87th air base wing
play

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

87th Air Base Wing Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst Public Meeting March 14, 2019 Proposed Plan Dix Site NW042 (0900 Area) 87th Air Base Wing Mr. Curtis Frye, P.E. Chief, Environmental Restoration Program, JB MDL AFCEC/CZOE Mr.


  1. 87th Air Base Wing Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst Public Meeting – March 14, 2019 Proposed Plan Dix – Site NW042 (0900 Area)

  2. 87th Air Base Wing Mr. Curtis Frye, P.E. Chief, Environmental Restoration Program, JB MDL AFCEC/CZOE Mr. David Heuer, Phase Manager, Arcadis

  3. Public Meeting Purpose U.S. Air Force is inviting the public to comment on the ◼ proposed environmental actions for the Dix Site NW042 (0900 Area) The opening of a 30-day public comment period was posted in ◼ the Asbury Park Press and Burlington County Times and started March 3 rd and will end April 2, 2019 Comments from the public may be submitted tonight (verbally ◼ or written), or sent to Curtis Frye (mail or e-mail) “WIN AS ONE” 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 Site Remedial Feasibility Proposed Record of Remedial Remedial Long Term Assessment Inspection Investigation Study Plan Decision Design Action Management 4

  5. Proposed Plan Provides information necessary to allow the public to participate ◼ in selecting the appropriate remedial alternatives ◼ 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 “WIN AS ONE” 5

  6. Presentation Agenda Background ◼ Conceptual Site Model ◼ Remedial Action Objectives ◼ Technology Assessment ◼ Assembly and Evaluation of Alternatives; and Identification of the ◼ Preferred Remedy Public Comment Period Information ◼ “WIN AS ONE” 6

  7. Background 7

  8. NW042 Site Location NW042 SITE “WIN AS ONE” 8

  9. NW042 Site Plan “WIN AS ONE” 9

  10. NW042 History ◼ ~40 acre site ◼ Currently vacant grassy land ◼ Military Housing 1955 to 1994 (Kennedy Court Housing complex) • 400 family units in 64 buildings ◼ Undeveloped land prior to construction of housing Photo-credit: Arcadis site investigation photo 10

  11. Summary of Historical Investigations ◼ 2009 surface soil sampling completed by Ft. Monmouth DPW • 102 soil samples collected around former Buildings 923 through 933 for pesticides ◼ August and September 2009 Site Investigation • Geophysical survey (i.e., exploration for potential USTs) • Sitewide, 36 soil borings sampled for VOCs, SVOCs, and metals • 3 temporary wells sampled for VOCs, SVOCs, metals, and pesticides • 12 surface soil samples for PCBs targeting fallen pole-mounted transformers • Buildings 923 through 933, 50 shallow soil borings sampled for pesticides “WIN AS ONE” 11

  12. Summary of Historical Investigations continued ◼ 2012-2013 Remedial Investigation • 472 soil samples collected from 135 soil borings • 18 direct-push technology groundwater samples • 11 monitoring wells installed; 25 groundwater samples collected from wells ◼ The RI focused on a subset of five former buildings (923 through 927) with an extensive sampling program to precisely define nature and extent of impacts and support a thorough Conceptual Site Model (CSM) for the entire site “WIN AS ONE” 12

  13. Conceptual Site Model 13

  14. Investigation/Sampling 2009 through 2012 Impacted media limited to soil near former buildings. Groundwater is not impacted. 14

  15. Nature and Extent ◼ Site soil impacted by three pesticides at concentrations exceeding the Residential Direct Contact Soil Remediation Standards (RDCSRSs) • Alpha chlordane (RDCSRS 0.2 mg/kg) • Gamma chlordane (RDCSRS 0.2 mg/kg) • Dieldrin (RDCSRS 0.04 mg/kg) ◼ Pesticide impacts generally limited to the interval between 2 and 4.5 feet below ground surface near former buildings; no impacts to soil in courtyard areas or in soil 25 feet from former buildings ◼ No VOC, SVOC, PCBs, or metals impacts to soil ◼ Groundwater is not impacted “WIN AS ONE” 15

  16. Source and Distribution Pesticides: alpha chlordane, gamma chlordane, and dieldrin Impacts limited to shallow soil near former housing 16

  17. Remedial Action Objectives (RAOs) 17

  18. Feasibility Study ◼ Feasibility Study (FS) was conducted to evaluate possible remedial alternatives at this site ▪ Trigger for remediation: Pesticides were identified in soils at concentrations above the New Jersey Residential Direct Contact Soil Remediation Standards (RDCSRSs). ▪ Soil is the only media impacted at the site ▪ No action required for groundwater ▪ Surface water and sediment are not present at the site “WIN AS ONE” 18

  19. Remedial Action Objectives ◼ The following RAOs were established for Dix Site NW042 (0900 Area) and are presented below: • RAO No, 1: To prevent human exposure to soil by the direct contact pathway (i.e., inhalation and ingestion-dermal pathways) that would cause unacceptable risk to human health, thereby allowing for unlimited use/unrestricted exposure. • RAO No. 2: To achieve the applicable NJDEP RDCSRS for the identified COCs in soil in a reasonable timeframe, thereby restoring the Site for unlimited use/unrestricted exposure. “WIN AS ONE” 19

  20. Preliminary Remedial Goals “WIN AS ONE” 20

  21. Technology Assessment 21

  22. Pre-Design Investigation 2017 ◼ August 2017 Pre-Design Investigation • 171 subsurface soil and 27 surface soil samples collected for alpha chlordane, gamma chlordane, technical chlordane, and dieldrin ◼ The PDI sampling was completed to confirm the CSM developed during the RI and obtain data to determine site-wide compliance status ◼ The evaluation of Site soils was completed in accordance with the NJDEP Historically Applied Pesticide Technical Guidance (NJDEP 2016) and Technical Guidance for Attainment of Remediation Standards and Site-Specific Criteria (September 2012). • A site-wide average concentration can be calculated to determine compliance with the applicable soil standards using NJDEP-approved statistical calculations “WIN AS ONE” 22

  23. Investigation/Sampling 2017 Soil sampling at Former Buildings 923 through 933 completed during SI/RI phase PDI sampling confirmed the CSM and provided data for compliance calculations. 23

  24. Baseline Compliance Status • Site-wide spatially-weighted average calculated using the Thiessen Polygon method in accordance with NJDEP guidance. • Used all available data from the SI (AMEC 2009), RI (CB&I 2014), and pre- design sampling (2017). • 308 data points across 40 acres (approximately 8 samples per acre) “WIN AS ONE” 24

  25. Targeted Remediation Areas • The compliance averaging calculations were performed by replacing the concentrations of the two highest baseline total chlordane (alpha and gamma) concentration polygons • SB-243 and SB217 – total area 0.3 acres; volume 2,420 cubic yards) • Used a typical soil quality concentration (0.5 mg/kg) resulting from soil mixing (estimated total chlordane was 0.5 mg/kg per the pilot study results provided in FS [Arcadis 2016]). “WIN AS ONE” 25

  26. Technology Assessment Blending/ • In-Situ Soil Mixing Mixing Removal and • Soil Excavation and Offsite Disposal Disposal Treatment • Ex-Situ Soil Treatment and Backfill “WIN AS ONE” 26

  27. In-Situ Soil Mixing Pilot Testing ◼ August 2015 Pilot Test for In-Situ Soil Mixing • Three mixing scenarios were implemented in three different test cells • Baseline and two rounds of post mixing soil sampling were completed • Objective was to determine effectiveness and viability of mixing to support evaluation of this potential alternative in the FS (results included as appendix to the FS [Arcadis 2016]. “WIN AS ONE” 27

  28. In-Situ Soil Mixing Image Credit: 2015 Soil Mixing Pilot Test, Site NW042 28

  29. Removal and Disposal Soil Excavation and Offsite Disposal Image Credit: Excavation remedy at McGuire 29

  30. Treatment Ex-situ Soil Treatment Image Credit: Site remediation project, Arcadis NA 30

  31. Assembly and Evaluation of Alternatives; and Identification of the Preferred Remedy 31

Download Presentation
Download Policy: The content available on the website is offered to you 'AS IS' for your personal information and use only. It cannot be commercialized, licensed, or distributed on other websites without prior consent from the author. To download a presentation, simply click this link. If you encounter any difficulties during the download process, it's possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.

Recommend


More recommend