Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem GAGENDA REPORT DATE: August 13, 2001 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council THRU: John B. Bahorski, City Manager FROM: Lee Whittenberg, Director of Development Services SUBJECT: CITY RESPONSE LETTER RE: PROPOSED PLAN - INSTALLATION RESTORATION SITES 1 (WASTEWATER SETTLING POND) AND SITE 19 (BUILDING 241 DISPOSAL PIT AND SANDBLAST GRIT AREA) SUMMARY OF REOUEST: Authorize the Mayor to sign the draft response letter, with any additional comments determined appropriate. Instruct staff to forward to the Environmental Quality Control Board the approved comment letter for information. Receive and File Staff Repoli. The U. S. Navy has prepared a Draft "Proposed Plan" for Installation Restoration (IR) Site 1 and 19; dated June 2001 Provided as Attachment 2). This docurnent provides: ❑ an overview of the subject sites ❑ an overview of the various evaluations conducted on those sites ❑ site characteristics ❑ the scope and role of the response actions • risk summary • initial conclusions and recommendations • mitigation of risks through removal actions • basis for the proposed action, and • summary of the preferred remedy. The preferred remedy is a determination of "No Further Action" for these sites, since the contaminated soils have been removed by prior response actions of the Navy from both of the subject IR sites. CWyD umenbWAVWPSTA \Sites 1 &19Pm sWPhn= Smfffkyft.d \LWW7-27 -01 Agenda Item Consideration of Comment Letter re: Installation Restoration Sites I and 19 — Former Wastewater Settling Pond and Building 241 Disposal Pit and Sandblast Grit Area City Council Sw fRepart August 13, 2001 Previous City Reviews ofIR Sites 1 and 19: IR Site I: Wastewater Settling Pond: The City has reviewed documents, and provided comment letters regarding this site since 1995. Provided below is a summary of actions taken by the City Council, Environmental Quality Control Board, and Archaeological Advisory Committee regarding IR Site l: ❑ Environmental Quality Control Board: January 26, 2000 — Receive and File Final Closeout Report — Removal Action — IR Site I. • Environmental Quality Control Board and City Council: December 2, 1999 — Approval of City Comment Letter re: Draft Closeout Report — Removal Action — IR Site 1. • Environmental Quality Control Board: July 2, 1999 - Receive and File Final Project Work Plan — IR Site 1. ❑ Environmental Quality Control Board: June 30, 1999 — Receipt of Responses to Comments re: Draft Negative Declaration — Action Memorandum/Remedial Action Plan for Non -Time Critical Removal Action — IR Site 1. ❑ Environmental Quality Control Board: June 30, 1999 - Receive and File Final Action Memorandum/Remedial Action Plan — IR Site 1. ❑ City Council: June 14, 1999 — Approval of Comment Letter re: Draft Project Work Plan — IR Site I and Memorandum re; Receipt of EQCB Comment Letter to State Department of Toxic Substances Control re: Special Initial Study for Action Memorandum/Remedial Action Plan — IR Site 1. • Environmental Quality Control Board: May 26, 1999 — Approval of City Comment Letter re: Special Initial Study for Action Memorandum/Remedial Action Plan — IR Site 1. • Environmental Quality Control Board: May 26, 1999 — Receive and File - City Comment Letter re: Draft Final Groundwater Monitoring Study — IR Sites 1 and 7. • City Council: May 14, 1999 — Receive and File Fact Sheet re: Non -Time Critical Removal Action — IR Site 1. ❑ City Council/Environmental Quality Control Board: April 12/March 31, 1999 — Approval of City Comment Letter re: Drift Final Groundwater Monitoring Study — IR Sites 1 and 7. ❑ Environmental Quality Control Board: March 31, 1999 — Receive and File Draft Final Technical Memorandum — Phase II Ecological Risk Assessments — IR Sites 1 and 7. ❑ Environmental Quality Control Board: January 27, 1999 — Receive and File Draft Technical Memorandum — Phase II Ecological Risk Assessments — IR Sites 1 and 7. ❑ City Council: July 29, 1998 — Receive and File — Final Revision, Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis — IR Site 1. ❑ City Council: July 13, 1998 — Receive and File— Responses to Comments re: Draft Field Sampling Plan and Quality Assurance Project Plan, and Draft Final Reports - IR Sites I and 7. Sites 1& 19 Proposed Plan.CC Staff Report Consideration of Comment Letter re: Installation Restoration Sites 1 and 19— Partner Wastewater Settling Pond and Building 141 Disposal Pit and Sandblast Grit Area City Council Staff Report August 13, 2001 • City Council: June 22, 1998 - Receive and File — Draft Revision 1, Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis — IR Site 1. • Environmental Quality Control Board: March 25, 1998 — Approval of Comment Letter re: Draft Field Sampling Plan and Quality Assurance Project Plan — IR Sites 1 and 7. • Archaeological Advisory Committee: January 15, 1997 — Review and Discuss Draft Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis — IR Site 1. • Archaeological Advisory Committee: January 8, 1997 — Receive and File Draft Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis — IR Site 1. • Archaeological Advisory Committee: October 9, 1996 — Receive and File Request from State Department of Toxic Substances Control re: ARARs for Non -Time Critical Removal Action — IR Site 1. • City Council: September 30, 1996 — Approval of Response Letter re: Request from State Department of Toxic Substances Control re: ARARs for Non -Time Critical Removal Action — IR Site 1. • Archaeological Advisory Committee: May 22, 1996 — Approval of Comment Letter re: Final Remedial Investigation Report — IR Site 1. • City Council: January 1, 1996 — Approval of Comment Letter re: Request from State Department of Toxic Substances Control re: ARARs for Non -Time Critical Removal Action — IR Site 1. • City Council: March 27, 1995 — Receive and File — Draft Final Remedial Investigation Report, IR Sites 1, 7, 19, and 22. IR Site 19: Building 241 Disposal Pit and Sandblast Grit Area: The City has reviewed documents, and provided comment letters regarding this site since 1995. Provided below is a summary of actions taken by the City Council and Environmental Quality Control Board regarding IR Site 19: • Environmental Quality Control Board: October 27, 1999 — Receive and File Final Closeout Report — IR Site 19. • City Council/Environmental Quality Control Board: June 1/May 26, 1999 — Approval of Comment Letter re: Receipt of Responses to Comments on Draft Closeout Report — IR Site 19. ❑ City Council: August 24, 1998 — Receive and File Final Work Plan, Soil Remediation Project — IR Site 19. ❑ City Council: July 29, 1998 — Receive and File Final Action Memorandum/Removal Action Work Plan, Non -Time Critical Removal Action - IR Site 19. ❑ Environmental Quality Control Board: July 29, 1998 — Response letter to Draft Negative Declaration — Action Memorandum/Remedial Action Plan for Non -Time Critical Removal Action —IR Site 19. ❑ City Council: July 13, 1998 — Receive and File — Final Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis, Non -Time Critical Removal Action — IR Site 19. Sits 1& 19 Proposed PlaaCC Staff Report Consideration of Comment Letter re- installation Restoration Sites I and 19— Former Wastewater Settling Pond and Building 241 Disposal Pit and Sandblast Grit Area City Council StaffReport August 13, 2001 ❑ City Council: June 8, 1998 — Receive and File — Fact Sheet re: Final Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis, Non -Time Critical Removal Action — IR Site 19. o City Council: March 3, 1998 — Approval of City Comment Letter — Draft Engineering Evalua ion/Cost Analysis, Non -Time Critical Removal Action — IR Site 19. ❑ Environmental Quality Control Board: January 21, 1997 — Approval of Comment Letter to State Department of Toxic Substances Control re: ARARs for Non -Time Critical Removal Action — IR Sites 7, 8, and 19. ❑ City Council: March 27, 1995 — Receive and File — Draft Final Remedial Investigation Report, IR Sites 1, 7, 19, and 22. Public Comment Period: The Navy has established a public comment period on the `Proposed Plan for IR Sites 1 and 19" from August 1 to August 31, 2001. In addition the Navy will conduct a public meeting to receive comments will be held at: Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station Building 110 Multi- purpose Conference Room 800 Seal Beach Boulevard Date: August 15, 2001 Time: 7:00 PM Written or e-mail comments may also be provided to: Ms. Pei -Fen Tamashim NAV WPNSTA Seal Beach Installation Restoration Program Manager Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach 800 Seal Beach Boulevard, Building 110 Seal Beach, CA 90740 -5000 e -mail address: tamashiro.peifen @sbmch.navy.mil Document Availability: The subject document is available for review at the Department of Development Services, City Hall, 211 Eight Street City Comment Letter: Staff has prepared a comment letter that was reviewed by the Environmental Quality Control Board (EQCB) on July 25th regarding the proposed "No Further Action" by the Navy. The EQCB had no amendments to the draft comment letter. As the subject IR sites Sites I & 19 Purposed PIanCC Staff Report 4 Consideration of Comment Letter re. Installation Restoration Sites 1 and 19 - Former Wastewater Settling Pond and Building 241 Disposal Pit and Sandblast Grit Area City Council Staff Report August 13, 2001 have been fully remediated to the appropriate levels, in accordance with all federal and state regulatory requirements, the comment letter expresses appreciation in the cooperation given by the Navy during these removal actions. FISCAL IMPACT: All restoration activities on the Naval Weapons Station are the responsibility of the Department of Navy. RECOMMENDATION: Authorize the Mayor to sign the draft response letter, with any additional comments determined appropriate. histruct staff to forward to the Environmental Quality Control Board the approved comment letter for information. Receive and File Staff Report. NOTED AND APPROVED: JWhittenberg John B. Bahorsld dor of Development Servic®., City Manager ATTACHMENTS: (2) Attachment 1: Draft Comment Letter to Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station re: "Proposed Plan —No Further Action at lnstallation Restoration Sites I and 19 — (Former Wastewater Settling Pond and Building 141 Disposal Pit and Sandblast Grit Area", Southwest Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, dated June, 2001 Attachment 2: "Proposed Plan —No Further Action at Installation Restoration Sites 1 and 19 — (Former Wastewater Settling Pond and Building 241 Disposal Pit and Sandblast Grit Area ", Southwest Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, dated June, 2001 Sites I & 19 Pmposvi PIan.CC Stall Re m Consideration of Comment letter re.: Installation Restoration Sites I and 19 — Former Wostewater Sett ling Pond and Building 141 Disposal Pit and Sandblast Grit Area City Council Staff Report August 13, 1001 ATTACHMENT 1 DRAFT COMMENT LETTER TO SEAL BEACH NAVAL WEAPONS STATION RE: "PROPOSED PLAN - NO FURTHER ACTION AT INSTALLATION RESTORATION SITES I AND 19 - (FORMER WASTEWATER SETTLING POND AND BUILDING 241 DISPOSAL PIT AND SANDBLAST GRIT AREA ", SOUTHWEST DIVISION, NAVAL FACHITIES ENGINEERING COMMAND, DATED JUNE, 2001 Sits 1&.19 Pr "p PIan.0 StsRRe ft Consideration of Comment Letter re- Installation Restoration Sites 1 and 19 — Former Wastewater Settling Pond and Building 141 Disposal Pit and Sandblast Grit Area City Council Staff Report August 13, 1001 August 13, 2001 Ms. Pei -Fen Tarrashiro NAV WPNSTA Seal Beach Installation Restoration Program Manager Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach 800 Seal Beach Boulevard, Building 110 Seal Beach, CA 90740 -5000 Dear Ms. Tamashim: SUBJECT: CITY OF SEAL BEACH COMMENTS RE: "PROPOSED PLAN - NO FURTHER ACTION AT INSTALLATION RESTORATION SITES l AND 19 - (FORMER WASTEWATER SETTLING POND AND BUILDING 241 DISPOSAL PIT AND SANDBLAST GRIT AREA" The City of Seal Beach has reviewed the above referenced document and concurs with the findings and conclusions of the report that "No Further Action" is appropriate for IR Sites 1 and 19. The City has previously gone on record in support of the removal actions taken for these sites, as those removal actions reduced potential adverse impacts to the residents of the City of Seal Beach and to employees of the Weapons Support Facility. The City of Seal Beach extends its sincere appreciation to the Weapons Support Facility and the Department of the Navy in undertaking these activities in a manner that provided the highest level of protection to the children attending McGaugh School. The scheduling of soil removal activities during the summer vacation time period was greatly appreciated. Throughout the review of the many documents prepared to reach this point (from 1995 to the present), the level of cooperation and understanding of the Department of Navy and its contractors to the expressed concerns of the City of Seal Beach has been greatly appreciated. On behalf of the City Council, Environmental Quality Control Board, city staff, and the citizens of Seal Beach we congratulate the Navy on the successful completion of a well done environmental enhancement program to these areas within our community. Sit. 1 & 19 ]? po W PlaaCC Staff acport Consideration of Comment LeBerrer installation Restoration Sites 1 and 19 — Former Wastewater Settling Pond and Building 241 Disposal Pit and Sandblast Grit Area City Council Staff Report August 13, 2001 Thank you for allowing us to comment on the subject document regarding IR Sites 1 and 19. If you have any questions or require further information, please contact Mr. Lee Whittenberg, Director of Development Services Department, (562) 431 -2527, extension 313, at your earliest convenience. He will be able to respond to any additional questions that you may have regarding this matter. Sincerely, V?" ;x William J. Doane Joseph E. Porter III Mayor, City of Seal Beach Chairperson Environmental Quality Control Board cc: City Council Environmental Quality Control Board Archaeological Advisory Committee City Manager Director of Development Services Sites I & 19 Pmpose Pun= sort Repo" Consideration of Comment Letter re: Installation Restoration Sites 1 and 19 — Former Wastewater Sett ling Pond and Building 241 Disposal Pit and Sandblast Grit Area City Council Staff Report August 13, 2001 ATTACHMENT 2 "PROPOSED PLAN - NO FURTHER ACTION AT INSTALLATION RESTORATION SITES I AND 19 - (FORMER WASTEWATER SETTLING POND AND BUILDING 241 DISPOSAL PIT AND SANDBLAST GRIT AREA ", SOUTHWEST DIVISION, NAVAL FACI1XnES ENGINEERING COMMAND, DATED JUNE, 2001 Sites 1& 19 Ao sal MI .iX Stiff Report �wssrn,yW �P nv 4; V, 4G Seal Beach, Califomia Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach U.S. NAVY ANNOUNCES PROPOSED PLAN This Proposed Plan announces the U.S. Navys preferred cleanup remedies for Sites 1 and 19 at Naval Weapons Station (NAVWPNSTA) Seal Beach, Orange County, California. Site 1 (Former Wastewater Settling Pond) was designated as Operable Unit (OU) 1, and Site 19 (Building 241 Disposal Pit and Sandblast Grit Area) was designated as one of the two sites in OU2. Sites 1 and 19 were the first to undergo a remedial investigation /feasibility study (RI /FS) at the NAVWPNSTA Seal Beach in accordance with the Federal Facility Site Remediation Agreement between the State of California and the Navy. It had been determined through various remedial investigations (RIs) that soils at these sites were impacted with chemicals through past site activities. However, the impacted soils were removed (excavated) in prior response actions and no longer pose a threat to human health and the environment. During the RIB, it also was determined that no significant groundwater contamination had occurred at either site, and groundwater remediation is not required. In addition, since the sources of contamination have been removed through the excavation actions, future impacts to groundwater are not likely. The Navy is, therefore, recommending "No Further Action" as the Preferred Remedy for Sites 1 and 19. This remedy addresses all source materials that constituted principal threats at Sites 1 and 19. The Proposed Plan includes information about Sites 1 and 19 that was evaluated by the Navy, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), and the State of California [through the California Environmental Protection Agency Department of Toxic Substances Control (DISC), and the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB)], and explains the Navy's basis for choosing "No Further Action" as the Preferred Remedy for these sites. Draft June 2001 DATES TO REMEMBER: MARK YOUR CALENDAR PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: August 1, 2001 to August 31, 2001. A comment period will be held from August 1, 2001 to August 31, 2(101 to receive wdtten and oral commas on this proposed Plan. The Navy and EPA will hold a public reefing to explain the Proposed Plan. Oral and written comments on Me proposed remedy will aim be accepted at the public meeting. PUBLIC MEETING: August 15, 2001, 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. The meeting will be held at the NAVWPNSTA Seal Beach, 600 Seal Beach Boulevard, Building 110 (Multi- purpose Conference Room), Seal Beach, CA 90740. To view more information, visit the information repository listed below: Seal Beach Public Library Mary Wilson Branch —Front Desk 707 Electric Avenue Seal Beach, CA 90740 Telephone: (562) 431-3584 To request more information or to review the Administrative Record, please contact the following: NAVWPNSTA Seal Beach 800 Seal Beach Boulevard, Buidng 110 Seal Beach, CA 90740 Contact: Ms. PeWen Tamashim, Inshallasan Restorason program Manager Telephone: (562) 626 -7897 A 30-day public comment period will be held from August 1, 2001 through August 31, 2001 to receive written and oral comments on this Proposed Plan. A public meeting will be held on Wednesday, August 15, 2001 at NAVWPNSTA Seal Beach, 800 Seal Beach Boulevard, Building 110 (Multi- purpose Conference Room), Seal Beach, CA 90740, beginning at 7:00 p.m. In consultation with the regulatory agencies, the Navy will make a final decision on the Preferred Remedy based on feedback from the community. Therefore, the community is strongly encouraged to review and comment on the Navy's Preferred Remedy. A final decision will not be made until all comments are considered. The Navy is issuing this Proposed Plan as part of its public participation responsibilities under Section 117(a) of the comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and Section 300.430(f)(2) of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), also known as the "Superfund" program. This Proposed Plan summarizes information detailed in the RI Reports, the Engineering Evaluation /Cost Analysis (EE /CA) Report, the Action Memorandum/ Remedial Action Plan (AM /RAP), Removal Action Work Plan, Final Closeout Reports, and other documents contained in the Administrative Record file for these sites. The Navy encourages the public to review these documents to gain understanding of Sites 1 and 19, the environmental assessment and investigation activities, and the removal actions that have been conducted. The documents are available for public review at the locations listed at the beginning and end of this Proposed Plan... SITE BACKGROUND NAVWPNSTA Seal Beach is part of the Commander Nary Region Southwest, and its major claimant is the Commander -in -Chief Padfic Fleet. The Station provides fleet combatants with ready - for -use ordnance. Because of its geographic location, the Station serves as a supply point for the .operating Navy and Marine Corps forces in the southern California region. The location of NAVWPNSTA Seal Beach is shown in Figure 1. Relevant background information pertaining to Sites 1 and 19 is summarized below. The locations of Sites 1 and 19 within NAVWPNSTA Seal Beach are shown in Figure 2. Site 1 Site 1 is a triangular - shaped depression bordered on the east by railroad tracks, on the west by 6th Street, and on the south by Case Road and railroad tracks (see Figure 3). Wastes from various industrial activities, including metal cleaning and brass projectile cleaning operations, cleaning and pickling of projectiles, and ultrasonic tank cleaning processes, were discharged to the depression from Building 71, forming a pond. The Draft pond encompassed approximately 70,000 square feet and was unlined. Site 1 was designated the "Wastewater Settling Pond," however, it no longer contains surface water or sediments. The Navy initiated a Remedial Investigation/ Feasibility Study (RI/FS) in July 1993 for Site 1 to identify the nature and extent of potential contamination at this site. A final RI report for Site 1 was completed in December 1995. The RI consisted of a review of historical aerial photographs, a geophysical survey, surface soil field screening, groundwater field screening, surface and subsurface soil sampling, and groundwater monitoring well installation and sampling. The analytical results from the RI were used to conduct a human health risk assessment and ecological risk assessment for chemicals of potential concern at Site 1. Risk assessment results indicated that groundwater posed no significant threat to human health or ecological receptors. However, potential human health and ecological risks did exist for soils due to elevated levels of certain metals, one polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) (Arochlor 1254), and one pesticide (dieldrin). In November 1996, a draft EE /CA recommended soil: recycling for the impacted soils at Site 1. In September 1997, a bench -sole treambility study was conducted to test a solidification /stabilization process to immobilize contaminants. Results indicated that the process did not reduce certain contaminants in the soil to the required levels. Thus, the treatment alternative was determined not to be an effective method for the impacted soils at Site 1. - Remedial alternatives were re- evaluated and excavation/ offsite disposal was recommended in the final EE /CA. After the completion of the RI in 1998, a Phase II Ecological Risk Assessment validation study was conducted by CH2MHill to re- evaluate the selection of the ecological chemicals of concem, and identify target cleanup goals, or ecological preliminary remediation goals, for chemicals in soils at Site 1. The study concluded that chromium, copper, lead, and selenium were the ecological chemicals of concern. All four metals were present in soils outside the pond at ba� 2 June 2001 LOB NWEIEB j) \ MTG a� mcLEwooD swm un oR..E+ eNmex. ww�.0 ^ow xc. era roawwcE t wx�aoo PNAHEIu cwoEN caovE J\ A6 .Rw 9Rai _ .y 1 PP �-� '"Ot Ralralu -N- SANTA ANA NAVAL WEAPONS N.IPO STATION y J 6 RE 'Mt➢IIFF REiLGE SFAL BFAON •uNIIxRIW euq.. uPEDBRLart bum p WIiS PAC0`C OCEAN SOURCE: SITE 19 DRAFT EE /CA (BECHTEL NATIONAL INC., 1998) FIGURE 1 VICINITY MAP -- REW�LIgMMA i ,000 � 1000 2000 /`t I,a 1- SCALE IN FEET F • E f Z f5 ) •ELI 1 FGENIf BOUNDARY OF NA NAVVAL A. WPNSTA SEAL BEACH ALN I �NA,IOiAL WAOISE a RDVGE BOUNDARY SITE 1 - WASTEWATER SETTLING POND s. 19- FORMER WASTEWATER SETTLING \ \ POND NAINNK � m.eE I/ • i rlmc TFAx DMIIiA Al£ FIGURE 2 LOCATION PLAN AV 7 1 Inside ei the Pond'... _ { r Wildlife ff Na lio o Refuge r N 150 75 0 150 300 SCALE IN FEET 717 BBuilding - ----1— Railroad Tracks Fsdmamd Boundary of the I. Wastewater Settling Pond National Wildlife Refuge Bowdary Ag.culmxal Ficlds IXIMATE IMAM OF IWACTED OUTSIDE THE POND S¢ —L'we Outside the Pond FIGURE 3 SITE PLAN -SITE 1 concentrations exceeding regulatory levels; and chromium, copper, and lead also were present in soils inside the pond at concentrations exceeding regulatory levels. The Navy issued a Final AM /RAP in June 1999 summarizing the results of the EE/CA. Upon further regulatory concurrence of the EE/CA and AM /RAP, and after providing the opportunity for public input to the deanup process, the Navy was authorized in June 1999 to conduct the removal action at Site 1. A Project Work Plan for the removal action that was reviewed by the regulatory agencies and the public and was finalized in July 1999. The Project Work Plan was also presented to the Restoration Advisory Board at NAVWPNSTA Seal Beach. After receiving concurrence from the regulatory agencies, contaminated soils were excavated at Site 1 in October 1999. The soil was transported to a disposal facility and the excavations were backfilled with dean fill material. The site was then revegetated with native grasses and plants. A Project Closeout.. Report was prepared to document the removal activities- conducted at Site 1. The report was submitted to the regulatory .agencies and the Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) for review. Upon concurrence by the regulatory agencies, the report was finalized in December 1999. No additional activities have occurred at the site since that time. Site 19 Since the early 1960s, the Missile Container Repair Building (Building 241) was used to maintain and overhaul missile.containers. Activities performed included sandblasting to remove old paint, welding, replacing rubber cushions, and painting. From 1970 to the mid- 1970s, the disposal pit, located approximately 100 feet west of Building 241, was used as a waste disposal site. Wastes generated in Building 241 including 5- gallon cans, wood, damaged rubber cushions, metal banding, rags, lacquer thinner, solvents, and mineral oils were reportedly collected and placed in the pit. The disposal pit covered a rectangular area of approximately 50- feet- by -75- feet. In 1975 or 1976, the pit was dosed and covered with soil. In 1989, slurry from the air handling systems of the sandblasting grit chamber was flushed out onto Site 19 through a hose in the area northeast of the disposal pit. The sandblast grit area, located adjacent to, and just north of the disposal pit, covered an area of approximately 55- feet -by-46 -feet. Refer to Figure 4 for disposal pit and sandblast grit area locations. In 1993, an RI /FS for Site 19 was conducted by the Navy to identify the nature and extent of contamination at the site. Although Site 19 was not a designated landfill, due to the reported disposal activities at the site, a landfill assessment was conducted. The landfill assessment consisted of soil gas sampling, integrated surface sampling, and ambient air sampling. Soil samples were also collected and analyzed for metals to identify contaminated and uncontaminated areas. Groundwater samples were collected using in situ sampling technology and analyzed in an onsite laboratory for metals and - volatile organic compounds to identify and delineate groundwater contamination associated with the site. Concurrent with the other field activities, quarterly groundwater monitoring was conducted for approximately 1 year. Using the analytical results from the RI, a Human Health Risk Assessment and an Ecological Risk Assessment were conducted for chemicals identified as being of potential concern at Site 19. The risk assessments were conducted to estimate what risks, if any, future residents, current commercial workers, and ecological receptors at the site would be subject to, given the nature and extent of contamination found during the RI. Through the risk assessments, soil at Site 19 was identified as requiring a response action to mitigate possible risks to human health and the environment In order to recommend a proper response action, the Navy prepared an EE /CA for Site 19 in May 1998. The EE/CA recommended a removal action consisting of excavation and off- site disposal of the impacted soils. Upon concurrence by the regulatory agencies, the Navy issued an AM /RAP in July 1998 summarizing the results of the EE /CA. Upon regulatory concurrence of the EE /CA and AM /RAP, and providing the opportunity for public input to the cleanup process, the contaminated soils at Site 19 disposal pit and sandblast grit area were excavated and transported to an off -site disposal facility. The site was then backfilled with dean soil, compacted, graded, and reseeded with native grasses. Following completion of the removal morzsnow..m� 0 June 2001 ESTIMATED SANDBLAST GRIT AREA AS DETERMINED IN THE RI 1 J I I I I I I� I I I I I I I L - - - - J BLDG 242 ESTIMATED DISPOSAL PIT BOUNDARY AS DETERMINED IN THE RI U m NET ROAD -N- 0 15 30 FEET FIGURE 4 SITE PLAN -SITE 19 action, a Project Closeout Report was prepared to document the removal activities conducted at Site 19. Following agency and RAB review and upon concurrence by the regulatory agencies, the report was finalized in September 1999. No additional activities have occurred at the site since that time. SITE CHARACTERISTICS Site 1 The area inside the former pond at Site 1 is a depression bounded by railroad tracks and a paved road, which are elevated several feet above the grade of the site (see Figure 3). The RI showed that aluminum, antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, total chromium, copper, lead, manganese, . mercury, nickel, selenium, vanadium, and zinc were detected at Site 1 at concentrations above base background levels. In general, the concentrations of metals at Site 1 decreased with increased depth. Organic compounds detected at Site I included acetone, tetrachloroethene (PCE), methylene _ .chloride, bis(2 -ethylhexyl phthalate) (BEHP), phenanthrene, pyrene, pesticides, PCB (Arodor- 1254), and petroleum hydrocarbons associated with gasoline and diesel fuel. The highest concentrations of the pesticides and PCBs were detected in surface samples. Pesticides and PCBs were not detected below the root zone (18 to 30 inches). Review of the analytical data suggested that many of the pesticide and PCB results were potentially false positives. Of the chemicals detected, antimony, arsenic, copper, lead, selenium, dieldrin, and PCBs were determined to be of potential concern for human health, and chromium, copper, and zinc to be of potential ecological concern at Site I. Groundwater field screening was also conducted at Site 1, the results of which indicated that volatile organic compounds (VOCS) and metals were not present at concentrations and frequencies that would indicate a release from the site to groundwater. The contaminated soil extended laterally from the northwest and southwest borders of the Former Wastewater Settling Pond, defined by 6' Street and Case Road, to as much as 150 feet beyond the northeast border of the Former wastewater Settling Pond defined by the railroad tracks (see Figure 3). The contaminated soil was estimated to extend from the northern edge of the asphalt pavement around Building 72 to the north and from approximately 30 feet from the eastern edge of the pavement toward the east The majority of the contamination was estimated to be limited to the upper 2 feet of soil. The maximum depth of the contamination in any one area was expected to be 7 to 8 feet below ground surface (bgs). The estimated in -place volume of contaminated soil was estimated to be approximately 18,900 cubic yards. As explained in a following section (Risk Summary), soil cleanup levels were developed and a removal action was conducted to remove soil that contained contaminants in excess- of the cleanup levels. The removal action consisted of excavating 21,250 tons of contaminated soil and disposing it at an offsite facility. Following the excavation of the contaminated soils from the site, the area was backfilled, and seeded and planted with native vegetation to restore it to a condition consistent with its surroundings. Site 1 currently exists as an empty field. The train tracks, which were removed to facilitate soil excavation, were rebuilt and replaced to allow for . their continued use, although rail travel along this section of the track is infrequent Site 1 is not currently used for any residential or recreational purposes, nor are any such uses planned. The site does not currently support any buildings or structures. However, as a result of the removal action, all contaminated soil has been removed from the site, allowing unrestricted future use of the site. Site 19 Site 19 formerly consisted of a disposal pit and a sandblast grit area (see Figure 4). During remedial investigations, organic compounds detected in surface samples from the disposal pit included PCE, bis(2- ethylhexyl)phthalate, nine pesticides, PCB (Arodor- 1254), and petroleum hydrocarbons associated with diesel fuel. Inorganic compounds detected at concentrations in excess of background levels included antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, copper, lead, manganese, nickel, selenium, silver, and zinc. Metal concentrations exceeded background levels in surface samples only. Organic compounds detected in the sandblast grit area included methylene chloride, PCE, eight pesticides, PCB (Arodor- 1254), and diesel fuel. In the sandblast grit area, metals 6 June 2001 detected at concentrations exceeding background were antimony, arsenic, chromium, cobalt, copper, lead, nickel, selenium, thallium, and zinc. Groundwater was monitored over a period of one year. Benzene, pesticides, nitrate /nitrite, and various metals were identified as chemicals of potential concern. However, when the analysis results were averaged over the four - quarter period, the chemicals did not exceed their respective chemical - specific applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements, which were based on annual averages. As a result of the RI findings, a no-action Interim Record of Decision (ROD) for groundwater was recommended. A removal action was conducted to remove contaminated soil from Site 19. A total of approximately 1,269 tons (approximately 850 cubic yards) of contaminated soil was excavated from the sandblast grit area and the disposal pit. Clean fill was then placed in the excavation, and the area was covered with topsoil, graded, and reseeded with native vegetation. Site 19 currently does not support any buildings or structures. Building 241, the Missile Container Repair Building, is located adjacent to the site. As a result of the removal action, all of the contaminated soil has been removed from the site, allowing unrestricted future use of the site. SCOPE AND ROLE OF RESPONSE ACTION NAVWPNSTA Seal Beach is a large federal facility with 65 Installation Restoration Program Sites which have been identified through various environmental assessments and investigations conducted over the last 17 years. The sites investigated under the CERCLA program have been organized into Operable Units. The base - wide strategy for performing remedial actions has been to accelerate actions at Operable Units requiring action, while identifying, and closing out sites not requiring further action. This strategy, which uses no-action Records of Decision, allows resources to be concentrated on the Operable Units that require action. Most of the sites identified have been recommended for "No Further Action ". This Proposed Plan pertains specifically to soils at Sites 1 and 19, which were the only media requiring removal action at these sites. As mentioned previously, the groundwater at Site 1 was monitored as part of the RI investigation.. Results indicated that no significant groundwater contamination had occurred. The RI concluded that there was no significant threat to human health or ecological receptors from groundwater. Groundwater beneath Site 19 initially appeared to be impacted, however, when the results were averaged over the four quarters of groundwater sampling, they indicated that none of the chemicals of concern exceeded their respective regulatory limits. The removal actions pertaining to soils at Sites 1 and 19 are not dependent on other environmental media at the sites, or on the actions at any of the other Installation Restoration sites at NAVWPNSTA Seal Beach. _ RISK SUMMARY Information from the chemical analysis conducted as part of the remedial I investigations was used to assess potential risks to both humans and other ecological receptors (plants' and animals) for various exposure scenarios at the sites. This involved conducting site - specific human health and ecological risk assessments, in which the following items were identified: - • Chemicals of Concern (chemicals present at the site that may contribute'th the majority of risk) • Potential human and ecological receptors (who and what might be at risk) - - -` • Exposure pathways (how- the chemicals could reach human and ecological receptors) • Potential risks. (how the receptors might be affected if the chemicals reached them) The risk assessments concluded that for soils at Site 1, antimony, arsenic, copper, dieldrin, and PCB (Arodor -1254) were identified as chemicals posing unacceptable risk to human health. These chemicals were detected at concentrations in soil that exceeded an Excess Lifetime Cancer Risk (ELCR) of 1 x 104, and a Hazard Index (HI) of 1 for human health COCs. The ecological risk assessments concluded that for soils at Site 1, chromium, copper, lead, and selenium were of concern to ecological receptors. These chemicals were detected at concentration greater than their established ecological Preliminary Remediation Goals. June 2001 For soils at Site 19, antimony, arsenic, copper, lead, dieldrin, and PCB (Aroclor -1254) were identified as chemicals posing unacceptable risk to human health. Arsenic had a cancer risk estimate larger than 1 x le. The only other chemicals with cancer risk estimates larger than or equal to 1 x10 were PCB (Arador -1254) and dieldrin. Arsenic was the only chemical with a HI of larger than 1 and antimony had a HI equal to 1. Although minimal potential risk to terrestrial organisms may have existed due to the presence of arsenic, cadmium, copper, and zinc, there were no ecological .populations of concern identified at Site 19. There was no significant threat to human health or ecological receptors associated with groundwater at either site.. INITIAL CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The remedial investigations and risk assess- ments demonstrated potential risks to human health and -the environment due to contaminated soils at Sites 1 and 19. As a result of these findings, removal actions for the contaminated soils were recommended to mitigate these risks. Target cleanup goals for the contaminants in the soils were established based on risk calculations, and on background levels to: (1) determine which soils would require excavation; and (2) ensure that soils left in place would not present a risk to human health and the environment. By removing the soil with contaminant concentrations above the target cleanup goals from the sites, the residual risk to human health and the environment is minimal, and below the established EPA preliminary remediation goals for residential use scenario. The target cleanup goals provide adequate protection to human and ecological receptors as well as protection of the groundwater. In addition, the cleanup goals were conservative enough so that the removal axons would allow unrestricted land use at these sites. MITIGATION OF RISKS THROUGH REMOVAL ACTIONS To accomplish the goals established in the remedial investigations, removal actions were conducted at Sites 1 and 19. Based on prior sampling results, all contaminated soil was removed from Sites 1 and 19. Once the excavation of contaminated soil was completed, verification samples were collected and analyzed to document residual concentrations of the contaminants, and ensure that the cleanup goals were achieved. Excavation and analysis were continued until all verification sample results were below the target cleanup goals. The sites were then backfilled using soil obtained from offsite sources. This soil was analyzed and declared "clean" prior to it being delivered to the sites. The sites were subsequently revegetated with native grasses and plants. Because the remedy did not result in hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants remaining onsite above the target cleanup goals, the sites have been cleared for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure. BASIS FOR THE ACTION Based on mitigation of risks through removal actions at Sites 1 and 19, no further action is necessary to protect the public health and the environment from past releases of hazardous substances into the environment at these sites. SUMMARY OF THE PREFERRED REMEDY Because the contaminated media have been removed in prior response actions, no further CERCLA remedial action is necessary for Sites 1 and 19. The "No Further Action" remedy addresses all source materials that constituted principal threats at Sites 1 and 19. Both sites had prior removal actions in which impacted soils were excavated and disposed of offsite. During the RI, it was determined that no significant groundwater contamination had occurred, and, therefore, no groundwater remediation is required. In addition, since the source of contamination has been removed through the excavation action, impacts to groundwater are not expected, and groundwater monitoring is not needed. 10 June 2001 GLOSSARY OF TERMS Specialized terms used in the Proposed Plan are defined below: Administrative Record - all documents containing information the government uses to (1) select response actions, and (2) impose administrative sanctions for violations of CERCLA. This paper trail includes at a minimum: Correspondence, the RI/FS, the Proposed Plan, the ROD, and public comments. Applicable Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARABS) - ARARS include the federal standards and more stringent state standards that are legally applicable or relevant and appropriate under the circumstances. ARARs include cleanup standards, standards of control, and other environmental protection requirements, critena, or limitations. Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA or Superfund) - a law that establishes a program to identify hazardous waste sites and establish procedures for cleaning up sites to be protective of human health and the environment, and evaluate damages to natural resources. Cleanup - actions taken to deal with a release or threat of a hazardous substance that could affect people or the environment. The term "cleanup" is sometimes used interchangeably with the terms remedial action, remedy, or remediation. Excavation - the physical removal of contaminated soils and sediments. Exposure Pathways - the way a chemical or physical agent comes in contact with living organisms. Feasibility Study (FS) - a study to identify, screen, and compare alternatives for a site cleanup. Lead Agency - the federal or state agency providing the On -Scene Coordinator (OSC) Or the responsible official for a CERCLA response anion. National Oil and Hazardous Substance Pollution Contingency Plan (NCR) - the basic regulatory directive for federal response actions under CERCLA. Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) - a toxic chemical formerly used as a dielectric fluid in transformers and capacitors to keep them cool. Preferred Remedy - the remedy selected by the lead agency, in conjunction with the support agencies, that best satisfies the remedial action objective, based on the evaluation of alternatives presented in the FS. Proposed Plan - a document that reviews the cleanup alternatives presented in the FS, summarizes the recommended cleanup actions, explains the reasons for recommending them, and solicits comments from the community. Record of Decision (ROD) - a decision document that identifies the cleanup altemative chosen for implementation at a Superfund site. The ROD is based on information from the remedial investigation and feasibility study and on public comments and community concems. Receptor - a representative human or animal that is used in evaluating health risks. For example, when evaluating the human health risks for an occupational scenario, a construction worker is the hypothetical receptor. Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) - an environmental regulatory agency supporting the US EPA with oversight of environmental restoration activities at RAVWPNSTA.Sea[ Beach. Remedial Investigation (RI) - an investigation during which the types, amounts, and locations of contamination at a site are identified. Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) - a cfizen -based committee representing local community interests, designed to act as a fool point for the exchange of information between the "and the local community regarding environmental activities at the NAVWPNSTA Seal Beach. Risk Assessment - an analysis of the potential negative human health and environmental effects caused by hazardous substances released from a site without environmental controls. Sediment- unconsolidated partides which are created by the weathering and erosion of rock, by chemical - precipitation from solution in water, or from the secretions of organisms, and are transported by water, wind, or glaciers. Superfund - is the common name far CERCLA, which was a law passed in 1980 that set forth the process for investigation and cleanup of environmentally contaminated sites. Refers to a fund of dollars via a tax on oil and gas industries. U.S Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) - the lead regulatory agency providing oversight of the environmental restoration activities at NAVWPNSfA Seal Beach. Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) - an organic compound, such as dry-cleaning solution or degreasing solvent, that evapoatas readily at room temperature. .r ..,,, 11 June 2001 Draft FOR MORE INFORMATION If you have any questions about the NAVWPNSTA Seal Beach Sites 1 and 19, please contact: Ms. Pei -Fen Tamashiro, Installation Restoration Program Manager Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach 800 Seal Beach Boulevard, Building 110 - Seal Beach, CA 90740 Telephone: (562) 626 -7897 Fax: (562) 626 -7131 e -mail: temashim.peifen @sbeach.navy.mil COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION The Navy, U.S. EPA, and the RWQCB provide information regarding the cleanup of Sites 1 and 19 to the public through public meetings, the Administrative Record file for the site, and announcements published in the Seal Beach Sun and the Orange County Register. The Nary, U.S. EPA, and the RWQCB encourage the public to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the sites and the CERCLA activities that have been conducted at Naval Weapons Station ( NAVWPNSTA) Seal Beach. The dates for the public comment period; the date, location, and time of the public meeting; and the locations of the Administrative Record files, are provided on the front page of this Proposed Plan. There are two ways for you to provide your comments during the public comment period between August 1, 2001 and August 31, 2001. You may utilize . the attached comment form to send written comments to the address listed below and included on the comment form: Ms. Pei -Fen Tamashim - NAVWPNSTA Seal Beach Installation Restoration Program Manager Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach 800 Seal Beach Boulevard, Building 110 Seal Beach, CA 90740 Telephone: (562) 626 -7897 Fax: (562) 626 -7131 e- mail: tamashiro.peifen @sbeach.navy.mil Alternatively, you may submit your comments during the public meeting on August 15, 2001 at the NAVWPNSTA Seal Beach, Building 110 (Multi- purpose Conference Room). A court reporter will be at the meeting to record public comments. After the public comment period is over, the Navy, U.S. EPA, and RWQCB will review and consider the submitted comments before making a final decision on the remedies to be used at the sites. All site - related documents are available for review at the Seal Beach Public Ubrary. Seal Beach Public Library 707 Electric Avenue Seal Beach, CA 90740 Contact: Reference Desk Monday and Tuesday 12:00 noon to 8:00 p.m. Wednesday and Thursday 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Saturday 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Friday and Sunday Closed oio +wnwtim f fl Pmp Plan Nanl Weapm Sutton Seal B 0 ncN -. F SD. C- 01 4796 rrn N� �n+e 9.....�nn nv1w1 USE THIS SPACE TO WRITE YOUR COMMENTS Your input on the Proposed Plan for NAVWPNSTA Seal Beach Sites 1 and 19 is important to the Navy, U.S. EPA, and the RWQCB. Comments provided by the public are valuable in helping the Navy, U.S. EPA, and the RWQCB select final cleanup remedies for the sites. You may use the space below to write your comments, then fold, staple, and mail. Comments must be postmarked by August 31, 2001. If you have any questions regarding the comment period, please contact Ms. Pei -Fen Tamashiro, NAVWPNSTA Seal Beach Installation Restoration Program Manager, at (562) 626 -7897. Those with electronic communication capabilities may submit their comments to the Navy via the Internet at the following e-mail address: tamashiro.peifen@sbeach.navy.mil. Name Address city State Zip Ms. Pei -Fen Tamashiro, NAVWPNSTA Seal Beach Installation Restoration Program Manager Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach 800 Seal Beach Boulevard, Building 110 Seal Beach, CA 90740 latlad papl3a8 uo yaJuud 40 61 pue T saa!S 4oeag IeaS V1SNdAAAVN JOJ ueld PasodOM 30ISNI Ot,L06 VD Veag !eaS OTT 6u!pl!ng'penalnog peag IeaS 009 yoeag IeaS uo4e4S suodeaM IeneN JabeueW We 150M uo!aeiOM'd uo!aellellsu7 yoeag IeaS VJ.SNdAMVN 'a!ysewel uaj -!ad -SW Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach Sites 1 and 19 The U.S. Nary, in cooperation with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), and the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), is soliciting public comments on the proposed "No Further Action" status for Sites 1 and 19 at Naval Weapons Station (NAVWPNSTA) Seal Beach. Inside this Issue: Navy Proposes Remedies for Sites 1 and 19: Site Background Site Characteristics Scope and Role of Response Action Risk Summary Initial Conclusions and Recommendations Mitigation of Risks Through Removal Actions Basis for the Action Summary of the Preferred Remedy Community Participation Information