kirtland air force base precision bombing ranges n-1, n …€¦ · · 2012-04-191 ri/fs tpp...

1 RI/FS TPP Meeting 2 Minutes FUDS ID K06NM044501

Kirtland Air Force Base Precision Bombing Ranges N-1, N-2, N-3, N-4, New Demolition and Oil Refinery Sites

Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS) Technical Project Planning (TPP) Meeting 2

November 14, 2007 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Building – Albuquerque District Office,

Conference Room Albuquerque New Mexico

FINAL MEETING MINUTES

The following acronyms are used throughout this document ABQ Albuquerque, New Mexico BGS Below Ground Surface CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, & Liability Act DoD Department of Defense EE/CA Engineering Evaluation and Cost Analysis ESTCP Environmental Security Technology Certification Program FUDS Formerly Used Defense Site HE High Explosive MC Munitions Constituent MD Munitions Debris MEC Munitions and Explosives of Concern MEC HA MEC Hazard Assessment Methodology MRA Munitions Response Area, includes the entire West Mesa project area MRS Munitions Response Site is a specific site within the MRA. NMED New Mexico Environment Department OE Ordnance and Explosives OERIA OE Risk Impact Analysis PBR Precision Bombing Range PRG Preliminary Remedial Goal RAB Restoration Advisory Board RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act RI/FS Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study SAP Sampling and Analysis Plan

aspencer

Text Box

200-1e K06NM044501_08.10_0023_a


Acronyms, continued: TCRA Time Critical Removal Action TPP Technical Project Planning USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency WAA Wide Area Assessment


The presentation for this meeting is available at http://westmesaproject.com The following matters were discussed, recommended, and/or decided. 1. Welcome, Introductions and Announcements Meeting was called to order at 9:15 am on November 14, 2007 by Mr. David Henry, United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Albuquerque District (ABQ) Welcome, introductions, a brief history of the activities to date at this site, an overview of the meeting objectives, and a short review of the Technical Planning Process (TPP) were presented by Eric Tow of TerranearPMC, the contractor for this phase of the project. Stakeholders were identified:

• The Cities of Albuquerque and Rio Rancho • New Mexico Department of Transportation • Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) representatives • USEPA Region 6 • New Mexico Environment Department • The Pueblo of Laguna • U.S. National Park Service

The list of attendees is presented as Attachment 1 to these minutes. Mr. Tow reviewed the four TPP process phases:

1. Identify the current project 2. Determine data needs 3. Develop data collection options 4. Develop project planning documents

Mr. Tow noted that the first phase of the TPP process was completed in the last meeting and we would attempt to complete the last three phases of the process in this meeting. Julie Jacobs of the New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) asked about the status of the Action Memorandum for the time critical removal action at the New Demolition Area Munitions Response Site (MRS). Carol Wies, USACE stated she would inquire of the Memo’s status. FOLLOW-UP: Carol Wies did check on the status the Action Memorandum. The memorandum was at the USACE South Pacific Division office at the time of her inquiry, and was assured that it would be on the way to Washington D.C., shortly. This information was distributed to the TPP members.


2. Presentation of Similar Site Data David Henry, USACE ABQ presented geophysical and chemical data collected from a nearby Munitions Response Area (MRA) on Pueblo of Laguna lands that have similar characteristics to the West Mesa MRA, with respect to physical area, site dimensions, natural environment, types of munitions used, era the site was used, and types of munitions constituents that might be present in soils. Mr. Henry presented data from 68 soil samples collected in 2005 at the N-10 Target MRS located on Pueblo of Laguna lands. This target was used as a Precision Bombing Range (PBR) by the bombardier training school at the former Kirtland Air Field at the same time the PBRs at West Mesa were active. Analyses consisted of metals and high explosive constituents; soil samples were collected from the main target area. The analytical results indicated that metals were present at concentrations similar to those for the surrounding, unaffected areas, and that high explosives were not present above the laboratory detection limits. All data provided by the Pueblo of Laguna was released with approval from the Tribal Council. Explosives constituents analyzed for this site consisted of HMX, RDX, 1,3,5-trinitrobenzene, 1,3-dinitrobenzene, tetryl, 3,4-initroanaline, nitrobenzene, 2,4,6-trinitrotoluene, 4-amino-2,6-dinitrotoluene, 2-amino-4,6-dinitrotoluene, 2,6-dinitrotoluene, 2,4-dinitrotoluene, 2-nitrotoluene, 4-nitrotoluene, and 3-nitrotoluene. The laboratory analytical results determined that explosives were not present above laboratory detection limits in the soil. Metals analyses included aluminum, antimony, barium, beryllium, cadmium, calcium, chromium, cobalt, copper, iron, magnesium, manganese, nickel, potassium, silver, sodium, vanadium, zinc, arsenic, lead, selenium, thallium, and mercury. The analytical results for metals identified that concentrations of calcium, magnesium, potassium, and sodium in samples collected from the MRS were similar to those collected in background locations. Samples were collected 4-6 inches below ground surface (bgs). There was a discussion concerning whether a possibility exists that munitions other than those currently known (i.e., 100-pound practice bombs, 100 pound high explosive (HE) bombs, and parachute flares) could have used at the West Mesa MRA. David Holladay, USACE described what munitions have been found to date at the West Mesa MRA and what possibly remains after the munitions clearance actions conducted in the early 1950s. Mr. Holladay discussed the differences of use because some types of munitions debris (MD) found at the N-10 MRS have not been found at the West Mesa MRA. While active, West Mesa was used less frequently than the N-10 MRS. Leases on the land comprising the West Mesa MRA were terminated in 1947 and the site was not used after World War II. Mr. Henry also made the clarification after discussion, that there is evidence to suggest that UXO may be present in the New Demolition Area MRS. The Action Memorandum for this MRS is for removal of those items that may pose an imminent hazard only. The Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS) will address the issue of munitions constituents (MC) in soil for the entire West Mesa MRA, including the New Demolition Area MRS.


3. Presentation of Geophysical Data for the West Mesa Site Bob Gregory of TerranearPMC presented a summary of the geophysical data collected to date at the West Mesa MRA. Results of the Wide Area Assessment (WAA) conducted by the Environmental Security Technology Certification Program (ESTCP) were presented. Mr. Gregory described how in the WAA study, data were collected from several airborne platforms and ground towed arrays. These remotely generated data were ground checked by excavating a percentage of the detected geophysical anomalies. A number of intact practice bombs, without spotting charges, were found during the WAA. To supplement the information presented at the last TPP meeting, Mr. Gregory reviewed the total number of excavations and anomalies for each MRS at West Mesa. In addition to a single 100-pound HE bomb and one practice bomb spotting charge previously identified and entered into the project record, Mr. Holladay stated that in October 2002, the City of Albuquerque Soil Amendment Facility had discovered three spotting charges. In conclusion, Mr. Gregory explained that the combined geophysical data collected during the WAA, Engineering Evaluation and Cost Analysis (EE/CA) and Time Critical Removal Action (TCRA) amounts to over 39 percent coverage of the total land area of the West Mesa MRA, far more than is customary for similar sites. MRSs N-1, N-2, N-3, and N-4 were used for practice bombing only; high explosive bombs were used only at the New Demolition Area MRS. Ms. Jacobs (NMED) requested that a walkover be performed at EE/CA investigation site OOU-9 (as designated by the EE/CA) because the nature and boundaries of this area do not appear to be completely defined. This site is outside the former PBR targets in the northwest corner of the West Mesa MRA. Mr. Holladay reported that he has visited this area and did not note the presence of the MD that was indicated by the EE/CA. ACTION ITEM: Obtain data about the three spotting charges found at the Soil Amendment Facility. The RI work plan will address this. In addition the RI work plan will address actions to define the boundaries of the West Mesa MRA in the area of the northwest corner. 4. Presentation of Risk Assessment Options Bob Gregory of TerranearPMC presented the three different risk assessment options available for the West Mesa MRA:

1. OERIA - Ordnance and Explosives Risk Impact Analysis 2. MEC HA - Munitions and Explosives of Concern (MEC) Hazard Assessment

Methodology developed jointly by USEPA and DoD. 3. Fort Ord Protocol – Specifically developed for Ft. Ord located in Monterey Bay,

California Mr. Gregory compared and contrasted the different methods and described how each addressed the nine Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, & Liability Act (CERCLA)


criteria (Attachment 2). Ft. Ord and OERIA address all nine where MEC HA does not take cost, state acceptance or institutional controls into consideration. The Ft. Ord methodology was developed during an intensive, multi-month effort to assess and select appropriate values for each input factor potentially associated with explosives hazards. In order to develop a site specific methodology for West Mesa, a similar effort would be required by all stakeholders. OERIA was used to assess hazards in the EE/CA, completed in 2007. A number of stakeholders involved in the EE/CA phase of the project indicated that, in general, the OERIA methodology was workable, but that the EE/CA report did not provide much detail regarding the chosen input parameters and the rationale for selection of ranking levels. Mr. Vernon Valdez of the Pueblo of Laguna described how the OERIA methodology has been used successfully on munitions projects within Pueblo lands because the flexibility of the method allowed for evaluation of unique cultural issues. Mr. Gregory stated that each of the methods consists of the evaluation of a number of subjective hazard elements and results in a level-based ranking system delineating low to high risk categories.. After discussion, the TPP team agreed that use of the OERIA methodology would be acceptable for West Mesa. OERIA was chosen by the TPP team with the stipulations:

• All terms must be fully defined. • The process must be explained clearly. • Each MRS is to be assessed individually. • Language derived from the MEC HA methodology will be used where appropriate.

In other words, perform a well defined hazard assessment that can be repeated in the future and achieve consistent results with the current approach. 5. Chemical Data Needs Tacy Van Cleave of TerranearPMC presented a summary of the chemical data collected to date at West Mesa MRA. A total of seven surface soil samples had been collected at locations within each of the MRSs with the highest likelihood of detecting MC from historical practice bombing activities at the site. Each sample was analyzed for high explosives using USEPA, SW-846 Method 8330a and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) 8 metals using USEPA Method 6010. The target metals consisted of arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, selenium, and silver. Three background samples were not analyzed for high explosives. No MC were detected above background, New Mexico soil screening levels, or USEPA Region 9 preliminary remediation goals (PRGs) The RI/FS has a budget allocation sufficient to collect approximately 40 soil samples in the West Mesa MRA. It was decided that no sampling will be conducted at the Oil Refinery Site, because the activities of the Soil Amendment Facility have covered the land surface with amended soil. These are points all TPP members agreed upon after discussion:


• All 40 samples will be taken in the New Demolition Area MRS. • Samples will be collected high explosives only. • Metals and nitrates/nitrites will not be sampled/analyzed. Activities at West Mesa

occurred 60 years ago, and no residual concentrations of these constituents can be reasonably expected to persist. Explosives compounds will be the target constituents for this project..

• CRREL 7-Sample Wheel Approach will be the sampling method. • Sampling depth will be 4-6 inches bgs. • Analytical method will be EPA, SW-846 Method 8330b, without the multi-incremental

sampling requirements. • A Level III data package is required to ensure decision level data.

6. Review of Data Needs Worksheets Mr. Tow provided copies of the Data Needs Worksheets for the team to review and fill out together. Mr. Tow stated that the previous presentations were provided to summarize the data collected to date at the West Mesa MRA and other similar sites. He stated that the task for the TPP team in this exercise will be to define any additional data requirements to effectively perform an evaluation of remedial alternatives. After discussion, the team agreed that the data requirements developed in this meeting would be addressed in the RI Work Plan. All of the stakeholders will have an opportunity to review and comment on the Work Plan before the commencement of field work. Meeting adjourned at 4:30 pm MDT.


Attachment 1

Attendance Roster


Attachment 2

CERCLA Evaluation Criteria


The CERCLA criteria are divided into three categories of weighted importance including threshold, balancing, and modifying criteria.

Threshold Criteria Only remedial alternatives that meet these criteria are eligible for selection.

1. Overall protection of human health and the environment is the primary objective of the remedial action and determines whether an alternative provides adequate overall protection of human health and the environment. This criterion must be met for all remedial alternatives.

2. Compliance with ARARs (Applicable and Relevant and Appropriate Requirements) addresses whether an alternative meets Federal and State environmental statutes, regulations, and other requirements that apply or are relevant and appropriate to the sire. This criterion must be met for a remedial alternative to be eligible for consideration. A waiver for ARARs can occur if specific CERCLA criteria for waiver authorization are met.

Balancing Criteria The five primary balancing criteria help describe the relative technical and cost trade-offs among the remedial alternatives.

3. Long term effectiveness and performance refers to the magnitude of residual risk and the ability of an alternative to maintain long term protection after RAOs have been met.

4. Reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume through treatment refers to an evaluation of the anticipated performance of the treatment technologies that may be employed in a remedy. Reduction of toxicity, mobility and/or volume contributes toward overall protectiveness.

5. Short term effectiveness refers to evaluation of the speed with which the remedy achieves protection. It also refers to any potential adverse effects on human health and the environment during the construction and implementation phases of a remedial action.

6. Implementability refers to the technical and administrative feasibility of a remedial action, including the availability of materials and services needed to implement the selected solution.

7. Cost refers to an evaluation of the capital, operation and maintenance, and present value costs for each alternative.


Modifying Criteria These criteria are addressed after public review and comment is received on the Proposed Plan.

8. State acceptance indicates whether the state concurs with, opposes, or has no comment on the preferred alternatives based on review of the feasibility study and the Proposed Plan.

9. Community acceptance assesses the general public response following review and comment

.

Development and Screening of Alternatives: • Identify potential treatment technologies, containment/disposal requirements for

residuals, or untreated waste. • Screen technologies. • Assemble technologies into alternatives. • Screen alternatives as necessary to reduce number subject to detailed analysts. • Preserve an appropriate range of options. • Identify action-specific ARARs.

Detailed Analysis of Alternatives: • Further refine alternatives as necessary. • Analyze alternatives against the nine criteria. • Compare alternatives against each other.

kirtland air force base precision bombing ranges n-1, n …€¦ · · 2012-04-191 ri/fs tpp...

Documents