Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.
Five-Year Review Report
 for Sites 1, 22, 26 and 28

Restoration Advisory Board
 Former NAS Moffett Field
    January 14, ...
Outline



• What a Five-Year Review is

• Sites 1, 22, 26, 28

• Five-Year Review Report findings




                   ...
Five-Year Review Report



•   Five-Year Review Report
     – Site 1: Runway Landfill
     – Site 22: Golf Course Landfill...
When is Five-Year Review Required?



•   If selected remedy does not allow for unlimited use and unrestricted
    exposur...
Past Five-Year Reviews



•   Site 1 - July 2002 and September 2007

•   Site 22 – February 2008

•   Site 26 – February 2...
CERCLA Sites 1, 22, 26, and 28
 Former NAS Moffett Field, CA




               6
Five-Year Review: Sites 1, 22, 26, and 28


Site 1 Record of Decision (ROD) and Remedy

The Final ROD, signed in 1997, sel...
Five-Year Review: Sites 1, 22, 26, and 28



Site 22 ROD and Remedy

The Final Site 22 ROD, signed in 2002, selected the f...
Five-Year Review: Sites 1, 22, 26, and 28


Sites 1 and 22 Findings
• Groundwater contaminants are not migrating from the ...
Five-Year Review: Sites 1, 22, 26, and 28


Site 26 ROD and Remedy
The Final Site 26 ROD, signed in 1996, selected the fol...
Five-Year Review: Sites 1, 22, 26, and 28




Site 26 Remedy Implementation
• Navy constructed the East-side Aquifer Treat...
Five-Year Review: Sites 1, 22, 26, and 28


Site 26 Findings
• Even though EATS has remained off, the dimensions of the VO...
Five-Year Review: Sites 1, 22, 26, and 28


Site 28 ROD and Remedy
In 1993, the Navy adopted the existing 1989 MEW ROD, ag...
Five-Year Review: Sites 1, 22, 26, and 28


Site 28 Findings
• Since startup of WATS, the extent of the VOC plumes general...
Five-Year Review Purpose




•   Evaluates implementation and performance of selected remedy

•   Five-Year Review report ...
Five-Year Review: Sites 1, 22, 26, and 28


Protectiveness Statement

•   The remedies for Sites 1, 22, 26, and 28 are cur...
Five-Year Review: Sites 1, 22, 26, and 28


Site 1 Issues and Recommendations
• Land use restrictions have not been docume...
Five-Year Review: Sites 1, 22, 26, and 28


Site 22 Issues and Recommendations
• Land use restrictions have not been docum...
Five-Year Review: Sites 1, 22, 26, and 28


Site 26 Issues and Recommendations
• EATS groundwater extraction and treatment...
Five-Year Review: Sites 1, 22, 26, and 28


Site 28 Issues and Recommendations
• Potential contaminant sources exist in th...
Summary




Protectiveness Statements of Draft Five-Year Review Report

•   The remedies for Sites 1, 22, 26, and 28 are c...
Questions




    22
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Moffett RAB Basewide Five-Year Review Update

656 views

Published on

Moffett RAB Basewide Five-Year Review Update
Restoration Advisory Board
Former NAS Moffett Field
January 14, 2010
Wilson Doctor, Navy
BRAC Program Management Office West

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Moffett RAB Basewide Five-Year Review Update

  1. 1. Five-Year Review Report for Sites 1, 22, 26 and 28 Restoration Advisory Board Former NAS Moffett Field January 14, 2010 Wilson Doctor Navy Project Manager
  2. 2. Outline • What a Five-Year Review is • Sites 1, 22, 26, 28 • Five-Year Review Report findings 2
  3. 3. Five-Year Review Report • Five-Year Review Report – Site 1: Runway Landfill – Site 22: Golf Course Landfill – Site 26: East Side Aquifers Treatment System (EATS); groundwater VOC plume – Site 28: West Side Aquifers Treatment System (WATS); groundwater VOC plume • Purpose: Evaluate implementation and performance of selected remedies and whether they remain protective • Schedule – Draft report issued October 15, 2009 – Comments received – Final February 2010 3
  4. 4. When is Five-Year Review Required? • If selected remedy does not allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure – For remedial action construction: Initiation of construction triggers the Five-Year Review clock – For no remedial action construction: Record of Decision date is trigger • First Five-Year Review completed within five years • Subsequent Five-Year Reviews completed within five years 4
  5. 5. Past Five-Year Reviews • Site 1 - July 2002 and September 2007 • Site 22 – February 2008 • Site 26 – February 2005 • Site 28 – February 2005 • 2010 – first Five-Year Review with these sites in one report 5
  6. 6. CERCLA Sites 1, 22, 26, and 28 Former NAS Moffett Field, CA 6
  7. 7. Five-Year Review: Sites 1, 22, 26, and 28 Site 1 Record of Decision (ROD) and Remedy The Final ROD, signed in 1997, selected the following remedy: • Institutional controls (IC) • Groundwater and landfill gas monitoring • Consolidation of former Site 2 landfill materials into the Site 1 landfill • Construction and maintenance of a multi-layer Site 1 Landfill cap Purpose: • To prevent contact with landfill waste • To prevent further release of contamination from the landfill to the groundwater • To prevent migration of landfill gas 7
  8. 8. Five-Year Review: Sites 1, 22, 26, and 28 Site 22 ROD and Remedy The Final Site 22 ROD, signed in 2002, selected the following remedy: • ICs • Groundwater and landfill gas monitoring • Construction of landfill cover Purpose: • To prevent contact with landfill waste • To prevent further release of contamination from the landfill to the groundwater • To prevent migration of landfill gas 8
  9. 9. Five-Year Review: Sites 1, 22, 26, and 28 Sites 1 and 22 Findings • Groundwater contaminants are not migrating from the landfills • Landfill gas is not migrating past the landfill boundaries. • The Site 1 and Site 22 landfill covers are functioning as intended. • Burrowing animals have not penetrated deeper layers or exhumed landfill wastes. 9
  10. 10. Five-Year Review: Sites 1, 22, 26, and 28 Site 26 ROD and Remedy The Final Site 26 ROD, signed in 1996, selected the following remedy: • Southern Plume: – ICs – Groundwater monitoring – Extraction and treatment of groundwater to drinking water standards • Northern Plume: – Groundwater monitoring only due to poor water quality and low risk Purpose: • To protect beneficial use of groundwater as potential future source of drinking water 10
  11. 11. Five-Year Review: Sites 1, 22, 26, and 28 Site 26 Remedy Implementation • Navy constructed the East-side Aquifer Treatment System (EATS) to extract and treat groundwater – EATS operational beginning in January 1999 – EATS turned off in 2003 so alternative treatments could be evaluated – Navy is currently conducting pilot test • Groundwater monitoring conducted annually • Navy and NASA signed MOA in 1999 for ICs 11
  12. 12. Five-Year Review: Sites 1, 22, 26, and 28 Site 26 Findings • Even though EATS has remained off, the dimensions of the VOC plumes have been stable and their boundaries have not migrated. • Overall, VOC concentrations are stable or decreasing. TCE plume, Upper A Aquifer 2003/2008 12
  13. 13. Five-Year Review: Sites 1, 22, 26, and 28 Site 28 ROD and Remedy In 1993, the Navy adopted the existing 1989 MEW ROD, agreeing to clean up contamination attributable to Navy sources. The ROD selected the following remedy: • Treatment of unsaturated soil • Extraction and treatment of groundwater to drinking water standards Purpose: • To remove sources of VOCs to groundwater • To protect beneficial use of groundwater as potential future source of drinking water • West-side Aquifers Treatment System (WATS) constructed and operated since 1998 • Groundwater monitoring conducted annually 13
  14. 14. Five-Year Review: Sites 1, 22, 26, and 28 Site 28 Findings • Since startup of WATS, the extent of the VOC plumes generally has not changed. • VOC concentrations generally have remained the same or decreased. • WATS is functioning as intended in accordance with the ROD. TCE plume, Upper A Aquifer 2003/2008 TCE plume, Lower A Aquifer 2003/2008 14
  15. 15. Five-Year Review Purpose • Evaluates implementation and performance of selected remedy • Five-Year Review report includes the following: – Determines whether remedy is functioning as intended and is protective – Documents any deficiencies identified during the review – Recommends specific actions to ensure that a remedy will be or will continue to be protective 15
  16. 16. Five-Year Review: Sites 1, 22, 26, and 28 Protectiveness Statement • The remedies for Sites 1, 22, 26, and 28 are currently protective of human health and the environment. • To ensure long-term protectiveness, follow-up actions to address issues must be implemented. 16
  17. 17. Five-Year Review: Sites 1, 22, 26, and 28 Site 1 Issues and Recommendations • Land use restrictions have not been documented in its land use planning documents as specified in MOA. – NASA to add necessary documentation to its ERD. • Ground squirrels and gophers burrowing within the landfill boundary. – Navy has implemented abatement plan 17
  18. 18. Five-Year Review: Sites 1, 22, 26, and 28 Site 22 Issues and Recommendations • Land use restrictions have not been documented in NASA’s land use planning documents as specified in MOA. – NASA to add necessary documentation to its planning documents. 18
  19. 19. Five-Year Review: Sites 1, 22, 26, and 28 Site 26 Issues and Recommendations • EATS groundwater extraction and treatment remedy is an inefficient and ineffective method to address groundwater contamination. – Navy is implementing a second pilot test and will determine next course of action based on the results. • NASA has not restricted groundwater use in its land use planning documents as required in the ROD. – NASA to incorporate this language into its planning documents. 19
  20. 20. Five-Year Review: Sites 1, 22, 26, and 28 Site 28 Issues and Recommendations • Potential contaminant sources exist in the former Building 88 area, associated sewer lines, and the Traffic Island Area. – Navy is implementing a pilot test and will determine next course of action based on the results. • Vapor Intrusion – Potential long-term human health risk – Being addressed by EPA Proposed Plan and Record of Decision • Meeting cleanup goals – Navy will continue to participate in a regional strategy to address groundwater contamination; strategy will be documented in a Regional Feasibility Study. 20
  21. 21. Summary Protectiveness Statements of Draft Five-Year Review Report • The remedies for Sites 1, 22, 26, and 28 are currently protective of human health and the environment. • To ensure long-term protectiveness, follow-up actions to address issues must be implemented. Five-Year Review Report Schedule • Draft report issued October 15, 2010 • Received comments • Final February 2010 21
  22. 22. Questions 22

×