navy hangar one public meeting slides

Public Meeting for Installation Restoration Site 29Hangar OneEngineering Evaluation / Cost Analysis

7:00 to 9:00 p.m.August 26, 2008

BRACBRACPMO WESTPMO WEST

BRACBRACPMO WESTPMO WEST

Review of the Public comment Process Mr. Darren Newton

Overview of the Navy’s Mr. Darren Newton

Environmental Restoration Program

EE/CA Summary Mr. Mark Walden

Public Comments Open to the Public

AGENDA

Environmental Restoration Program Management

• The ER program for Former NAS Moffett Field is managed by the BRAC Program Management Office West with support from the Southwest Division Naval Facilities Engineering Command

• The BRAC PMO reports to Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Installations & Environment (ASN-I&E)

Overview of the CERCLA process

PA

Removal ActionAMEE/CA

SI RI FS PP ROD RD/RASite

Complete

Preliminary Assessment (PA)Discover potential hazardous waste release

Site Inspection (SI)Verify potential hazardous waste releaseRemedial Investigation (RI)Conduct site studiesFeasibility Study (FS)Develop cleanup solutionProposed Plan (PP)Propose cleanup solution(Subject to a 30-day public comment period)Record of Decision (ROD)Select the cleanup solutionRemedial Design / Remedial Action (RD/RA)Design and conduct the cleanup solution

Engineering Evaluation / Cost Analysis (EE/CA)Evaluate and propose removal actions(subject to a 30-day comment period)

Action Memorandum (AM)Select a removal action

Removal Action (RA)Conduct the removal action

NAS Moffett Field Environmental Restoration Program

At a Glance …

• There are 29 sites listed in the Navy’s Moffett IR Program• NAS Moffett Field is listed on the National Priorities List, and US EPA is the

lead regulatory agency• The “BRAC Cleanup Team” is composed of the Navy, US EPA, and the San

Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board• A “Federal Facilities Agreement” exists between the Navy and BCT

members

Current phase for Installation Restoration Site 29

-- Public Comment on the EE/CA --

• Provides for community involvement

• Summarizes environmental efforts to-date

• Presents the recommended removal action

• Leads to the Action Memorandum which is the decision document

Hangar 1Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis

Revision 1

Former Naval Air Station Moffett FieldAugust 26, 2008

NAS Moffett Field – Hangar 1

• Hangar 1 constructed in 1932

• 1994: NAS Moffett Field, and Hangar 1, transferred to NASA

• Hangar 1 used for Naval Reserve, air shows, open houses, and various public functions

• 1997 NASA identified PCBs from the settling basin:

• 2003 Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) identified in Hangar 1 building material.

• Hangar 1 is eligible for the National Register of Historic Places


SITE BACKGROUND


Site Background (Continued)

• 2003: A time-critical removal action (TCRA) conducted by NASA removed PCB-contaminated sediment in trench

• 2003: The Navy conducted a TCRA to coat exterior surfaces with asphalt emulsion

• 2005: Rain gutters on hangar cleaned out

• Currently, Hangar 1 is closed and fenced to control access


Aroclor 1260Aroclor 1268Total PCBs

Lead

Asbestos

Aroclor 1260Aroclor 1268

Analyte(s)

33 to 120 mg/kg32 to 94 mg/kg65 to 214 mg/kg

Structural Frame Paint

101,160 mg/kg198,570 mg/kg

Paint Chips

0.7% to 18% Chrysotile Asbestos

(18 Samples)

Roofing and Surfacing Materials

(40 Samples)

Maximum 5,000 mg/kgMaximum 188,000

mg/kg

Corrugated Siding(18 Samples)

Concentration(s)Sample Medium

Hangar 1 Building Materials Analytical Results

• PCB concentrations in the hangar materials require action.

• Siding is Robertson Protected Metal (RPM)– Created by bonding woven chrysotile asbestos, PCBs, and asphalt coatings to a

steel core.

• Structural framing is coated with lead-based paint containing PCBs

• Hangar 1 is a threat to human health and the environment.


ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS

HANGAR 1 SIDING COMPOSITION


• Navy, US EPA, and Water Board agreed to non-time critical removal action (NTCRA) to address threat.

• A removal action achieves CERCLA goals of risk reduction and includes community involvement.

• Removal Action Objectives (RAOs):– Control the release of Hangar 1 contamination

– Reducing the threats to human health and environment

REMOVAL ACTION


• Addressed removal of contaminant sources from Hangar 1

• Identified cleanup alternatives

• Evaluated based upon implementability, effectiveness and cost

– Implementability:• Refers to the overall technical and administrative feasibility

• Includes community input

– Effectiveness:• Refers to the ability to meet the RAOs

– Cost:• retained for the comparative analysis.

Compared alternatives satisfying implementability and effectiveness, including cost estimations

ENGINEERING EVALUATION/COST ANALYSIS (EE/CA)


• Structural analysis on the hangar was conducted to support the revised EE/CA

• Recommend an alternative


ENGINEERING EVALUATION/COST ANALYSIS (continued)

CLEANUP ALTERNATIVES EVALUATED 1. Enclose entire hangar inside another structure

2. Cover with rubberized material

3. Coat with asphalt-emulsion – same as previous TCRA

4. Coat with acrylic coating

5. Cover with plasma sprayed oxide

6. Cover with new visually similar siding

7. Media blast contaminated surfaces

8. Neutralize PCBs using emulsified bimetallic extraction

9. Remove contaminants by chemical stripping and coating

10.Remove siding and coat interior surfaces

11.Demolish and remove hangar

12. Collect stormwater runoff and treat on site

13. Collect stormwater runoff and treat/dispose off site



HISTORIC MITIGATION OPTIONS

• Historic mitigation options were evaluated for each of the 13 cleanup alternatives:

– Historic American Engineering Record (HAER) documentation• All Alternatives

– Oral Histories of individuals who worked in the during different eras• All Alternatives

– Virtual Hangar 1 interactive compact disk (CD)• All Alternatives

– Inventory-catalogue of Hangar 1 collections maintained in the Moffett Field Museum

• All Alternatives


HISTORIC MITIGATION OPTIONS (continued)

– Preservation of Hangar 1 man-cranes• All Alternatives

– Matching or replacing Hangar 1 exterior features with coatings or materials similar in color or appearance to the original hangar

• Alternatives 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

– Coating the exposed steel frame with a protective coating similar in color to the former siding

• Alternative 10

– Design the proposed storage and treatment system to be aesthetically compatible with the Historic District

• Alternatives 12 and 13

REMOVAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES AND

HISTORIC MITIGATION MEASURES COST SUMMARY


$26,680,000$0$26,680,000$350,000$26,330,000Alternative 11 –

Demolish and Remove Hangar

$41,070,000$14,910,000$26,160,000$350,000$25,810,000Alternative 10 –

Remove Siding and Coat Exposed Surfaces

$53,030,000$3,370,000$49,660,000$350,000$49,310,000Alternative 6 –

Cover with New Visually Similar Siding

$48,920,000$0$48,920,000$350,000$48,570,000Alternative 4 –Coat with Acrylic Coating

$53,220,000$3,370,000$49,850,000$350,000$49,500,000Alternative 2 –

Cover with Rubberized Material

Removal Action, Historic Mitigation, and Other

Historic Mitigation Cost

Other Historic Mitigation

Removal Action and Historic Mitigation

Cost

Recommended Historic

Mitigation

RemovalAction CostsAlternative

RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE

• Alternative 10, remove siding and coat exposed surfaces is the recommended alternative

– The primary source of PCBs (the Robertson Protected Metal siding) would be removed.

– The remaining PCBs in structural steel paint would be adequately contained.

– Alternative 10 removes the majority of the sources from the site; thus, there would be minimal threat of any potential future release of PCBs into the environment.

– The interior of the hangar will also be addressed by this removal action


RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE (continued)

Alternative 10 is recommended because:

• Is technically feasible based on commonly used construction techniques and demonstrated proven approaches

• Is administratively feasible; uses federal funding for support and follow on maintenance of the steel coating

• Uses widely available conventional construction equipment, services, and skilled workers

• Provides a high degree of long-term protection of the public and the environment because the PCBs in Hangar 1 siding and associated interior components are removed, and the remaining PCBs in structural steel paint are contained

• Complies with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARAR) • Provides adequate short-term effectiveness during implementation• Imposes minimal restrictions on future use of the site and provides a frame

that could be used for future development


HISTORIC MITIGATION RECOMMENDATIONS FOR

THE RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE

• The Navy considered historic mitigation measures in the revised EE/CA, and recommends the following:

• Level 1 HAER documentation

• Oral histories of individuals who worked in the Hangar during different eras

• Virtual Hangar 1 interactive CD

• Inventory-catalogue of Hangar 1 collections contained in Moffett Field Museum

• Preservation of Hangar 1 man-cranes

• Coating the exposed steel frame with protective coating similar in color to the former siding



NEXT STEPS

• Public Comment Period for the revised EE/CA is July 30 – September 13– Availability:

• www.bracpmo.navy.mil• Information repository at The Mountain View City Library• Request from [email protected]

• The Action Memorandum (AM)

– Comments on the revised EE/CA will be addressed in a Responsiveness Summary as part of the AM

– The Action Memorandum is the decision document which follows the revised EE/CA for the NTCRA

– Issued in Fall 2008

Review the Public Comment Process and take public comments

navy hangar one public meeting slides

Economy & Finance

public comment process

brac pmo west public

darren newton overview

installation restoration

bracpmo west agendareview