PB94-963842
EPA/ROD/R02-94/237
March 1995
EPA Superfund
Record of Decision:
Federal Aviation Administration Technical
Center (O.U. 4), Atlantic County, NJ
9/30/1994
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
AREA C - BUTLER AVIATION FUEL SPILL
AREA H - SALVAGE YARD NEAR SEWAGE
TREATMENT PLANT
AND
AREA M - BUILDING 202; GELLED FUEL TEST
AREA
FAA TECHNICAL CENTER
ATLANTIC CITY INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, NEW JERSEY
-------
ROD FACT SHEET
SITE
Name:
Location/State:
EPA Region:
HRS Score (date):
NPLRank:
FAA Technical Center, Area C (Butler Aviation Fuel Spill
Area H (Salvage Yard Near Sewage Treatment Plant), and
Area M (Building 202; Gelled Fuel Test Area)
Atlantic County, New Jersey
USEPA Region II
39.65; 12/09/88
N/A
ROD
Date Signed:
Remedy/ies:
09/30/94
No Further Action, with continued groundwater monitoring at Area C.
LEAD
Remedial/Enforcement:
Primary Contact (phone):
Secondary Contact (phone):
Federal Facility (Federal Aviation Administration)
Keith C. Buch, Project Manager, FAA, (609) 484-6644
Carla M. Struble, P.E., EPA, (212) 264-4595
WASTE
Type (metals, PCB, &c):
Area C (Jet Fuel) - No indication of contaminant migration onto FAA
property has been identified from Area C groundwater sampling.
Area H (BNAs, 4,4'-DDT) - detected below NJDEP soil cleanup
criteria.
Area M (BNAs, TPH) - detected below NJDEP soil cleanup criteria.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Contents ' Page Number
DECLARATION FOR THE RECORD OF DECISION i
DECISION SUMMARY FOR THE RECORD OF DECISION
I. SITE NAME, LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION 1
H. SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES 4
A. Land Use 4
B. Environmental Investigation/Feasibility Study 7
HI. HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION 10
IV. SCOPE AND ROLE OF RESPONSE ACTION 10
V. SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS 10
A. Area C 10
B. Area H 11
C. Area M : . . 11
VI. SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS 12
A. Area C 12
B. Area H 12
C. Area M 13
VII. DESCRIPTION OF THE "NO ACTION" ALTERNATIVE 14
VHI. DOCUMENTATION OF NO SIGNIFICANT CHANGES 14
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY FOR THE RECORD OF DECISION
I. OVERVIEW I
II. BACKGROUND ON COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT I
III. SUMMARY OF MAJOR QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS II
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure No. Title Page Number
1 Site Location Plan 2
2 Areas C, H and M Site Location Map 3
3 Area C Sampling Locations and Butler Monitoring Well Locations 5
4 Area H Sampling Locations 6
5 Area M Sampling Locations 8
APPENDICES
APPENDDC A - NJDEP AND PINELANDS COMMISSION LETTERS OF CONCURRENCE
APPENDIX B - LIST OF PROPOSED PLAN RECIPIENTS
APPENDK C - PUBLIC MEETING ATTENDANCE LIST
APPENDIX D - PUBLIC MEETING TRANSCRIPT
-------
DECLARATION FOR THE RECORD OF DECISION
Area C - Butler Aviation Fuel Spill,
Area H - Salvage Yard Near Sewage Treatment Plant, and
Area M - Building 202; Gelled Fuel Test Area
...... FAA Technical Center
FACILITY NAME AND LOCATION
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) 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 C, the Butler Aviation Fuel Spill
Area; Area H, the Salvage Yard Near the Sewage Treatment Plant; and Area M, Building 202, the. Gelled Fuel
Test Area 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 Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA), and,
to the extent practicable, the National Contingency Plan. This decision is based on the administrative record
for Areas C, H and M.
The Commissioner of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection concurs with the selected
remedy.
DESCRIPTION OF THE REMEDY
The selected remedy for Areas C, H and M is no further action with ground water monitoring at Area C.
DECLARATION STATEMENT
»
The Federal Aviation Administration and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 2 have
determined that no remedial actions are necessary at Areas C, H and M to ensure protection of human health
and the environment. Pursuant to Section 121(c) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9621(c) and Section 300.430(f)(4)(ii)
of the National Contingency Plan, 40 C.F.R. Section 300.430(f)(4)(ii), the 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.
7/U/j
(Signature) / (Date) '
Gary E. Poulsen, P.E., Manager
Facility Engineering and Operations Division
FAA Technical Center
(Signature) /r (Date)
William J. Muszynski, P.E.
Deputy Regional Administrator
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region II
Declaration - i
-------
DECISION SUMMARY
RECORD OF DECISION
Area C - Butler Aviation Fuel Spill,
Area H - Salvage Yard Near Sewage Treatment Plant, and
Area M - Building 202; Gelled Fuel Test Area
FAA Technical Center
I. SITE NAME, LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The FAA Technical Center encompasses an area of approximately 5,000 acres in Atlantic County, New
Jersey, eight miles northwest of Atlantic City. A facility location map is provided in Figure 1. 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 supply 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 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 Center has a maximum
relief of about 60 feet, ranging from an elevation of ten feet above mean sea level (msl) at the lower Atlantic
City Reservoir to 70 feet 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 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 Technical Center boundaries includes open or forested land and commercial
and residential areas. A large forested tract containing no commercial or residential property exists west of
FAA. To the east, the property is bordered by the Garden State Parkway, the Atlantic City Reservoir, and the
forested land surrounding the reservoir. The area north of the Center contains commercial properties along the
White Horse Pike (Rt. 30) and a concentrated residential area, Pomona Oaks, north of the White Horse Pike.
The closest residential area south of the 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 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 Technical Center.
Area C, referred to as the Butler Aviation Fuel Spill Area although it is not the actual site of the spill, is
located on FAA property, south of adjacent land owned by the City of Atlantic City which has been used by
Butler Aviation as an underground storage facility for jet fuel (Figure 2). In 1984 and 1986, surface fuel spills
occurred onto the soil at the fill stand at the Butler fuel farm. Area C was investigated to determine if the soil
and ground water contamination at the Butler site has migrated onto FAA property, approximately 200 feet
south of the locations of the spills. A more complete description of the site can be found in the Environmental
Investigative/Feasibility Study Report (March 1989) at pages 16-1 to 16-27.
Decision Summary - 1
-------
O
re
O
s:
FROM PLEASANTVILLE. NJ 7.5' USGS
TOPOGRAPHIC MAP, 1989
FIGURE 1.
FAA TECHNICAL CENTER
FACILITY LOCATION PLAN
-------
FIGURE 2.
SITE LOCATION MAP
-------
Area H, the Salvage Yard Near Sewage Treatment Plant, is a former salvage yard located north of the
former sewage treatment plant, adjacent to Area B (the Navy Fire Test Facility) (Figure 2). Based on a review
of aerial photographs, the salvage yard was first used in the late 1950s and was primarily used for the storage
of scrap metal. A more complete description of the site can be found in the Environmental
Investigative/Feasibility Study Report (March 1989) at pages 21-1 to 21-8.
Area M, Building 202; Gelled Fuel Test Area, is located adjacent to Building 202 in the Research and
Development Area south of the Upper Atlantic City Reservoir (Figure 2). Anti-misting characteristics of gelled
fuels were measured at the area by impacting plastic bags of fuel against wire grates while providing an ignition
source. Any residual or unburned fuels were deposited on an asphalt pad or on the adjacent ground. A more
complete description of the site can be found in the Environmental Investigative/Feasibility Study Report (March
1989) at pages 26-1 to 26-8.
H. SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
A. Land Use
The first significant development of what is now FAA property came during the 1930s when the Atlantic
City Reservoir was created by damming the South Branch of Doughty Mill Stream. Prior to 1942, the entire
property was wooded, except for the presence of large borrow pits near the present-day Research and
Development (R&D) facilities. On a 1940 aerial photograph several dirt roads and what appeared to be a
railroad right-of-way traversed 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 Atlantic City Reservoir occurred in the early 1960's. The FAA's large
Technical/Administrative Building was constructed in 1979. The New Jersey Air National Guard has
maintained their facilities at the northern end of the built-up area since 1973.
North of Area C, Butler Aviation operated an underground storage facility for jet fuel until 1993, at which
time the underground storage tanks were removed and replaced with above ground storage tanks. The fuel farm
is currently in operation. In 1984 and 1986, surface fuel spills occurred onto soil next to the filling pad at the
fuel farm. Although a substantial volume of soil was excavated after the spills, a soil and ground water
investigation indicated that residual contamination, including a free-floating fuel product on the ground water
surface, remained. Available site investigation results indicate that ground water contaminants have not been
detected in the Butler monitoring wells located closest to Area C. The NJDEP confirms that the Butler Aviation
Fuel Farm is currently a hazardous waste site under NJDEP oversight and remediation of the site is on-going.
Further, the NJDEP confirms that a remedial action plan for Butler Aviation Fuel Farm has been submitted to
the NJDEP Site Remediation Program. A site plan is provided in Figure 3.
At Area H, a fenced-in salvage yard was used beginning in the late 1950's and continuing through the early
1960's. From the early 1960's through the beginning of the 1990's, the area was used as a storage area
primarily for scrap metal and cable. Currently, no materials are stored within the area. A site plan is provided
in Figure 4.
At Area M, adjacent to Building 202, gelled fuel testing was conducted beginning in 1970 and continuing
for approximately four years. Testing was conducted by impacting one-gallon bags of gelled Jet A fuel onto
a wire grate and providing an ignition source upon impact to measure the anti-misting characteristics of the fuel.
Decision Summary - 4
-------
o
a
G.
M.
5'
oo
ATLANTIC CITY
INTERNATIONAL
AIRPORT
BUTLER
FUEL FARM
AIRPORT ACCESS ROAD
) C
LEGEND
B SURFACE SOIL SAMPLE
• SOIL BORING
(2) FAA MONITORING WELL
BUTLER MONITORING. WELL
0
SCALE
100
FEET
' S >
. «/ /
APPROXIMATE
GROUND WATER
i
FIGURES.
AREA C SAMPLING LOCATIONS
AND BUTLER MONITORING
WELL LOCATIONS
-------
\\
o
s;
§
00
c
•3
I
ON
\r
BUILDING
o128
FORMER
SALVAGE
YARD^
•1B
FORMER WASTEWATER
TREATMENT PLANT
LEGEND
SURFACE SOIL SAMPLE
o
•
SCALE
100
•a
FEET
*
LOCATION
FIGURE 4.
AREA H SAMPLE LOCATIONS
-------
Any residual or unburnt fuels were deposited on an asphalt pad or on the adjacent ground. A site plan is
provided in Figure 5.
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.
B. Environmental Investigation/Feasibility Study
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 Area C, Area H, and Area M, as described below.
AreaC
Area C was included in the Phase I and Phase II EI/FS activities, conducted between December 1986 and
December 1988, to determine if the soil and ground water contamination which occurred at Butler Aviation had
migrated onto FAA property, approximately 200 feet south of the location of the spills. During the Phase I El,
a soil gas survey was conducted on a 50-foot grid of the area to identify potentially contaminated soils or
contaminant plumes through the presence of elevated levels of volatile organic compounds within the soil's pore
space. A geophysical survey (EM-31 and EM-34) and resistivity profiling to detect buried metal objects were
also conducted during the Phase I investigations. Seven surface soil samples, including three sediment samples
collected from a drainage swale located on-site, were collected. Two of the sediment samples were analyzed
for priority pollutants plus 40 (PP+40) while the remaining samples were analyzed for total petroleum
hydrocarbons (TPH). Two 30-foot soil borings were drilled and four subsurface soil samples were collected
to define the vertical extent of contamination and site geology. One of the samples was analyzed for PP+40,
while the other three soil samples were analyzed for TPH. Two shallow monitoring wells were also installed
and sampled to define ground water quality. Both wells were sampled for PP+40. Wells and borings installed
within the FAA property line during the Phase I El indicated, as of June 1987, that no constituents associated
with the Butler Aviation fuel spill had reached the FAA property. An identified soil gas anomaly was thought
to be due to the presence of methane.
Following the Phase I investigation, a Phase II investigation was conducted to determine if dissolved
constituents had migrated onto FAA property since the original round of sampling and to determine if the soil
gas anomaly detected during Phase I was due to the presence of methane. A limited soil gas survey and
resampling of the two ground water monitoring wells was conducted during Phase II investigations. The
additional soil gas survey confirmed that naturally occurring methane due to decaying organic matter was the
source of the original soil gas anomaly. Based on the results of the Phase II ground water sampling conducted
in December 1988, there was no indication that hydrocarbon contamination had migrated from the Butler
Aviation area onto FAA property.
Additional sampling of the two ground water monitoring wells was conducted in November 1992 as required
by the USEPA at proposed "No Action" sites. The samples were analyzed for priority pollutant volatile
organics and the results confirmed that there was no indication that hydrocarbon contamination had migrated
from the Butler Aviation spill area onto FAA property. Subsequent quarterly ground water sampling conducted
in May, August, and December 1993 and February, May and August 1994 has continued to indicate the absence
of contaminant migration onto FAA property.
Decision Summary - 7
-------
UPPER
ATLANTIC CITY
RESERVOIR
D
a
0.
CO
§
GO
I
LEGEND
• PHASE I SOIL SAMPLE
A PHASE II SOIL SAMPLE
COMPOSTTE SAMPLE
AREA
20A
FIGURE 5.
AREA M SAMPLING
LOCATIONS
-------
AreaH
Area H was included in the Phase I EI/FS activities conducted between December 1986 and July 1987 to
determine if past storage practices at the salvage yard area had affected the quality of surface soil or ground
water. Based on the results of the Phase I investigation, the necessity of conducting an evaluation of ground
water quality would be determined. During the El, a soil gas survey was conducted on a 100-foot grid outside
of the fenced area and on a 50-foot grid within the salvage yard to identify potentially contaminated soils or
contaminant plumes through the presence of elevated levels of volatile organic compounds within the soil pore
space. Two small soil gas anomalies were identified and further investigated through the collection of two
composite surface soil samples. A separate volatile organic analysis was conducted on a sample collected from
each of four individual sampling points, while the remainder of the priority pollutant analysis was conducted
on composites of two sampling points. Phase I analytical results indicated that the use of the area as a salvage
yard did not appear to have impacted soil in the area. Two priority pollutant compounds, di-n-butylphthalate
and 4,4'-DDT, were detected in the surface soil samples. No volatile organic compounds were detected in the
soil samples collected from the soil gas anomaly areas. On the basis of the sampling results and the nature of
contaminants detected in Area H soils, no ground water investigations or Phase II site investigations were
conducted at Area H.
To concur with a "No Further Action" finding at Area H, additional site investigation was required by the
USEPA. The November 1992 investigation consisted of the collection of two surface soil samples at the soil
gas anomaly locations to confirm the absence of priority pollutant volatile organic compounds. No volatile
organics were detected in the surface soil samples.
Area M
Area M was included in the Phase I and Phase II EI/FS activities conducted between December 1986 and
December 1988 to determine if gelled fuel tests impacted soil quality in the area around Building 202. Based
on the results of site investigations, the necessity of conducting an evaluation of ground water quality would
be determined. During the El, a soil gas survey was conducted on a 25-foot grid around Building 202 to
identify potentially contaminated soils or contaminant plumes through the presence of elevated levels of volatile
organic compounds within the soil's pore space. Ten surface soil samples were collected and analyzed for TPH
while two surface soil samples were collected and analyzed for priority pollutants. Phase I analytical results
indicated that only limited impacts from the gelled fuel tests are present in the soils around Building 202.
Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) were detected in the soil near the edge of the paved area at a
maximum concentration of 2.1 parts per million (ppm), which is below and does not conflict with current
NJDEP Soil Cleanup Criteria. Soils farther from the test area were found to be unaffected with the exception
of a soil sample collected in a small grassy area immediately adjacent to Building 202, which contained TPH
at a level of 160 ppm. The New Jersey Soil Action Level for TPH applicable at the time the sampling was
conducted was 100 ppm.
Based on the results of the Phase I investigation, a Phase II investigation to delineate the extent of petroleum
hydrocarbon contamination at Area M was conducted. Three surface soil samples were collected for TPH
analysis in the area of the one Phase I sample where the New Jersey Soil Action Level for TPH was exceeded.
The results of the Phase II investigation did not verify the presence of petroleum hydrocarbons in the area.
Additional samples collected in the same area as the Phase I sample failed to confirm TPH concentrations above
the 100 ppm NJDEP Soil Action Level.
Additional surface soil sampling at Area M was conducted in November 1992, as required by USEPA to
concur with a "No Further Action" finding. Two samples were collected, one from the area where a Phase I
Decision Summary - 9
-------
sample which exhibited petroleum hydrocarbons at a level exceeding the NJDEP Soil Action Level was collected
and one from a grassy area just south of the paved area, where unburned fuels were thought to have potentially
drained onto the soil. The samples were analyzed for priority pollutant volatile organics. The additional
investigation confirmed that no volatile organic compounds are present at either surface soil sample location.
On the basis of the sampling results and the nature of contaminants detected in Area M soils, no ground water
investigations were conducted at Area M.
HI. HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
A newspaper notification of the availability of the Proposed Plan for Areas C, H, and M was published in
the Atlantic City Press on August 5, 1994. The notice invited the public to comment on the EI/FS, Risk
Evaluations for the three sites, and Proposed Plan. The Proposed Plan for Areas C, H, and M was also issued
to interested parties (see Appendix B) on August 29, 1994. The public comment period was held from August
5, 1994 through September 3, 1994. The Proposed Plan, EI/FS Reports, and Risk Evaluations were placed in
the administrative record maintained at the Atlantic County Library.
A public meeting was held on August 24, 1994 at the Atlantic County Library. At the meeting,
representatives from the FAA, the FAA's environmental consultant (TRC Environmental Corporation), USEPA,
and NJDEP were available to answer questions about Areas C, H, and M. The attendance list from the meeting
is attached (see Appendix C). 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 C, H, and M 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 C, H, and M is based on the
administrative record.
IV. SCOPE AND ROLE OF RESPONSE ACTION
Based upon the Risk Evaluations conducted for Areas C, H, and M, which are discussed in more detail in
the following sections, no principal threats to human health or the environment have been identified at Areas
C, H or M, thereby providing the basis for the "no further action" decision. It should be noted that Areas C,
H, and M represent three of more than twenty areas of potential environmental concern identified at the FAA
Technical Center. This document addresses only Areas C, H, and M, and is not intended to address the entire
FAA property. The other areas of concern will be subject to separate response action decisions.
V. SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS
A. AreaC
Surface soils at Area C contained low levels of chromium (7.4 to 8.3 ppm), lead (4.9 to 8.8 ppm), zinc (11
to 23 ppm), and cadmium (1.2 ppm). Total petroleum hydrocarbon levels ranged from 2 to 82 ppm. Other
constituents detected in site surface soils include methylene chloride at 0.0074 ppm, tentatively identified volatile
organic compounds (VOC TICs) at 0.012 to 0.065 ppm, and tentatively identified base neutral/acid extractable
organic compounds (BNA TICs) at 8.3 to 14.4 ppm.
Soils in the top 7 to 9 feet below grade (bg) at Area C consist of fine to medium sands which often contain
a small percentage of gravel. From a depth of 7 to 9 feet to the depth of the deepest borings (30 feet), soils
generally consist of fine to very fine sands with a substantial percentage of silt and clay. Subsurface soils
Decision Summary - 10
-------
exhibited BNA TICs at a level of 46 ppm, chromium at 1.7 ppm and zinc at 3.4 ppm. TPH levels ranged from
12 to 19 ppm.
Based on ground water levels measured at Area C and the Butler Aviation Facility, the direction of ground
water flow is expected to be approximately southeast, directly toward the Upper Atlantic City Reservoir. The
depth to ground water at the site is 6 to 9 feet bg, depending on the location within the site boundaries and the
season. Constituents detected in ground water samples which were not detected in blank samples include
toluene (at 0.6 ppb), phenol (at 13.7 to 42 ppb), chromium (at 15 ppb), mercury (at 0.4 ppb), lead (at 5.6 to
6.1 ppb), selenium (at 5.3 to 5.7 ppb) and zinc (at 26 to 35 ppb). The detected levels of these constituents do
not exceed federal or state Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs). VOC TICs have
been detected in ground water samples at concentrations ranging from 17 to 19 ppb but were also present in
the associated trip blank sample at 17 ppb.
B. AreaH
As stated previously, two priority pollutant organics, di-n-butylphthalate and 4,4'-DDT, were detected in
surface soil samples at levels of 0.47 and 0.076 ppm, respectively. BNA TICs were also detected in surface
soil samples at levels ranging from 25.2 to 27.6 ppm. Inorganics detected in surface soils include cadmium (at
1.1 to 1.3 ppm), chromium (at 8.9 to 11 ppm), lead (at 5.7 to 11 ppm) and zinc (at 13 to 23 ppm).
Information regarding the geology at Area H is based primarily on data associated with wells at Area B, the
Navy Fire Test Facility, which borders Area H to the south and east. Soils in the top 30 feet at well B-MW1S,
located approximately 200 feet to the east of the former salvage yard, are dominated by fine to very fine sands
with a substantial percentage of silt. Five hundred feet to the south of Area H, at wells B-MW2S and B-MW3S,
soils in the top 30 feet contain much less silt and are fine to medium grained sand. Based on ground water
levels measured at Area B, the direction of ground water flow at Area H is expected to be approximately south,
toward the South Branch of Doughty's Mill Stream. By extrapolating the Area B ground water contours from
Area B to Area H, it is estimated that the ground water elevation in the vicinity of the former salvage yard
would vary from approximately 33 to 35 feet above mean sea level (msl). With a ground surface elevation of
approximately 50 feet msl at Area H, the depth to ground water at the site is estimated to be on the order of
approximately 15 to 17 feet bg. On the basis of sampling results and the nature of contaminants detected in
Area H soils, no ground water investigations or Phase II site investigations were conducted at Area H itself.
C. AreaM
Surface soils at Area M exhibited BNA compounds, including phenanthrene at 0.64 ppm, fluoranthene at
0.85 ppm, and pyrene at 0.61 ppm. Phenol was detected in one sample at a concentration of 0.15 ppm. BNA
TICs were also detected at concentrations ranging from 12.8 to 39.3 ppm. TPH levels ranged from 5 ppm to
160 ppm, although TPH was also detected in a blank sample at a level of 5 ppm. The 160 ppm level of TPH
could not be confirmed by further sampling of Area M soils. Inorganics detected in surface soils include
cadmium (at 1.2 ppm), chromium (at 3.2 to 3.8 ppm), lead (at 5.6 to 34 ppm) and zinc (at 51 to 75.2 ppm).
Information regarding the geology at Area M is based primarily on data collected during the investigation
of Area 20A, the Salvage Yard Area, which is adjacent to Area M to the west. At wells 20A-MWD and 20A-
MW5D, which are within 200 feet of Area M to the west and east, the top 30 feet of soil is dominated by fine
to coarse sands and gravels containing little silt. Beneath this upper layer, there are two silty clay confining
zones, one at a depth of about 35 feet bg, the other at about 65 feet bg, separated by medium to coarse sand.
The confining zones are underlain at a depth of approximately 75 feet bg by permeable medium to coarse sands
and gravels. Based on ground water levels measured at Area 20A, the direction of ground water flow at Area
Decision Summary - 11
-------
M is expected to be approximately north, toward the Upper Atlantic City Reservoir, with the ground water
elevation at approximately 29 feet above mean sea level (msl) and a depth to ground water of approximately
20 feet bg. On the basis of sampling results and the nature of contaminants detected in Area M soils, no ground
water investigations were conducted at Area M itself.
VI. SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS
Risk evaluations were conducted for Areas C, H and M to evaluate the potential risks to human health and
the environment posed by the sites.
A. AreaC
A Risk Evaluation (September 1989, Revised April 1990 and August 1990) was conducted for Area C based
on the results of the Phase I Environmental Investigations conducted at the site. The detected contaminant levels
in the site soils and ground water were evaluated to determine if Area C poses a threat to human health and the
environment, and whether the site warrants further action or evaluation. Potential risks associated with Area
C were evaluated by considering the nature and extent of contamination at the site, as well as by comparing
detected contaminant levels to relevant regulatory or background levels. It is on the basis of these assessments
that the no further action decision was developed.
The soils at Area C contain low levels of four metals. Of these metals, chromium, lead and zinc were
detected at concentrations typical of New Jersey background levels (Fields, et.al., 1989) while the remaining
metal, cadmium, slightly exceeded typical background levels. Metal contaminant concentrations are below
current NJDEP Soil Cleanup Criteria. Additionally, all metals were detected at levels below the NJDEP Soil
Action Levels which were applicable at the time the sampling was conducted.
The total concentrations of BNA TICs in one surface soil sample and one subsurface soil sample slightly
exceeded the NJDEP Soil Action Level which was applicable to this group of compounds at the time the
sampling was conducted. However, contaminant concentrations do not conflict with current NJDEP Soil
Cleanup Criteria. The constituents which comprise the total BNA compounds detected at Area C are all
unknowns, and therefore cannot be classified as carcinogens or noncarcinogens. However, the priority pollutant
analyses determined that the known priority pollutant BNA carcinogens, such as benzo(a)pyrene, are absent in
these samples.
The levels of constituents detected in the ground water at Area C do not exceed federal or state ARARs.
Considering the lack of priority pollutant carcinogenic BNAs, the low concentrations of unknown
compounds, and the fact that contaminant concentrations do not exceed current federal or state ARARs and do
not conflict with current NJDEP Soil Cleanup Criteria, it can be concluded that Area C evidences no significant
threat to human health or the environment.
B. AreaH
A Risk Evaluation (September 1989, Revised April 1990 and August 1990) was conducted for Area H based
on the results of the Phase I Environmental Investigations conducted at the site. The presence of contaminants
in the site soils was evaluated to determine if Area H poses a threat to human health and the environment, and
whether the site warrants further action or evaluation. Potential risks associated with Area H were evaluated
by considering the nature and extent of contamination at the site, as well as by comparing detected contaminant
levels in site soils to relevant regulatory or background levels. It is on the basis of these assessments that no
Decision Summary - 12
-------
Phase n site investigations were conducted at Area H, no ground water investigations were conducted at the
site, and the no further action decision was developed.
The soils at Area H contain low levels of four metals., including chromium, lead and zinc, which were
detected at concentrations typical of New Jersey background levels (Fields, et.al., 1989). The remaining metal,
cadmium, slightly exceeded typical background levels. Metal contaminant concentrations are below current
NJDEP Soil Cleanup Criteria. Additionally, all metals were detected at levels below the NJDEP Soil Action
Levels which were applicable at the time the sampling was conducted.
Two priority pollutants, di-n-butylphthalate and 4,4'-DDT, were detected in surface soil samples at Area
H. The detected level of 4,4'-DDT is less than the current NJDEP Soil Cleanup Criteria. In addition, the
detected level of 4,4'-DDT was less than the NJDEP Soil Action Level which was applicable at the time the
sampling was conducted. At the time of sampling, a NJDEP Soil Action Level had not been established for
di-n-butylphthalate, but contaminant concentrations are below current NJDEP Soil Cleanup Criteria. Di-n-
butylphthalate is included in the class of compounds know as BNA compounds, for which New Jersey had
established a Soil Action Level of 10 ppm. The total concentration of BNA compounds in each of two surface
soil samples (28 ppm and 25 ppm) slightly exceeded the New Jersey Soil Action Level for BNAs, which was
applicable at the time sampling was conducted, but contaminant concentrations do not conflict with current
NJDEP Soil Cleanup Criteria. The constituents which comprise the total BNA compounds detected at Area H
are primarily unknowns (di-n-butylphthalate accounted for only a very small fraction of the total BNA
concentration in one of the two samples), and therefore cannot be classified as carcinogens or noncarcinogens.
Absent from the total BNA concentration are the known priority pollutant BNA carcinogens, such as
benzo(a)pyrene.
Considering the lack of priority pollutant carcinogenic BNAs, the low concentrations of unknown
compounds, and the fact that contaminant concentrations are below and do not conflict with current NJDEP Soil
Cleanup Criteria, Area H evidences no significant threat to human health or the environment.
C. AreaM
A Risk Evaluation (September 1989, Revised April 1990 and August 1990) was conducted for Area M based
on the results of the Phase I and Phase II Environmental Investigations conducted at the site. The levels of
contaminants in site soils were evaluated to determine if Area M poses a threat to human health and the
environment, and whether the site warrants further action or evaluation. Potential risks associated with Area
M were evaluated by considering the nature and extent of contamination at the site, as well as by comparing
detected contaminant levels in site soils to relevant regulatory or background levels. It is on the basis of these
assessments that the no further action decision was developed.
The soils at Area M contain low levels of four metals. Of these metals, chromium, lead and zinc were
detected at concentrations typical of New Jersey background levels (Fields, et.al., 1989) while the remaining
metal, cadmium, slightly exceeded typical background levels. Metal contaminant concentrations are below
current NJDEP Soil Cleanup Criteria. Additionally, all metals were detected at levels below the NJDEP Soil
Action Levels which were applicable at the time the sampling was conducted.
At Area M, soils exhibited total BNA levels (41 ppm and 13 ppm) that exceeded the NJDEP Soil Action
Level for total BNA compounds (10 ppm), which was applicable at the time the sampling was conducted. The
compounds which constitute the elevated levels of BNA compounds are primarily unknown aliphatic
hydrocarbons and polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (phenanthrene, fluoranthene, and pyrene) associated with
petroleum products. Current NJDEP Soil Cleanup Criteria include levels for fluoranthene and pyrene as well
Decision Summary - 13
-------
as for total organic contaminants. None of the soil samples collected during the site investigations exceeded
or conflicted with these criteria. For the unknown tentatively identified BNA compounds, an evaluation of the
compounds' carcinogenicity and associated risks cannot be made. Phenanthrene, fluoranthene and pyrene all
fall under EPA Group D (Chemical Not Classified) of the Weight-of-Evidence category for potential
carcinogens, since there is inadequate evidence of carcinogenicity in animals. Absent from the BNA compounds
at Area M are the known priority pollutant BNA carcinogens.
Considering the absence of BNA compounds known to be carcinogenic, the low concentrations of unknown
compounds, and the detected concentrations of total BNA compounds, the concentrations of BNA compounds
present at Area M evidence no potential hazard to public health or the environment.
During Phase I investigations of Area M, TPH was detected in one composite surface soil sample at a
concentration that is below current NJDEP Soil Cleanup Criteria, but exceeded the NJDEP Soil Action Level
of 100 ppm, which was applicable at the time the sampling was conducted. Included in the category of total
petroleum hydrocarbons are polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons which can include known carcinogens. The
priority pollutant soil analyses, however, detected no carcinogenic constituents. Phase II confirmation samples
exhibited 10 to 19 ppm TPH, thus indicating that Area M generally exhibits low levels of total petroleum
hydrocarbons (i.e. less than 100 ppm).
Therefore it can be concluded that TPH contamination at Area M evidences no significant threat to human
health or the environment.
VH. DESCRIPTION OF THE "NO ACTION" ALTERNATIVE
The preferred alternative for Areas C, H, and M at the FAA Technical Center is No Further Action with
ground water monitoring at Area C. Results obtained from the environmental investigations have shown that
the levels of contamination are generally below background levels or current New Jersey Soil Cleanup Criteria
and are less than Federal and State ARARs. At several areas, total contaminant levels in soils for certain
classes of chemicals slightly exceeded former action levels, which served as an indicator of the need for further
investigations. The compounds which comprise the total values for these chemical classes, however, consist
of non-carcinogenic priority pollutants or unknown tentatively identified compounds, thereby considerably
reducing the potential risks associated with these total contaminant values. Based on this evaluation, it has been
determined that the areas are protective of human health and the environment. No further remedial activities,
exposure controls or monitoring are proposed for Areas H and M. Continued ground water monitoring is
proposed for Area C until it is determined that the adjacent Butler Aviation facility is no longer a potential
source of contamination. Based on the results of the ongoing ground water monitoring program, further
response actions may be warranted.
After reviewing the existing data base and Risk Evaluation performed for Areas C, H, and M, the USEPA
and NJDEP have indicated concurrence with the Proposed Plan of No Further Action with ground water
monitoring at Area C. Copies of the declarations of concurrence are attached as Appendix A.
Vm. DOCUMENTATION OF NO SIGNIFICANT CHANGES
The Proposed Plan for Areas C, H, and M was released for public comment on August 5, 1994. The
Proposed Plan concluded that No Further Action with ground water monitoring at Area C is required to ensure
protection of human health and the environment at Areas C, H, and M. 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 - 14
-------
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
RECORD OF DECISION
AREA C, BUTLER AVIATION FUEL SPILL,
AREA H, SALVAGE YARD NEAR SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT, AND
AREA M, BUILDING 202; GELLED FUEL TEST AREA
FAA TECHNICAL CENTER
The purpose of this Responsiveness Summary is to review public response to the Proposed Plan for Areas C,
H, and M. 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 C, H, and M.
• Background on Community Development - This section provides a summary of community interest
in Areas C, H, and M and identifies key public issues. It also describes community relations
activities conducted with respect to these areas of concern.
• Summary of Major Questions and Comments - This section summarizes verbal and written comments
received during the public meeting and public comment period.
I. OVERVIEW
Area C is located adjacent to the off-site Butler Aviation fuel spill area, Area H is a former salvage yard near
the sewage treatment plant and Area M is a former gelled fuel test area near Building 202 at the FAA Technical
Center. The FAA Technical Center is located at the Atlantic City International Airport in Atlantic County, New
Jersey. This Responsiveness Summary addresses public response to the Proposed Plan for Areas C, H, and M
only.
The Proposed Plan and other supporting information are available for public review at the Atlantic County
Library, 2 South Farragut Avenue, Mays Landing, New Jersey.
n. BACKGROUND ON COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT
This section provides a brief history of community participation in the investigation and risk evaluation activities
conducted at Areas C, H, and M.
Throughout the investigation period, the USEPA, NJDEP, Atlantic County Department of Health and The
Pinelands Commission have been directly involved through proposal and project review and comments.
Periodic meetings have been held to maintain open lines of communication and to keep all parties abreast of
current activities.
The FAA Technical Center has compiled a list of local public officials who have demonstrated or are expected
to have an interest in the investigations at the facility. Local environmental interest groups were also identified
and included on this list (see Appendix B).
Responsiveness Summary -1
-------
On August 5, 1994, a newspaper notification was published in the Atlantic City Press inviting the public to
comment on the EI/FS process and Proposed Plan. The announcement also identified the time and location of
a public meeting to be held to discuss the No Further Action proposal, the location of the information
repository, the length of the public comment period, and the address to which written comments could be sent.
On August 29, 1994, FAA issued the Proposed Plan for Areas C, H, and M to concerned parties on the list
described in the previous paragraph. Public comments were accepted from August 5, 1994 through September
3, 1994.
A public meeting was held on Wednesday, August 24, 1994 at the Atlantic County Library in Mays Landing,
New Jersey. The Area C, H, and M site investigations and risk evaluations were discussed. FAA
representatives included: Keith C. Buch, Program Manager and Howard Kimpton, Supervisor, Environmental
Section. Carla Struble and Betsy Donovan, Remedial Project Managers, Federal Facilities Section represented
the USEPA Emergency and Remedial Response Division; and Ian Curtis, Case Manager, and George Nicholas,
Case Geologist represented the NJDEP Bureau of Federal Case Management. Sean Clancy represented the
Atlantic County Health Department. FAA's contractor, TRC Environmental Corporation (TRC) also attended.
The complete attendance list is provided as Appendix C to this Record of Decision. A transcript of the public
meeting is provided as Appendix D.
in. SUMMARY OF MAJOR QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS
No questions or comments specifically with regard to the Proposed Plan for Areas C, H and M were raised at
the public meeting held on August 24, 1994, and no written comments were received during the thirty-day
public comment period. One verbal question was received at the public meeting regarding the total number of
areas of investigation at the FAA Technical Center which are being considered for no action decisions. The
FAA's response is that 3 areas, Areas G, I and Q, have signed Records of Decision which call for no further
action. Therefore, with Areas C, H and M, the total number of areas for which the no action decision has been
developed at this time is six. It is possible that there will be other areas considered for no further action.
However, the exact number of areas will be determined at a later date pending the development and finalization
of Risk Evaluations and other documents.
Responsiveness Summary - II
-------
APPENDIX A
NJDEP AND PINELANDS COMMISSION
LETTERS OF CONCURRENCE
-------
APPENDIX B
LIST OF PROPOSED PLAN RECIPIENTS
-------
APPENDIX B
LIST OF PROPOSED PLAN RECIPIENTS
The Honorable William J. Hughes
Member, United States House of Representatives
Central Park East, Building 4, Suite 5
222 New Road
Linwood, NJ 08221
The Honorable James Whelan
Mayor of Atlantic City
Room 706
1301 Bacharach Boulevard
Atlantic City, NJ 08401
The Honorable Calvin D. Brads
Mayor of Galloway Township
300 E. Jimmy Leeds Road
Absecon, NJ 08201
The Honorable Robert Burns
Mayor of Egg Harbor Township
3515 Bargaintown Road
Egg Harbor Township, NJ 08221
The Honorable Bruce Strigh
Mayor of Hamilton Township
6101 13th Street
Mays Landing, NJ 08330
Mr. Richard E. Squires
Atlantic County Executive
1333 Atlantic Avenue
Atlantic City, NJ 08401
The Honorable Frank Lautenberg
United States Senator
208 White Horse Pike
Suite 18-19
Barrington, NJ 08007
Colonel Thomas E. Griffin
Commander, 177th Fighter Interceptor Group
400 Langley Road
ANGACYIAP
Pleasantville, NJ 08232-9500
Mr. Ian Curtis
Case Manager, Bureau of Federal Case
Management
Department of Environmental Protection
CN028
Trenton, NJ 08625-0028
The Honorable William Gormley
New Jersey Senate, Second District
1333 Atlantic Avenue
Atlantic City, NJ 08401
Mr. Dennis Levinson
Chairman, Board of Chosen Freeholders
201 Shore Road
Northfield, NJ 08225
Mr. Terrence Moore
Executive Director, State of New Jersey
Pinelands Commission
Springfield Road
P. 0. Box 7
New Lisbon, NJ 08064
Mr. Neil Goldfine
Executive Director, Atlantic City
Municipal Utilities Authority
29 South New York Avenue
Atlantic City, NJ 08401
Ms. Louise Speitel
Atlantic County Environmental Society
205 Tremont Avenue
Absecon, NJ 08201
Environmental Response Network
Attn: Ms. Doreen Khebzou
104 East Sterling Drive
Absecon Highlands, NJ 08201
Mr. Gus Ruh
Atlantic County Department of Public and
Environmental Health
201 Shore Road
Northfield NJ 08225
B-l
-------
Mr. Clifford Day
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
927 North Main Street, Building D
Pleasantville, NJ 08232
Sierra Club - South Jersey Group
210 Central Avenue
Linwood, NJ 08221
Mr. Stanley Glassey
Chairman, South Jersey Transportation Authority
Farley Service Plaza
P.O. Box 351
Hammonton, NJ 08037
B-2
-------
APPENDIX C
PUBLIC MEETING ATTENDANCE LIST
-------
SIGN-IN SHEET
PUBLIC MEETING
AUGUST 24,1994
PROPOSED PLAN
' AREAS C, H, & M
FAA TECHNICAL CENTER
ATLANTIC CITY INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, NEW JERSEY
*• \ *
NAME:,. ^ •>- ^ %> ; ADDRESS f- ,, -, .PHONE NUMBBS
1.
2.
3.
4.
5. ^.Q^v "T^ VUZ-Uifr Aft TLCV4
6.
7.
8. Pt> >UL, HPrfi, \
12.
13.
114.
15.
17.
18.
19.
||20.
21.
9. Gi£o4G£ Mrc-lAOV-AS ' MTQg-f /
110.
-------
APPENDIX D
PUBLIC MEETING TRANSCRIPT
-------
2
X
•a
j.
s
r
•n
u
a
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
AWAWAWAWAWAWAWAWAWAWAWAWAWAWAWA
TRANSCRIPT OF PUBLIC MEETING
To Discuss the Proposed Plan
Area C - Butler Aviation Fuel. Spill Area
Area H - Salvage Yard Near Sewage Treatment Plant
Area M - Building 202 Gelled Fuel Test Area
FAA Technical Center
Atlantic City International Airport, NJ
AW A\/AW AW AW AW AW AW AW AW AW AW AW AW AW A
Wednesday, August 24, 1994
2:00 p.m.
Atlantic County Library
2 South Farragut Avenue
Mays Landing, NJ 08330
APPEARANCES
For the FAA Technical Center;
For TRC Environmental Coi
KEITH C. BUCK,
Contracting Officer
Technical Representative
ROBERT C. SMITH, P.E.,
Program Manager
JEAN M. OLIVA, P.E.,
Project Engineer
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
-------
8-24-94
Page 2
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
IS
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. BUCK: Welcome to the public hearing for the
Area C, H and M, no action site. My name is Keith Buch.
I'm the project manager for the FAA for a Superfund cleanup.
This meeting has been duly advertised in The Press of Atlan-
tic City. For anyone that's interested, we have additional
copies of the proposed plan and the agenda at the front
desk.
I just want to talk about the FAA's commitment to
the environmental program and to our Superfund cleanup in
general. I think as federal agencies go, we're in the fore-
front of environmental compliance. Since 1986 when we
embarked on our investigation of the FAA Superfund site, we
have spent over twelve million dollars to not only investi-
gate, but to actually embark on cleaning up sites at the
Technical Center. We have our clean-up underway at the sal-
vage yard and very recently been awarded four million dollar
contract to clean up our jet fuel farm; and as you might
have read in The Press in Atlantic City a few weeks back,
work is progressing very nicely on that project as well.
To make sure we do a good job, we are overseen by
both the EPA and the New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection. The EPA, because we're a Superfund site, has
signed a federal facilities agreement with the FAA Technical
Center. The federal facility agreement requires the FAA
Technical Center to meet clean-up schedules for both our
-------
8-24-94
Page 3
a
r
u
n
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
16
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
action sites, as well as our no action sites, which we're
lere to talk about today. If we don't meet the clean-up
schedule, then we can be fined upwards of $10,000 per week.
For those of you who regularly read the En vi r prune n t a 1
Reporter, here recently the Department of Energy was just
fined 2.8 million dollars for missing their deadlines.
Prior to that the Army was filed several million dollars for
missing deadlines. So the Environmental Protection Agency
is very serious about cleaning up federal Superfund sites.
After all, we are the federal government, and we should take
the lead position in setting the standard for Superfund
cleanups and their timeliness for both the federal govern-
ment and for the private sector.
At this time, I would like to turn the meeting
over to our consultants, TRC Environmental Corporation, who
will just take you through a little history of the clean-up
program and then give you a little bit more detailed expla-
nation of why we are taking Areas C, H and M and writing
them off as no action sites, as posing no significant threat
to the environment and requiring no additional investigation
or remediation.
At this point, I would like to turn the meeting
over to Mr. Robert Smith of TRC Environmental Corporation,
and Bob will give you an overview of the clean-up process
and how we got to where we are today so that you can be
-------
8-24-94
Page 4
c
U)
LL
5
o
u
s
•J3
I
JJ
•J)
5
o
i
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
better informed on the history of our cleanup. Bob, could
you, please.
MR. SMITH: Thank you, Keith. I'd.like to very
briefly present a history of the Technical Center and how we
became involved in the environmental investigations here.
In 1980, 1981, contamination was found at the
Price's Pit Landfill. That'.s an area where the Atlantic
City wellfields were located. 1981, New Jersey Department
of Environmental Protection and the Atlantic City Municipal
Utility Authority hired another consultant, Roy F. Weston,
to conduct a study to relocate the wellfields. As a result
of this study, the Technical Center was selected as the site
and best location for the Atlantic City Municipal Utility
water supply. 1983 and 1984, through the New Jersey Depart-
ment of Environmental Protection, Roy F. Weston performed an
assessment of the surrounding areas that might have potenti-
al pollution impacts to the new wells. Weston confirmed the
presence of pollutants, and the New Jersey DEP issued a con-
sent order to the Technical Center to perform a remedial
investigation and feasibility study at the site. FAA con-
tracted then with TRC Environmental Corporation in 1986 to
perform a remedial investigation feasibility study. As part
of that contract, a complete background investigation of the
center was required. Twenty-four areas have been identified
that require evaluation.
-------
8-24-94
Page 5
9
z
c
u.
z
cc
O
u.
Ul
CO
O
s
Q.
O
EC
O
C
O
U
111
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The meeting today will focus on three areas; Area C,
Butler Aviation's Fuel Spill; Area H, the Salvage Yard near
the sewage treatment plant; and Area M, Building 202, Gelled
Fuel Test Area. All work that TRC has performed has been in
accordance with all applicable federal, state environmental
laws, statutes and regulations. The FAA and TRC have worked
closely with US EPA, New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection, Atlantic County Health Department, and with the
Pinelands Commission as required. Each step of the investi-
gation was reviewed and approved ,by both the US EPA and New
Jersey DEP and the Pinelands. No work has been conducted
until all necessary approvals were received.
I'm now going to turn over the presentation to
Jean Oliva, project engineer at TRC, who will go through the
three sites to present today.
MR. BUCH: Just to interrupt the presentation
briefly, I forgot to mention, but I'll mention now, if any-
one has any questions or answers, we'd appreciate it if
you'd please save them for the end, and that if you do have
a question, we'd appreciate that if you'd speak clearly and
state your name and address into the microphone so that we
might be able to record it. Thank you very much.
MS. OLIVA: Hi. My name is Jean Oliva, and I'm an
engineer with TRC Environmental Corporation. And as Bob
mentioned, this afternoon we're presenting the proposed plan
-------
8-24-94 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
for Areas C, H and.M. I'm going to address each site separ-
ately, beginning with Area C.
Area C is located in the central portion of the
FAA Technical Center, and this slide also shows the loca-
tions of Area H and Area M relative to other areas of inves-
tigation at the Tech Center.
Area C is referred to as the Butler Aviation Fuel
Spill Area, although no fuel spill occurred in the area of
investigation. Area C is-located adjacent to a parcel owned
by the City of Atlantic City and operated by Butler Aviation
for fuel storage purposes. The — at the Butler site sur-
face fuel spills occurred in 1984 and 1986, and the site is
currently under investigation under State of New Jersey
Environmental Regulations. This shows the general location
of Area C relative to the Butler Fuel Farm. Area C follows
the fence line of the FAA Technical Center facility which
delineates their property line. There's a drainage swale
that runs through the area. The Butler Fuel Farm is located
north of Area C on the access road which leads to the Atlan-
tic City International Airport Terminal.
This is a photo which was taken in early 1987 from
the Area D Jet Fuel Farm looking north. Area C is roughly
in this area right along here beyond the treeline. You can
barely see the fence line here, and then this is the Butler
i
Fuel Farm. This is the road leading to the Atlantic City
-------
8-24-94
Page 7
I
I/I
u.
O
O
99
I
O
3
in
in
a.
O
cc
o
Ul
I-
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
International terminal.
MR. BUCH: Could you go back one slide, please,
Carl. The — the picture 'of the Butler Fuel Farm was taken ••
from the top of a fuel tank at Area G — D, excuse me, their
jet fuel farm. Just for the record, this entire site is the
site, the jet fuel farm, Area D, that's currently undergoing
extensive remediation as a result of a four million dollar
contract that was just let. Sorry for the interruption.
MS. OLIVA: That's okay. This was another photo
taken — this one was taken in the late summer in 1986.
It's from Area C looking over the jet fuel farm. Again, you
can see the fence line which delineates the edge of the FAA
property. And this is just another view from Area C. This
is the drainage swale that runs through Area C. You can see
the phragmites growing along there and, again, the Butler
Fuel Farm.
The goal of the investigation at Area C was to
determine if the Butler fuel spills had impacted the FAA
property. Preliminary investigations at the site included a
soil gas survey and a geophysical investigation. Surface
soil samples and soil borings were also — surface soils
were collected and soil borings were drilled, and subsurface
soil samples were collected. Two shallow monitoring wells
were installed, and groundwater samples were collected in
two phases in 1987 and 1988, and confirmation sampling was
-------
8-24-94
Page 8
5
3
f.
D
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
conducted in 1992. A quarterly groundwater monitoring pro-
gram was initiated in May of 1993.
This slide shows''the locations of --..at which
samples were collected at Area C. It also shows the loca-
tions of monitoring wells at the Butler Fuel Farm. A free-
floating hydrocarbon product has been detected in two of the
wells located nearest to the fuel farm area.
In evaluating the site investigation results for
each of Areas C, H and M, contaminant levels were compared
to state soil action levels which were applicable at the
time the investigations were conducted as well as to cur-
rent soil clean-up criteria, and groundwater contaminant
levels were compared to drinking water or groundwater quali-
ty standards. At Area C no constituents were detected which
could be associated with the Butler Aviation Fuel Spill on
the FAA property. Tentatively identified semi-volatile
organics were detected in one surface and one subsurface
soil sample at levels which exceeded the New Jersey DEP soil
action level applicable at the time of sampling; however,
these levels do not exceed current soil clean-up criteria.
Therefore, based on the types of contaminants
detected at the site and the fact that the contaminant
levels are less than current soil clean-up criteria, it was
concluded that the site poses no threat to human health or
the environment; however, the Butler site remains a poten-
-------
8-24-94
. Page 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
tial source of contaminant migration to Area C. Therefore,
the proposed plan for Area C is no further action but with
continued groundwater monitoring until it is determined that
the Butler site is no longer a potential source of contami-
nant migration.
We'll now discuss Area H, which is located in the
southwestern portion of the facility near the former sewage
treatment plant. Area H was a former salvage yard which was
operated in the late 1950s until the early 1990s. It was
used mainly for scrap metal storage and coiled cable. It's
no longer used as a salvage yard area.
This is a photo of the site taken in 1988 showing
some of the materials which were stored there at the time.
The goal of the investigation at Area H was to determine if
the past storage practices resulted in site contamination.
Preliminary investigations consisting of a soil gas survey
was conducted, followed by the collection of four surface
soil samples. In 1992 confirmation samples were also col-
lected from soil gas anomaly areas.
This slide shows the locations at which samples
were collected. Samples were collected from each of the
four locations for volatile organics analysis, and then
samples — samples were collected from 1A and IB and from 2A
and 2B and composited for the remainder of the organic and
inorganic analyses. Individual contaminants detected in the
-------
8-24-94
Page 10
2
E
CO
u.
c
£
in
K
Ul
v>
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
soils at Area H were detected at levels less than action
levels and clean-up criteria. In two surface soil samples
total semi-volatile organics exceeded the total action level
applicable at the time of sampling but do not exceed current
New Jersey DEP soil clean-up criteria; therefore, based on
the types of contaminants detected in the soils and the
presence of these contaminants at levels which are less than
regulatory clean-up levels, it was concluded that the site
poses no threat to human health or the environment, and the
proposed plan for Area H is no further action.
Area M, the gelled fuels test facility, is located
in the southeastern portion of the FAA Technical Center in
an area referred to as the Research and Development Area.
At Area M the anti-misting characteristics of gelled fuel
were tested by impacting bags of jet fuel on a wire grate
while providing an ignition source. The testing was con-
ducted from 1970 to 1974.
This is a photo of Area M, again, taken in 1988.
This is Building 202. The testing was generally conducted
in this area. You can see the fence line around the site
which will appear on.a following figure. The investigation
of Area M was conducted to determine if any residuals from
the gelled fuel tests had contaminated the site. A prelimi-
nary investigation consisting of a soil gas survey was con-
ducted, followed by the collection of 15 surface soil sam-
-------
8-24-94
Page 11
z
•J>
JL
s
0
I
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
pies during two phases of investigation. In 1992 two addi-
tional soil samples were collected as confirmation samples.
This slide shows'the locations of the surface soil
samples. The three Phase II samples and the two confirma-
tion samples are all indicated by triangles in this figure.
They were all collected in areas in which the Phase I sam-
ples had exhibited the highest contaminant levels. No indi-
vidual contaminants were detected at Area M at levels which
exceeds the action levels or the clean-up criteria. While
total petroleum hydrocarbons were detected at levels of five
to 160 parts per million, one sample contained total petro-
leum hydrocarbons at a level which exceeded the action level
applicable at the time of sampling. Also, two soil samples
contained total semi-volatile organics at levels which ex-
ceeded the action level at the time of sampling; however,
none of the detected levels exceed current New Jersey soil
clean-up criteria. Therefore, at Area M, based on the types
of contaminants detected and the presence of contaminant
levels at levels which are less than regulatory clean-up
criteria, it was concluded that the site poses no threat to
human health or the environment. And, again, for Area M the
proposed plan is no further action.
In summary, the proposed plan for Areas H and M
are no further action, and for Area C it's no further action
with continued groundwater monitoring. Pending public com-
-------
8-24-94
Page 12
2
3
4
5
6
7
e
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ment, New Jersey DEP and EPA have indicated their concur-
rence with this proposed plan.
This slide shows' the general decision process
summary. We're at the stage where we're presenting the
proposed plan. The FAA considers public comments as one of
the criteria in determining a final remedial decision for
the site. Through public comments received here today and
also through written comments which will be accepted through
September 2nd, the EPA — I'm sorry, the FAA will consider
public comments and determine a final remedial decision to
these sites. The final decision will be presented in a
i
document called the Record of Decision which will include a
responsiveness summary in which all public comments will be
addressed. Upon finalization of the Record of Decision, a
notice will appear in The Press, and the final administra-
tive record will be placed on file — I'm sorry, the final
record of decision will be placed on file in the administra-
tive record maintained here at the library.
I'll now give the presentation back to Keith.
MR. BUCK: Thank you, Jean. Even though Bob or
Jean didn't go into it, I'd like to emphasize that any prac-
tices that may have led to us initially investigating Area
C, H, and M as far as disposal practices have been eliminated
at the FAA, and currently all hazardous waste is handled one
hundred percent in accordance with the Resource Conservation
-------
8-24-94
Page 13
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Recovery Act law and its regulations.
At this point I see no need for any further pre-
sentation since Jean and Bob and myself adequately described
the problem. I would be more than happy at this point in
their presentation to answer any questions or — answer any
questions that members of the public have regarding C, H,
and M, or if someone has a general question concerning our
clean-up program, I'd be more than happy to answer that as
well as this time.
MR. DOBIS: I have a general question. Jean,
where did you get that antenna with that little red thing at
the end?
MS. OLIVA: From an office supply, Ken.
MR. BUCK: Could you please state your name for
the record.
MR. DOBIS: Ken Dobis.
MR. BUCK: Thank you very much. Are there any
other questions that we could answer at this point?
(No audible response)
MR. BUCH: Seeing none, I officially close the
meeting at 2:21. Unfortunately, no members of the public
have shown up. We encourage members of the public to show
up. Our facility is open at any time. Tours of our — of
our Superfund site or of our — any of our facilities, any-
;
one that's interested can contact our Public Affairs office.
-------
8-24-94
Page 14
a
Z
o
O
o
0.
o
c
o
p
a
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
If you're interested in an environmental tour regarding
Superfund projects, they can contact our Public Affairs
office, and they'd be more' than happy to put you.in contact
with myself and would take you around on tour. We're going
to keep up the good work at the FAA Tech Center, and we'll
see you in a little bit with another proposed plan. What's
up next as far as public hearing?
MS. OLIVA: Area 29 and Area 41.
MR. BUCH: Area 29 and 41.
MR. DOBIS: How many no action sites do we have?
Out of the 24 how many areas?
MS. OLIVA: Well, we've — we've already done
records of decision in three, and — three here tonight, and
then there are a number of other ones which we hadn't for-
mally determined whether they're no action or not but we're
proposing for no action.
MR. BUCH: There are seven sites, I believe, so I
think there's thirteen all together.
MS. OLIVA: Seven more?
MR. BUCH: There's thirteen all together, no
action sites. Okay. Very good. We can all go home.
Please drive safely and have a nice evening. We're off the
record.
(Whereupon, the meeting was concluded at 2:30 p.m.)
*****
-------
8-24-94
Page 15
01
cr
co
u-
X
o
u.
*
0
o
en
cr
OJ
CO
a:
a
>
m
cc
O
o
LU
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
.14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
************
CERTIFICATE
I, GLORIA C. IRWIN, of GCI TRANSCRIPTION AND
RECORDING SERVICES, a Notary Public and State- and Federal-
ly-Approved Sound Recording operator and transcriber, do
hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and accurate
transcript of the testimony as taken by electronic sound
recording at the time, place, and on the date hereinbefore
set forth.
I DO FURTHER CERTIFY that I am neither a relative
nor employee nor attorney nor counsel of any of the parties
to this action, and that I am neither a relative nor
employee of such attorney or counsel, and that I am not
financially interested in the action.
Gloria C. Irwin ^
' Notary Public of New Jersey
My Commission expires June 28, 1999
Dated: August 31, 1994
------- |