87th Air Base Wing Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst Restoration - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

87th Air Base Wing

Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst Restoration Advisory Board 16 March 2017

87th Air Base Wing

• Mr. Curtis Frye, P.E.

Chief, JBMDL Environmental Restoration Program AFCEC/CZOE

Review of Action Items

3

“WIN AS ONE”

Action Items

• JBMDL hosted a PFOS/PFOA Open House on

February 28, 2017 from 5:30-8 p.m. at the Christa McAuliffe Middle School cafeteria in Jackson Township

• Purpose was to inform the community on the
• ff-base drinking water sampling program
• Approximately 41 local community residents

attended

• For additional information, visit the JB MDL

PFOS/PFOA information page at http://www.jointbasemdl.af.mil/PFCs

87th Air Base Wing

Chris ten Braak, PM Parsons Remedial Investigation Lakehurst Proving Grounds and Bombing Targets Site ZZ0003 Parachute Jump Circle Bomb Target and Target Area A

5

Meeting Agenda

• Roles and Responsibilities for Organizations conducting

the RI

• Site History of Lakehurst Proving Grounds
• Conceptual Site Model
• Review RI Data Collection
• Review RI Findings
• MEC Hazard Assessment
• Human Health RA
• Ecological RA
• RI Conclusion

6

“WIN AS ONE”

Key Project Organizations and Roles

6

Organization Role

Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst (JB MDL)

Project manager for the RI. Coordination with regulators

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha District (CENWO)

Program manager for AF Civil Engineering Center

U.S. Army Engineering Support Center, Huntsville (USAESCH)

Implementing agency

Parsons Government Services Group Inc.

Prime contractor to USAESCH

Edgewood Chemical Biological Center (ECBC)

Air monitoring team, CA laboratory

Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, and High-Yield Explosives (CBRNE) Analytical Remediation Activities (CARA)

CWM assessment and packaging

Project Manager for Non-Stockpile Chemical Materiel (PMNSCM)

CWM technical support and disposition

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)

Federal regulator

New Jersey Department of Environment Protection (NJDEP)

State regulator

7

Site History

• 1915 -1917: Eddystone Ammunition Corporation proved out projectiles

for Russian Imperial Government on 4,000 acres near Lakehurst village – Testing of 3-inch shrapnel projectiles, 75-mm projectiles, high- explosive projectiles, time fuzes, and shrapnel projectiles

8

Site History

– 1917 - 1921: U.S. Army Ordnance Department (Chemical Warfare Service) testing chemical projectiles on the Lakehurst Proving Ground ranges – Including mustard, phosgene, and chloropicrin – 75mm, 4.7-inch, 105mm, 155mm, 8-inch, Stokes mortars, and Livens projectors

9

“WIN AS ONE”

9

Site History

 1930s-1940s: West Range used for Navy practice bombing

including miniature and practice bombs containing marker

• charges. Documents show that live bombs were dropped on the

Parachute Jump Circle, although considerable effort was expended to recover these items

 Bombing and testing ceased in 1945

10

“WIN AS ONE”

10

Previous Investigation

Site Inspection:

 Digital geophysical mapping (DGM) along 3-foot-wide

transects (at a spacing of 30-feet between transects)

 Surface soil sampling  Groundwater sampling

Recommended an RI to:

 Investigate subsurface

anomalies in DGM data

 Conduct soil sampling

biased toward CWM/MEC

 Collect additional

groundwater samples

11

“WIN AS ONE”

Conceptual Site Model

Land Use and Receptors

PJCBT = 40 acres Target Area A = 22 acres Located within 290-acre Parachute Jump Circle:

• Current Use: Payload drop training and quarterly mowing
• Land use controls: intrusive activities prohibited (unless the

location is cleared and authorized for the proposed activity)

• Future Use: No nonmilitary use
• Receptors: residents (hypothetical)

commercial/industrial workers military or civilian personnel conducting parachute training authorized site visitors ecological receptors

11

12

“WIN AS ONE”

12

Remedial Investigation

Objectives and Tasks

1) Characterize CWM/MEC

• Are CWM and/or MEC present? If so, what types?

 Intrusive investigation of subsurface anomalies

2) Characterize chemical agent (CA) and munitions constituents (MC) contamination in the subsurface

• Is CA/MC present in subsurface soil at concentrations

that pose unacceptable risks to human or ecological receptors?

 Biased sampling underneath intact MEC/CWM Analysis = CA, ABPs, explosives, and metals

• Is CA/MC present in groundwater at concentrations that

pose unacceptable risks to human receptors?

 Groundwater well installation and sampling Analysis = CA, ABPs, explosives, and total metals

13

“WIN AS ONE”

Intrusive Investigation Results

 Intrusive investigation of selected subsurface anomalies

• 385 at PJCBT
• 391 at Target Area A

 2 CWM Items  35 UXO Items  658 MD items  8 Disposal Pits

13

14

“WIN AS ONE”

CWM ITEMS Found

75mm Projectile (50% mustard filled) CWM – Livens Projector (50% phosgene filled)

15

“WIN AS ONE”

SOIL INVESTIGATION

• Soil sampling underneath CWM/MEC was conducted at both

investigation areas.

• Collection and analysis of additional soil samples based on results
• f sampling.

15

16

“WIN AS ONE”



Seven groundwater wells installed



Groundwater sampling to evaluate potential MC impacts from the limited soil contamination identified at the investigation areas during the SI No exceedances of screening values detected in groundwater samples

GROUNDWATER INVESTIGATION

16

17

“WIN AS ONE”

• MEC HA Score is “Hazard Level 2”. This hazard level indicates an area

with “high” potential explosive hazard conditions.

• Based on the confirmed presence
• f subsurface CWM and MEC,

a potential exists for both CWM and explosive hazards throughout PJCBT and Target Area A.

Explosive Hazard Assessment

17

18

Risk Assessment for Soil

“WIN AS ONE”

Human Health Risk Assessment in subsurface soil

• No chemicals of concern (COCs) were identified at the sampled

locations

• Unacceptable risks to human health are not expected at these

sampled locations Ecological Risk Assessment in subsurface soil

• Antimony, copper, lead and zinc identified as COPECs.
• These COPECs present potentially unacceptable risk to

ecological receptors.

• Note: The sampling approach was biased to CWM/MEC

locations and, therefore, likely overestimate the exposure level.

• Additionally, copper appeared to be correlated to demolition and

were confirmed to be highly localized.

19

RI Conclusions

“WIN AS ONE”

PJCBT and Target Area A

• CWM/MEC hazards identified, potential exists for both CWM and explosive

hazards throughout the investigation areas.

• Eight disposal pits identified (revision to the CSM).
• No unacceptable Human Health Risk identified for Groundwater.
• No unacceptable Human Health Risk identified for sampled locations*
• Potential unacceptable risk to ecological receptors for antimony, copper, lead and

zinc in soils at CWM/MEC locations.

20

“WIN AS ONE”

RI Recommendations

20

Based on the presence of CWM/MEC hazards and ecological MC Risks, an FS is recommended to evaluate possible remedial actions.

87th Air Base Wing

• Mr. Tom Crone, Deputy Project Manager

ARCADIS

Update on McGuire Operable Units 1 and 3 Landfill Sites

22

Agenda (OU1 and OU3 Landfill Sites)

 Overall Project Status  Site location and nomenclature  Site history and current conditions  Discussion of pertinent site data (OU1 only)  Discussion of the Remedial Alternative Development

23

 OU1

• Feasibility Study being

reviewed by the Air Force

 OU3

• Feasibility Study has been

reviewed by EPA and is being finalized

• Proposed Plan is being

reviewed by the Air Force

Overall Project Status

24

Location and Nomenclature Operable Unit 1 (OU-1)

Operable Unit 1 (OU-1), Landfill Sites

• LF-03 – Landfill No. 2
• LF-04 – Landfill No. 3
• ST-07 – Former Defense

Reutilization Marketing Office (DRMO)

25

OU-1 Site History (LF-03,ST-07, and LF-04)

 LF-03/ST-07

• Operated from 1950 - 1960s
• Trench and fill
• Mixed municipal waste
• Generally a continuous waste mass
• ST007: PCB removal action conducted during 2011

 LF-04

• Operated for a shorter duration 1956/57
• Eight discrete waste burial pits

26

OU-1 Recent Investigations

 LF-03

• Baseline Ecological Risk Assessment
• Surface water sampling and culvert investigation
• Installation of a new monitoring well
• Two rounds of groundwater sampling
• Slope stability analysis and landfill cover assessment

 LF-04

• Baseline Ecological Risk Assessment
• Surface water sampling
• Two rounds of groundwater sampling

27

OU-1 Current Site Conditions

 LF-03

• Generally flat with the exception of the North Run

Embankment

• Mixed open fields with heavy vegetation
• North Run embankment
• Groundwater flows to the North Run

 LF-04

• Gently sloping topography and heavily forested
• Bisected by Defense Access Highway
• Groundwater flows to the North Run

28

OU1 – Site Layout (LF-03/ST-07)

LF-03 ST-07

Groundwater Flow

29

Current Landfill Cover Conditions LF-03/ST-07

Photo taken 01/2015; facing west

30

Current Landfill Cover Conditions North Run Embankment

Photo taken 01/2015; facing north toward North Run

31

North Run Adjacent to LF-03

Photos taken on 11/23/2016

32

North Run Culvert (LF-03)

Photo taken on 04/2015

33

OU-1 – Site Layout (LF-04)

34

Landfill Cover Condition LF-04

Photo taken on 04/2015

35

North Run LF-04

Photos taken on 04/2015

36

OU-1 Feasibility Study (FS) Summary and Alternative Development

37

Alternative1 Summary

Alternative 1: No Action

• Required
• Establishes a baseline to compare the other alternatives

Alternative 2: Optimized Soil Cover

• Ensure a minimum 1 ft to 2 ft of existing soil cover over the

buried waste

• Conduct a landfill cover verification investigation
• LF-03: Stabilize slope along North Run embankment

Alternative 3: 2 Foot (ft) Soil Cover

• Install a 2-ft soil cover over the waste, regardless of existing

soil cover

• Prevents direct contact of buried waste, does not prevent

infiltration of stormwater through waste

• Clear cut forests at both sites to prepare for cap installation
• LF-03: Stabilize slope along North Run embankment

Alternative 4: RCRA Subtitle D Landfill Cover

• Install a 2-ft thick RCRA Subtitle D Cover
• Typical landfill cover with impermeable layers
• Prevents infiltration of stormwater
• LF-03: Stabilize slope along North Run embankment

1Only the substantively different aspects of the proposed alternatives are discussed

Proposed Remedial Alternatives OU-1

38

Alternative 2 - Optimized Soil Cover: LF-03/ST-07

39

Subgrade Plan for Alternatives 3 and 4: LF-03/ST-07

40

Grading Plan for Alternatives 3 and 4: LF-03/ST-07

41

Alternative 2 - Optimized Soil Cover: LF-04

Key Assumption: only a portion of the buried waste will need additional cover

42

Subgrade Plan for Alternatives 3 and 4: LF-04

43

Final Grading Plan for Alternatives 3 and 4 LF-04

44

OU-1 Path Forward

Date Activity March 2017 Draft FFS submitted for regulatory review June 2017 Finalize FFS Oct 2017 Finalize Proposed Plan April 2018 Finalize Record of Decision

45

Operable Unit 3 (OU-3) Discussion

46

Location and Nomenclature Operable Unit 3 (OU-3)

Operable Unit 3, Landfill Sites

• LF-02 – Landfill No. 4
• LF-19 – Landfill No. 5
• LF-20 – Landfill No. 6
• WP-21 – Former Waste Water

Treatment Plant Disposal Area

47

Operable Unit 3 (OU-3) Site History

Operational Dates

• LF-02 (Landfill No. 4): 1958 and the early 1970s
• LF-19 (Landfill No. 5): 1970 to 1973
• LF-20 (Landfill No. 6): 1973 to 1976
• WP-21(Former Waste Water Treatment Plant

Disposal Area): 1970’s to 1980’s; decommissioned in 1994

48

Operable Unit 3 (OU-3) Recent Investigations

 Additional 11 monitoring wells installed during 2012  Additional groundwater sampling – two rounds during 2016  Annual landfill inspections conducted for 2015 and 2016

49

Operable Unit (OU-3) – Site Layout

LF-19 LF-20 LF-02 WP-21

50

Current Landfill Cover Conditions

LF-02: Photo taken 11/2016; facing southeast LF-19: Photo taken 11/2016; facing southeast

51

Alternative1,2 Summary

Alternative 1: No Action

• Required
• Establishes a baseline to compare the other alternatives

Alternatives 2, 3, 4: 2-ft Soil Cover

• Similar to the soil cover proposed at OU-1
• Install a 2-ft soil cover over the waste, regardless of existing

soil cover

• Soil removal for Alternative 3

Alternative 5, 6, 7: RCRA Subtitle D Landfill Cover

• Similar to the cap proposed at OU-1
• Install a 2-ft thick RCRA Subtitle D Cover
• Typical “landfill” cover
• Prevents infiltration of stormwater
• Soil removal for Alternative 6

1Only the substantively different aspects of the proposed alternatives are discussed 2Individual alternatives are proposed for the three landfill sites but use consistent technologies

Proposed Remedial Alternatives OU-3

52

OU-3 Soil Removal for Alternatives 3 & 6

LF-02

WP-21

WP-21

53

OU-3 Surface Water Sample Locations

LF-19 LF-20 LF-02 WP-21 SW-A SW-B SW-C

54

OU-3 Path Forward

Date Activity Oct 31, 2016 Revised Draft Final FS submitted for regulatory review March 2017 Finalize FS July 2017 Finalize Proposed Plan Sept 2017 Finalize Record of Decision

55

OU-1 Use of a Presumptive Remedy Question: What is a presumptive remedy Answer: Preferred technologies for common categories

• f 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)

87th Air Base Wing

• Mr. Tom Crone, Deputy Project Manager

ARCADIS

Update on Lakehurst Sites

57

Agenda Lakehurst Sites

 Site location and history  Recent findings and activities  Planned future activities

58

Lakehurst Study Areas

59

Area A/B (AT014, LF029, LF042, TT013) and Area C (AT016 and TT017) Discussion

60

Areas A/B and C Area A/B Area C

61

 Area A/B

 Variety of industrial and training facilities including a fuel farm and landfills  Pump and treat system and air sparge/soil vapor extraction systems operated

from 1995 to 2014 to treat groundwater and soil

 Plume stability study completed 2014-2016. Volatile organic compounds are

present in groundwater

 Routine groundwater monitoring is ongoing

 Area C

 Variety of industrial and training facilities including a fuel farm and a fire

training area

 Pump and treat system and air sparge/soil vapor extraction systems operated

from 1995 to 2014 to treat groundwater and soil

 Plume stability study completed 2014-2016. Volatile organic compounds are

present in groundwater

 Routine groundwater monitoring is ongoing

Areas A/B and C Site History

62

 2016 Five Year Review found remedy to be protective and

recommended completing the MNA/PSS, and updating the contaminant of concern lists for groundwater and TT013 soil

 Area A/B

• TT013 and LF042:

 Plume stability study found additional AS/SVE is needed to achieve

RGs by 2021

 Pre-design sampling in 2016 provided input for design and confirmed

TT013 soils are above RGs

 Design to expand AS/SVE treatment is being reviewed by EPA  Semi-annual sampling of 17 wells completed in April and October 2016

 Five wells had contaminants above RGs in October

Areas A/B Recent Findings and Activities

63

 Area A/B (continued)

• LF029 and AT014:

 Plume stability study found MNA will achieve RGs by 2021  Semi-annual sampling of 9 wells completed in October

 One well had a contaminant above RGs in October

Areas A/B Recent Findings and Activities

64

Areas A/B October 2016 Results

65

TT013 System Expansion

Current System Footprint

66

 Area C

• AT016 and TT017:

 Plume stability study found Additional AS/SVE is needed to

achieve RGs by 2021

 Pre-design sampling in 2016 provided input for design and

confirmed AT016 and TT017 soils are below RGs

 Design to expand AS/SVE treatment is being reviewed by EPA  Semi-annual sampling of 26 wells completed in April and

October 2016

 Eight wells had contaminants above RGs in October

Area C Recent Findings and Activities

67

Area C October 2016 Results

68

 Area A/B and C

• Continue routine groundwater sampling at all sites
• Expand treatment systems at TT013, LF042, AT016 and

TT017

 Drilling should start in May/June 2016  Systems operational by August 2017

• Submit ESD to update contaminant of concern list and

remedial goals

• Submit ESD to document no further action for soils at AT016

and TT017

Arcadis’ contract requires achievement of remedial goals by 2021

Areas A/B and C Planned Future Activities

69

Area D (LF031) Discussion

70

Area D Area D

71

 Site reported received sanitary waste (trash) in 1960 or

1961

 Landfill closed and capped in 1980  Record of Decision (ROD) in 1993 for no action with

groundwater monitoring

 Chlorinated volatile organic compounds are present in

groundwater

 Routine groundwater monitoring is ongoing  2016 Five Year Review found remedy to be protective and

recommended updating the contaminant of concern list

Area D Site History

72

 Annual sampling of 6 wells in November 2016  Decreasing or stable trends in groundwater concentrations  Two wells had contaminant concentrations above remedial

goals

• 1,4-dichlorobenzene detected at 6 ug/L vs RG of 2 ug/L
• Chlorobenzene detected at 8.2 ug/L vs RG of 5 ug/L

Area D Recent Findings and Activities

73

Area D 2016 Results

Contaminants exceeding RGs in 1993

74

Area D Planned Future Activities

Continue annual sampling of six wells Schedule

 May 2017: EPA/DEP complete review of 2016 Report  November 2017: Collect annual samples  January 2018: Submit 2017 Report

Arcadis’ contract includes monitoring through 2024, but groundwater remedial goals may be achieved earlier than expected

75

Area H (DP032) Discussion

76

Area H Area H

77

 Grass covered and forested areas bordered by wetlands. Site includes

launching ends of five test tracks and several maintenance buildings

 A ROD for DP032 signed in 1996 for operating a pump and treat

system

 Sources of contamination included former drainage systems and spills

where fuel was drained from jet engines.

 Lead, benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylenes, and naphthalene were

identified in the ROD

 Chlorinated volatile organic compounds and petroleum hydrocarbons

are present in groundwater

 Routine groundwater monitoring and system operation is ongoing  2016 Five Year Review found remedy to be protective and

recommended optimizing the system and updating the contaminant of concern list

Area H Site History

78

 Semi-annual sampling of 10 wells in April 2016 and 20

wells in October 2016

 Decreasing or stable trends in groundwater concentrations  Two wells had contaminant concentrations above remedial

goals in April and seven wells had contaminant concentrations above remedial goals in April

• Ethylbenzene detected at 35 to 190 ug/L vs RG of 5 ug/L
• Xylenes detected at 7.1 to 240 ug/L vs RG of 2 ug/L
• Naphthalene detected at 4.1 to 210 ug/L vs RG of 2 ug/L

 System treated 13.6M gallons of water in 2016

Area H Recent Findings and Activities

79

Area H November 2016 Results

Contaminants exceeding RGs in 1990

80

Continue semi-annual sampling of 10 and 20 wells Continue operation of pump and treat system Schedule

 May 2017: EPA/DEP complete review of 2016 Report  November 2017: Collect annual samples  January 2018: Submit 2017 Report

Arcadis’ contract includes operation and monitoring through 2024

Area H Planned Future Activities

81

Area I/J (OW006) Discussion

82

Area I/J Area I/J

83

 Developed land used for testing of aircraft launching and

recovery activities since 1958

 Record of Decision in 1999  Chlorinated volatile organic compounds are present in

groundwater

 Routine sampling for monitored natural attenuation is

• ngoing

 2016 Five Year Review found remedy to be protective and

recommended updating the contaminant of concern list

Area I/J Site History

84

 Annual sampling of 28 wells in November 2016  Decreasing or stable trends in groundwater concentrations  Nine wells had contaminant concentrations above remedial

goals

• PCE detected between 2.7 and 7.1 ug/L vs RG of 1 ug/L
• TCE detected between 1.3 and 37 ug/L vs RG of 1 ug/L
• Cis-1,2-DCE detected between 3.0 and 41 ug/L vs RG of 1

ug/L

Area I/J Recent Findings and Activities

85

Area I/J 2016 Results

Contaminants exceeding RGs in 1992

86

Area I/J Cis-1,2-DCE trends at well NI

87

Area I/J Trends at well NI

88

Continue annual sampling of 28 wells Schedule

 May 2017: EPA/DEP complete review of 2016 Report  November 2017: Collect annual samples  January 2018: Submit 2017 Report

Area I/J Planned Activities and Schedule

89

Area K (SA004) Discussion

90

Area K Area K

91

 Grass covered, densely forested areas bordered by

• wetlands. Site includes receiving ends of five test tracks

and several maintenance shops

 Record of Decision in 1997 for limited pumping of

groundwater with sprinkler irrigation and monitor contaminants through sampling and analysis

 Chlorinated volatile organic compounds and petroleum

hydrocarbons are present in groundwater

 Routine groundwater monitoring is ongoing  2016 Five Year Review found remedy to be protective and

recommended updating the contaminant of concern list

Area K Site History

92

 Annual sampling of 9 wells in November 2016  Decreasing or stable trends in groundwater concentrations  Two wells had contaminant concentrations above remedial

goals

• TCE detected at 1.7 ug/L vs RG of 1 ug/L
• Cis-1,2-DCE detected at 2.6 ug/L vs RG of 1 ug/L

Area K Recent Findings and Activities

93

Area K 2016 Results

Contaminants exceeding RGs in 1997

94

Continue annual sampling of nine wells Schedule

 May 2017: EPA/DEP complete review of 2016 Report  November 2017: Collect annual samples  January 2018: Submit 2017 Report

Arcadis’ contract includes monitoring through 2024, but groundwater remedial goals may be achieved earlier than expected

Area K Planned Future Activities

87th Air Base Wing

• Mr. Tom Crone, Deputy Project Manager

ARCADIS

JB MDL PBR CONTRACT UPDATE

96

“WIN AS ONE”

McGuire Summary

NPL Site Status

OU# Description Final FS Final PP Final ROD OU1 3 Landfill Sites Under AF review Winter 2017 Spring 2018 OU2 10 Industrial Sites Fall 2017 Spring 2018 Summer 2018 OU3 4 Landfill Sites EPA/NJDEP comments addressed—under final review Under AF review Planned for Summer 2017 Fall 2017 OU4 1 Jet Fuel Storage site Fall 2017 Spring 2018 Summer 2018 OU5 3 Misc. Sites Winter 2017 Spring 2018 Fall 2018 OU6 Fuel Spills under Apron Fall 2017 Spring 2018 Fall 2018 OU7 4 Industrial Sites Winter 2017 Summer 2018 Winter 2019 OU8 5 Sites on the Airfield Winter 2017 Summer 2018 Winter 2019

97

“WIN AS ONE”

McGuire Summary

NPL Site Progress since the December RAB

• Data from significant 2016 field events integrated into FS technical

memo’s

• OU6, OU7, and OU8 Final RI reports submitted for Air Force review
• OU1 and OU3 FS under Air Force (OU1) or regulatory (OU3) review
• OU2 and OU4 FS under development (OU4 to be submitted to the Air

Force this month)

• OU3 Proposed Plan under Air Force review

98

“WIN AS ONE”

McGuire Summary

 NPL Sites (Continued)

• Pilot scale tests of potential

remedies under evaluation at OU7 and OU8

• In-Situ Microcosms (bench scale

testing) evaluation will be complete in April

• Field scale pilot testing for in-situ

bioremediation planned for summer 2017

99

McGuire State Led Petroleum Storage Sites General

All sites are in remedial action and moving toward close out in the future

Remedies include:

• Monitored Natural Attenuation
• Four sites in second year of remedy (CF011; SS015; TU020; TU025)
• AS/SVE
• One site (TU013)—operating and removing petroleum contamination
• ISCO
• One site (TU018)—initial injections complete
• Biosparging
• One site (TU023) – construction complete
• Source excavation/MNA
• TU003 currently being excavated and will be in MNA only by May 2017
• SS502 planned for sediment/soil removal action in late 2017

Site Closeout

• One site closed (DP501-Bld. 1907)
• 2016 Annual report recommends site close-out at TU022 and TU033
• Close out by administrative transfer to NPL sites in 2017 at SS015 and TU029

100

McGuire State Led Petroleum Storage Sites: TU013 (UST E112)

• Air Sparge/Soil Vapor Extraction at

TU013 has been running since summer 2016

• Petroleum mass recovered to date is

275 pounds

• Operation planned to continue for 1 to

2 years

TU013 (UST E112) – Cumulative Mass Removed (lbs)

101

McGuire State Led Petroleum Storage Sites TU003

Former Army & Air Force Exchange Gasoline Station

• Located near the former main base

entrance (Wrightstown-Cookstown Road and East Arnold Ave)

• Underground fuel storage tanks were

removed in the 1990’s

• Soil and groundwater contamination

documented at the site

• Original plan under the PBR was for an

AS/SVE system but subsurface conditions were not permeable enough

• Excavation of contaminated soils and

placement of Oxygen Release Material (ORM) is ongoing followed by MNA

102

McGuire State Led Petroleum Storage Sites TU023

Former Pumphouse B1707

• Located off the main aircraft apron
• Six JP-4 USTs (installed in 1957) were

removed in 1999.

• Jet fuel compounds were documented in

the post excavation soil samples

• Biosparging is the selected remedy at

this site (similar to an AS/SVE system injection oxygen into the ground to enhance degradation of contaminants)

• System was installed in January 2017

and is undergoing start-up and shakedown testing

103

“WIN AS ONE”

BOMARC Update

 Feasibility Study under NJDEP review OT016 (Missile Launcher),

WP005 (JP-X Discharge Pit), and ST015 (MOGAS UST)

BOMARC SITE

104

“WIN AS ONE”

BOMARC OT-16/WP005 SCHEDULE

 Feasibility Study

• Draft FS to NJDEP September 2016 and under review
• Final FS May 2017

 Proposed Plan

• Final PP (and public meeting) November 2017

 Record of Decision

• Final ROD May 2018

 Remedial Action

• Winter 2018/2019

105

“WIN AS ONE”

Dix Update

Air Sparge Systems (TU019a—Former Taxi Stand) AS/SVE systems operational at all three sites.

0.00 50.00 100.00 150.00 200.00 250.00 300.00 350.00 400.00 Mass Recovered (lbs)

TU019a - Cumulative Mass Recovered (lbs)

Cumulative Mass Recovered (lbs)

106

“WIN AS ONE”

Dix Update

Air Sparge Systems (TU970—Bld. 6045) AS/SVE systems operational at all three sites.

0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 Mass Recovered (lbs)

TU970 - Cumulative Mass Recovered Over Time

Cumulative Mass Recovered (lbs)

107

“WIN AS ONE”

Dix Update

Air Sparge Systems (NW044—Bld. 5136) AS/SVE systems operational at all three sites.

0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00 120.00 140.00 160.00 180.00 200.00 Mass Recovered (lbs)

NW044 - Cumulative Mass Recovered (lbs)

Cumulative Mass Recovered (lbs)

108

“WIN AS ONE”

Lakehurst Update

Provided earlier tonight

109

Basewide Activities

Base-wide Well Inspection Ongoing (Well FT at Area D)

 Biennial well survey

completed

• ~2000 monitoring

wells at JB MDL

• All have been

inspected and will be repaired as needed

110

Basewide Activities

Land Use Controls

 All sites have been

inspected and 2016 Certification Report under AF review

 Replace or delete

picture LF010

111

RAB Agenda Ideas

“WIN AS ONE”

 Tentative RAB date: 2017 schedule is to be determined  Suggested agenda topics

112

PUBLIC COMMENTS