Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
CC AG PKT 2003-10-13 #P
Ij 4, s , i AGENDA REPORT DATE: October 13, 2003 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council THRU: John B. Bahorski, City Manager FROM: Lee Whittenberg, Director of Development Services SUBJECT: RECEIVE AND . FILE — COMMENT LETTERS REGARDING VARIOUS INSTALLATION RESTORATION SITES AT SEAL BEACH NAVAL WEAPONS STATION SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Receive and File comment letters from the Environinental Quality Control Board (EQCB) and Staff regarding the following Installation Restoration Sites at the Seal Beach - naval Weapons Station: . ❑ EQCB Comment Letter re: "Proposed Draft Remedial Action Plan, IR Site 40, Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach "; ❑ EQCB Comment Letter re: "Tier II Ecological Risk Assessment Sampling and Analysis Plan, Site 74, Old Skeet Range, Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach "; and ❑ Staff Comment Letter re: "Draft Action Memorandum/Non -Time Critical Removal Action Plan at the Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach, California, Site 7 Station Landfill". BACKGROUND: The EQCB reviewed the following reports and authorized approval of comment letters on September 25 regarding the following projects at the Naval Weapons Station: ❑ "Proposed Draft Remedial Action Plan, IR Site 40, Naval Weapons Station, Seal - Beach" ❑ "Tier II Ecological Risk Assessment Sampling and Analysis Plan, Site 74, Old Skeet Range, Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach ". Staff has provided a comment letter to the Navy regarding the "Draft Action Memorandum /Non -Time Critical Removal Action Plan at the Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach, California, Site 7 Station Landfill", as the comment period expired prior to this City Council meeting. Agenda Item P Z \My Documents\NAVWPSTA\R&F Various Comment Letter CC Staff Repoit.doc \LW\10 -02 -03 Receive and File — EQCB and Staff Comment Letters re: IR Sites 40, 74 and 7, Naval Weapons Station City Council Staff Report October 13, 2003 Provided as Attachments are each of the comment letters, and for IR Site 40, a copy of the "Proposed Draft Remedial Action Plan, IR Site 40, Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach" for the information of the City Council. Complete copies of the referenced reports are available at the Department of Development Services and at the Mary Wilson Library for review by interested people. They are not provided due to the length of the various repots. FISCAL IMPACT: None. Existing staff continues to review and prepare appropriate staff reports and comment letters regarding the various Installation Restoration Program activities that are on -going at the Naval Weapons Station. RECOMMENDATION: Receive and File comment letters from the Environmental Quality Control Board (EQCB) and Staff regarding the following Installation Restoration Sites at the Seal Beach naval Weapons Station: ❑ EQCB Comment Letter re: "Proposed Draft Remedial Action Plan, IR Site 40, Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach "; ❑ EQCB Comment Letter re: "Tier II Ecological Risk Assessment Sampling and Analysis Plan, Site 74, Old Skeet Range, Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach "; and ❑ Staff Comment Letter re: "Draft Action Memorandum /Non -Time Critical Removal Action Plan at the Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach, California, Site 7 Station Landfill". NOT .., r APPR f /ED: IP_P b' ..,. .. , i ,,_ _,, e i ttenberg John B. orski 1 D irector of Development Services City 1 : anager Attachments: (4) Attachment 1: EQCB Comment Letter, dated September 25, 2003, re: "Proposed Draft Remedial Action Plan, ZR Site 40, Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach" R &F Vanous Comment Letter.CC Staff Report 2 Receive and File — EQCB and Staff Comment Letters re: IR Sites 40, 74 and 7, Naval Weapons Station City Council Staff Report October 13, 2003 Attachment 2: EQCB Comment Letter, dated September 25, 2003, re: "Tier II Ecological Risk Assessment Sampling and Analysis Plan, Site 74, Old Skeet Range, Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach" Attachment 3: Staff Comment Letter, dated October 2, 2003, re: "Draft Action Memorandum /Non -Time Critical Removal Action Plan at the Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach, California, Site 7 Station Landfill" Attachment 4: "Proposed Draft Remedial Action Plan, IR Site 40, Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach ", Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach, August 2003 R &F Various Comment Letter.CC Staff Report 3 ° • k SEAL :B 7 ,.p i - - t .tom -'- p0 ' � ° +i 4 , 1, * t * 1 co CITY -I. \ L L 11" EIGHTH STREET SLAL�- BEACH_ , CA IFORNIA:90740 4 2 27`� w�vwciseal= beach:ca us • • (562) 31 5 _.: t .,.- .. .. ... -_- - . :., .. -�., r..�.w -�-, . :::r _ .� ... .4 .- � ♦.: _.^ . - yt: . : ... ` „_ .. . ... _ F ...> ; .. ,.� ,�., .-r ... - ... , ti a. s. _ �,x. .. , , :c ; '_ •..;.•_ __ `+ Jr.; -:_ Y-, ' ''4 .G.�' =': -rnci- a ' �;'fi _ � �`? ,s. - .,, 7 , .__ - �- •,..i"' �, h ; -�:.� -i,�, r�.. _,J.y, ... ...._�- . ±r -tia1 - T" --`� ? `a .�c'Si. -.i ..2 *y..._...�,Y.e -. ,. . +x.-.•, r r ...... , { ,.......... - .__l- .,. ;' - ..'�"' �,.:::- �.. ,.. September 25, 2003 FILE COPY Weapons Support Facility Attn: Pei -Fen Tamashiro, Installation Restoration Coordinator 800 Seal Beach Blvd. Seal Beach, CA 90740 -5000 SUBJECT: "PROPOSED PLAN /DRAFT REMEDIAL ACTIONPLAN, IR SITE 40, NAVAL WEAPONS STATION, SEAL BEACH" Dear Ms. Tamashiro: The City of Seal Beach has reviewed the report from the Department of the Navy relative to "Proposed Plan /Draft Remedial Action Plan, IR Site 40, Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach." If you will recall, the City commented on this matter on December 13, 1999 and at that time, the City recommended that the Navy pursue option 5B, which includes the chemical oxidation procedure. Due to the overall cost of that alternative, and due to the results of the Pilot Testing, which has been done over the past 3 ye ars, the City is now supportive of the Navy recommended alternative 5A. This alternat will allow for great remediation of the contaminants in an appropriate amount of time. Thank you for your consideration of the comments of the City of Seal Beach. Please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Mac Cununins, - AICP, Associate Planner, City Hall, 211 Eighth Street, Seal Beach, 90740, telephone (562) 431 -2527 if you have any questions regarding this matter. Sincerely, a� 2v 4 4 t /q John Unrath, Chair nan Environmental Quality Control Board Z \My Documents\NAVWPSTA\IR Site 40 Proposed Remedial Action EQCB Letter doc',LW\I0 -01 -03 Receive and File — EQCB and Staff Comment Letters re: IR Sites 40, 74 and 7, Naval Weapons Station City Council Staff Report October 13, 2003 ATTACHMENT 2 EQCB COMMENT LETTER, DATED SEPTEMBER 25, 2003, RE: "TIER II ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PLAN, SITE 74, OLD SKEET RANGE, NAVAL WEAPONS STATION, SEAL BEACH" R &F Various Comment Letter.CC Staff Report 5 O F S B ° ° ° ,,- , _- _,pAPOggT "9�% - - - - - -k i i •iii ' - f $20 „Q -Q ectscg _ CITY HALL "211 EIGHTHSTREET, SEAL; BEACH, CALIFORNIA 90740 - (562) 431 -2527 . www.ci.seal-beach.c,a.us taW k :i w. ”. Tv JF v ...' .s `... ':.4y . �.. j -.. ; c ' -r . .� � '. .1 �+1.. �. � �. .� - � a - '- '€'.j i ,--",,...--.1,, ..', �;. � ,t -. � .. •`� «. ,`r«r.. „- � -. •��•ti.t .. 1 ^r"�..� _ � :�,' ....: 'a s _ .Y � `� �7 . rci :..., �J . -: h.g�� � ? -- _ .', Y� � --,s 4�' .- fi '�� .�:ji. . - v - _ ,.- ... x � -., . �',`� -,- - -. - - ._. September 25, 2003 FI LE Capy Weapons Support Facility Attn: Pei -Fen Tamashiro, Installation Restoration Coordinator 800 Seal Beach Blvd. Seal Beach, CA 90740 -5000 SUBJECT: ' Tier II Ecological Risk Ass Sampling an Analysis Plan Site 74 Old Skeet Range, Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach • Dear Ms. Tamashiro: The City of Seal Beach has reviewed the report from the Department of the Navy relative to "Tier II Ecological Risk Assessment Sampling and Analysis Plan Site 74 Old Skeet Range, Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach.” The City of Seal Beach is very concerned relative to the site described in this document, as it is partially located within the Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge. The City understands that this is the first in many steps which may be necessary in the remediation of the site and appreciates the ability to provide input to the process. Due to the sensitive nature of the species found within the National Wildlife Refuge, the City respectfully asks that when the "preliminary remediation goals" are developed, the most stringent cleanup activities be carefully considered and adopted as a policy. Further, the City wishes to be apprised of the alternatives for the cleanup and remediation of the site and have the opportunity to comment on these alternatives before any . action plan is put into place. Thank you for your consideration of the comments of the City of Seal Beach. Please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Mac Cummins, AICP, Associate Planner, City Hall, 211 Eighth Street, Seal Beach, 90740, telephone (562) 431 -2527 if you have any questions regarding this matter. Sincerely, - • Otit.— 61 #. fi/L;1,,,,‘;fri , ohn Unrath, Chairman Environmental Quality Control Board Z:\My Docurnents\NAVWPSTA` 1R Site 74 Tier 11 Ecological Risk Assessment EQCB Letter doc'.LW \10 -01 -03 Receive and File — EQCB and Staff Cornnment Letters re: IR Sites 40, 74 and 7, Naval Weapons Station City Council Staff Report October 13, 2003 ATTACHMENT 3 STAFF COMMENT LETTER, DATED OCTOBER 2, 2003, RE: "DRAFT ACTION MEMORANDUM/NON-TIME CRITICAL REMOVAL ACTION PLAN AT THE NAVAL WEAPONS STATION, SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA, SITE 7 STATION LANDFILL" • R &F Various Comment Letter.CC Staff Report 6 ��OcoPq ,4 iV: , CFO - 1 *. 'r, * $ 0 q ge4civ IO; Q, I 0 .,G'F �F9 2,7\,.\___„,,,, __ ..„e0, CITY HALL 211 EIGHTH STREET SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA 90740 (562) 431 -2527 •www.ci.seal- beach.ca.us October 2, 2003 Department of the Navy Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach Attn: Pei -Fen Tamashiro Installation Restoration Coordinator - 800 Seal Beach Boulevard Seal Beach, CA 90740 Dear Ms. Tamashiro: SUBJECT: CITY OF SEAL BEACH COMMENTS RE: "DRAFT ACTION MEMORANDUM/NON -TIME CRITICAL REMOVAL ACTION PLAN AT THE NAVAL WEAPONS STATION, SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA, SITE 7 STATION LANDFILL" The City of Seal Beach has received the above referenced document and is providing comments based on a staff review of the document. The City prefers to have the Environmental Quality Control Board and/or the City Council review documents of this nature and respond with any written comments that they determine to be appropriate. Due to the shortened review and comment period on this document, this is not possible for this particular document. The City of Seal Beach concurs with the determination of the Navy to implement Alternative 3, "Existing Soil Cover Repair and Monitoring. The Environmental Quality Control Board previously indicated by letter on December 19, 2001 its concurrence with this alternative relative to IR Site 7. Alternative 3 also incorporates the previously concurred Alternative 2 of "Excavation and Offsite Removal" for IR Site 4, Areas of Potential Concern (AOPC) 1 A and 2A that were discussed in the "Draft Addendum to the Engineering ' Evaluation /Cost Analysis (EE /CA) Non -Time Critical Removal Action for IR Site 7, Site 4 Areas of Potential Concern (AOPCS) IA and 2A,Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach ". The letter of concurrence regarding IR Site 4, AOPCs 1 A and 2A was submitted to the Navy on June 16, 2003. . The City concurs that the proposed actions of performing limited soil cover repair, surficial debris removal, excavation and off -site disposal of waste and contaminated soil, and Z:\My Documents \NAVWPSTA \IR Site 7.Draft Action Memorandum.Comment Letter doc \LW \10 -02 -03 City of Seal Beach Comment Letter re: Draft Action Memorandum, Non -Time Critical Removal Action, IR Site land IR Site 4 AOPCs IA and 2A, Naval Weapons Station October 2, 2003 groundwater monitoring will achieve a high degree of protectiveness for human health and the environment by removing the lead - contaminated soils from Site 4 AOPCs 1A and 2A, which pose a risk to ecological receptors. This alternative will: ❑ Adequately protect public health and safety and the environment ❑ Complies with "Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements" (ARARs) ❑ Meets the "Removal Action Objectives" (RAOs) ❑ Provides moderate long -term effectiveness ❑ Provides short-term effectiveness because of low impacts on the community, workers, and the environment ❑ Provides high technical feasibility and low administrative requirements ❑ Provides high reasonableness of costs, offering the highest benefit in terms of achieving the RAOs for the estimated cost. The City of Seal Beach also concurs with the "target cleanup goal" (TCG) level. The City understands that the TCG has been reviewed and approved by the Human and Ecological Risk Division of the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). Additionally, DTSC has stated that the human health risk did not appear to be an issue, particularly due to the low exposure related to intermittent travel on the perimeter road. Please note that on page 44, Section IV.B, Site 4 AOPCs lA and 2A — Oil on Roads, second paragraph, that the first sentence is incomplete. Please review and revise the language as appropriate. Thank you for allowing the City the opportunity to review and provide comments on this document. Please contact my office at your earliest convenience if you require additional information or have questions regarding this letter. I can be reached at (562) 431 -2527, • extension 313, or by e -mail at lwhittenberg @ci.seal- beach.ca.us. Sincerely, / ee Whittenberg Director of Development Servic- Distribution: Mayor and City Council Chairman and Members of the Environmental Quality Control Board John Bahorski, City Manager 2 IR Site 7 Draft Action Memorandum.Comment Letter Receive and File — EQCB and Staff Comment Letters re: IR Sites 40, 74 and 7, Naval Weapons Station City Council Staff Report October 13, 2003 ATTACHMENT 4 "PROPOSED DRAFT REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN, IR SITE 40, NAVAL WEAPONS STATION, SEAL BEACH", NAVAL WEAPONS STATION SEAL BEACH, AUGUST 2003 R &F Various Comment Letter.CC Staff Report 7 , . w - . - c N . _ • 3 ,.d £ ^� Fr" r'J.+ y :. t .re '," c;' - ,-- Y,+'�,,�� # :si :t>. ^A ivy ' k''.i .. r ,,,., + r -, ,�_x7 : #, �4'.r�.: a,.. •iF� ��a.. � - f'`t�- _'' > "� ^^•.. J.-�4�,�^rf s �'�'•' �".�,x -�- .$ . ; r � -.sit` i r d, , ��;tt ts � :�,`.. ,k. .> .1 ,r'. ." 'F AI ' � ry. �. a, ^ - , j `t i �, '�i• �,, � - ; �[ { .. ti};,:r�. K ��- � a�- f �� _ � � - '� a ^ - t 4 t�.� 37- - - —G .� ,i,.x �r fi ; 4 ���'= 1''�....^'"r �S . 4,. P OS -PLAN ,�:DRA THE LA A .0 P LA � �, :,._ - ,• r: . :.* e: ,4„ `kr'i.+taf i� -kr, x. `` �J -�c, � .N� 5sr � {.� 1 � �i xL�;� " -� _ ` , ;�w ,.ft .�-r� 3.J '-F ; i � 11 .r ,La � �tSL ' � 7 "' � \ 1 �x, ,�. - �'�• y , . r,; f'it^? . ?t �1-:4''�h ,i,c.. } � �` ;� .,,,, ,� � ^ ^ ' ,'- rce� x 1�, .. , Y . i ?;� - . !�.-�, - �., _ cr #, r'Zrt�.�K z . .- 5 -• " 'may ' ....�".._. ��/�PQnf � ,� 5 - ' � - . ' 4 ; s t •-. ,,` ;; .'S � . ;�. -_ *. r N r. .' g T• . -.,_, ; . M1 s . _"=�, '! . , _ f;1 4-. _ - 4 4 .:. : r �, .:Fa V' S q�'F T 1 '� t -,y.,4 ._ � .�*�.. 3-. . .,,c. -z- ^ 1'S a ' .= c .+ �- dr..{.rd, - - x5 .' r � ri•.�. .;i1G. , � ` 5+' 4� = >R' _�,, � —� S \ � 'Y . � . - a-!ks,° - - ,�., "' ,.yr- Sy . _ :. f 4 M. „ ��"i�S ? ; ^a- r � , ,,' - _., • � J' 1 -- � - -:,;:-.1 .,... es ..•, .ry rt _ . Y � � � � k }i :er "� , � ' , � •t{+. sc '� ~ - '•F'`�; 1 P ' ; 'X - � , r " ! �$ aI Ia t i o n ! ; t $ s a t i on � ' ��-a r .. : .tt' -, r x: '7. ,>` ,- ?� �- . `::, t �..,, :,� -,f� 2 - ,, , g-,, , , } ti ;: '- / � • . r r � , ,,�_ � � � . tt�` r.T� �� n. r �+�.'.;. r ��ir-- � ..:'"* � ::�- " " 5 ' 4� � .� r -• / w c -rf f t `- ---, „ e . '1. ` g ym .. h f ,. ., ch ,5n.., t5s r "" - ," a Ii'".•r.. L r� ti y { , .a_ , _ � • �� ? N r2 .., 1 �' ® ;y z�. 1v� �,� .`: � 5 -� �� t F , 1� „ Q ��.-. V 43 ` � h y i 3 ; :,1 ram- ^- -- ;! �1.� f , e 4 1, 4 ,-, ,lt ,,,, - a ; Pti'3 - ......,4,74 „\ . . ! �. St , f+ .� 3.. .�-: - 7 "a. - , - --•-ic +�y,"t 7. ._ ` . � :, ,-, r,- . - ,'{ � ,..,�: 3Y ,; -.4 , .: '-'. h C '�-J7 %r $. c tv r 51�i x' -� :c `}. ..ew � �ifi -- -_; ' ^ a . ± � y '3' ', . � - ..: !"', -� +„_. - .. ; z . .,. : -t' a'� -�n � :.r , G-"�- , '�H.. 1- t , r� - _ ri.- •� ,U' - � `"� .- i"+ : = t r� ` ct ''r .;,, +, --� �,yy � ...: ' . . r - :, �- i •cF , lL, -' `�. � : r .�° �:=vt �� � .y+; +� k- :1 k j,r• "t t r � •_ {$.� ' °+1���� - � w_ � <5 r `�' 5 .r, s. ,Ff, r: .s. � � ,�,_ .,. ,t 1 aa. .r. .:1L C ." ,l! 'r!,§ ,1 1',- ,i' .7,. _ , t, 7 + , a. :5, 'a`r, .%54. yn .!, _ '3. �.:r{� ,� F ? * y' ; a_."34 ! � y{ „ t , YW+. _ .- u ' - " ?{ z 5.�13� .. c � -�... " i ... _7 _.. � �' = ,,.e71tr, �,�'����;� i ' � ''r: v" ''.i - 1:� � . .. ^r• p.`„"..i� .r -, i_ �. •. r,.., __� ,� r� ,E � . - F � .r �n �. 1- �i�"� v �: � r ,��C ; .ra r = i t • -�^. g .. S.._� 7! ,zrt. = ±.• A 2 t ��- t :�" c L' - �F :_ f .5:. i� , =. t '.:F t ti � #:�` .t i J+ 4 y- :'fM4'I'' :.`. jj.�� - -;';+ t, - r :'�..; ,a. -�.. ,� t f3�` Q ,.� c � - � ce r l ,�'n, , I.' zS r R' :z� i E Y f t, I - �. ,r '� ) „ =S �Ei �. t`E ,N-lc+.' C , i 3rr`..�' nr O. s ..� v.'-• 1 F ';' , i, . � ,,,, i \-,, - `" , - 5 -, 1: r " ><,,,- C ° `- 1,.. '� s -. - m �,l . .i' Gy ms ; 4 _ i .^° y ,. ,,,,., J^ ,, -t om ,. r- ..1 R -„ r _. s �,,- h . . j ,_ *r iii -tf` r�i . ...1 "" . r C T - , -F - ,'- r - �. , ,, , ', -, k .> - , %i :. L+ -; -t � •i "rt i� µ;,;�r-:1r ti �, a `� ' � ,r< 1 '` � - .:f� � � ;;, ,.. } � .. -�; r}�'�. ,k x e �`�<.� :.*= 7'�; "�,,.� 'S 1.: �� .�_, � ::ai. •, �i4c� y �. -7� w l r � , � 4 ! t � � � t. ,� - -:` t� .,. -} ; �k: -5 �,2 ,,. - ` ..��� r^- r � +.'S.�t _. _,. w, �t •[IF.ye�tlws�' ' ks1E,.,r •� `'ti+�.. nr -, City of Long Beach 0 Navy Proposes Groundwater Cleanup ..\\ I. Naval W °�° weap °ns Plan Requests Public Comments ,-"i S tation �i f` ' . - Seal Beach City o '� iv E 40 Westminster pr FE O P d S E D P' L A N. S U M M' A R Y \ -i � © = t+ =. Pages 1 through 3 of this Proposed Plan /Draft Remedial Action Plan (also referred to as the $each, c�1 4,..;,.., .e Proposed Plan) provide a short summary of the environmental investigation results and the Navy's � 't \_,_ * ;. .'Seal Beach cleanup recommendation for Site 40. If you would like to read more in -depth information that A National N 9each e,,,, •Wildlife Refuge forms the basis of the cleanup recommendation, please see the Table of Contents below. 4 ©.. _� �_ J » Y;, he Navy invites you to provide comments concerning the proposed 30 -Day Public 1?"- Huntington . "V cleanup alternatives for the Installation Restoration (IR) Program* Comment Period at Site 40 located at the Naval Weapons Station (NAVWPNSTA) Seal Beach (see box at left for further details on how and when to send N. and Public Meeting your comments). PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD The Proposed Plan /Draft Remedial Action Plan also meets the remedial August 29- September 27, 2003 (cleanup) action plan requirements of the California Environmental Protec- tion Agency (Cal /EPA) Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), the We encourage you to comment on this Pro- lead oversight agency for the state. The California Health and Safety Code posed Plan during the 30 -day public comment spells out the documentation requirements for draft and final remedial period. You can submit written or oral com- action plans. The selection of the final remedy for Site 40 will be documented ments at the public meeting or mail, e-mail, or in the Record of Decision /Final Remedial Action Plan (ROD /RAP). fax written comments (postmarked no later The IR Program is a comprehensive environmental investigation and than September 27, 2003) to: Ms. Pei -Fen cleanup program to identify, investigate, and clean up chemical contamina- Tamashiro (Code: N45WW), IR Program lion that resulted from past Station practices. Figure 1 on page 2 shows the IR Manager, NAVWPNSTA Seal Beach, 800 Seal Program process for Site 40. Site 40 is located at the Station's locomotive - Beach Blvd., Building 110, Seal Beach, CA repair shop, see Figure 2 map on page 3. - 90740; to Ms. Tamashiro by fax (562) 626 - 7131;, - or e-mail tamashiro.peifen@sbeach.navy.mii. a ! I "' ,;',‘L', , , -, • :T'AITE O'F,,CONITEI ES`. r ' Public comments received during this period and at the public meeting will be considered in Page selecting the final remedy for Site 40. - Proposed Plan Summary 1 - - - = _ Environmental Investigation Overview 4 PUBLIC MEETING - Environmental Investigation Conclusions 6 September 16, 2003 -7 to 9 p.m. - ' Glossary of Terms 7 LOCATION Human -Health and Ecological Risk Screening Assessments 8 Seal Beach City Council Chambers information Repositories 9 211 8th Street, Seal Beach, CA In Situ Bioremediation Pilot Test 1e Summary of Groundwater Cleanup Action Alternatives 12 Navy representatives will make a presentation Evaluation of the Site 40 Groundwater Cleanup Alternatives 14 on the Site 40 environmental investigations For More Information 16 and the cleanup alternatives evaluated. You will Site 40 Preferred Remedy — Alternative 5a 17 have the opportunity to ask questions and for- Multiagency Team Concurs with the Navy's Preferred Remedy for Site 40 18 malty comment orally or in writing on the pre- Next Step for Site 40: Public Comments 18 ferred remedy and the other alternatives. Restoration Advisory Board and Mailing List Request 19 d `,..- i ..t.:.� ,�. #' '.'' -. " � � ,- z". - ;- '�. ` - ' ''.. --- `, `:* ,T-'., 3•.a,**`''"fii,tS? i� 'tia r _ ` s.. _ - -,:• + - „ �� , zt ..: �. _ _ ` c 7K'" f : ...:.+'' •:' .,.... - - f ' : � - `- '? _ .mow 4 . F'r�. q4�. w's+.i . __ {r� , L' _ _ . _ s '- ta bdY T"`..' 4 e•, 2`•' i *Words in bold italic type are defined in the glossary on page 7. ,- Fr- R, . Cr C";:. O S E D I. IC a`r ta, �" ' NE 1111 & R � - ' Environmental Conditions at Site 40 amounts that could adversely affect human health if this water were ever used for domestic purposes such as Site 40 has two distinct environmental components, drinking, cooking, or bathing. Specifically, the amounts soil and groundwater. Industrial activities conducted at of VOCs exceed the state and federal primary maximum the locomotive repair shop, from the mid -1940s to the contaminant levels (MCLs). MCLs are enforceable stan- late 1970s, resulted in discharge of volatile organic dards. They represent the maximum allowable level of compounds (VOCs), principally from industrial sol- specific contaminants in water that is provided by a pub - vents, to soil and groundwater. VOCs are contained in lic water system and delivered to customers or users. industrial solvents used for cleaning and degreasing. MCLs are generally used to gauge whether cleanup The primary VOC at Site 40 is tetrachloroethene (PCE). action is warranted. Table 1 on page 3 lists the criteria Other VOCs present include trichloroethene (TCE), and and standards for VOCs in groundwater at Site 40. to a much lesser extent, cis -1,2- dichloroethene (DCE), and vinyl chloride (VC). Extensive field investigations Although the affected groundwater beneath Site 40 is and laboratory analysis of soil and groundwater were not currently used for domestic purposes due to its conducted. An assessment of potential risks to human high salinity and hardness, cleanup of VOCs is health and the environment was also performed. This required. The Navy's cleanup recommendation for risk screening assessment determined potential risks groundwater is based on the results of extensive field from exposure to contaminants in soil and groundwa- studies, groundwater monitoring, and the results of the ter at Site 40. risk screening assessment. Cleanup of VOCs in ground- water is necessary to control migration or movement of Results of soil sampling indicated that most of the orig- VOCs and reduce VOCs in groundwater to levels that inal releases of VOCs have already moved into the are protective of human health and the environment groundwater or evaporated into the air. Based on the and in compliance with water quality standards. environmental studies and risk screening assessment, the Navy determined that no cleanup action is neces- Navy's Preferred Remedy for Groundwater. Cleanup sary for soil at Site 40. Six remedial alternatives were developed and evaluated VOCs are present in the shallow groundwater aquifer for cleaning up contaminated groundwater at Site 40. forming a plume approximately 250 by 450 feet reaching The Navy's preferred remedy is Alternative 5a, In Situ a depth of 66 feet below the surface at Site 40. VOCs Treatment—Enhanced Bioremediation. It would use an reported in groundwater are at concentrations or innovative technology where treatment occurs in place FIGURE 1: Installation Restoration Program Process — Site 40 4: ,,' 6, V _ 200 -x , ; + ; 2004 :,, 2QO �1: 200 * I - , Recor of Preliminary Extended Feasibility Proposed Plan/ Decision/ Remedial Remedial Assessment/ Removal Site Study (FS) and ' Public Final Remedial Design Action Site Inspection ` Evaluation Pilot Tests Comment Action Plan (PA /S1) (ERSE) - Period (ROD /RAP) & Focused (Remedial 0 ,,, ' ' • . Responsiveness Site Inspection Investigation - , Summary - ,(FSI) [R , ' * ,1 WE ARE HEREa 9 �. � " , i ., ,, TO • , BE ; DO fir - . ,,, . _ r .' ,r T i t : �v-4� L � . fF� ri { , r li tt t ���. �I�/�Gi.vFLM'�' i '^x"i ' „t 1 - _ ' _ , W /rY - The PA /SI The ERSE serves The FS identified The public has The selected Detailed specifi- A qualified ° resulted in the as the RI for IRP remedial altema- the opportunity remedial alter- cations for the contractor will discovery and Site 40. It con tives for ground - to comment on native and selected remedy complete responses to will be developed. remedial actions verification of firmed the size water cleanup. the preferred res p potential sites. and location of Pilot test con- remedy and other public com- according to • The FSI further the VOC plume. ducted for Alter- proposed ments will be specifications. delineated Risk screening native 5a at alternatives. documented groundwater for human health Site 40. in the ROD /RAP contamination. and the envi- document. ronment was conducted. *The arrow shows the status of Site 40. * *Assumes cleanup goals will be achieved in 5 years using the preferred remedy. 2 I NAVWPNSTA SEAL BEACH —SITE 40 Words in bold italic type are defined in the glossary on page 7. �' 2 It P 0 S E ,D ' .P' 3.. 1 N - S .' I . M `M .A : It 'Y _ - FIGURE 2: Site 40 Location City of / Long Beach 1 . ..ti A Leisure Naval o world o Weapons V -21;i. 1 Station wo ,,,„,,,,, e o �;, Seal Beach „Seal O GRAVEL AREA Beams ' I +I':, ..:. �d. ♦ ..RA NI i ,,', I PAVED UNPAVED SOIL j 1 ``\ s '' :' i _ .•Seel Beach O - , LF"^ ..,.. ■.... . ` � Natio ♦ UNPAVED SOIL ♦ d' WIa1N PAVED " N : s e ,..' , (Wildli ♦ fe Refuge ..\ 4♦ CONCRETE . , t 1 tt. , i 4 0" :� _ . Beach © l " ♦ 4, UM M UNPAVED SOIL ky.. ♦♦♦♦ } - � +t�i`+ UNPAVED SOIL i ;A-z\-,-,71— ,. . ���% ... - ;:t; T . b PAVED ♦ ♦� ♦♦ '� . s e'' :?� CONCRETE • a �. ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ BLDG r ‘4n41,1,''';;'-'5107,4%,a ' 7: .N'�i�1 �` i • _ X1,,, 1 �� ^...... .......... ♦♦ ♦♦ 260 ,m n , :• lici) , A , 1 ,- .'t' ' ♦ ♦♦ Groundwater . ' + t S; `' 8 1CD N 1 z ' ,,i'4 , , c . a ♦� .,♦♦ ♦ ♦ ♦♦♦ Flow DnecUOn i +� , ur ^ Fy�S , f t t r , i t ♦♦ ♦♦ LEGEND ? so tao ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦� Monitonng Wells (ground surface to 30 feet deep) FEET - + Momtonng Wells (greater than 30 feet deep) a sp Boundary of VOC Plume of Contaminated Groundwater This map shows the location and key features at Site 40. The plume area of groundwater contaminated r:= Railroad Tracks with VOCs and monitoring wells used for determining plume boundaries are presented. below the ground surface. This involves pumping a mix- ability of naturally occurring bacteria present in ground - ture of sodium lactate (an environmentally safe substance water to biodegrade or convert VOCs to harmless, non- used in the food industry) and tap water into the con- hazardous by- products. These bacteria break down the taminated groundwater at Site 40. As planned for use at complex VOCs into simpler molecules. This initial phase Site 40, sodium lactate will not harm soil, groundwater, of biodegradation treatment would greatly reduce the vegetation, or wildlife. This process would enhance the concentrations and amount of VOCs in groundwater at Site 40. Alternative 5a also includes a follow -up compo- TABLE 1: Criteria and Standards for VOCs in nent called monitored natural attenuation (MNA). Dur- Groundwater at Site 40 ing the MNA phase, natural biodegradation of VOCs continues to occur without adding any nutrients to the ' ' L! Concentration (micrograms per Jiter).; groundwater. The Navy's preferred remedy also includes U� � � l i � y k - 1 r y � � y _ ' {- ;'µ 1' '- institutional controls in the form of land -use controls to ' r u prevent use of groundwater allow for access to conduct .EPA, '"E y , ' a li folrnia` ` - ) :fit, lillaxftmim,A, vent , - ; , i m , th cleanup and perform monitoring and maintenance r ' , 1Vlaxrmum , � - ' Maxrunt� � "� Repp�ed ,,,f_.4 , ' ; - , - ontamiriant �N ~;'Contaminant" ' Concen and protect treatment equipment and monitoring wells. Chemical VIM ` ` ;w4 level{ lCl.)1 ` LLevel- :(,MCLLl ±ratfol? t:_ ,_ t -z z -tt? n r 1 N ',-, —_ ,‘ ? 1 ' r f ,- .x . -. r Tetrachloroethene (PCE) - 5 5 3,9402 Navy Requests Public Input -..- `-'� y _;; 71bi_! 2 . -��`� '1� °t r? _ ` ��': `.' 2 " t� °; ", The Navy invites the public to provide input on this �nchloroetherie = (TGE)'. , ;•�,= .�;;�, ; -. � a�- - 5 . 1 - � � i• ; - _. - .5 :;,..' , = - � 273 , F�.�� L"-w -L -`Li ..J +.`u^{- ". -,-- - ..;4:.'',•'_'+ .-' f!: ": «_. -' -- ..-ter -_.., � - '''':: = -, -.:= '. ?• ,_,' ' '.,- - •:x''y ,'- Proposed Plan during the August 29- September 27, cis- 1,2- Dichloroethene (DCE) 70 6 1,5003 2003 public comment period. A final decision will be i Chl oride ` (VC) y ; . - - - 0.5 :: ,. i . , - � 2 T ..,1' ` . - '�' : i -';:' made after the public comment period has ended and all comments have been reviewed and considered. The Sources: Federal and state cleanup standards are established in 40 Code of Federal selection of the final remedy for cleanup of Site 40 will Regulations §141.61(a) and Title 22 California Code of Regulations §64444, be documented in the ROD /RAP and public comments respectively. will be addressed in the Responsiveness Summary por- Notes: tion of that document, see page 18, "Next Step for Site 1) All values reported in micrograms per liter. 40." Environmental investigation reports that provide 2) ' Maximum reported concentrations from monitoring results reported in the Extended Removal Site Evaluation Report the basis for selecting the remedy are available for 3) Maximum reported concentrations from the In Situ Bloremediation Pilot Test review, see page 9 for these locations. Words in bold italic type are defined in the glossary on page 7. NAVWPNSTA SEAL BEACH —SITE 40 1 3 ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTIGATION OVERVIEW NAVWPNSTA Seal Beach History :: �'''�"`{''`��'� N I , . s.,..,,,.�,,.,,,.ci..l•ua�*:.. .,a AVWPNSTA Seal Beach is located on the Pacific coast within the city of Seal Beach in Orange County, ,; -- - • . 7.- _ :; ,� - - California. The Station comprises approximately x j . " 4 ., = 5,000 acres of land and a port area with about 911 acres in ..- - 2 the southwest portion of the Station designated as the Seal l -? l I : __, - Beach Na Wildlife Refuge. Cities surrounding the " ; F. - - ette : _- - - e= ' w _ - : Station include Los Alamitos, Westminster, Huntington w ' '' '`' -n ' _ ' I _ • Beach, and Seal Beach. -^_- ' . The Station was originally commissioned in 1944, at the height 1. - r ;4 ' 4 War II, as a Naval Ammunition and Net Depot The - ' �`' "' '" of World p ' °� ,� ;��: �.,~° � - ; . �� „ ,- r� �- Kr...s .� ,;,.� - �--�; ' :� name has changed several times, but in 1998 the base was , : ' , ._ - , - . `, � ` - - redesignated Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach. It is one of _ � _ '� � . � r .0•_ rr it L GC"" y w37 y' F � � Y � •� �lw,� i '"" _ " '' several weapons stations maintained by the Navy to provide ; ` - ' - '7_,:,,..i- .. - ---- -- � ` -' `-- ' fleet combatants with ready- for -use ordnance. The Station . � 7� r. ^ _ ,4.-. -� ,. .- ' includes a headquarters with central and administrative sup- v' • 3 - ' -Ir' a -:�. r ...„- "`" ; port detachments as well as storage, testing, and production Building 240, which houses the NAVWPNSTA Seal Beach locomotive , . facilities that support the Station's mission. NAVWPNSTA repair facility, is shown. Next to the building is the gravel area (much Seal Beach serves as a supply point for two thirds of the Navy of it is now paved) where wastes that caused groundwater to become - and Marine Corps forces operating in the Pacific. contaminated were discharged. Installation Restoration (IR) Program achieve and maintain a healthy environment for the Station In the past, some hazardous waste disposal practices at and surrounding communities. IR Program cleanup NAVWPNSTA Seal Beach, although acceptable at the time, partners consist of NAVWPNSTA Seal Beach, Cal /EPA's resulted in the release of pollutants into surrounding soil and P W Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) and groundwater. The Department of Defense is investigating Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and the and cleaning up these sites through its IR Program. The goal Orange County Department of Environmental Health of the Navy's IR Program is to protect human health and the Services. The Navy is the lead federal agency for the IR environment through compliance with the Comprehensive Program. DTSC is the lead state regulatory agency for the Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of IR Program, and RWQCB provides technical oversight of 1.980 (CERCLA, also known as "Superfund "). IR sites with water quality concerns and underground NAVWPNSTA Seal Beach is actively working with state and storage tanks at the Station, see Figure 3 below left. local environmental regulatory agencies in a team effort to Since 1985, 73 potential hazardous waste locations have been identified at NAVWPNSTA Seal Beach through the Southwest Division - IR Program. Site 40 is the focus of this Proposed Plan. In Naval Facilities 1991, these sites were categorized into different operable y y Engineering units (Oil's) to more effectively manage the IR Program. State of California Command *Restoration For more information on the overall status of the IR Pro - Department of Toxic Advisory Board gram at NAVWPNSTA Seal Beach, contact Ms. Pei -Fen y Substances Control NAVWPNSTA Tamashiro, see page 16. j Seal Beach Orange County - Background —Site 40 Investigation Department and Cleanup of Environmental At NAVWPNSTA Seal Beach, the Navy uses its own loco- - Contractors Health Services motives and railcars to transport ordnance between storage State of California r= facilities and Navy ships docked at the Station's wharf. Site Regional Water ''` Quality Control Board 40, also referred to as the Concrete Pit /Gravel Area, includes Santa Ana Region ,�`r a concrete pit located in the locomotive repair shop (Build- �_ • ing 240) and an adjacent gravel area. From the mid -1940s to 1978, the concrete pit served as a collection point for oil and FIGURE 3: NAVWPNSTA Seal Beach Cleanup Team solvents spilled during locomotive maintenance activities. * See page 19 for more information on the role community members The waste oils and solvents were discharged from the pit to play on the NAVWPNSTA Seal Beach Restoration Advisory Board. 4 1 NAVWPNSTA SEAL BEACH —SITE 40 Words in bold italic type are defined in the glossary on page 7. the gravel area through a drain pipe until 1978 when the ~�- """" """ "' "'' • - -� _ . , • , , _ �:. pipe was capped. A portion of the gravel area is paved with ;:_ - i asphalt and the remaining portion is unpaved. Four railroad ' w - - - E -- -' rf spurs terminate in Building 240 and provide locomotive __� _ access to the repair shop. Additional tracks traverse the ::+- asphalt - P P aved area to the south. The waste solvents have - 1 , '' contaminated the groundwater beneath the site. `RNs — % r "'■` I r te a a t"'r'-- i � ,.` Environmental Studies Conducted f To study hazardous waste sites in an efficient and cost - _., _ . � � fit t effective manner at NAVWPNSTA Seal Beach, numerous - ,,; r, , .. •, . = _ s sites are often investigated simultaneously. Site 40 was first ..,... t � i ,•�': - .., identified in 1989 in a study that was performed to deter- � - � � 1` -, r � y '"� ' i .fr mine whether there had been or were likely to be releases �. - . -- ., , : - • - - , of hazardous substances from locations where hazardous - ��-,- : 7 - ; , , , , " ' , -. i .tea... w s . wastes or materials had been used, treated, stored, or dis- � = .. s ` ` posed of. Key studies and results are presented below: Drillers and geologists install one of the monitoring wells used for > In 1990, a preliminary assessment of several sites recom- - collecting groundwater samples at Site 40. mended further study of Site 40 and 25 other sites. > In 1995, a site inspection was conducted. The site inspec- cals were detected at levels exceeding state and federal tion showed that two chemicals of potential concern, limits and further action was recommended. carbon tetrachloride and tetrachloroethene (PCE), had ). In 1998, an extended removal site evaluation (ERSE) was been released to the groundwater at Site 40. These chemi- conducted at Site 40 to supplement data from the previ- cals are industrial solvents generally used in maintenance ous investigations. The ERSE was a comprehensive and cleaning activities and are categorized as volatile investigation that served as the remedial investigation organic compounds or VOCs. Further study was recom- (RI), a key step in the IR Program process, for investi- mended to evaluate the nature and extent of these chemi- gang hazardous waste sites. The ERSE included soil cals in the groundwater. and groundwater sampling and provided information > In 1996, a focused site inspection was performed in con- that enabled the Navy to better define the nature and junction with further investigations at seven additional extent of soil and groundwater contamination and eval- sites. The focused site inspection concluded that a plume uate potential threats to human health and the environ- of VOCs containing PCE, trichloroethene (TCE), and 1,2- ment. The information gathered during the ERSE was dichloroethene (DCE) was present in groundwater used to refine the Navy's understanding of the subsur- beneath Site 40. The study determined the plume in shal- face conditions and the migration of chemicals in low groundwater covered an area of approximately 270 groundwater. A screening -level health risk assessment by 220 feet, but the depth was not known. These chemi- was conducted to determine the potential exposure routes of chemicals to people and the environment and estimate the risk from such exposure. See page 8 for 1 - `. -;� "w ›..c...,,,',.--.,-,..--44,-.--,;1 z r� more information on the risk assessment. 1 ▪ ' - Y . ` h `...- , i 1 ° a in 2000 based on recommendations in the I - -- „ L.@ -t • - - . y atu i w ....r F r-` ,,,,K j %: B glnntng , - ", •C : ' '°' Y� - �� ' �+ : ERSE, groundwater monitoring has been performed to g. � frie : • ^ r , t % «,..�"4 r ''-:••- �.,;. ;:,,. 'ti -M.1. - - " t •» �,�. � � �I - �.. � keep track of the VOC plume at Site 40. A groundwater r - -r ' A SS .,.,', J .Y „-� • C s ' , ..x;. 3 . 1. '_� R ti . ; � .: � ;� , 1 T f _,^ monitoring program was implemented that included • y ,�} : _ q � _i} _ J T ”" installation of five new wells. Groundwater samples from "°' : ,��, �,-: � ' . , , r ` _ 15 wells in and around the plume were collected for labo- '-� tr L �-�-• �. *_ ratory analysis on a quarterly basis during the first year =r ,, � + �* r7, �-'( of the monitoring program and annually thereafter. Sam - y '� ' ma y' �-- ° `�" rK ,�,� ~` pies were analyzed for VOCs and natural attenuation - ` ' .? f i r %` ''ter s factors to determine if natural conditions and processes j r . - ,..a.+ ,,, Y •��'', .r�"'S.Y 1}s a �� • ,. . . occurring in the groundwater are capable of reducing - �► �, concentrations of contaminants. Groundwater monitor- `,4 `'.,+tor- F r , _� ing also shows if the extent and chemistry of the plume . At Site 40, waste oils and solvents were discharged from the concrete pit, are changing over time. at the locomotive repair shop in Building 240, to the gravel area outside the building through this drainage pipe, which was capped in 1978. Words in bold italic type are defined in the glossary on page 7. NAVWPNSTA SEAL BEACH —SITE 40 1 5 . �.,� - ?. �,4•Jar�,- •- •�rr..�,* � +�:• r , � " �.'"�'a I i _.J.. - $+�, i+.�9'.iu:�i �"t '' - T'�°�'"`�- �.� -�:J`� � 'r y=- 5 c ? 'K" N `r ` ;,,, 1 ,.�� • �s7W"'� ax��;l�{?;4� - �� J�a� , -�•' qey,.,, ', M : 7\ JJ, aOwl- • "' - `F 1� 7 i , :! •Y 7 } _ !`P 7 �'i . 1/41?f 3!';:13r y,tN •.- y '� q .,s '��y'"''�. �'.'F~.di <:;;ss.•.r� �' \ ,t�,� j , �.__;aQ+ � +��.��'�t •. vo-Y� 4 �. _.a 7�,�.i�f,?,.•I� �..,,. ,. � r_ -� -..- 5F3.r�..'�� r � �� u : •3: h T r a ;., *t'-�`,;. ment_aI" , I n ation:_"Conclusions. i ch i . = ,��� �� -� � t.������:.� � �,. : � �� E�nvi ron, vest _ � �.•.... -. - �_. ���: � ,, � � � _ - q�', t +a.�, ,• y ,�.x:.r!4:Y...�- "�isti��.:r�;��, .ak,.�"� - ;.�` u-r r=�.r- ,x`+ _. ty.- �.��..L:' !�s.• "r= .ra :%r^� ;:ir-��'�tny'•' ^.wrr ;:k ;�'Crn�we',•�'�����e�'p.n, - ��'� ',- - .x ».S4r�" gist 1 � ,, ~t` " :' latt - ; �, sue` .., ' -N. '�a rH IpR ., a � - w 4 z r s „ ••' _-ar - -'' ,•°K"ial� - �•,t�•',�n F�'� „L• y v;�._w F i"� � '�`°'. '�`u• .r_s• �.r3��. r ,•_.p .�, +"�' . ., c3tir �^.°- ,;�bs.�'•!h%,.•s�: �� �.�. � ' , �; k�' �. � •�-.e.�:c�: ''J�'"�� �r�w..r.- Vi �.�s:a' -w Soil— Investigation Conclusions Also, it is not expected to be used as a domestic water source in the future due to its natural high salinity and hardness. The ERSE concluded that the potential for movement of However, if this water was ever used for domestic purposes, VOCs from the soil to groundwater is negligible. Results of the human- health risk screening shows that exposure to soil sampling indicated that most of the original releases of VOCs in groundwater from the plume could have an adverse VOCs to the soil have already migrated to the groundwater impact on human health from ingestion (drinking), direct or evaporated into the air. Metals were identified in the soil skin contact (bathing or touching the water), or inhalation at Site 40 at background (naturally occurring) levels for soils (steam from showering or washing dishes). found throughout NAVWPNSTA Seal Beach; therefore, soils - were ruled out as a health or environmental concern. Based on the concentrations of VOCs in groundwater and the human- health risk screening results, cleanup of the The ERSE further concluded that the human - health risk for VOC plume is required. Cleanup of groundwater will bring soils is below the point of departure for taking action, as the levels of VOCs into compliance with water quality defined in the National Oil and Hazardous Substances standards. Contingency Plan (NCP), the federal regulation that guides the determination of human- health risks for hazardous An extensive feasibility study (FS) was conducted to wastes. See page 8 for more information on the human - health develop and evaluate remedial alternatives to address the risk screening assessment. Also, there is no adverse impact to VOC plume in groundwater at Site 40. The alternatives con - the ecology since this is an industrial setting with no wildlife sist of combinations of cleanup technologies that prevent or habitat present. migration of contaminated groundwater and reduce concen- trations of VOCs in groundwater. As part of the FS, a pilot Based on the study results, the Navy, with concurrence from test was conducted at Site 40 to help determine the technical the regulatory agencies, has concluded that no further action and economic feasibility of an in situ bioremediation tech - is needed for soil at Site 40. nology that was recommended for further evaluation. The Groundwater— Investigation Conclusions pilot test analyzed the capability of this technology to clean up and reduce the amount of VOCs in groundwater. Details The ERSE determined that the groundwater plume primarily of the pilot test are presented beginning on page 10. The contains PCE. Other VOCs present are TCE, and to a much cleanup objectives and remedial alternatives that were lesser extent, DCE. PCE and TCE were determined to be the developed are summarized beginning on page 12. VOCs of concern in groundwater. Data from the ERSE and the quarterly groundwater monitoring program show that . , ; . x. �,:;b, u a tir1� , y . � ;��� � x > .'. • t!: ' .,„4, ,, } l u ,N ,.., �!� ,,, r 'C . , . r . r l r r�r --�' � an.pr�+'f Y. - �� ' n � i , z� �� the plume is approximately 250 by 450 feet reaching a depth ' ,�, • � � 1 4r t f . - ' Y$ sof _ V � !, n x i ,l -r ' h�Y i ; , 4 Y ' l '. '� 4 Y� f i- I'fr ",, T.. - 1, �C/r ■I o� . r�, f�'l �" � r ,rr �+rx.-�� �,d � t. �, �F y� of 66 feet below the surface at Site 40. The plume is moving L g � ��, , ., p �'' ,„ , . ; � '� �� : r`� � ,�x ,f slowly toward the Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge and Jt 4: Y ou.'.can,_'readamo re Atipuo thAff,l'a s, e'v,ronrn n a its marshes located within the boundaries of NAVWPNSTA .' ,44,104-183, . ;; ` T i ` i , K k � '. p�orarn. o►�t t 3 e�lnte�i �et► �;��� ���,,��LL'}}� y � �t� �� r � � I '� �`, r- 1 • -„ h sa.rcf t !1 i' 3 .ri .. X ''t f , F� tc MK f X rt.a. l "- Seal Beach. VOCs are present only in the shallow aquifer �;`_ ' ;-,, . s r , z; , - , 74 i � ,; ; � � N'; ' , . 1 " beneath the site and have not migrated or moved into the 4 u � . 7 ,E deeper regional aquifer. Groundwater monitoring shows that ; ' ., ' ,- ,, 4 ,'' ` 3' ` , there is a negligible potential for the plume to move beyond i*NT$,. n }� =,T the boundaries of NAVWPNSTA Seal Beach. Investigation �t �� , -fir ` F , .�'•4 Y' � 1 a1 results also show that natural attenuation is occurring and ' _ ' . • �"' µ • r a , ' ^7 contributing to a reduction of VOCs present in the center of • - r � a.V.T a ' 0 ., , >' ,., w r� ` 5 the plume. i3 , f' , 3 s ge N ' a ' '�6 a �� � ` +' %tom �`3'� � ` j�. +' Groundwater in the shallow aquifer contains concentrations � � �, �, 3 e t , r or levels of VOCs that exceed the state and federal rim x a t� 7 ` ` -4 ", ` � �Y ti P 1 � y } s u' ;P S � y „ err fli 1 '4f ,` � t o � C r Gr 4 y� « ritr4 �5 9 r� � d v- �""i'�s_' 11 �-�� i `� �` 3 `{ xr- 4 ��4• �c - r Fr,.���'x {� ' t'- ,C'''`i` � � , d ;�� f � maximum contaminant levels (MCLs). MCLs are enforceable r, ,, 1 �h r . ;X, T � ti', , , 1 ,, ;, ' ;m - , a 4 -Navar Wa a, s Sta ior Sear Beac ° ! ro ram standards. They represent the maximum allowable level of specific contaminants in water that is provided by a public ' We -ager•ad iv ;4 * ,1, 'x r Q } F .-. ,, �} > � _ `k` . .yrF� v `6 ! Vi �'�t. ::2;: WL A �7 .. ,,,, '21r ^r .r;i7t,,,,,, -, A s q ,,,"k. [ p � l� Pr - r ains E ucro t al waters stem and delivered to customers or users. MCLs are whtt ww.w 1 n av y min g F � � w • 4. 5'� "4 b ..ic -r"-', t � " � � r �I�l 4 , r�, "�� N �`-€ .�k, -4 � n.f., 7�, '� 'r � Y � t r• ,r 1!i r rr`I' generally used to gauge whether remedial (cleanup) action is ,-� t 4.�. 4a '� 4 x �,� } F -��t ��IR�IR tm , ,�� -, , 1p,r �> tiq �1"�r�ti ; F � t�3 �i J r�- F 1 C Z.`,'- k��u ��� 8 � �} . warranted. '" : t� h�, , '.9 . tr . R , Zi -- . ` M ,-` n , v . N,. .m r 1�'a -� m �,€� - "�' I `e�r y 9r , x x`'� C �Sj. • ! Ay , i t�` f%'. _ Y . ,t4 l ac Ti � ' t:1 =ci:� yy �` Groundwater in the shallow aquifer does not currently serve yT.he Navy's`Soutt ivesttDlvis� -:Env ronmenta -� .e. as a source for domestic use (drinking, cooking, bathing ge °addr s:lh' /www.e s ' na n avy mil . �- s++,, ,,,,,.. i �, � s r, ; �, . „ � ,.: = x • y � � � r _ � a ir � ,�; �environmenta1/envh� }•ome fi � tm� , • : :;J.s'i+'M'L•iW •'~- r�`b�•q�• } ` ;F• �..S` d el !'�wK� - w:-K 1: ....t •r�'l 6 1 NAVWPNSTA SEAL BEACH —SITE 40 Words in bold italic type are defined in the glossary on page 7.