Meeting Date: December 4, 2013 Meeting Time: 2:00 p.m. Meeting Place: Horsham Township Public Library Name Organization Attendance: Jim Vetrini (R) RAB member Bill Rothert Community Member Tony Trotter Community Member Eva Enelow Community Member Lawrence Caldwell Community Member Ret Turner Community Member Gary Weckselblatt The Intelligencer Kurt Imhof Sen. Robert Casey’s Office Tom Ames Horsham Township Authority (HLRA) Mike McGee HLRA Mike Healy Horsham Water and Sewer Authority Charles Reinhardt Wings of Freedom Museum Natalie Suchodolski Tinius Olsen Willie Lin (R) Navy, BRAC PMO (Co-Chair) Brian Helland (R) Navy, NAVFAC Jim Rugh NAS JRB Navy Caretaker’s Office Bruce Beach EPA Margaret Pollich (R) PADEP Jessica Kasmari PADEP Jon Davis Air Force Mark Eliason Weston Solutions Tom Cornuet Weston Solutions Andrew Frebowitz Tetra Tech (R) Designates RAB Member Willie Lin opened the meeting by greeting the attendees. Mr. Lin asked all attendees to introduce themselves. After introductions, Mr. Lin asked if the attendees had an opportunity to review the minutes from the September 4, 2013 RAB meeting. There were no comments on the minutes; therefore, they were considered accepted. Mr. Lin reminded the attendees that meeting minutes are posted on the Navy’s BRAC website and placed in the Horsham Library information repository as well as mailed to RAB participants. A request letter to confirm participation in the RAB was also included with the mailing of the September 2013 meeting minutes. The RAB co-chairs (Willie Lin and Liz Gemmill) collaborated on the letter, reviewed the responses, and updated the mailing list.

NAVAL AIR STATION JOINT RESERVE BASE (NAS JRB) WILLOW GROVE Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) Meeting Minutes RAB Meeting No. 54

2

Mr. Lin stated that no land conveyances have occurred since the last RAB meeting when the conveyance of the Jacksonville Road housing was announced. Mr. Lin notified the RAB that an environmental impact statement, also known as an EIS, is being prepared and public meetings will be scheduled after a notice of availability is prepared after the EIS is published in the Federal Register. In addition, the annual Site Management Plan (SMP) was prepared. The Navy worked with EPA and PADEP to prepare the SMP and the RAB was also given the opportunity to participate and provide comments. The final SMP was completed in November 2013 and has been placed in the information repository and available online. Mr. Lin provided an update on the radiological assessment. A Historical Radiological Assessment (HRA) is a file review for potential radiological impacts and 18 potential sites were identified. The HRA was completed in July 2013. The next phase is preparation of a Basewide Radiological Management Plan (BRMP). The document was reviewed by EPA and PADEP and comments have been provided. The Navy is preparing responses to the comment and preparing the final BRMP. The plan allows the development of site-specific work plans known as Task-Specific Plans (TSPs). The actual surveys on the ground can’t be performed until the BRMP and TSPs are approved. Mike McGee asked who approves the plans. Mr. Lin replied that these documents are approved by the Navy after regulatory review. The Navy’s Radiological Affairs Support Office (RASO) prepares the document with the BRAC Program Management Office (PMO). Mr. McGee asked about the schedule for plan approval. Mr. Lin replied that the final BRMP is being prepared and estimates that the report will be submitted in January 2014. After that, TSPs which detail the work at each location will be prepared. Each site requires an individual TSP and they are in development. Mr. McGee asked for more clarification of the time frame. Mr. Lin could not provide an exact time due to uncertainties in the plan preparation and review process. The Navy anticipates completing the TSPs in early 2014 for submittal to the regulators to start the review process. The first surveys will likely be Sites 3 and 12 which will include surface scans and some soil sampling. The Navy anticipates minimal clearing of vegetation and then the results will be included in the FS. A survey will also be done at a landfill which is now on Air Force property. Mr. McGee asked if Navy could estimate the schedule and Mr. Lin replied that Sites 3 and 12 should be started in 2014. Mr. McGee asked if there were funding issues for performing the work and Mr. Lin replied the work was fully funded. Andy Frebowitz continued the presentation with the status of Site 3 – the Ninth Street Landfill. Mr. Frebowitz gave a brief summary of the site which used several disposal trenches for waste burial. There has been no change in status since the last RAB meeting. As discussed in past RAB meetings, the remedial investigation (RI) for Site 3 has been completed and the FS for chemical contamination has been prepared. Various remedial alternatives were evaluated in the FS including capping and removal options, but the FS cannot be completed until the radiological results are received and included in the remedial alternatives evaluation. Mr. Frebowitz continued with Site 5 – the Fire Training Area. This is the site where the bioremediation project is being performed on the groundwater plume contaminated with volatile organic compounds. The record of decision (ROD) was signed in September 2012 and that documented the selected alternative which is in-situ treatment of groundwater by anaerobic

3

bioremediation and monitored natural attenuation (MNA) for the downgradient portion of the plume outside of the source area. The remedy also includes implementation of land use controls (LUCs) to prevent the use of untreated groundwater and implementation of vapor mitigation in any new buildings and a vapor intrusion assessment or mitigation before existing buildings are reused. After the ROD was signed, remedial designs were prepared and finalized in May 2013. These designs were for implementation of LUCs and to upgrade the treatment system that has been in place since the pilot test. The upgrades included installation of seven new injection wells which will also be used for monitoring the plume. The new wells were installed in July 2013 and sampled in August 2013. Results showed TCE and PCE in some of the new wells and dichloroethanes in all the new wells. Results from all the wells indicate that it is time to inject amendments into the groundwater. Conditions are acceptable, but they are declining. There has been a rebound in dichoroethane, pH is decreasing, and oxidation-reduction potential (ORP) is increasing. Possible reasons for the declining environment may have been due to record rainfalls that occurred just before the sampling was performed. This could have resulted in a freshwater flux through the treatment area. It is also possible that the last injection event did not disperse enough amendments into the treatment area. The next step is to inject more Lactoil for nutrient for the bacterial conducting the anaerobic degradation and sodium bicarbonate to buffer the pH. After the injection, groundwater will be monitored monthly for several months. The results will determine if additional injection of amendments will be needed. An operations and maintenance (O&M) plan is also being prepared. The O&M Plan will serve as a guide for maintaining the system over the years and will also include a plan for long-term monitoring. The LUC boundary is also going to be surveyed and recorded with the County. Mr. McGee asked if the surveyed corners will have markers put in place. Mr. Lin replied that the survey is being performed by another consultant, but his understanding is they will be put in place. The survey will be for the LUC boundary that is shown in the design. The Navy is working with the consultant to look at the points that follow the LUC design; that will be shared with HLRA before the surveyor comes out to the field. Mr. Frebowitz continued the presentation with an update on Site 12 – the South Landfill. Similar to Site 3, the landfill contains trench and disposal areas which were identified by a geophysical study. The RI is almost complete. The draft RI was submitted in April 2012 and several rounds of comments have been received from the regulators. The final comments are in comment resolution and then the report can be finalized. The next step would be to prepare the FS, but that will wait until the radiological survey is performed. Mr. Lin continued with the status of the Five Year Review. The Five Year Review is required every five years after a ROD is signed. In this case, the ROD refers to Site 1 - Privet Road Compound which was signed in September 2008. The Five-Year Review reviews the current protectiveness of the remedy as well as the decisions that were made. The Five-Year Review was completed by the Navy in September and the EPA concurred on the 27th of September. The majority of Site 1 has been transferred to the Air Force for use by the Air National Guard. A small portion of the LUC area is still on Navy property.

4

Mr. McGee stated that the draw on the production wells at Site 1 have been reduced since the Navy’s operations ceased. The Air Guard is reviewing their options on what to do with the wells in the future, including possibly closing them down. Mr. McGee asked about possible impact if the wells were closed. Mr. Frebowitz replied that studies have indicated that contamination in the production wells at Site 1 is being drawn in from an off-site source. The shutdown of the wells could improve groundwater conditions at Site 1 as less contamination would be drawn into groundwater at the site. Contaminant levels should improve with time allowing for attenuation. Mr. Lin stated that the Navy portion of the presentation was concluded and asked if there were any questions. There were no questions. Mr. Lin introduced Jon Davis to provide the status of Air Force site ST-01. Mr. Davis introduced himself as the Air Force restoration program manager for Site ST-01 which is a fuel tank site. Mr. Davis referred to the performance-based contract that he discussed at prior RAB meetings. In this type of contract, the Air Force doesn’t tell the contractor specifically how to do the work; an objective is given and the contractor determines the method to reach that objective. HGL and the subcontractor, Weston, will perform the work. Weston will present their going-in approach to get the site to unrestricted closure for the area north of the right-of-way. The objective given the subcontractor is to reach closure by 2020. As data is evaluated, it may be necessary to change direction; however, with this contacting mechanism the Air Force won’t have to stop and get funding. Mr. Davis introduced Tom Cornuet of Weston to explain the plan. Mr. Cornuet introduced himself to the RAB and introduced Mark Ellison of Weston who will also be working on the site. Mr. Cornuet explained that an aggressive approach to clean up the site is being taken. The plan now is similar in some ways to Site 5. There will be injections to treat contamination. But, because this is a petroleum site instead of a solvent site like Site 5, geoprobe will be used instead of wells. A biosparge system was used for some time. That has been restarted and sampling was conducted in October 2013. Mr. Cornuet wanted to make sure attendees knew the history of the site, so he proceeded to provide some background. The site is an off-base parcel approximately 3 acres in size. It’s downgradient from the right-of-way and the contaminants are petroleum-related. Bill Rothert asked for clarification of the location and if it was off of the Air Force property. Mr. Cornuet showed several figures that showed the site location as off the Air Force property. Mr. Cornuet continued with site history including detailing the release of JP-4 fuel in the 1970s, subsequent remediation efforts including soil excavation, peroxide injections and air sparging. Tom Ames wanted to confirm that the release was not related to the pipeline. Mr. Cornuet confirmed this and Mr. Davis added that it is a natural gas pipeline. There are currently 12 monitoring wells (6 on the base and 6 off the base property) which are sampled every quarter. For the last 17 sampling events, all results are below drinking water standards. Samples from the nearby stream have also been clean. However, when the soils beneath the pipeline were excavated, pockets of petroleum were encountered in between the clean wells. The plan is to clean up those remaining areas of contamination. Mr. Cornuet referred to a map showing the site, site features, and area of contamination. Mr. McGee asked about the location of the property line on the map; however, no definitive answer could be determined. Mr.

5

Cornuet showed the areas of previous excavation of the figure and the post-excavation sample locations where results still exceeded standards. This is the area planned for additional excavation and/or injections. There will be some laboratory work to determine what type of treatment will work best. The biosparge system was restarted in Areas D, E, and F. The system will run for approximately one year. Mr. Cornuet also showed the area planned for injections. The treatment will likely be chemical oxidation followed by an oxygen releasing compound with aerobic degradation. Mr. Cornuet restated that this is the current plan, but changes could occur based on the results. Mr. Cornuet showed four wells which were recently installed for remediation performance monitoring. Two of these wells have contaminants – benzene, 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene, and 1,3,5-trimethylbenzene – above drinking water standards. The other two wells had exceedances for one of the compounds. These need to be cleaned up before the site can be closed. Mr. Cornuet showed a figure showing locations where soil results were above state standards. All the locations were from samples below the water table, but these are located in areas targeted for remediation. Mr. Cornuet explained the exit strategy is to clean the site up to residential standards under Act 2 within a timeframe of 6 years or less. Work started this past summer and completion of wells sampling in October 2013. Results were consistent with previous results. There have been 12 wells that have been sampled in the past. The Air Force will continue sampling, but it is possible that some wells will be eliminated and the four recently installed wells with contamination may be added to the routine monitoring. These will be used to determine when the site is clean. After the site is clean, monitoring will continue for one to two years. Remediation documents are also being prepared. An internal draft notice of intent to remediate as well as a permit for EPA approval for underground injection have been prepared. These are updates to documents previously prepared. A preliminary draft sampling plan for continuing the monitoring has also been prepared. These will be submitted in the upcoming weeks and months. A remedial action work plan will also be prepared in 2014. This is also an update, but will detail the future plans for remediation. Additional samples will also be collected for a bench test to finalize the injection approach. The biosparging system has been restarted. An air sparging pilot test was also conducted in the areas of highest contamination in 2012. This system is also being restarted. The equipment works and only the air lines from the treatment shed to the air injection wells need to be hooked up. If needed, the most contaminated portion of the biosparge area may have oxidant injections. Mr. McGee asked what impact would result if the Site 1 production wells pumping rate is reduced or the wells are closed. Mr. Cornuet replied that since the production wells are bedrock wells and the ST-01 area is shallow overburden contamination, there shouldn’t be any significant impact from changes in pumping of the production wells. Mr. Davis added that there is no contamination moving from the base to off-base at this time. What is left after prior remediation is low levels of residual contamination that is still diffusing into the groundwater but not enough to drive a plume to keep moving. The water is not suitable for drinking so the last part of this remediation is almost a polishing which is a very common situation. Even with Act 2, you could

6

put a LUC on the property and say it’s protective, but you’re still left with the LUC. In this case, the Air Force would have to continue the lease of the property over time to maintain the LUCs and that is what the Air Force is trying to extricate itself from. Mr. McGee asked for clarification of the area that it is north of the pipeline and not under the pipeline. Mr. Davis confirmed that the Air Force is not attempting closure under the pipeline because there are likely impacted soils that could not be removed during excavation. Mr. Davis also wanted to reinforce that this effort addresses the off-base portion. Regarding the on-base portion, there is a planned project to demolish the tank and investigate underneath. The conceptual model is all contamination has migrated, but it is possible there could be something left behind. The Air Force hopes to have this funded for 2014. Mr. McGee asked if there were funding issues with the proposed work. Mr. Davis replied that funding is in place for the next five years, and as the fifth year approaches, obligate the rest. Mr. Ames stated that one of the proposed approaches was land farming and his understanding is that would to bring up contaminated soil and treat it on the surface. Mr. Cornuet replied that for some of the impacted soil they are looking at excavation or treating it in-situ. If it is treated in-situ, land farming will not be done. If an excavation option is selected, an evaluation will be made whether to haul it off to a landfill or to land farm it on site. We are looking at a treatability test to see if land farming will be effective if it decided to excavate the soil. Mr. McGee asked for an explanation of land farming. Mr. Cornuet explained that it is digging up the soil and either aerating it to allow biodegradation or mixing in something to destroy the contaminants. Mr. Ames asked if permission from PADEP and the property owner is needed to land farm. Mr. Cornuet replied that they do work closely with the property owner and PADEP would be part of the approval process. If this approach is chosen, it will be included in the remedial action work plan which would be approved by PADEP. The Air Force presentation concluded. Mr. Lin asked if the attendees had any questions or comments. Mr. Rothert wanted clarification on what was Navy Site 1. Mr. Lin replied that is was a landfill known as the Privet Road Compound. The majority of the site has been transferred to the Air Force. A small portion of the LUC area remains on Navy property. Mr. Lin reminded everyone that the information repository can be accessed through the Horsham Township Library and Navy BRAC PMO websites; the links are provided on the agendas. The documents are also on the stacks in the Horsham Library. The RAB meeting minutes are also going to be available there as well as on the BRAC PMO website. Mr. Lin indicated the next two RAB meetings are on the agenda and scheduled for and Wednesday March 5, 2014 and Wednesday June 4, 2013 with both meetings starting at 2:00 pm. The two meetings after those will be scheduled for the first Wednesday of September (September 3, 2014) and December (December 3, 2014) at 2:00 pm. If the community prefers a 6:00 pm start, Mr. Lin requested that he be contacted. Mr. Lin thanked everyone for attending. Meeting adjourned.

1

NAS JRB WILLOW GROVE

RESTORATIONADVISORY BOARD

(RAB)

December 4, 2013Meeting Number 54

2

Agenda

• Welcome Community RAB Members• Radiological Update• Site 3 – Ninth Street Landfill Status• Site 5 – Fire Training Area Groundwater Remediation

Status• Site 12 – South Landfill Phase II Investigation Status• Five Year Review• Air Force Site ST-01• Closing Remarks

2

Radiological Update

3

• Historical Radiological Assessment (HRA)– HRA is a file review for potential radiological impacts, 18 sites

identified– Final HRA completed 18 July 2013

• Basewide Radiological Management Plan (BRMP)– Provides plan for investigating HRA identified impacted sites– Navy submitted draft to EPA/PADEP on 12 August 2013. All

comments received as of mid-November, comments being reviewed and final BRMP being prepared.

– Site specific workplans (TSP - Task Specific Plan) initiated– Site surveys can’t start until final BRMP and TSP is approved.

Radiological Update

4

• Survey for Sites 3 and 12– Surface scan and soil sampling– Minimal clearing of plant growth being pursued– Results will be incorporated into the Feasibility Study

• Building Surveys– Surface scan and building inspections– 15 buildings (hangars/repair facilities) identified in HRA

3

Site 3 – Ninth Street Landfill

5

Site 3 – Ninth Street Landfill

6

4

Site 3 – Ninth Street Landfill

• Feasibility Study (FS) in preparation– Remediation goals developed for chemical constituents– Evaluates removal and capping alternatives– Completion of FS After Radiological Field Survey

• Results from survey will be incorporated into FS

7

8

Site 5 – Fire Training Area Groundwater

5

9

Site 5 GroundwaterSelected Remedy

• Record of Decision signed September 2012– In-situ treatment of groundwater by anaerobic bioremediation in

and around the former drum storage source area

– Monitored Natural Attenuation

– LUCs will be initiated to preclude use of untreated groundwater and require that future buildings are constructed to mitigate the potential for vapor intrusion of VOCs from the subsurface into the buildings

Site 5 GroundwaterRemedial Design/Remedial Action

– Remedial Designs Finalized May 2013• Remedial Design for Land Use Controls • Remedial Design for Additional Injection Wells

– Remedial Action• Well Installation Completed July 2013

– 7 new injection/monitoring wells (figure on next slide)

• Sampling Completed late July 2013– Results from new wells in source area show elevated levels of parent

compounds (TCE and PCE) in several wells and dichoroethanes in all seven wells

– Results indicate injection of amendments is needed

• Draft Remedial Action Completion Report (RACR) provided for EPA/PADEP review on 20 November 2013

10

6

11

Site 5 – Fire Training Area Groundwater

Site 5 GroundwaterCurrent Conditions

• Environmental conditions are acceptable, but injection of amendments are needed– Small rebound of dichoroethanes in some wells– Decrease of pH below 6.0 in some wells– Increasing ORP in some wells (moving from reducing to

oxidizing environment)– Dissolved oxygen and methane levels still favorable

• Possible reasons for decline in conditions– Heavy rainfalls resulting in fresh-water flux through the system

• Sampling was conducted after significant rain events– Less than optimal distribution of amendments during the last

injection event

12

7

• Next Steps:– Injection of Lactoil and sodium bicarbonate– Periodic groundwater monitoring of environmental conditions

• pH, ORP, DO– Additional injections based on monitoring results until optimal

environment for anaerobic reduction is obtained– Development of O&M Plan and Long-Term Monitoring Plan– LUC boundaries will be surveyed and recorded for the final RACR

13

Site 5 GroundwaterCurrent Conditions

14

Site 12 – South Landfill Phase II Remedial Investigation

8

Site 12 Phase I EM Study

15

Site 12 Phase II Status

• Remedial Investigation Report– Draft RI Report provided to regulators on 12 April 2013

• Regulatory comments received and comment resolution is in progress

• Feasibility Study to be prepared after radiological survey

16

9

Five Year Review

17

• Site reviews are required every five years after a ROD is signed if contamination is left in place that prevents unlimited exposure or unrestricted use of the property

• Reviews evaluate the current protectiveness of the remedy/remedies as well as the decisions used to select the remedy and performance standards– Remedial Action Objectives– Toxicological Factors, Exposure Pathways, & Risk Assessment Methodology– Clean-up Levels

• Five-Year Review signed by Navy on 24 September 2013 and EPA concurred on 27 September 2013

Air Force Site ST-001

18

Point of Contact

Jon Davis508-968-4670, x4952

10

Willow Grove Air Reserve Station - Site ST001Site Characteristics

Description: The Site is an adjacent, off-base property downgradient from a JP-4 fuel release that occurred in the 1970’s. Petroleum, Oil and Lubricant (POL) derivatives, have impacted shallow, overburden groundwater.

Characterization/Remediation History: A Remedial Investigation (RI) was completed in 1988A number of remedial measures have been implemented at the site from 1990 through 2011, which have included; soil vapor extraction, soil excavations, in-situ chemical oxidation and biosparging. Site-wide quarterly compliance groundwater and surface water monitoring of 12 wells and 3 stream locations was initiated in August 2004 and continued through October 2013.

19

20

11

Willow Grove Air Reserve Station - Site ST001Current Status

Current Status: Groundwater and surface water results from quarterly monitoring have been below PADEP’s drinking water standards (MSCs) and Surface Water Quality Criteria for all site chemicals of concern (COCs) since October 2009 (17 Quarterly Events for Groundwater). No detections have been observed in surface water in the 4 most recent events.The biosparge system performance monitoring wells MW-17D and MW-18D (non quarterly compliance) continue to contain benzene, 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene, and 1,3,5-trimethylbenzene above their respective drinking water standards. Two additional performance monitoring wells MW-20E/MW-23F have contained only one analyte above drinking water standards during the most recent performance sampling in March 2011.

21

Willow Grove Air Reserve Station - Site ST001Current Status

Remaining Areas/Media of Concern: Continued PADEP drinking water exceedances of the primary site chemicals of concern in several performance monitoring wells, along with some elevated petroleum, oil, and lubricant levels in groundwater grab samples from 2012 Investigation borings indicate that isolated pockets of residual petroleum contamination likely remain in the saturated overburden at the site in treatment area D and in adjacent areas east and west of area D and adjacent to the gas pipeline right of way (ROW).

22

12

Willow Grove Air Reserve Station - Site ST001Regulatory Status

Regulatory Status: PADEP is the lead agency under the voluntary cleanup program Act 2.As of 2002, the agency has stated that soil sampling results are sufficient to demonstrate attainment of the Statewide Health Standard for site chemicals of concern, and on-site and off-site bedrock monitoring well sampling indicated there are no drinking water exceedances in bedrock groundwater.PADEP concurred with the abandonment of bedrock monitoring wells in 2005.

Proposed Exit Strategy: Of the 3 primary cleanup standards available under Act 2, remediation of the remaining impacted groundwater areas to drinking water standards would be fully protective of Human Health for residential use with no deed restrictions which would satisfy the Air Force’s objectives of achieving unrestricted use, unlimited access for the area of the ST001 Site located north of the pipeline right of way.

23

ST001: POL Site Willow Grove, PA Approach

Minimum Performance Objective: Achieve site closure for the area north of the pipeline right of way under PADEP Act 2 within 6 years of notice to proceed (June, 2013).Technical Approach:

1. Continue quarterly compliance monitoring - the 3rd 2013 event (completed): Primary objective is to modify the list of compliance monitoring wells to include site wells that contain site chemicals of concern above drinking water standards and to discontinue wells that have been compliant for the requisite 8 Quarters.Meet with PADEP to obtain agreement on compliance wells and site exit strategy including the possibility of treating some of the planned excavation areas with in situ chemical oxidation (ISCO).Submit Notice of Intent to Remediate (NIR) and Public Notices.

24

13

ST001: POL Site Willow Grove, PA Approach (Cont.)

Technical Approach: 2. Complete monitoring work plan (SAP/QAPP) for sampling activities

and remedial work plan (RAWP) for proposed remedial action going forward.

3. Submit Underground Injection Control (UIC) permit to USEPA for proposed in-situ remedy.

4. Perform Treatability Testing on site aquifer samples to include in-situ biodegradation (ISB - aerobic), in-situ chemical reduction (ISCR -activated persulfate) with aerobic biodegradation, in-situ chemical oxidation (ISCO - Regenox) and ex-situ land-farming.

5. Re-start operation of existing biosparge system in selected areas D, E, F and pilot test area east of D for up to 12 months (initiated in Nov. 2013) and as needed install new monitoring wells in focus areas east and west of area D to assess 2012 groundwater investigation results and remedial progress.

25

ST001: POL Site Willow Grove, PA Approach (Cont.)

Technical Approach: 6. Augment the existing biosparge system with the most favorable in-situ

approach proven most efficient based on the treatability testing results (i.e. ISB, ISB/ISCR, ISCO).

7. Perform focused excavations (or ISB/ISCO) in areas adjacent to the pipe line right of way and treat any excavated soil with land-farming technology if proven to be applicable based on treatability testing results.

8. Once confirmation sampling indicates achievement of site performance criteria (PADEP ACT 2 Guidance), cease active remedial activities and initiate post-treatment monitoring of compliance monitoring well network to demonstrate Remedy Complete (RC).

9. Submit Act 2 Final Report once post-treatment monitoring (4-8 quarters) confirm attainment of Act 2 state-wide health standards.

10. Petition for site closure and liability protection under Act 2 and upon approval, decommission site wells and infrastructure.

26

14

27

NAS JRB Willow Grove RAB Meeting 54

• Closing Remarks

• Questions or Comments From The Community?

• Next Meetings– March 5, 2014 @ 2:00 pm– June 4, 2014 @ 2:00 pm

• Meeting Adjourned