87th Air Base Wing Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst Public Meeting December 13, 2017 Proposed Plan McGuire Operable Unit-3

Transcription

1 87th Air Base Wing Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst Public Meeting December 13, 2017 Proposed Plan McGuire Operable Unit-3

2 87th Air Base Wing Mr. Curtis Frye, PE Chief, Environmental Restoration Program, JB MDL Mr. Tim Llewellyn, Project Manager, Arcadis Mr. Bob White, Phase Manager, Arcadis Mr. Don Sorbello, FPM

3 Public Meeting Purpose U.S. Air Force is inviting the public to comment on the proposed environmental actions for the McGuire Operable Unit 3 (OU-3) Sites LF002, LF019, LF020, and WP021 The opening of a 45-day public comment period was posted in the Asbury Park Press and Burlington County Times and started December 10 th and will end January 23, 2018 Comments from the public may be submitted tonight (verbally or written), or sent to Curtis Frye (mail or ) 3

4 Status of CERCLA* Process Remedial Investigation (RI) - characterization of site Feasibility Study (FS) - assessment of possible remedies Proposed Plan (PP) - solicit public input on preferred remedy Record of Decision (ROD) - legal documentation of remedy selection Remedial Design (RD) - remedy implementation plan Remedial Action (RA) - remedy implementation *Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) Preliminary Assessment Site Inspection Remedial Investigation Feasibility Study Proposed Plan Record of Decision Remedial Design Remedial Action Long Term Management 4

5 Proposed Plan Provides information necessary to allow the public to participate in selecting the appropriate remedial alternatives for McGuire OU-3 The Proposed Plan Summarizes site history, investigations, and results of human health and ecological risk assessments Describes remedial alternatives considered Provides a comparative analysis of remedial alternatives based upon USEPA established criteria Presents the preferred remedial alternative Contains information on community participation 5

6 Presentation Agenda Site Information Previous Investigations - Summary of Findings Risk Assessment Remedial Action Objectives Remedial Alternatives and Evaluation Preferred Alternative Public Comment Period Information 6

7 SITE LOCATION N You are here LF019 LF020 WP021 LF002 7

8 OU-3 LAYOUT LF019 LF020 N LF002 WP021 8

9 SITE LAYOUT: LF002 (Landfill No. 4) N WP021 LF002 9

10 SITE LAYOUT: LF019 (Landfill No. 5) N LF019 10

11 SITE LAYOUT: LF020 (Landfill No. 6) N LF020 11

12 Current Conditions Tactical Area 1A and part of the larger Land Navigation Training Area LF019: Photo taken 11/2016; facing southeast LF002: Photo taken 11/2016; facing southeast 12

13 Background: LF002 (Landfill No. 4) LF002 was used for disposal of mixed waste between 1958 and the early 1970s Disposed materials may have included general municipal/construction waste/debris, coal ash, and drums containing liquid waste (possibly oil, fuel, or solvents) There is no evidence of high-hazard military-specific waste (e.g., chemical warfare agents or munitions) The amount of waste material disposed is estimated at 422,000 cubic yards Currently used as a training area 13

14 Background: LF019 (Landfill No. 5) LF019 was used for disposal of mixed waste between 1970 and 1973 Waste disposal occurred by burning bulk waste in-place and applying a clean soil cover Disposed materials may have included construction debris, domestic waste, coal ash, wood, waste metal, spent artillery casings, and drummed liquid waste There is no evidence of high-hazard military-specific waste (e.g., chemical warfare agents or munitions) The amount of waste disposed at the landfill is estimated at 82,000 cubic yards 14

15 Background: LF020 (Landfill No. 6) LF020 was used for disposal of mixed waste between 1973 and 1976 Disposed materials may have included concrete, metal, wood, glass, paper, and plastic There is no evidence of high-hazard military-specific waste (e.g., chemical warfare agents or munitions) The amount of waste material disposed is estimated at 120,000 cubic yards The landfill was covered with a one to two-foot thick soil cap Post-closure, the landfill has been used for storage of equipment, training, and currently as a transfer station for debris/waste 15

16 SITE LAYOUT: WP021 (Waste Water Treatment Plant Disposal Area) N LF002 WP021 16

17 Background: WP021 (Waste Water Treatment Plant Disposal Area) WP021 was used for stockpiling of dewatered sludge generated by the adjacent wastewater treatment plant on the ground surface between 1970 and 1980 In 1981, part of the stockpiling area was closed and some sludge was disposed in the Fort Dix Sanitary Landfill (LF010) All of the sludge was removed from the site by 1994 Adjacent Waste Water Treatment Plant was decommissioned in

18 OU3 Previous Investigations/Actions Investigations were completed between including: Preliminary Assessment/Site Inspection Remedial Investigations (RI) Supplemental groundwater sampling at LF002 A Time Critical Removal Action in 2012/2013 at LF019 and LF020 Additional groundwater sampling as part of Performance-Based Remediation Impacted soils/buried wastes associated with LF002, LF019, and LF020 were documented as well as impacted soil hot spots at WP021 Groundwater samples collected during the RI indicated presence of VOCs, SVOCs, and metals above background 18

19 OU3 Risk Assessment A Risk Assessment is an EPA approved quantitative method to assess possible health risks based on: A hazard assessment chemicals above minimum health screening levels are carried into the risk assessment An exposure assessment will populations be exposed to these chemical and how (residential use, industrial use, trespasser etc.) A toxicity assessment what is the possible health effect based on the chemicals concentration and toxicity Also required to comply with state laws or regulations determined to be "Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate" (ARARs) 19

20 Risk Assessment Results Soil: No unacceptable exposure risks Sediment: No unacceptable exposure risks Surface Water: No unacceptable exposure risks Groundwater: Unacceptable risks and hazards identified to human health Buried Waste: Presumed to pose inherent risk and hazard Thus there is a trigger for CERCLA action 20

21 Compliance with State ARARs Compliance with State ARARs for soil and groundwater is also required Soil: Remediation at LF002, LF019, and WP021 where soil concentrations of PCBs exceed state standards (residential and nonresidential) Groundwater: Pineland non-degradation standards will be used as remedial goals at LF002, LF019, and LF020 21

22 Use of Presumptive Remedy Question: What is a presumptive remedy? Answer: Preferred technologies for common categories of sites (e.g., landfills) Presumptive remedies streamline the remedy selection process (i.e., removal not considered as an option) Evaluates technologies that are best suited for the site Ensures consistent selection of remedial actions Landfill sites must exhibit appropriate characteristics for applicability of a presumptive remedy (e.g., type of waste, volume, low risks/hazards) 22

23 OU-3 Feasibility Study Feasibility Study (FS) was conducted to evaluate possible remedial alternatives at this site Concentrations in groundwater do exceed human-health based standards and non-degradation standards Groundwater is contaminated with volatile organic compounds (VOCs), semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs), and metals Soil and landfill wastes are contaminated with VOCs, pesticides, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), SVOCs, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and metals Ecological risk due to contaminants in surface water is manageable when the presumptive remedy for landfills is implemented 23

24 OU-3 Remedial Action Objectives Landfills (LF002, LF019, and LF020) RAO No. 1 (Human Health) Prevent human contact to all landfill waste, including direct contact with buried waste material RAO No. 2 (Environmental) Reduce the potential for ecological direct contact with buried and exposed waste material, prevent the environmental release of waste material to surface erosional action, and reduce infiltration of precipitation Groundwater (All Sites) RAO No. 1 (Human Health) Prevent human exposure (due to ingestion) to COCs exceeding health-based standards RAO No. 2 (Environmental) Achieve groundwater standards at the classification exception area (CEA) boundary and prevent further degradation of groundwater quality for site-related constituents at the CEA boundary and beyond the limit of the CEA 24

25 OU-3 Remedial Action Objectives (continued) Surface Soil (LF002 and LF019) RAO No. 1 (Human Health) Prevent future non-residential exposure to contamination in soil exceeding the non-residential standard Surface Soil (WP021) RAO No. 2 (Human Health) Prevent future residential exposure to contamination in soil exceeding the unlimited use/unrestricted exposure standard Surface Water (All Sites) RAO No. 1 (Human Health) Prevent human exposure (recreational uses and ingestion) to surface water that may be impacted by groundwater containing concentrations of site-related COCs exceeding health-based standards, and ensure that the Pinelands standards are met at the point of compliance RAO No. 2 (Environmental) Prevent further degradation of surface water quality 25

26 Landfill Covers RCRA Subtitle D Cap 2-ft thick Soil Cover Prevents direct contact with buried waste Prevents infiltration to groundwater through cap Utilizes synthetic materials and soils to build cap Prevents direct contact with buried waste Reduces infiltration to groundwater through cover if properly compacted Uses soils only to build cover Figures reference: 26

27 Additional Technologies Assessed Removal and Disposal Removes hazard from site and disposes in an off-site permitted landfill Long-Term Monitoring Monitors contaminants in groundwater and surface water and provides notice of increasing concentrations Land Use Controls Prevents contact with contaminated groundwater, soil, or buried waste 27

28 Examples of Land Use Controls Groundwater Institutional Controls Classification Exception Area (CEA) and Well Restriction Area (WRA) prohibit unauthorized use of groundwater Land Use Controls Restrictions preventing the construction of occupied buildings and prohibiting uncontrolled excavation over portions of the site with buried waste Signage will be placed describing restrictions (e.g., no digging) to prevent exposure of buried waste An example of signage and barriers used at Fort George G. Meade, Maryland similar to implementation at JBMDL 28

29 OU-3 Remedial Alternatives Technology 1* ft Thick Soil Cover** X X X RCRA Subtitle D Cap** X X X Hot Spot Capping X X Hot Spot Removal X X LUC Establishment for Hot Spots X X Groundwater Institutional Controls X X X X X X Land Use Controls for Buried Waste X X X X X X Long-Term Monitoring of Groundwater and Surface Water * Alternative 1 is the no further action alternative ** This technology requires long-term maintenance X X X X X X 29

30 CERCLA Evaluation Criteria Threshold Criteria Overall protection of human health and the environment Compliance with applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs) Primary Balancing Criteria Long-term effectiveness and permanence Reduction of toxicity, mobility, and volume through treatment Short-term Effectiveness Implementability Cost Effectiveness Modifying Criteria State/Support Agency Acceptance Community Acceptance 30

31 Evaluation of Alternatives Criteria Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment Compliance with ARARs Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume through Treatment Does Not Meet Does Not Meet Meets Meets Meets Meets Meets Meets Meets Meets Meets Meets Meets Meets Poor Good Good Good Good Good Good Poor Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Adequate Short-Term Effectiveness Poor Good Good Good Good Good Good Implementability Poor Excellent Excellent Excellent Good Good Good Cost No Cost Good Excellent Good Adequate Adequate Adequate While Alternative 3 is not the lowest cost alternative, it provides the most effective overall protection of human health and the environment Alternative 5, 6, and 7 provide no significant advantages in terms of risk reduction and protection of human health and the environment 31

32 OU3 Preferred Alternative Alternative 3 2-ft Thick Soil Caps Over the Landfills and the Establishment of Engineering and Institutional Land Use Controls, Groundwater Institutional Controls, and Long Term Monitoring of Groundwater and Surface Water, and PCB Soil Hot-Spot Removals Buried Waste 2-ft Thick Soil Caps Land Use Controls (e.g., no-dig signage and construction restrictions) PCB- Contaminated Soils Hot-spot removals at locations outside of capped areas Groundwater and Surface Water Long-term monitoring plan Groundwater institutional controls (e.g., CEA/WRA) 32

33 An Example of Alternative 3 N WP021 LF002 33

34 Soil Cover Photo-Credit: Photo-Credit: 34

35 Proposed Plan The PP will be available for public review from December 10, 2017 to January 23, 2018 in the Administrative Record located: Burlington County Library 5 Pioneer Boulevard Westampton, NJ NJDEP Records Custodian 401 East State St. P.O. Box 420 Trenton, NJ A copy of the PP also available online at: or at (click on the Community Involvement tab) Public comments will be reviewed and considered before remedy selection is finalized and documented in the Record of Decision 35

36 Public Comments Comments from the public will be accepted tonight (verbal or written) Comments will be accepted until January 23 th, 2018 Send comments to the following: Mail: US Air Force Attn: Mr. Curtis Frye; Chief Environmental Restoration Program 787 CES/CEIE 2403 Vandenberg Avenue JB MDL, NJ