Windsor. Ct 06093
(860) 2894631
FAA TECHNICAL CENTER
RECORD OF DECISION
FIGURE 1.
AREAS A, J AND N -
SITE LOCATION MAP
Oa:« 7/96
I Drawing Ne
O: "0-0070;
AJNS.TE f n
Decision Summary - 2
-------
landfill area and a former borrow pit area, as indicated in Figure 2. The R&D Navy landfill area was
located north of Card Road. Trees have re-established themselves in the former landfill area, but a
three- to ten-foot high ridge defines the outline of the former disposal area. The former borrow pit
area, located south of Card Road, is currently the site of a Civil Aviation Security firing range which
is operated by the Federal Air Marshall Division. A ground water production well (FAA-224) is
located immediately west of Area A. It provides non-potable water to Building 224, located along
Card Road just west of the former borrow pit area. Building 224 is a relatively small structure
presently used for the storage of electronic equipment.
Area J is located between the Atlantic City International Airport. Terminal and Runway 26,
as indicated in Figure 1. Currently the area consists of a grass-covered field.
Area N is located adjacent to Building 214 in the R&D portion of the FAA Technical Center,
south of the Upper Atlantic City Reservoir, as indicated in Figure 1. Gelled fuel tests and vehicle
crash tests conducted at this area could have spilled fuels and oils onto a surrounding earthen berm
area. After the termination of the fuel tests, additional fill was placed over the berm's surface.
D. 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.
The R&D Navy landfill portion of Area A, located north of Card Road, was originally
developed prior to 1940 and was used as a dumping area during the 1940s and 1950s. The former
borrow pit portion of Area A, located south of Card Road, is currently the site of a firing range.
Northeastern portions of the former borrow pit area were used for the disposal of construction debris.
A site plan is provided in Figure 2.
Area J, referred to as the Excavation Area near the Runway, appears on a 1962 aerial
photograph of the FAA property as a large excavation, approximately 800 feet by 500 feet in area,
Decision Summary - 3
-------
RESERVOIR
600 FT.
R&ONAVY
LANDFILL
\
I
a
BUILDING
224
CARD ROAD
FORMER '
BORROW
PIT AREA
CONSTRUCTION
DEBRIS
SCALE FEET
TRC CnvironrMflMf
(680)2694631
FAA TECHNICAL C6NTE1I
RECORD OP DECISION
FIGURE 2.
R&D NAVY LANDFILL AREA A
7196
0104^0:10-00708
Decision Summary 4
-------
with the characteristic appearance of a borrow pit or disposal area. Although the purpose of the
excavation is not apparent in the photograph, the FAA believes the area was a rip-rap stpckpUe
related to the construction of the Atlantic City Air Terminal Ramp. Subsequent aerial photos
indicate that by 1974 the area had been graded and seeded. A site plan is provided, in Figure 3.
Area N, referred to as the Building 214 Catapult Test Area, was used for gelled fuel tests
beginning around 1960. A 120-gallon fuel tank was propelled down the catapult into a ramp and past
an ignition source, resulting in a large explosion and fireball. Unburnt fuel from the tests was
deposited on an earthen berm which extended around the end of the catapult. These tests were
conducted for approximately four years. The tests were followed by vehicle crash tests that also
could have spilled fuels and oils onto the berm area. A site plan is provided in Figure 4.
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 Areas A, J and N, identified by the FAA.
«
C. Environmental Investigation
TRC Environmental Corporation (TRC) was contracted by the FAA to conduct an
Environmental Investigation/Feasibility Study (EI/FS) at the FAA Technical Center. Included in the
scope of work were the investigations of Areas A, J and N, as described below.
Area A
The Area A El included six phases of investigation conducted between December 1986 and
July 1995. The scope of these investigations is described below. Sampling locations are presented
in Figure 5.
Phase I Site investigation activities conducted in 1986 and 1987 during the Phase I El
included a soil gas survey, geophysical survey, surface soil sampling, subsurface soil sampling and
ground water sampling Each of these Phase I El components is discussed briefly below.
Decision Summary - 5
-------
EXCAVATION
AREA IN
AIR PHOTO
ATLANTIC crnr
S ^ INTERNATIONAL
XyV^AJRPORT TERMINAL
SCALE FEET
TRC Environmental
Corporation «*»«. ct.peow
(860) 20*4031
FAA TECHNICAL CENTER
RECORD OP DECISION
FIGURE 3.
EXCAVATION AREA NEAR RUNWAY
AREAJ
D»lt 7199
I Drawing No 010*3.0310-OC7CS
AJVTB f Hi
Decision Summary - 6
-------
SCALE FEET
EARTHEN
BERM
AREA
LOCATION OF
FUEL RELEASE
TRC cnvmnmpatal
Corporation
5 WaUmdt Crowing
Windsor. Cl 06085
(860) 2894631
PAA TECHNICAL CENTER
RECORD OF DECISION
FIGURE 4.
BUILDING 214 CATAPULT TEST-AREA
AREAN
0«tr 7/96
I Drawing No 01040.0010-00708
Decision Summary - 7
-------
RESERVOIR
600 FT.
A-SS9
R & DNAVY
LANDFILL
-882
A-B2«
/ A OA AA44W28
t-.y ^
CARD ROAD
A-MW38
CONSTRUCTION
DEBRIS
A-SS5
A-MW5S
SCALE FEET
LEGEND
A SURFACE SOIL SAMPLE - PRIORITY
POLLUTANT ANALYSIS
SOIL BORING
-$- MONITORING WELL
C / SOIL GAS ANOMALY .
GROUND WATER FLOW DIRECTION
THC Environmental
Corporation
S Waterside Crossing
Windsor. Ct 06093
(860) 2894631
FAA TECHNICAL CENTER
RECORD OF DECISION
FIGURE 5.
SAMPLING.LOCATIONS AREA A
Date 7/96
I Drawing No 0104G.OOIO.Q07Ca
AJN-TB Fni
Decision Summary 8
-------
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. One small anomaly was identified
along the southeastern side of the firing range area (see Figure 5); however, a surface soil
sample collected at this location did not exhibit significant VOC contamination.
A geophysical survey (EM-31 and EM-34) and resistivity profiling to detect buried metal
objects were also conducted during the Phase I investigation. Detected geophysical
anomalies were attributable to surface metal. In general, no subsurface evidence of disposal
activities was identified by the geophysical survey or resistivity profiling results.
Nine surface soil samples (A-SS1 through A-SS9) were collected at Area A, including one
background sample (A-SS9). Four samples were collected south of Card Road in the former
borrow pit area and five were collected north of Card Road in the R&D Navy Landfill area.
Two of the firing range samples (A-SS6 and A-SS 7) were collected where large volumes of
soil had been dumped on the site. Another of the samples (A-SS8) was collected in the center
of the soil gas anomaly described above. The background soil sample (A-SS9) was collected
from the wooded area northwest of the former landfill area. All surface soil samples were
analyzed for the full list of priority pollutants plus 40 additional peaks (PP+40). Methylene
chloride was the only priority pollutant VOC detected in the surface soil samples. VOC
tentatively identified compounds (TICs) were detected in three surface soil samples. Two
surface soil samples exhibited priority pollutant semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs).
One sample contained n-nitrosodiphenylamine, while the second sample contained anthracene,
fluoranthene, pyrene, and chrysene. Each of the surface soil samples exhibited the presence
of SVOC TICs Three samples exhibited the pesticides 4,4-DDD or 4,4'-DDT. Inorganics
detected in the surface soil samples included cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, and zinc.
Seven 30-foot deep soil borings were drilled to characterize subsurface conditions and site
geology. Four borings were located within the rimmed landfill area north of Card Road, and
the remaining three were drilled in the borrow pit area south of Card Road. One subsurface
soil sample was collected from each boring location. All samples were analyzed for PP+40.
Methylene chloride was the only priority pollutant VOC detected in the subsurface soil
samples and VOC TICs were detected in two samples. SVOC TICs were present in each of
the subsurface soil samples. One sample collected at a depth of 10 to 12 feet, A-B4-6,
contained an elevated concentration of the PCB ArocIor-1242. Chromium, lead and zinc
were detected in all samples, while arsenic, selenium and thallium were each present in only
one sample and two samples contained detectable quantities of mercury.
Five shallow monitoring wells were also installed during the Phase I El. One well (A-MW4S)
was located upgradient of the site to serve as a background well. All ground water samples
were analyzed for PP+40. Methylene chloride and chloroform were the only VOCs detected
in ground water samples. SVOC contaminants which were present above detection limits in
the ground water samples include bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, detected in three of the wells,
and SVOC TICs, detected in two ground water samples. Detected inorganics include
beryllium, cadmium, chromium, copper, mercury, lead, and zinc.
Decision Summary - 9
-------
The Area A boring logs and ground water data provide geologic and hydrogeologic
information on the area. The Area A subsurface soils are characterized as fine to coarse sandi
with some gravel to a depth of 13 to 30 feet, at which point there is a distinct stratigraphi^
break in the lithology. Below the stratigraphic break, soils consist of fine to very fine sand
containing a significant amount of silt and clay. The water table was encountered at depths
of 17 to 30 feet during the Phase I El. Ground water at Area A flows to the east-northeast,
towards the Lower Atlantic City Reservoir.
Phase II - A Phase II El was conducted in late 1988 to determine if the presence of the
elevated PCB level detected in a Phase I subsurface soil sample could be verified and to further
investigate the detection of elevated inorganic levels in Phase I ground water samples. During the
Phase II investigation, a soil boring was drilled as close as possible to the location of Phase I El
boring A-B4 and a sample was collected over the same subsurface interval which exhibited PCBs at
an elevated level during the Phase I El. The new sample did not exhibit detectable levels of PCBs,
odor, or visible staining.
*
AJso during the Phase II El, the two wells, A-MW3S and A-MW5S, which had exhibited
inorganics at levels exceeding drinking water standards and a third well, A-MW2S, which had
exhibited mercury at a level equal to the drinking water standard, were resampled and analyzed for
both filtered and unfiltered inorganics as well as total suspended solids. While inorganic analytes
similar to those detected in Phase I were again detected at similar levels in the unfiltered samples, zinc
was the only inorganic detected in the filtered samples. Total suspended solids concentrations
averaged 4,676 ppm for the three samples. These findings suggested that the elevated metals
concentrations could be attributable in part to the silliness of the samples rather than the presence of
dissolved metals. .
In September 1990, subsequent to the completion of the Phase II El, the area of elevated
organic vapors identified during the Phase I El soil gas survey was re-surveyed to determine if the
vapors were attributable to naturally occurring methane or organic contaminants. The presence of
elevated soil gas readings was confirmed, with the greatest readings detected in the lower, wetter
portions of the investigation area. The area was re-surveyed using a different type of organic vapor
analyzer which does not detect methane. No organic vapors were detected, indicating that naturally
occurring methane was the source of the elevated Phase I El soi gas readings.
Additional Investigations - Due to EPA's disqualification of .previously collected sampling
data, the EPA required resampling at the proposed "No Action" areas, including Area A. The
resampling effort at Area A, conducted in late 1992 and early 1993, was conducted to determine if
VOCs were present in surface or subsurface soil and if VOCs or inorganics were present in ground
water. It included the collection of five surface soil samples (A-SS10 through A-SS14 collected at
locations corresponding to original samples A-SS9; A-SS1, A-SS2, A-SS6 and A-SS8, respectively)
and six subsurface soil samples (A-B9 through A-B14 corresponding to original borings A-B2
through A-B7, respectively) for priority pollutant VOC analysis. Five ground water samples (one
from each of the existing monitoring wells) were also collected for priority pollutant VOC and
inorganic (filtered and unfiltered) analyses. No priority pollutant VOCs other than methylene chloride
were detected in the surface soil or subsurface soil samples. VOC TICs were detected in one surface
soil sample, and in two subsurface soil samples. In ground water samples, chloroform was the only
Decision Summary -10
-------
VOC detected, present in wells A-MW3S and A-MW4S. The inorganic data were not accepted by
the EPA due to data quality problems.
In February 1994, all five monitoring wells at Area A were resampled due to.the data quality
problems with the inorganic ground water sample results. The ground water samples collected from
the five monitoring wells were analyzed for unfiltered and filtered priority pollutant inorganics.
Copper, lead and zinc were the only inorganics detected in the unfiltered samples. Zinc was the only
inorganic analyte present in the filtered samples.
In September 1994, the EPA commented on the February 1994 sampling results. The
antimony detection limit reported by the laboratory exceeded the drinking water standard of 6 ppb.
Although antimony historically has not been a problem in New Jersey (per USGS) and has seldom
been detected at the FAA Technical Center, the EPA requested resampling of Area A monitoring
wells for antimony analysis with a detection limit less than the drinking water standard. The
resampling was conducted in July 1995. Antimony was not detected at levels which exceed the
drinking water standard during the resampling effort.
Following the initial "No Action" area investigations in early 1993, quarterly ground water
monitoring was initiated at Area A. Two of the five monitoring wells (A-MW3S and A-MW4S) are
sampled on a quarterly basis and the samples are analyzed for VOCs.
Area J
The Area J El included five phases of investigation conducted between December 1986 and
July 1995 to determine whether past activities had impacted environmental media. The scope of these
investigations is described below. Sampling locations are presented in Figure 6.
Phase I - The Phase I El was conducted in 1986 and 1987 and consisted of a soil gas survey,
a geophysical survey 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 and was expanded to a 50-foot grid in
an area where a soil gas anomaly was identified. The anomaly was detected in the western
part of the study area, beyond the lateral area of the excavation indicated by the 1962 aerial
photograph.
A geophysical survey (ENf-31) identified no anomalies other than those associated with the
presence of known buried utilities.
Three shallow monitoring wells (J-MW1S, J-MW2S and J-MW3S) were installed during the
Phase I El. All ground water samples were submitted for PP+40 analysis. No priority
pollutant VOCs, pesticides or PCBs were detected in the Phase I El ground water samples.
Two SVOCs, 2-methyInaphthalene and naphthalene, were detected in the upgradiem
monitoring well (J-MW1 S). The highest levels of inorganics detected during the Phase I-El
were also detected in the upgradient monitoring well (J-MW1S). Inorganics detected in well
Decision Summary - 11
-------
EXCAVATION
AREA IN 1962
AIRPHOTO
ATLANTIC OTY
/ *. INTERNATIONAL
/OvOAIRPORT TERMINAL
SCALE FEET
LEGEND
MONITORING WELL
GROUND WATER FLOW DIRECTION
TRC £nvinonmentaf
FAA TECHNICAL CENTER
RECORD OF DECISION
FIGURE 6.
SAMPLING LOCATIONS - AREA J
Date: 7/96
lOftwingNo 0104&401Q-007M
AJN.I»fl-i
Decision Summary -12
-------
J-MW1S include chromium, lead and zinc. Lead was the only inorganic constituent detected
in the remaining two monitoring wells.
The Area J monitoring well- borings and ground water data provide geologic and
hydrogeologic information on the area. The Area J subsurface soils are characterized as fill
to a depth of at least 10 feet, with burned wood fragments identified at a depth of 12 feet in
one monitoring well boring. Soils beneath a depth of 10 feet are highly variable, ranging from
dense layers of gray clay to coarse sand. In general, soils between depths of 10 and 25 feet
grade from medium sands containing little silt in the runway area to fine or very fine sands
containing significant quantities of silt south of the runways. Clay lenses ranging in thickness
from a fraction of an inch to greater than one foot are common throughout the sand. The
water table was encountered at depths of 9 to 22 feet during the Phase I £1. Ground water
flow is roughly south-southeast in the general direction of the Upper Atlantic City Reservoir.
Phase n The Phase II El w?s conducted at Area J in late 1988 to further investigate the
presence of SVOCs in the upgradient monitoring well (J-MW1S). The well was resampled and
analyzed for priority pollutant SVOCs. No SVOCs were identified at levels exceeding detection
limits.
Additional Investigations - Due to EPA's disqualification of previously collected sampling
data, the EPA required resampling at Area J to determine if VOCs or inorganics were present in the
ground water. The resampling effort conducted in late 1992 and early 1993 included the collection
of three ground water samples (one from each of the existing monitoring wells) for priority pollutant
VOC and inorganic (filtered and unfiltered) analyses. No priority pollutant VOCs were detected in
the ground water samples. The inorganic data were not accepted by the EPA due to data quality
problems Consequently, in February 1994, the three monitoring wells at Area J were again sampled
and analyzed for unfiltered and filtered priority pollutant inorganics. Lead and zinc were detected in
some or all of the filtered and unfiltered samples. .
In September 1994, following submission of the February 1994 sampling results, the EPA
commented on the detection limit for antimony. Because the antimony detection limit reported by
the laboratory exceeded the drinking water standard of 6 ppb, the EPA requested resampling of the
Area J monitoring wells for antimony analysis with a detection limit less than the drinking water
standard The resampling was conducted during July 1995. Antimony was not detected during the
resampling effort.
Area N
The Area N El included five phases of investigation conducted between December 1986 and
July 1995 to determine if the tests conducted at the catapult area during the 1960s impacted soil or
ground water quality in the area adjacent to the catapult. Sampling locations are provided in
Figure 7.
Phase I - The Phase I El, conducted in 1986 and 1987, consisted of a soil gas survey, surface
soil sampling, subsurface soil sampling and ground water sampling. Each of the Phase I El
components is discussed briefly below.
Decision Summary - 13
-------
N-MW1A
N-MW1
N-SSS
/ /
I I
I I
EXPECTED
GROUND
WATER FLOW
DIRECTION
SCALE FEET
EARTHEN
:;:;BERM;i
!;;; AREA;:
LOCATION OF
FUEL RELEASE
LEGEND
SURFACE SOIL SAMPLE - TOTAL
PETROLEUM HYDRCARBON ANALYSIS
SURFACE SOIL SAMPLE - PRIORITY
POLLUTANT ANALYSIS
SOIL BORING
MONITORING WELL
SOIL GAS ANOMALY
TR Environmental
S W»ttr»«J« Dotting
Vynndtor, Cl 06099
(MO) 2894631
FAA TECHNICAL CENTER
RECORD OF DECISION
FIGURE?.
SAMPLING LOCATIONS AREA N
Date 7/96
|Pr«w.ngNo
AJN.TB f«
Decision Summary 14
-------
A soil gas survey was conducted on a 50-foot grid, with one small anomaly detected north
of the catapult, as indicated in Figure 7.
Eight surface soil samples (N-SS1 through N-SS8) were collected at Area N. Each sample
was a composite of two sampling locations. One sample collected just beyond the impact end
of the catapult berm, N-SS8, was analyzed for PP+40. The remaining samples were analyzed
for total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH). The soil gas anomaly area was included as a portion
of one of the composite sample locations. The one sample analyzed for PP+40 exhibited
methyfene chloride, bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalatef SVOC TICs, lead and zinc. The remaining
samples each exhibited the presence of TPH.
One 30-foot deep soil boring was drilled in the berm at the end of the catapult to define the
quality of soil beneath the fill which had been added to the berm following the termination of
the fuel tests. Two subsurface soil samples were collected from the boring and were analyzed
for TPH. TPH was detected in each of the subsurface soil samples.
One shallow monitoring well (N-MW1S) was installed during the Phase I El and sampled for
PP+40 analysis. Methylene chloride was the only priority pollutant organic compound
detected in the sample. Chromium, lead and zinc were also detected in the sample; chromium
was detected at a level which exceeded the federal drinking water standard.
The Area N soil and monitoring well borings and ground water data provide geologic and
hydrogeologic information on the area. Beneath the bermed area at Area N, subsurface soils
consist predominantly of medium to coarse sand to a depth of 30 feet. At well N-MW1S,
however, a silty clay layer was found from a depth of 9 feet to 18 feet. The water table at
Area N was encountered at depths of 6 to 8 feet during the Phase I El.
Phase n - Phase n environmental investigations were conducted at Area N in December 1988
to further investigate the presence of chromium in the ground water, as detected during Phase I.
Therefore, well N-MW1S was resampled for filtered and unfiltered priority pollutant inorganics
analysis The unfiltered sample exhibited copper and nickel in addition to the three inorganics
detected during the Phase I El. The detected chromium concentration in the unfiltered sample
exceeded federal and state standards applicable at the time the study was conducted. Zinc was the
only inorganic detected in the filtered sample. Subsequent to the completion of the Phase II El, the
Area N monitoring well was damaged during construction activities and was filled with grout and
abandoned in September 1989.
Additional Investigations - Due to EPA's disqualification of previously collected sampling
data, the EPA required resampling at Area N to determine if VOCs were present in surface soils and
if VOCs or inorganics were present in ground water. The resampling included the collection of two
surface soil samples (N-SS9 and N-SS10, collected at locations corresponding to original samples
N-SS6 and N-SS8, respectively) for priority pollutant VOC analysis and the installation of a
replacement monitoring well (N-MW1A) and sampling of the well for priority pollutant VOC and
inorganic (filtered and unfiltered) analyses. No priority pollutant VOCs were detected in either the
surface soil samples or the ground water sample. The inorganic ground water data were not accepted
by the EPA due to data quality problems. Consequently, in February 1994, the replacement
Decision Summary - 15
-------
monitoring well N-MW1A was sampled again and analyzed for unaltered and filtered priority
pollutant inorganics. Zinc was the only inorganic detected, present in both the filtered and unfiltered
samples.
In September 1994, following submission of the February 1994 sampling results, the EPA
commented on the detection limit for antimony. Because the antimony detection limit reported by
the laboratory exceeded the drinking water standard of 6 ppb, the EPA requested resampling of the
Area N well for antimony analysis with a detection limit less than the drinking water standard. The
resampling was conducted during July 1995. Antimony was not detected during the resampling
effort.
m. HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
A newspaper notification of the availability of the Proposed Plan for Areas A, J and N 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 IS, 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 Areas A, J and N. 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 Areas A, J and
N 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 A,
J and N is based on the administrative record.
IV. SCOPE AND ROLE OF RESPONSE ACTION
Based on a comparison of the constituents detected at Areas A, J and N to relevant regulatory
or background levels, no principal threats to human health or the environment have been identified
at Areas A, J or N, thereby providing the basis for the "no further action" decision. It should be
noted that Areas A, J and N represent only three of more than 20 areas of potential environmental
concern identified at the FAA Technical Center. This document addresses only Areas A, J and N,
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.
Decision Summary 16
-------
V. SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS
For each environmental medium (i.e., soil and ground water) sampled at Areas A, J and N,
detected concentrations of contaminants are summarized below. Because the investigation of Area
J was originally focused on the determination of potential impact of historic site use on ground water
quality and based on the subsequent general lack of evidence of disposal activities-which might impact
soil quality, no chemical characterization of soils was conducted at Area J.
A. Area A
Soil During the El activities at Area A, a total of 28 surface and subsurface soil samples
were collected for chemical analysis. In the fourteen surface soil samples, methylene chloride was
the only priority pollutant VOC detected, present at concentrations ranging from 0.0067 ppm to
0.026 ppm; however it was also detected in blank samples associated with the surface soil samples
at levels which exceeded 10% of the highest level detected in uie surface soil samples. Therefore,
methylene chloride was eliminated from the set of surface sample results. VOC TICs were detected
in four surface soil samples at concentrations ranging from 0.02 ppm to 0.036 ppm. The VOC TICs
consisted of acetone, an unsaturated hydrocarbon, terpene and an unknown compound. In the
thirteen subsurface soil samples analyzed for VOCs, methylene chloride was again the1 only priority
pollutant VOC detected. Methylene chloride was detected in eight samples at concentrations ranging
from 0.008 ppm to 0.036 ppm. However, its presence in the associated field blanks allowed for its
elimination from the subsurface soil data set. VOC TICs were also detected in four subsurface soil
samples at concentrations ranging from 0.062 ppm to 0.86 ppm. The VOC TICs consisted entirely
of acetone, however, acetone was also detected in the Phase I El field blank samples.
Only the Phase I El surface and subsurface soil samples were analyzed for SVOCs., SVOCs
were detected in only two surface soil samples, with n-nitrosodiphenylamine detected at 0.41 ppm
in one sample and a second sample exhibiting anthracene at 0.53 ppm, fluoranthene at 1.2 ppm,
pyfene at 0 67 ppm and chrysene at 0.69 ppm. SVOC TICs were detected in each of the nine Phase
I El surface soil samples at concentrations ranging from 2.2 ppm to 26.7 ppm. The SVOC TICs
consisted mainly of unknown hydrocarbons, organics, organic acids and alkanes. In subsurface soil
samples, no priority pollutant SVOCs were detected in the seven Phase I El samples but SVOC TICs
we, e present in each of the samples at concentrations ranging from 0.9 ppm to 3.9 ppm. The SVOC
TICs consisted mainly of unknown phthalates and other unknowns.
Only the Phase I El surface and subsurface soil samples and the single Phase II subsurface soil
sample were analyzed for pesticides and/or PCBs. Pesticides (4,4'-DDD and 4,4-DDT) were
detected in three surface soil samples at concentrations ranging from 0.029 ppm to 0.06 ppm. The
PCB Aroclor 1242 was detected at a level of 160 ppm in one Phase I El subsurface soil sample
collected at a depth of 10 to 12 feet. However, when a subsurface soil sample was collected from
the same location and same depth during the Phase II El, no PCBs were'detected. The sampled
interval also exhibited no odor or staining. Therefore, the presence of PCBs at this location could
not be confirmed.
Inorganics detected in the Phase I El surface soil samples included cadmium (1.5 ppm to 2.1
ppm), chromium (5.1 ppm to 12 ppm), copper (at 5.6 ppm), lead (3.2 ppm to 9.3 ppm) and zinc (6.3
Decision Summary -17
-------
ppm to 15 ppm). Inorganics detected in Phase I El subsurface soil samples collected at depths
ranging from 8 to 18 feet included arsenic (at 4.2 ppm), chromium (3.4 ppm to 9.8 ppm), mercury
(0.19 ppm to 0.27 ppm), lead (1.9 ppm to 3.6 ppm), selenium (at 1.1 ppm), thallium (at 4.5 ppm),
and zinc (7 ppm to IS.8 ppm). No soil samples were collected for inorganic analysis during other
phases of investigation.
Ground Water - A total of thirteen ground water samples were collected from five
monitoring wells at Area A during the site investigations and two of the Area A monitoring wells
continue to be monitored for VOCs on a quarterly basis. Methylene chloride and chloroform were
the only VOCs detected in Phase I El ground water samples. Methylene chloride was detected in one
sample at a level of 10 ppb but was also detected in the field and trip blanks. Chloroform was
detected in monitoring wells A-MW3S and A-MW4S at concentrations of 1 ppb and 7 ppb,
respectively. Chloroform was also detected in wells A-MW3S and A-MW4S during the "No Action"
area investigation at concentrations of 2 ppb and 5 ppb, respectively. During the quarterly ground
water monitoring of these two wells, chloroform has consistently been detected at levels ranging from
2 ppb to 11 ppb. Other VOCs inconsistently detected in these two wells during the quarterly ground
water monitoring include acetone (detected twice at concentrations ranging from 2 ppb to 7 ppb),
carbon disulfide (detected once at a concentration of 0.3 ppb) and toluene (detected once at a
concentration of 3 ppb). The Phase II El ground water samples were not analyzed for VOCs.
Only the Phase I Area A ground water samples were analyzed for SVOCs, pesticides and
PCBs. SVOCs which were present above detection limits include bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, detected
in three of five wells at levels ranging from 11 to 36 ppb. However, bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate was
also detected in a laboratory blank at a concentration of 6 ppb, indicating the presence of this
compound may be due to the contamination of the samples within the laboratory. SVOC TICs were
detected in two Phase I ground water samples at total concentrations of 33 ppb and 37 ppb. No
pesticides or PCBs were detected in the ground water samples.
Inorganics detected in the Phase I El ground water samples include beryllium (5 ppb),
cadmium (5.6 ppb to 8 ppb), chromium (12.6 ppb to 295 ppb), copper (27.7 ppb to 161 ppb),
mercury (0.39 ppb to 2 ppb), lead (10.9 ppb to 78.8 ppb), and zinc (34 ppb to 134 ppb). Due to the
detection of chromium and lead in two of the monitoring wells, A-MW3S and A-MW5S, at levels
which exceeded federal and state drinking water standards applicable at the time the samples were
collected, additional inorganic analyses were conducted. Monitoring wells A-MW2S, A-MW3S and
A-MW5S were resampled during the Phase II El and analyzed for both filtered and unfiltered
inorganics as well as total suspended solids. Inorganic analytes detected in the unfiltered samples
included beryllium (7.3 ppb), chromium (110 ppb to 449 ppb), copper (85.3 ppb to 318 ppb),
mercury (0.34 ppb to 0.72 ppb), nickel (48.4 ppb to 96.5 ppb), lead (35.8 ppb to 168 ppb), selenium
(8.6 ppb) and zinc (194 ppb to 458 ppb). Zinc was the only inorganic analyte detected in the
unfiltered samples, present at concentrations ranging from 110 ppb to 116 ppb. Total suspended
solids concentrations averaged 4,676 ppm for the three samples. These findings suggested that the
elevated metals concentrations could be attributable in part to the silliness of the samples. During
the February-1994 resampling of all five monitoring wells at Site A, the unfiltered samples exhibited
copper at a concentration of 16.8 ppb, lead at concentrations ranging from 2.3 ppb to 2.8 ppb and
zinc at concentrations ranging from 5.4 ppb to 52 ppb, although zinc was also present in the unfiltered
field blank at a concentration of 7 ppb. Zinc was the only inorganic analyte presented in the filtered
Decision Summary - 18
-------
samples, detected at concentrations ranging from 4 ppb to 11.9 ppb, although it was also present in
the filtered field blank at a concentration of 6.8 ppb.
B. Area J
,
Ground Water - A total of seven ground water samples were collected from the three
shallow monitoring wells at Area J. No priority pollutant VOCs were detected in the Phase I El or
the No Action Investigation ground water samples. Similarly, no pesticides or PCBs were detected
in the Phase I El ground water samples.
Two SVOCs, 2-methylnaphthalene and naphthalene, were detected in the upgradiem
monitoring well (J-MW1S) at levels of 81 ppb and 25 ppb, respectively, during the Phase I El.
However, when the well was resampled during the Phase II El, no SVOCs were detected.
The highest levels of inorganics detected during the Phase I El were also detected in the
upgradiem monitoring well (J-MW1S). Chromium was detected at 32.8 ppb, lead at 12.3 ppb, and
zinc at 33.2 ppb in well J-MW1S. Lead was the only inorganic constituent detected in the remaining
two monitoring wells, detected at levels of 10.2 ppb and 10.5 ppb. The resampling of the wells
during the No Action Investigations in February 1994 included both unaltered and filtered priority
pollutant inorganic analyses. Lead was detected in one unaltered sample at a level of 4.5 ppb and in
one filtered sample (collected from a different monitoring well) at a level of 2.4 ppb. Zinc was
detected in each of the unaltered samples at levels ranging from 9.0 ppb to 19.7 ppb and in each of
the filtered samples at levels ranging from 4.8 ppb to 22.2 ppb. However, zinc was also detected .in
the associated unfiltered and filtered field blanks at concentrations of 7.0 ppb and 6.8 ppb,
respectively
C. Area N
Soil - During the El activities at Area N, a total often surface soil samples and two subsurface
soil samples were collected for chemical analysis. One Phase I El and two No Action Investigation
surface soil samples were analyzed for priority pollutant VOCs. Methylene chloride was the only
VOC detected, present in the Phase I El sample at a level of 0.014 ppm. However, it was also
present in the field blank at a concentration of 0.010 ppm.
Only one surface soil sample was analyzed for SVOCs, pesticides/PCBs and inorganics.
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate was the only SVOC priority pollutant detected in the sample, present at
a level of 0.6 ppm, while SVOC TICs were detected at a concentration of 37.3 ppm. No pesticides
or PCBs were detected in the surface soil sample. Inorganics detected in the sample included lead
at 4.8 ppm and zinc at 16 ppm.
The remaining seven surface and two subsurface soil samples were analyzed for TPH. TPH
concentrations in the surface soil samples ranged from 12 ppm to 28 ppm while in the subsurface soil
samples TPH concentrations ranged from 2 ppm to 3 ppm.
Ground Water - A total of three ground water samples were collected from the single
shallow monitoring well or its replacement well. Two of the three samples were analyzed for VOCs.
Decision Summary -19
-------
Methylene chloride was the only VOC detected, present at a concentration of 6 ppb. However, it was
also present in the trip blank at a concentration of IS ppb. No priority pollutant SVOCs, pesticides
or PCBs were detected in the single ground water sample analyzed for these constituents. Inorganics
detected in the Phase I or Phase II El ground water samples subject to unfihered inorganic analysis
included chromium (52 ppb to 117 ppb), copper (86.7 ppb), nickel (56.7 ppb), lead (11.0 ppb to 47.4
ppb), and zinc (47 ppb to 219 ppb). However, the Phase n El filtered analysis of a ground water
sample identified the presence of zinc alone at a concentration of 43.4 ppb. Nickel and zinc were also
detected in the filtered field blank sample at levels of 69.7 ppb and 249 ppb, respectively. The
'inorganic analysis of the replacement monitoring well ground water sample in February 1994
identified the presence of zinc alone at concentrations of 9.6 ppb (unfiltered) and 9.8 ppb (filtered).
However, zinc was also detected in the associated unfiltered and filtered field blanks at concentrations
of 7.0 ppb and 6.8 ppb, respectively.
VI. SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS
Based upon the results of the El, potential risks associated with each area were evaluated.
For Areas A, J and N, potential risks were evaluated by comparing detected contaminant levels 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 (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 is applicable to Areas A, J and N, 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.
For Area A, in addition to the consideration of ARARs and TBCs, a quantitative human health
risk assessment was conducted to estimate the risks associated with current and future site conditions.
An additional limited human health risk assessment was also conducted following the completion of
the No Action Area investigations, to evaluate potential risks associated with the presence of
chloroform in ground water at Area A. The risk assessment estimates the human health risk which
could result from the contamination at the site if no remedial action is taken.
The human health risk assessment conducted for Area A and the risk evaluations conducted
for Areas J and N are discussed separately below.
A. Area A
A baseline human health risk assessment (HHRA) was conducted based upon the results of
the Phase I and Phase II Els for Area A to estimate the potential risks associated with current and
future land uses. A summary of the HHRA is presented below. A more complete description can
be found in the Baseline Risk Assessment, Area A, R&D Navy Landfill (TRC, October 1990).
Decision Summary - 20
-------
The 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 included
hazard identification, exposure assessment, toxicity assessment, and risk characterization and is
summarized below.
Hazard Identification - The hazard identification involved the selection of the constituents
of concern (COCs), the constituents detected during the Phase I and Phase II Els which have inherent
toxic/carcinogenic effects that are likely to pose the greatest concern with respect to the protection
of human health. While Area A is referred to as the R&D Navy Landfill, it consists of two areas of
investigation: the former R&D Navy landfill area located north of Card Road and the former borrow
pit area located south of Card Road. Because these two distinct areas could have received different
types of waste, they were evaluated separately within, the risk assessment. The COCs identified for
the two areas, by media, are as follows:
Former R&D Navy Landfill Area
N-nitrosodiphenylamine, chromium and lead in surface soil,
PCB Aroclor 1242, phenol, chromium and lead in subsurface soil, and
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, chromium, lead and mercury in ground water.
Former Borrow Pit Area
Cadmium, chromium and lead in surface soil,
Chromium and lead in subsurface soil, and
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, cadmium, chromium and lead in ground water.
Note that, to be conservative, all constituents detected in surface soil at the former borrow pit area
were included in the inhalation pathway evaluation, which is further described below.
Exposure Assessment The exposure assessment identified the potential pathways and routes
for COCs to reach potential receptors and estimated the constituent concentrations at the points of
exposure as well as characterized the extent of the potential exposures. 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 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. At Area A,
the current receptor population was characterized as limited to government employees due to the size
and security of the FAA Technical Center. Under this current government employee scenario,
workers were assumed exposed through ingestion of and dermal contact with COCs in surface soils
and ingestion of ground water. Currently, the R&D Navy landfill portion of the site is not actively
used. However, incidental exposure could occur as a result of activities such as atypical work
assignments which could require the presence of a person at the site. The firing range located within
the former borrow pit area is used on a periodic basis (e.g., for annual requalification or general
practice) by FAA personnel, Air National Guard security, and visiting local law enforcement
personnel Since the firing range area is devoid of vegetation, the current use scenario for the former
borrow pit area included inhalation of fugitive dusts as a potential exposure pathway. Exposures to
Decision Summary - 21
-------
ground water through ingestion were also evaluated under the current use scenario for both portions
of the site since there is a ground water production well (FAA-224) located at Building 224 on site.
However, when the building is in use, the water withdrawn from well FAA-224 exhibits a high iron
content and is used strictly for sanitary facilities, with bottled water provided for drinking water
purposes.
Since the use of Area A is not anticipated to change in the foreseeable future, adult
government employees were also identified as the future receptor population. Consequently, the
potential exposures to surface soils, fugitive dusts (former borrow pit area only) and ground water
evaluated under the current use scenario are also applicable to future government workers at the site
(and thus were not Devaluated under the future scenario). Under the future government worker
scenario, exposures to subsurface soils, as a result of future excavation and/or construction, were
quantified Future workers were assumed exposed to COCs in subsurface soil through ingestion and
dermal contact. .
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 1.
Two exposure poi: 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 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). The dose-response values used in the HHRA were
obtained from EPA's Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables (HEAST) (EPA, 1989a,b). The
toxicity values used in the HHRA are summarized in Table 2. .
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
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 is 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.
Risk Characterization - 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
Decision Summary - 22
-------
TABLE 1
EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT INPUT PARAMETERS
USEDINTHEHHHA
AREA A R&D NAVY LANDFILL
FAA TECHNICAL CENTER
input Parameter
^
MOST
Cast
Cms*''*'
General (a)
Exposure Point Concentration
(mg/kg; mg/I): (b)
Body Weight. Adult (kg):
Average
70
Maximum
70
0.00005 0.0001
Current FAA Worker (Surface Soils!
Ingestion
Ingestion Rate (kg/d):
Oral Absorption {--):
Lead:
Other COCs:
Exposure Frequency (oTyr):
Exposure Duration (yr):
Dermal Contact
Dermal Contact Rate (kg/d): 0.00085 0.00085
Dermal Absorption («):
Organics:
Inorganics:
Exposure Frequency (d/yr):
Exposure Duration (yr):
inhalation (c)
Inhalation Rate (cu.mTrir):
Exposure Time (nr/d):
Exposure Frequency (d/yr):
Exposure Duration (yr):
Future Construction rSufasurfac* Snisl
0.3
1.0
12
10
0.5
0
12
10
1
4
12
10
0.3
1.0
24
20
0.5
0
24
20
1
B
24
20
Ingtstion
Ingtstion rat* 04/ti):
Oral absorption (-):
PCBs. L»td:
Other COCs:
Exposure Frequency (d/yr):
Exposure Duration (yr):
Derma/ Contact
Dermal Contact Rata (kgM):
Dermal absorption {-)
PCBs:
Other Organics:
Inorganics:
Exposure Frequency (d/yr):
Exposure Duration (yr):
0.00005 0.0001
0.3
1.0
12
10
P.3
1.0
24
20
0,00085' 0.00085
0.05
0.5
0
12
10
0.05
0.5
0
' 24
20
Current FAA Worker (Ground Water)
Ingestion
Ingestion rate (I'd): 1 2
Oral absorption (»): . 1.0 1.0
Exposure Frequency (d/yr): 250 250
Exposure Duration (yr): 10 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 v xposure frequency and exposure duration factors listed above).
(b) Chemical-specific
(c) Former borrow pit only
Decision Summary 23
-------
TABLE 2
TOXICITY VALUES USED IN THE HHRA
AREA A - R&D NAVY LANDFILL
FAA TECHNICAL CENTER
Former R&D Navy Landfill Araa
Bis(2-ethylhexyl}phthalate 0.02(a) 0.014
N-nitrosodiphenylamine NA 0.0049
PCBs NA 7.7
Phenol 0.6 (a) . NA
Chromium 0.02 (b) NA
Lead NA NA
Mercury 0.0003 (b) NA
Former Borrow Pit Area
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 0.02 (a) 0.014
Cadmium 0.0005 (a) NA
Chromium- 0.02 (b) . NA
Lead NA NA
(a) EPA, 19893. Health Effects Assessment Summary
Tables, First Quarter, FY89. January.
(b) EPA, I989b. Health Effects Assessment Summary
Tables. Third Quarter, FY89. August.
Decision Summary 24
-------
potential for adverse non-cancer health effects. For each exposure pathway and land use evaluated,
most probable case and reasonable worst case risk estimates were generated for each COC
corresponding to exposure to the average and maximum detected concentrations (and associated
exposure assumptions), respectively.
,
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. However, in the Area A HHRA, no more than one cancer
COC contributed to the estimated cancer risk for each exposure pathway.
Hazard indices (His) were also calculated for each pathway as a measure of the potential for
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. In the HHRA, acute and chronic HQs
were calculated using the estimated acute and chronic exposure doses, respectively.
The estimated cancer risks and non-cancer His (Table 3) were evaluated using EPA's
established target risk range for Superfund cleanups (i.e, cancer risk range of 10"* to 10"*) and target
HI value (i.e., HI less than or equal to 1).
The results of the HHRA for the R&D Navy landfill portion of Area A indicate that potential
exposures to surface soils do not pose an unacceptable human health risk. That is, estimated cancer
risks and non-cancer His were below the target values (i.e., 10"* to 10"4 and 1.0, respectively). The
cancer risks associated with ingestion of ground water were estimated to fall within the target cancer
risk range of 10'6 to 10"* 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
concentrations). The cancer risk under the realistic worst case was due to the detection of bis(2-
ethylhexyl)phthalate. However, based on the presence of bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate in a laboratory
blank, there is a high degree of uncertainty assocuted with this estimated risk. Under a future
construction scenario, the cancer risks associated with ingestion and dermal contact with subsurface
soils were estimated to fall within the target cancer risk range of 10* to 10"* under the realistic worst
case and to fall below this range under the most probable case. The cancer risk under the realistic
worst case was due to the detection of PCBs in a single subsurface soil. However, the presence of
PCBs at this location was not confirmed by a subsequent resampling effort and, therefore, there is
also a high degree of uncertainty associated with this risk estimate. The estimated non-cancer His
for exposures to subsurface soil and ground water were less than 1.0 under both the realistic worst
case and the most probable case.
The results of the HHRA for the former borrow pit portion of Area A indicate that potential
exposures to surface soils and subsurface soils do not pose an unacceptable human health risk. That
is. estimated cancer risks and non-cancer His were below the target values (i.e., 10"* to 10"4 and 1.0,
respectively) The cancer risks associated with ingestion of ground water were estimated to fall
Decision Summary - 25
-------
TABLE 3
SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED HUMAN HEALTH RISKS
AREA A - R&D NAVY LANDFILL
FAA TECHNICAL CENTER
i;i^Mrski»3'(-23i^iw
:1|g$^:iM^«P
,...»if* -4»«uy,.»«.;;. ftjf j-|^4 **:** **** >-tfc.*nA£
Former R&P Navy Landfill Area
Current FAA Worker
Surface Soils:
Ingestion 1.7E-12
Dermal Contact 1.4E-11
Ground Watej;.
Ingestion 2.1E-07
Future Construction
Subsurface Soils:
Ingestion 2.5E-07
Derma! Contact 7.0E-07
Former Borrow Pit Area
5.4E-11
2.3 E-10
3.0E-04/2.0E-08
.NC7NC
1.6E-06(a) | 8.7E-02/8.5E-03
2.3E-04/1.5E-08
2.0E-06/9.5E-09
. 7.9E-04/2.1E-07
NC/NC
3.7E-01/7.3E-02
7.0E-04/1.9E-07
2.6E-03/5.0E-08
Current FAA Worker
Surface Sa:!s:
Ingestion
Derma! Contact
Inhalation
d Wa'gr:
NC
NC
7.2E-11
NC
NC
2.0E-09
2.2E-03/1.5E-07
NC/NC
NC/NC
6.9E-03/1.8E-06
NC/NC
NC/NC
Ingestion
Future Construction
Subsurface Soils:
Ingestion
Dermal Contact
4.6E-07 | 2.8E-06(a) I 2.7E-01/2.7E-02 I 1.2E^oq/2.3E-OUc)
NC
NC
NC
NC
1.3E-04/8.9E-09
NC/NC
3.1E-04/8.2E-08
NC/NC
| | = Within 1E-06 to 1E-04 cancer risk range
| | = Exceeds 1 E-06 to l E-04 cancer risk range or 1.0 non-cancer hazard index
NC = Not calculated
(a} Attributable to bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
.(b) Attributable to PCBs
(c) Primarily attributable to cadmium and chromium
Decision Summary 26
-------
within the target cancer risk range of 10"* to 10;4 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 concentrations). The cancer risk under the realistic worst case was due to the
presence of bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate which, as described earlier, was also detected in a laboratory
blank sample. The estimated non-cancer His for exposures to ground water ranged from 0.23
(chronic) to 1.2 (acute) under the realistic worst case, but were both less than 1.0 under the most
probable case. Cadmium and chromium were the primary contributors to the estimated non-cancer
His. However, elevated total suspended solids levels were measured in these ground water samples,
indicating the detected inorganics levels may be attributable to the samples' turbidity. Furthermore,
subsequent "No Action" investigation ground water analyses did not confirm the presence of
cadmium or chromium in the ground water, lending a high degree of uncertainty to these HI values.
Limited Supplemental Risk Assessment The presence of chloroform, which was detected
in ground water during the Phase I El, was confirmed in monitoring wells A-MW3S and A-MW4S
during May, August and November 1994 and February, July and October 1995 sampling rounds. A
limited risk assessment with respect to chloroform was presented as an attachment to the May 1994
Quarterly Ground Water Sampling Results Report (TRC, 1994). At the time the limited risk
assessment was conducted, chloroform had been detected in 6 of 12 Area Aground water samples
at concentrations ranging from 1 ppb to 7 ppb, which are below the 100 ppb federal MCL for total
trihalomethanes (including chloroform) established by the EPA for the protection of drinking water
supplies. Under the realistic worst case scenario, the estimated carcinogenic risk associated with
ingestion of ground water contaminated with chloroform was 5 x 10"T, while the hazard indices for
acute and chronic effects were estimated to be 0.02 and 0.008, respectively. Under the most probable
case scenario, the estimated carcinogenic risk associated with ingestion of ground water contaminated
with chloroform was 8 x 10"1, while the hazard indices for acute and chronic effects were estimated
to be 0.006 and 0.001, respectively.
The limited risk assessment also evaluated the total site-wide risk associated with ground
water ingestion, as opposed to the separate evaluations of risk associated with the R&D Navy landfill
area and former borrow pit area previously presented in the HHRA, based on site-wide data utilized
in the HHRA with the addition of the chloroform data. The total carcinogenic risk associated with
ingestion of ground water was 6x10"*, while the total hazard ; 'dices for acute and chronic effects
were estimated to be 1 and 0.5, respectively, under the realistic worst case scenario. The elevated
cancer risk was again due to the presence of bis(2-ethylhexyl)phtha!ate. Cadmium and chromium
were the primary contributors to the estimated non-cancer His. Under the most probable case
scenario, the estimated carcinogenic risk associated with ingestion of ground water was 1 x 10"*,
while the hazard indices for acute and chronic effects were estimated to be 0.4 and 0.07, respectively.
Based on the results of the risk assessment, risks to human health posed by constituents .
detected in the soil or ground water at Area A do not pose unacceptable risks under federal guidelines
but do exceed the State of New Jersey's acceptable lifetime risk definition. The detection of PCBs
in the Phase I subsurface soil sample and the detection of bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate in the ground
water are 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 these constituents
since the presence of PCBs could not be verified through resampling and based on the presence of
bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate in a laboratory1 blank sample. The exceedance of the HI target value for
Decision Summary - 27
-------
acute ground water ingestion exposure in the borrow pit area under the realistic worst case scenario
was due to the presence of cadmium and chromium. However, the most recent inorganic ground
water data, which were not available at the time the HHRA was conducted, do not confirm the
presence of cadmium or chromium in the ground water at Area A. Therefore, a degree of uncertainty
is also associated with the elevated HI value for this exposure scenario. Furthermore, the total HI
values for acute and chronic effects associated with a site-wide exposure to ground water do not
exceed the target HI value.
Comparison to ARARs/TBCs - In addition to the site-specific risk assessment, New Jersey
soil cleanup criteria must also be considered with respect to Area A soil contaminant levels. 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. These action levels were not exceeded by the detected levels of surface soil
contaminants, with the exception of the total SVOC action level of 10 ppm, which was exceeded by
the total concentrations of SVOCs (ranging from 15.5 ppm to 26.7 ppm) in three surface soil
samples. However, the constituents which comprise the total SVOCs consist mainly of unknown
tentatively identified compounds, thereby considerably reducing the potential risks associated with
the total contaminant values. Considering that SVOC contaminant concentrations do not exceed
current federal or state ARARs and do not conflict with current New Jersey residential soil cleanup
criteria, the presence of SVOCs in the soils at Area A evidences no significant threat to human health
or the environment.
Compliance with current New Jersey residential soil cleanup criteria is determined based not
only on maximum detected contaminant levels but also on the average contaminant level detected
within an area of concern or on the depth at which a sample is collected and the area! extent of
contamination. Contaminants detected in surface or subsurface soils at Area A at levels exceeding
New Jersey residential soil cleanup criteria include total PCBs, cadmium and thallium. Each of these
constituents is discussed separately below.
The total PCB concentration of 160 ppm detected in a subsurface soil sample collected at a
depth of ten to twelve feet within the former R&D Navy landfill area exceeds the New Jersey
residential soil cleanup criterion of 0.49 ppm. However, when the sample location was resampled,
the presence of PCBs at this location could not be confirmed. Considering the depth of the soil
sample and the inability to confirm the presence of PCBs at this location, direct soil exposure is
considered to be highly unlikely and the detected PCB contamination does not represent a human
health or environmental concern.
Cadmium was detected in seven of nine Area A surface soil samples at an average
concentration of 1.7 ppm, which exceeds the New Jersey residential soil cleanup criterion of 1 ppm
but falls within the New Jersey non-residential soil cleanup criterion of 100 ppm. However, cadmium
has been detected at levels exceeding 1 ppm at a number of the areas of concern at the FAA Technical
Center. Due to the facility-wide presence of cadmium in surface soils, a residential risk-based request
for an Alternate Cleanup Standard was submitted to NJDEP and a facility-wide cadmium Alternate
Cleanup Standard of 39 ppm was granted. Cadmium has not been detected in subsurface soils or in
the most recent (February 1994) inorganic analyses of ground water samples, indicating the presence
Decision Summary - 28
-------
of cadmium in the surface soils is not impacting other environmental media. Therefore, the presence
of cadmium in surface soils does not represent a human health or environmental concern.
Thallium was detected at a concentration of 4.5 ppm in one subsurface soil sample collected
at a depth of 16 to 18 feet within the former borrow pit area. The detected concentration exceeds
the New Jersey residential soil cleanup criterion of 2 ppm. Thallium is not considered a site-related
contaminant, as environmental releases of thallium are most typically associated with industries such
as iron and steel production or refineries. Also, considering the depth of the sample in which thallium
was detected, direct exposures of human or environmental receptors to the soil are considered to be
highly unlikely. Based on professional judgement, the available information indicates that there is
only a de minimis amount of thallium-contaminated soil which does not represent a human health or
environmental concern.
A comparison of ground water data to MCLs and PQLs identifies the consistent exceedance
of PQLs for chloroform in historic and recent ground water sampling events. Other constituents
detected during the Phase I or Phase II El at levels exceeding MCLs and/or PQLs include bis(2-
ethylhexyl)phthalate, cadmium, chromium, mercury, lead and zinc. The presence of bis(2-
ethylhexyl)phthalate in Area A ground water is suspect based on the compound's detection in an
associated laboratory blank sample. The presence of cadmium, chromium, mercury and lead at levels
exceeding MCLs and/or PQLs was not confirmed during the "No Action" area investigation ground
water sampling. While zinc was present at a level exceeding the PQL during the "No Action" area
investigation, the detected levels of zinc in the ground water generally appear to be consistent with
zinc levels in southern New Jersey, based on dissolved zinc data provided by the Unites States
Geological Survey (USGS). Furthermore, the concentrations of zinc are consistent with historic total
zinc levels detected at the FAA Technical Center. Therefore, chloroform is the only constituent
consistently detected at levels exceeding PQLs which is not considered to be attributable to
background ground water quality conditions.
B. Area J
At the completion of the Phase I environmental investigation at Area J, it was concluded that
the area was not serving as a source of ground water contamination. However, an upgradient well
exhibited the presence of two SVOCs, 2-methylnaphthalene and naphthalene. No MCLs or PQLs
have been established for these compounds. The Phase II investigations did not verify the presence
of SVOCs in the upgradient well, and therefore suggest that the presence of the two SVOCs in Phase
I was due to field or laboratory contamination. Inorganics were also detected in the upgradient well
during Phase I investigations at levels which did not exceed ground water standards applicable at the
time the study was conducted, but which do exceed current ground water quality criteria. They
include chromium, detected .at a maximum concentration of 32.8 ppb, lead at a maximum
concentration of 12.3 ppb and zinc at a maximum concentration of 33.2 ppb. The PQL for chromium
is 10 ppb, the PQL for lead is 10 ppb and the PQL for zinc is 30 ppb. The subsequent resampling of
the wells during the "No Action" area investigation did not verify the presence of inorganics at levels
exceeding MCLs or PQLs. Therefore, based on the inability to confirm the presence of organic or
inorganic ground water contaminants at levels which exceed ARARs, and based on the presence of
the originally detected inorganics within the background well, it is concluded that past activities at
Decision Summary - 29
-------
\
Area J have not impacted ground water quality and the area does not represent a human health or
environmental concern.
C. Area N
The environmental media of concern at Area N consist of sofl associated with the catapult test
area and ground water in the immediate vicinity of the test area. Individual constituents detected in
Area N surface soil samples included methylene chloride, bis(2-ethyttiexyl)phthalate, lead, zinc and
TPH. The detected concentrations of these compounds are less than current New Jersey residential
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. These action levels were not exceeded by the detected
levels of surface soil contaminants, with the exception of the total SVOC action level of 10 ppm,
which was exceeded by the total concentration of SVOCs (37.6 pp*m) in one surface soil sample. The
constituents which comprise the total SVOCs consist mainly of an unknown hydrocarbon, an
unknown organic acid and other unknown compounds, and therefore cannot be classified as
carcinogens or noncarcinogens. However, the priority pollutant analysis determined that the known
priority pollutant SVOC carcinogens, such as benzo(a)pyrene, are absent in the soil sample.
Considering the lack of priority pollutant carcinogenic SVOCs, the low concentrations of unknown
compounds, and the fact that com. .inant concentrations do not exceed current federal or state
ARARs and do not conflict with current New Jersey residential soil cleanup criteria, the soils at Area
N evidence no significant threat to human health or the environment. '
In ground water, with the exception of chromium, inorganics detected in Phase I did not
exceed ground water standards applicable at the time the study was conducted. The detected level
of chromium in the single on-site monitoring well exceeded the federal drinking water standard of 50
ppb which was applicable at the time the sampling was conducted. Chromium, lead and zinc were
all detected at levels which exceed currently applicable PQLs. The Phase II ground water samples
confirmed the presence of chromium in the unfiltered sample at levels exceeding the then-applicable
ground water standards and chromium, lead, nickel and zinc each were present in the unfiltered
sample at levels exceeding currently applicable PQLs. Only zinc was present in the filtered sample
at a level exceeding the currently applicable PQL, although it was also present in the filtered field
blank. The subsequent sampling of the Area N replacement well, during the "No Action" sites
investigation did not verify the presence of inorganics at levels exceeding PQLs or drinking water
quality standards. Therefore, based on the inability to confirm the presence of ground water
contaminants at levels which exceed ARARs, u is concluded that past activities at Area N have not
impacted ground water quality and the ground water does not represent a human health or
environmental concern.
VD. DESCRIPTION OF "XO ACTION" ALTERNATIVE
The preferred alternative for Areas A, J and N at the FAA Technical Center is No Further
Action with continued ground water monitoring at Area A. 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. At Areas A and N,
Decision Summary - 30
-------
total contaminant levels in surface soil for SVOCs 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 SVOCs, the low concentrations of unknown compounds and the fact'that contaminant
concentrations do not conflict with current New Jersey soil cleanup criteria, the presence of SVOCs
in surface soils at Areas A and N evidences no significant threat to human health or the environment.
Subsurface soils at Area A exhibited PCBs and thallium at levels which exceed NJDEP soil cleanup
criteria. However, due to the inability to confirm their presence and/or the depth at which they were
detected, they do not present a human health or environmental concern. In the ground water at Areas
A, J and N, the previous detection of inorganics at levels exceeding federal or state standards was not
confirmed in recent sampling rounds. Based on this evaluation, it has been determined that no further
remedial activities, exposure controls or monitoring are necessary at Areas J and N to ensure
protection of human health and the environment. However, the consistent presence of chloroform
in two Area A monitoring wells at levels exceeding PQLs justifies the continued monitoring of ground
water quality at that site.
After reviewing the existing data base for Areas A, J and N, the NJDEP and Pinelands
Commission have indicated concurrence with the Proposed Plan of No Further Action with ground
water monitoring at Area A. Copies of the declarations of concurrence are attached as Appendix A.
\m DOCUMENTATION OF NO SIGNIFICANT CHANGES
The Proposed Plan for Areas A, J, and N was released for public comment on July 24, 1996.
The Proposed Plan concluded that No Further Action with continued ground water monitoring at
Area A is required to ensure protection of human health and the environment at Areas A, J and N.
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 - 31
-------
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
RECORD OF DECISION
Area A R&D Navy Landfill
Area J - Excavation Area near the Runway
Area N - Catapult Test Area at Building 214
FAA William J. Hughes Technical Center
The purpose of this Responsiveness Summary is to review pubCc response to the Proposed
Plan for Areas A, J and N. 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 A, J and N»
_ ' .1
Background on Community Development This section provides a summary of community
interest in Areas A, J and N and identifies key public issues. It also describes community
relations activities conducted with respect to this area of concent
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 A, located south of the Upper Atlantic City Reservoir,
is the former Research and Development (R&D) Navy landfill, Area J, located between the Atlantic
City International Airport Terminal and Runway 26, is a former excavation area and Area N, located
adjacent to Building 214 in the R&D portion of the Technical Center, is the former site of gelled fuci
testing. .. '
n. 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 A, J and N.
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
comments. Periodic meetings have been held to maintain open lines of communication and to keep
all panics abreast c£current activities.
Responsiveness Summary - 1
-------
On July 24, 1996, a newspaper notification was published in the Atlantic Citv fr?g? 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
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 Areas A, J and N EI/FS results were discussed. Keith C. Buch, Program
Manager, Environmental Section, represented the FAA, 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.
m. SUMMARY OF MAJOR QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS
No questions or comments with regard to the Proposed Plan for Areas A, J and N 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
-------
Chrl»iin« Todd WhHm*n Department at EnvlronmenUl Protection *»b«ri C. Shlnn. )«.
Governor Com/nation**
n .r.K. u APR18J997
Mr. Keith Buch
FAA Technical Canter
Environmental Programs Branch
ACM-440
Atlantic City International Airport, NJ. 08405
Deer Mr. Buch,
Re: Areaa A, J, and N BOO Approval
FAA Technical Center
Pomona, Atlantic County
The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) has evaluated the .No
Further Action remedial action recommendation for Areee A. J. and N at the FAA Technical
Center at the Atlantic City International Airport Suparfund Site and concurs with the Record
of Decision dated October 1996.
it has been determined by the NJDEP that a No Further Action remedial decision will serve to
ensure the protection of human health and the environment. The NJDEP approves this Areas
A, J, and N - No Further Action remedial decision pending written approval from the Pinefends
Committee. The NJDEP has been assured that the written approval of this final Record of
Decision by the Pinelends Commission la forthcoming.
New Jersey appreciates the Importance of the Record of Decision In the cleanup process and
will continue to take all reesoneble steps to ensure that the State'a commitments in this aree
are met.
c. Mr. William J Muszynski, USEPA/Region
Betsy Donovan, USEPA
Michael Hogan, Commissioner's Office
Ian R. Curtis, BFCM
New furry ft «n Igutl OfpemnHy Jfry Jtaj
-------
CHRISTINE Tooo WHITMAN
GoMfWr
» tr Jtrctg
THE PWKIANOS COMMISSION
POBoxT
NlwLBWNNJOaOM
(609)894-9342
May 13, 1997
Ian Curtis, NJDEP
CN028
401 East State Street
Trenton, NJ 08625-0028
Re: Application #87-0046.14
Block 5A, Lot 1
FAA Technical Center
Areas A.J&N
Egg Harbor Township
Dear Mr. Curtis:
The Commission staff has received and reviewed the Record of Decision (ROD) regarding
the investigation of the past discharge of hazardous substances at the above referenced areas within
the FAA William J. Hughes Technical Center.
The ROD proposes no further action for areas J and N based, in part, upon the determination
that the past activities on the sites have not degraded the quality of groundwater at the areas. The
ROD also proposes DO further action at Area A with continued monitoring of the groundwater at
this area. The ROD does not raise 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 formal application is necessary with the Pinelands Commission.
The Commission must be copied on all future monitoring reports or any additional
correspondence between the NJDEP and any other involved parties. A more active remedial
response may be necessary for chloroform at Area A if an analysis of the results of the continued
groundwater monitoring indicates that this is necessary to comply with water quality standards.
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
nd an International Biosphere Reserve
-------
If you have any questions, please contact our project review staff.
Sincerely,
~~
WilliamF. Harrison,
Assistant Director
TD
cc:
Keith Buch
Jean Oliva
Todd DeJesus
-------
APPENDIX B
PUBLIC MEETING ATTENDANCE LIST.
-------
SIGN-IN SHEET
PUBLIC MEETING
AUGUST 15,1996
PROPOSED PLAN PRESENTATION FOR
AREASA.J.N&P
FAA TECHNICAL CENTER
ATLANTIC CITY INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, NEW JERSEY
NAME
C .
3..
4.
G
.
14.
!L
1L
17.
1L
li.
20^
21.
23.
-------
APPENDIX C
PUBLIC MEETING TRANSCRIPT
-------
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 MEBTZVO
To Discus* the Proposed Remedial Action at
Area A - R4D Wavy Landfill
Area J - Excavation Area Hear Runway
Area N - Catapult Tast Ar«a At Building 214
Ar«a P - Building 204 fuel Spill Area
FAA TECHNICAL CENTER
Atlantic City International Airport, NJ
Thursday, Auguat 15, 1996
2:00 p.m.
Atlantic County Library
2 South Farragut Avanua
Mays Landing, NJ 08330
'APPEARANCES*
For the FAA Technical Center:
or TRC Environmental Corp.:
KEITH C. BUCB, Program Manager
FAA Technical Center
LARRY BUTLIEN, Project Hydro-
geologist, TRC EnvironmentA
Corporation
JEAN M. OLIVA, P.E., Project
Engineer, TRC Environmental
Corporation
GCI TRANSCRIPTION AND RECORDING SERVICES
505 HAMILTON AVENUE, Suite 107
LINWOOD, NEW JERSEY 08221
(609) 927-0299 FAX (609) 927-6420
1-800-471-0299
-------
Page 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
' 8
$
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
INDEX
Opening Remarks and Introductions
Keith C. Buch, Program Manager
FAA Technical Center
Proposed Plan Presentation
Areas A and J
Larry Butlien, Project Hydrogeologist
TRC Environmental Corporation
Proposed Plan Presentation
Areas N and P
Jean M. Oliva, P.E., Project Engineer
TRC Environmental Corporation
Final Remarks
«
Questions and Answers
.Page 3
Page 3
Page 6
Page 10
None
8-15-96
-------
Page 3
1 (Tape #CP-12-96, Index 10200 - 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.
-------
Page 4
1 (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 L2 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 3S and 4S,
have been conducted since February of 1993.
This photograph shows the installation of monitoring
well 45 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 c ncluded 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
2
3
4
5
6
.7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22 '
23
24
25
ground water monitoring to ensure the contaminant
concentrations do not pose a threat to the human health or
the environment in the future.
The next area which we will discuss is Area J, the
Excavation Area near the Runway. As you can see in this site
plan, Area J is located adjacent to the main runways at the
airport. .
Area J was the site of a large excavation in 1962 which
was based on a review of aerial photographs. In 1974 the
area had been graded, and seeded and is currently grass-
covered.
It's pretty dark, but this photograph was taken in 1987
and shows the grass-covered Area J in the foreground with the
Atlantic City International Airport plane taxiway, ramp and
tarmac in the background.
Area J was investigated to determine if the area had
been used as a landfill and if any environmental impacts had
been subsequently occurred. Investigations included various
site surveys and the installation and ground water sampling
of three monitoring wells.
This slide shows the locations of.the three monitoring
wells at Area J. These -- as I said before, these wells were
installed to characterize the quality of ground water at the
site, and as depicted by this yellow arrow, ground water flow
is generally in the southeast direction.
8-15-9(
-------
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
s
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
-------
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 8
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 berm 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 frcfi around the earthen berm and from
*
the area of the elevated soil gas readings. A boring was
drilled through the earthen berm 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
16
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 dpwngradient 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 Co.unty 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'll 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 CERTiriC.ATXOV
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
^ dfafr
12 ' CAROL PLATT
13 My
14 Dated: August 22, 1996
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Notary Public of New Jersey
Commission expires July 8, 1997
8-15-96
-------
ROD FACT SHEET
SITE
Name: FAA Technical Center
Area A - R & D Landfill
Area J Excavation Area Near The Runway
Area N - Catapult Test Area At Building 214
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 7/21/97
FAA 5/29/97
Remedy: No Further Action, with ground water monitoring at Area A.
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: chloroform @ Area A
Media: ground water
Origin: landfill
Quantity: unknown
------- |