Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout14 TUSTIN LEGACY ENVIRONMENTAL INSURANCEAgenda Item 14 Reviewed: AGENDA REPORT City Manager Finance Director MEETING DATE: June 21, 2011 TO: WILLIAM A. HUSTON, INTERIM CITY MANAGER FROM: REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY SUBJECT: TUSTIN LEGACY ENVIRONMENTAL INSURANCE SUMMARY The Redevelopment Agency seeks City Council authorization to solicit proposals for environmental insurance for a portion of the Tustin Legacy project. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council authorize the solicitation of proposals regarding environmental insurance for portions of the Tustin Legacy project. FISCAL IMPACT The only minor costs related to solicitation of proposals for environmental insurance involve time and charges for staff and Kutak Rock LLC, the City's special base closure counsel for environmental and insurance matters. Once proposals are received and reviewed, late October or November, staff will return with information on the full fiscal impact of the insurance purchase and a recommendation. The potential costs associated with extending the City's current environmental insurance coverage have been included in the proposed FY 2011-12 Budget. BACKGROUND The City currently has an environmental insurance policy for portions of the Tustin Legacy project that involve properties owned by the City and certain other agencies that was secured in December of 2001. The policy has a ten (10) year term which expires this December and covers losses that occur due to pre-existing pollution conditions created at the former MCAS Tustin by the federal government and other coverages. The federal government is generally responsible for remediation of contamination at former military bases and for providing limited indemnification against subsequently discovered environmental contamination at Tustin Legacy. An indemnification was provided to the City in the Navy's conveyances to the City (the Section 330 Tustin Legacy Environmental Insurance June 21, 2011 Page 2 indemnification under the Defense Authorization Act), in which they indemnified property transferees, like the City, for third party claims for personal injury or property damage which result from, or are in any manner predicated upon, environmental contaminants. However, the Navy is not timely in response to situations where unknown contamination is subsequently discovered and in many cases they also argue whether they are actually the responsible party. The risk /challenge is to protect recipients of property that the federal government has conveyed to the City by ensuring that known exposures are contained and limited and the risk of unknown or future exposures is transferred to an insurance carrier, thus allowing redevelopment to proceed in a timely manner. An environmental insurance policy protects the City and other parties that have or will receive former MCAS Tustin property. It will also cover losses that occur due to pre-existing and newly created pollution conditions. It is particularly important for the following reasons: • The Navy's environmental liability is limited by statute and sovereign immunity; • The timing of the Navy's response to notification of any found contamination is not statutorily set; • The availability of Navy and Federal government clean-up funds is not assured. • Current Section 330 indemnities only address third party claims-with no coverage for transferees; • Construction delays can be significant if immediate response to an environmental contamination find is not pursued, also potential migration and exacerbation of the contamination; • Insurance coverage avoids the debate over whether contamination is pre-existing or newly created; it is no fault-with no need for blame; • There is no need for a recovery action against the Federal Government since the insurance underwriter would pursue recovery; and, • Coverage can address catastrophic losses, claims and expenses. We have found over the last ten years that environmental insurance is critical to marketing property at Tustin Legacy and to providing assurance to lending institutions which are generally unwilling to finance projects on "high risk" land where potential contamination issues may arise during development. We expect to be able to offer other agencies and developers an opportunity to purchase from us the ability to be Tustin Legacy Environmental Insurance June 21, 2011 Page 3 named as an additional named insured on any future policy, as has been the practice over the last ten years. Using this process, we entered into agreements in the past that generated sufficient income to completely pay the full cost of our current policy's premiums. Over the last ten year various environmental insurance policies which cover the Tustin Legacy project have been extremely helpful in recovering over $7 million dollars in claims incurred as a result of the discovery of unknown contamination during grading and construction. We would anticipate the insurance solicitation process to include submittal of environmental information forms to prospective carriers. The proposal process will be supported by Barry Steinberg of Kutak Rock LLP, the City's special base closure counsel for environmental and insurance matters, Rich Hyland of EPIC Insurance, appointed previously as the City's exclusive environmental insurance broker, RDA and Public Works staff working on the Tustin Legacy project. Upon approval by the City Council, we plan to market the renewal of our Pollution Legal Liability Insurance Policy to the following carriers /markets. Some of these carriers may consider the primary policy while some may wish to participate only on an excess basis and some may ultimately choose not to participate at all. • Ace Environmental • Allied World Assurance Co. (AWAC) • American Safety • Arch Environmental • Berkley • Chartis • Chubb Environmental • Endurance Ins. Co. • Great American Environmental • Ironshore • Markel • Navigators • Starr • Underwriters at Lloyds, London • XL Environmental • Zurich Tustin Legacy Environmental Insurance June 21, 2011 Page 4 Agency staff will bring back to the City Council in later November or early December, 2011, information on the recommended policy(ies). Attached is a proposed draft solicitation package. Staff will be available to answer any questions that the City Council may have. Christine Shingleton Assistant City Manager ataFr June 13, 2011 Name Company Address Address SUBJECT: SOLICITATION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL INSURANCE PROPOSALS, TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA Dear The City of Tustin, as the local redevelopment authority for the former Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin (now known as "Tustin Legacy") and the Tustin Community Redevelopment Agency (collectively, "Tustin'), is soliciting proposals for pollution legal liability insurance to address issues associated with the development and reuse of portions of the Tustin Legacy project. As a provider of this type of insurance coverage, we request your proposal to address our requirements. We are looking for creative programs that fit the needs and expectations of Tustin with respect to protecting Tustin from liability and exposure arising out of pollution conditions at the project. Stop loss or cost cap coverage is not contemplated. Initially, the Named Insured should be the City of Tustin (City) and the Tustin Community Redevelopment Agency (Agency). The City is the current property owner of a majority of the subject property and currently leases certain parcels from the Department of the Navy with the intent to receive title to leased property as it becomes available within the next few years. See attached map of project properties (owned and leased) with corresponding ownership, which we contemplate as the covered locations. During the duration of coverage, which we seek for 10 years, the Named Insured will change from Tustin to yet-to-be named developers as title is passed to developers. The City andlor Agency will retain title to several parcels until all parcels have been subsequently transferred to third-parties. Therefore, the City and/or Agency will continue to be Named Insured on these parcels. Your proposal should include provisions that allow modification of the First Named, Named and Additional Insured as the parcels are transferred. The City will want the ability to add, as additional named insured, real estate developers who obtain title to portions of the property and/or who will act as horizontal or vertical developers pursuant to a Disposition and Development Agreement for any property identified as a covered location under the policy. Such developers shall have the option to obtain a sublimit 4811-3 581-3 l 29.2 [Insert Name] Tustin Legacy Insurance Solicitation June , 2011 Page 2 of coverage for a portion of the property that they acquire, in an amount approved by Tustin, subject to approval by the insurer, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. The City shall also have the right to request subsequent endorsements on specific option sites that are identified on the Attached Exhibit (labeled as Option sites), that can be added to coverage with an endorsement to be issued by the underwriter at a specific cost to be identified for each option site. The City will identify purchasers of option sites and shall have the option to identify any sublimit at its discretion, to be assigned to specific parties against the total limit of liability coverage in the policy. Option sites are Lot IV-J-7, Lot 35 and Lot 3 of Tract No. 17026. The City is in the process of subdividing properties identified above and current legal descriptions in this request for proposal can change and the map and narrative descriptions would describe the properties. Duration of Coverage: 10 year policy term, with an option for such additional period as can be offered, with an Extended Reporting Period of 5 years, (with the cost separately identified for this component) Aggregate Limits Options: May be a combination of primary and following form excess policies. • $50,000,000 per incident/$50,000,000 aggregate • $35,000,000 per incident/$35,000,000 aggregate • $25,000,000 per incident/$25,000,000 aggregate • Option to direct separate aggregate for individual parcels or development sites Deductibles/Self Insured Retention: $100,000 per incident/$500,000 aggregate/with and without $10,000 maintenance $250,000 per incident/$1,000,000 aggregate/with and without $25,000 maintenance Retroactive date: None Coverages should include, but not be limited to, the following: • Cleanup Costs, Onsite: Pre-existing and New Conditions • Cleanup Costs. Off site: Pre-existing and New Conditions • Bodily Injury, Onsite: Pre-existing and New Conditions • Bodily Injury. Offsite: Pre-existing and New Conditions • Property Damage. On Site: Pre-existing and New Conditions [Insert Name] Tustin Legacy Insurance Solicitation June , 2011 Page 3 • Property Damage. Off Site: Pre-existing and New Conditions • Legal Defense Costs • Non-owned Disposal Sites • Contingent Transportation Liability from the Insured's Products or Waste • Development Soft Costs • Natural Resource Damage • Lead and Asbestos • Fines. Punitive Damages and Penalties where allowable by law * Changes in Regulatory Standards • Liability for Breach of Contract due to Pollution Conditions • Business Interruption Please ensure that the following are considered in your proposed policy or proposal: 1. Primary Insurance. 2. Severability of Interests ensuring that the negligence of one Insured does not prejudice coverage of other Insureds. 3. Exclusion for Intentional, Willful or Deliberate Non-compliance with Environmental Laws be amended to state that such non-compliance be proven in a court of law. 4. Insured's right to participate in the selection of counsel and/or have the right to veto such decision, 5. 90 days notice of cancellation. 6. Reasons for cancellation should be only for the following reasons: a. Nonpayment of premium b. Material misrepresentation by the Insured All known Navy environmental documents pertaining to the former MCAS are located in the MCAS Tustin Administrative Record File Base Realignment and Closure (BRAG) Office Building 307, MCAS El Toro. To schedule a review time, Monday to Thursday gam-lpm, please contact Ms. Sue Rawal at (949) 859-6014. The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), as the lead regulatory agency at former MCAS Tustin, maintains an online database of the environmental documents on the following website: http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/profile_report.asp?global_id=30970002 (click the "Activities" tab for a complete list of downloadable and viewable documents). A copy of the index of documents held in the repository is also attached for your underwriting process as is a copy of the'Bnvironmental Baseline Survey' (EBS). The City makes no 4811-3581-3129._; ~? [Insert Name] Tustin Legacy Insurance Solicitation June _, 2011 Page 4 representation as to the accuracy or completeness of the documents demonstrating known conditions. Attached to this solicitation you will find: Facilities Pollution Application Subject Parcel" Exhibit (June 2001) Master Development Exhibit (2004) "Carve-Out Areas and Groundwater Plumes" Exhibit (November 2009) City of Tustin Annual Financial Report 2010 Redevelopment Agency Annual Financial Report 2010 2010 Audited Financial Statement 2011 Audited Financial Statement Inventory of DTSC's "EnviroStor" Online Database for former MCAS Tustin Prior Insurance Claims History All requests for additional information should be submitted to the broker of record, Richard Hyland / Edgewood Partners Insurance Center (EPIC) at 949-417-9134, rh.l~(cr~,edgewoodins.com., who shall be Tustin's representative during the solicitation process, or such other employees, consultants and attorneys of the City as may be designated in writing only by the Tustin.. Respondents Proposals shall be submitted to the broker of record, listed above, by no later than October 3, 2011. The City may request oral presentations from some or all responding carriers thereafter. Please forward all your questions to me and I will direct them to Tustin as appropriate. Sincerely, Richard W. Hyland Vice President Enclosures cc: Barry Steinberg Christine Shingleton Ken Nishikawa Matt West Former MCAS Tustin Insurance Solicitation ATTACHMENTS 1. Facilities Pollution Application 2. "Subject Parcel" Exhibit (June 2011) 3. Master development Exhibit (2004) 4. "Carve-Out Areas and Groundwater Plumes" Exhibit (November 2009) 5. City of Tustin Annual Financial Report 2010 6. Redevelopment Agency Annual Financial Report 2010 7. 2010 Audited Financial Statement 8. 2009 Audited Financial Statement 9. Inventory of DTSC's EnviroStor" Online Database for former MCAS Tustin. Insert Application en ._ a ei o¢ .. r O) L O °? L J C ~ (j = Q ~ c' v.. N J ~ ~ .vn f. d 4. ~ ~ ~ ~~~. =Q _~ ,i ! N ' ' ~ Z u~ U ~ fF ~ N ~ r1 U ._ , o~ =a J `. ~ o ~ O J ~. 111 Q T ~t '" o ~ J `, '~ a~ e n ~ r ~ ^~ w ,n N O~ o• o n w o o _ g - w n .o ° ~ y ~ M _ ! 'p s" "~ LL + N V s N~ O ry g ~ O ~ O n ~ O ~ ,p N S r ~ S Z Z ~ 0 0 ~ V n" o ' _ U N eQ O N r ~ Ji ~~ •. • : K~, ` ` w !~ ~: Q 'a ~ ~ O, ~/ \f i ~ ~% y o~ ~ 0 ~ -. ~~.~ . Y. • ~d _ ~~ ' ~~ ~ ~~ , ~ ~~f`~ T' 1 it l ! ~\~ ~ ~s ~., ° ~s ` ;. o ~ ,~ o ~-. , o,~ ~ ~. o ~. ,~~, ~ - f GO . _ ~ V Q c~ ~ ~U l~ c J N, ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ o W ^ ~ ~ -~ ~ . ui 02 , ? a a ~ ~. _ o ~ ~ _ ~~ ~ ~- sz O tV `p - -----~1 ~ ' N ~^ - ~ ~~ I O lJ~ ~m ~ of ~o O J W .- ~U ~ Q ~- ~ 4 .. ~~~ OQ ~~ .,, o> J ` ~ . (~ ~ b~ a~ `~ s u ~ ~ R ~ 3~ ~ i, ~ . Z a _ ~ W ~ ~ ° ~ ~ i m _T ~ 7 \ ~ i~ 0 ^ ~ dHVAHVH ~ z W ~ ~ ~' O ~ r ~ ~ ~ i ® ~ W ~~~~ ~ - p ~ { ~ _ - ___.~ On ~ O ~ ~ W ~ ~ - r ~ _ U ~~ ~.. ~~ N _____T___________ ----__ _r ----------~ ------~----------- ------ ---a- -- ~ ~ ---- - - ---- - - - ------- ~ ~ h ~ ~° - ,~ ~ ~ o ~j u ~~ , o ~ ~ ~ ~ S~ I ~ `r ~ o O B I ~? O O O ^ ~ ..~ Q O w i ~ ~ Y N ~~ ti, ~ v ,~ - -tr~ ------ N ~ ~ . ~ ~~ 3 ~~ - ~' ' `~~A ~~ ~~ ,~ Q _. \ q III i ' i ~ ` ,.._ ~ ( ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ d j4} ~L ~ ~ ~ ~1 Q ~ d ~ -- ~~~ ~ 1. ~' 47 -: , '~fi ~, ~ ~ ~ 11 ~~ ~~ ~ +~ ~ •~~. dw~ia ~.~ ~ ~ i r ~_J ~ ~ ~ ~ :. / ~ A.~ --- ~ ~ - ej ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~.. $ g ~° i m ~. ' ~a ~~ ~ ~ ~ ° ~ `'L `;~ - N {: r ~ W i ~ ~ i ~/ / Y~/ !~ . ~ T ~ y..~- ' ~}i i Y -- ~i li ' ~ .. ~ - ,~ __ _ .~ i l ~y ~ ~ ~ ~ O i - - _------- ei ~OIO Q \\ - (( - ~~ ' I m ~ A ~ ~ ~ oa ~ ~. ~. i ~~,i _ ~ _ ° - ~ ~ - I I, I ~ ~ ~ I I I I I ~ i I H ~ O d C O ~ ~ N ~ w O M U~ ~, _~~ ~ a ~ ~ ` c V a. ca a E m° ~~ ar ~ d ~ a~ ca ~~ j ~ Z ~a.a tN ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C m ~ ~~ ~O c6 No~c6W C oXO~ wN0 O ~ ~ Vl ~ a .-:~ cpa0 `~ c`~~~~~ :? Nmc~~ a~iu~t° C7 ~ a! m~ :°- N N ~ ~_ Q L •<Lv~voi~ Nmm c ~ ~ c~ m ~ ~ o .~ ~ ~ ojS cn mQ m m Q• O m ~mu~w~Z+~mm~ c 3 ca v~~- E r- cM ~ D. ~ ~ 3 U n m m ~ ~ m ~ >, a a~ - ~ _~ 3 ~ ~ c C m Q ~ a d a~ ~'a ~ ~}, ~ o ~•- cam ~ ~' ~~ ~ o p ~'~ ca ~•~ A > w e0 ~ ~ ~ N ~ a~ ~ > > a~i m o =n. a~i~ m aE 3$v o a3 a~ ~ O E H z a R N N E_ ~ O ZO Q tQ-a ta.ol-.6 O O ~ m~ch~• ~ Qo N tOn.«. E ~ (Oj ~' Q m m~ N N x•U ' ~ o~= ~ a~>,c o 0 p N ~p ~ ~ d c0 ~~ y o ~. i ea r ~ ~• ~ ~ p p ~ Z t N +4 of c~ s ~ ~ ~ p ca ' N N R 3 c N N c 0 Q = ~ ~ > > >~ ~ ~ o•v~ ~ ca ~ ~ ~ ~•-•- m a~•c•c•- ~~a~m ~ 'a~s'c ~ ~ m~ ~, •o = O O O~ > j ~'QN U aU~-i_~~~cnF-t- E Q U ~~ Q y~ c ~ co c ~ ~ OUHtLCnin w v, Ov y y m ~ ` ~~ iii N W N ~ ~ ' W W ~ O O c m 41 O E ~ ~ _' ~ I! ®® ,~ ~~ ~ ° ~pU~d~d~~UU rn a`~i~N~mU c~~v ~w ~ ' ~ a ~ E - J LJ Z NUD ~~~~lnF-F- 3 U~=a-~~H ~d O 01 d ~'C RI IL V w.,,j- .. -r= Insert City Annual Financial Reports QEPARTMENT Of TOXIC SU65TANCES CONTROL .~ov N'~ I ~~STD ~ E ZT FREEWAY AT EDINGER AVENUE PROJECT MANAGER: CA 92710 SUPERVISOR: COUNTY FFICE: ANANTARAMAM PEDDADA ROBERTSENGA CLEANUP CYPRESS CHRISTINA FU ACTIVE AS OF 6/1/1986 SITE TYPE: CLOSED BASE NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST: NO ACRE :1600 ACRES APN: NONE SPECIFIED CLEANUP OVERSIGHT AGENCIES: RWQCB 8 -SANTA ANA DTSC -SITE CLEANUP PROGRAM -LEAD US EPA ENVIROSTOR ID: 30970002 SITE CODE: 401485-11 SPECIAL PROGRAM: NAVY FUNDING: BRAG 91 ASSEMBLY DISTRICT: 70 SENATE DISTRICT: 33 PAST USEISI THAT CAUSED CONTAMINATION ABOVE GROUND STORAGE TANKS, AGRICULTURAL -LIVESTOCK, AIRCRAFT MAINTENANCE, AIRFIELD OPERATIONS, DEGREASING FACILITY, FUEL -AIRCRAFT STORAGE/ REFUELING, FUEL - VEHICLE STORAGE/ REFUELING, FUEL TERMINALS, HAZARDOUS WASTE STORAGE -TANKS/CONTAINERS, JET FUEL STORAGE/REFUELING, LANDFILL -CONSTRUCTION, LANDFILL - DOMESTIC, LANDFILL -HAZARDOUS WASTE, OIUWATER SEPARATORS, PAINT/DEPAINT FACILITY, PESTICIDE/INSECTIDE/RODENTICIDE STORAGE, RESIDENTIAL AREA, HAZARDOUS MATERIAL -TRANSFER STATION, TRANSPORTATION -PIPELINE, UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS, UNKNOWN, VEHICLE MAINTENANCE ASBESTOS CONTAINING MATERIALS (ACM) DICHLORVOS POTENTIAL MEDIA AFFECTED CONTAMINATED SURFACE /STRUCTURE, INDOOR AIR, OTHER GROUNDWATER AFFECTED (USES OTHER THAN DRINKING WATER), SOIL, SOIL VAPOR POLYNUCLEAR AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS (PANS) Itin Marine Corps Air Station was first commissioned in 1942, with the Navy Lighter Than Air (LTA) Blimps. The Station served as a LTA base until it was decommissioned in 1949. In 1951, the Base was recommissioned as 1ta Ana Marine Corps Air Facility. In 1985, the Base was renamed Tustin Marine Corps Air Station. The Base's sion was to train and support helicopter squadrons. The Base was closed in July 1999 as a part of the Base alignment and Closure (BRAG). Past waste management disposal operations at the Base have resulted in ~tamination of surface water, groundwater, and soils. Contaminants at the Base include: jet fuel, aviation gas, oil, cents, battery acids, and hydraulic oil. 'The cleanup effort at MCAS Tustin includes 16 IRP sites. Subsequent ices have found that four sites require no further action and 12 sites require further investigation, or have ledial action currently underway. ' In addition, a remedial investigation of the Fuel Farm Area, where Iroximately 800,000 gallons of fuel is stored, was completed in 1988. 'The following is the summary of the sites. OU-1A: IRP- 13 South(vehicle maintenance and equipment wash area) ' OU1-B: IRP- 3 (paint stripper disposal area) and IRP- 12 (drum storage area No. 2) ' OU-2: IRP- 2, 9A/96, 13E (No further action is required at these sites) ' OU-3: IRP-1 (Moffett Trenches and Crash Crew Burn Pits) ' OU-4: IRP-6, IRP-8, IRP-5N, IRPSS(a), IRP5S (b), IRP-11, IRP- 13W, and IRP-16 Finding of Suitability to Transfer 6/22/2011 NOTE: THE DUE DATES OF FUTURE ACTIVITIES ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE BASED ON THE PROGRESS OF CURRENTLY SCHEDULED ACTIVITIES =A NAME SUB-AREA DOCUMENT TYPE DUE DATE Water Board Lead UST 222 Operations and Maintenance Report 2011 -48 MMS-04 (AREA B) Remedial Action Completion Report 2011 -46 - Design/Implementation Workplan 2011 OU_4g Operations and Maintenance Plan 2011 OU-1A 13S ~ Operations and Maintenance Report 2011 ~~ OU-1A 13S 5 Year Review Reports 2011 B Operations and Maintenance Report y_ _ _ 2011 -1 B 5 Year Review Reports 2011 OU-3 1 '~ 5 Year Review Reports 2011 -46 Fact Sheets 2011 OU-4B Design/Implementation Workplan v' 2011 :'~ -46 Finding of Suitability to Transfer 2011 -46 Remedial Action Completion Report 2012 -46 Remedial Action Completion Report 2012 Water Board Lead UST 222 Operations and Maintenance Report 2012 OU-1A 13S Operations and Maintenance Report 2012 QU_l B Operations and Maintenance Report 2012 OU-4B Operations and Maintenance Plan 2013 NIEW DOCSI OU-48 Pilot Study/Treatability 5/2/2011 Completed Workplan NIEW DOCSI OU-1 B Operations and 12/28/2010 Maintenance Report Operations and VIEW DOCSI OU-1A 13S Maintenance Report 12/28/2010 Water VIEW DOCSI Board ~1,S~T Operations and 12/27/2010 completed Lead OU-46 222 Maintenance Report Monitoring Report 12/27/2010 'VIEW DOCSI OU-16 Operations and 12/27!2010 Completed Maintenance Report VIEW DOCSI OU_1 B Monitoring Report 12/27!2010 NIEW DOCSI -1A 13 Monitoring Report 12/27/2010 Operations and NIEW DOCSI OU-1A 13 Maintenance Report 12/1g/2010 Complete NIEW DOCSI OU-3 1 Monitoring Report 12/17/2010 Completed VIEW DOCSI -48 Well Completion Report 12/17/2010 Completed Water VIEW DOCSI Board ~ Monitoring Report 12/14/2010 completed Lead VIEW DOCS1 OU_4B VIEW DOCSI -4B Monitoring Report Monitoring Report 12f7/2010 11/30/2010 Complete The final letter was sent I Water NIEW DOCSI Board Lead 222 INIEWDOCSI -4B "'~` t T VIEW DOCS] Boar Lead 222 NIEW DOCS1 -18 NIEW DOCSI OU-1A 13S -1 B OU-1A 13 W ar ~T NIEW DOCSI Board 29A Lead NIEW DOCSI OU-4B NIEW DOCSI PROJECT WIDE •NIEW DOCSI -46 VIEW DOCSI OU-46 -1A 13 OU-1 B VIEW DOCS] -1B VIEW DOCSI OU-1A 13 ~ OU-3 1 ~ U-1A 13S ~ OU-1 B Water ~I Board ~~ ~~ I~ST 1 /17/2009 OU-1A 13S Monitoring Report 11/17/2009 Water T Board 2 2 ~~ Monitoring Report 10/29/2009 Water T 222/ Board MTBE Operations and 10/13/2009 ~~ ~ I n Maintenance Report 1 B Operations and Maintenance Plan ~-~ UST ~~ Operations and 222 ~~ Maintenance Report OU 1A Operations and ~ Maintenance Plan -1 B Monitoring Report OU-1A 1~ Monitoring Report -48 Monitoring Plan OU 4B Well Installation Workplan Water ST 222/ Operations and Board ~ MTBE Maintenance Report Monitoring Report 1 1 /3 012 01 0 Final letter is sent Monitoring Report 11/10/2010 Data summary report No comments are necessary Monitoring Report 11/9/2010 No comments are necessary. Data summary report Monitoring Report 10/28/2010 This is a final document. comments or letter is not necessary Monitoring Report 10/28/2010 This is a final document. comments or letter is not necessary i~ Monitoring Report 8/17/2010 Final. No comments required Monitoring Report 8/17/2010 Final. No comments required Remedial Action Completion Report g/12/2010 The Report is final and complete Pilot Study/Treatability Workplan 7/8/2010 Work Plan is approvedvia telephone Environmental Assessm nt 6/24/2010 PERF document signed and Complete e Environmental Assessment 3/29/2010 Record of Decision 3/29/2010 Remedy Constructed: Operating Properly & 3/4/2010 Successfully Remedy Constructed: Operating Properly & 3/4/2010 Successfully Operations and 3/4/2010 Maintenance Report Operations and Maintenance Report 3/4/2010 Monitoring Report 3/4/2010 Monitoring Report 2/24/2010 Monitoring Report 1/27/2010 Monitoring Report 1/27/2010 Removal Action Workplan 12/15/2009 Operations and Maintenance Report 11 /24/2009 10/13/2009 10!7/2009 Water Board Lead. The document review is completed by DTSC 9/24/2009 9/24/2009 9/24/2009 6/30/2009 Groundwater Monitoring Report for OU 46 approved. 6/30/2009 Work Plan for Installation of GW wells at OU 4B approved. 6/2/2009 Completed the document review State Clearing House received completed document on March 30, 2010 ROD has been signed Completed Completed Completed Completed Completed report completed Final Report. NO comments were submitted No comments were needed. Final revised report was sent by Navy GW Parcels 1~1 Monitoring Report :VIEW DOCSI Transfer ETP-24- Land Use Restriction Parcels 1a Monitoring Report Water UST 222/ NIEW DOCSI Board MTBE Operations and Lead GW I n Maintenance Report NIEW DOCSI OU-3 Land Use Restriction Monitoring Report NIEW DOCSI QU_4g Proposed Plan 'NIEW DOCSI -1A (NIEW DOCSI OU-1B 13S Monitoring Report Monitorin Re ort NIEW DOCSI OU-1 B g p Remedial Action Completion Report NIEW DOCSt OU-1A 13S Remedial Action Completion Report NIEW DOCS] -1A NIEW DOCSI OU 1B 13S Monitoring Report _ NIEW DOCSI -1A 13S Monitoring Report Monitoring Report NIEW DOCSI -46 Feasibility Study Report Supplemental Site NIEW DOCSI QU_4g Investigation Tech Memo ~ NIEW DOCSI OU-3 i Land Use Restriction Monitoring Report NIEW DOCSI OU-3 ~ Monitoring Report NIEW DOCSI -1A ,],'}~ Monitoring Report NIEW DOCSI OU_1B Monitoring Report i NIEW DOCSI Transfer ETP 24- Land Use Restriction Parcels 1 b Transfer ETP-24- NIEW DOCSI Parcels ~ 222/ Land Use Restriction Water VIEW DOCSI Board ~TBE Operations and t ~ ~ Maintenance Report I n NIEW DOCSI OU-1A 135 Operations and Maintenance Report NIEW DOCSI OU-3 1 Monitoring Report '.NIEW DOCS1 PROJECT Monitoring Report WIDE NIEW DOCSI PROJECT Finding of Suitability for WIDE Early Transfer NIEW DOCSI U-1A 13 Fact Sheets .NIEW DOCSI OU-1A ~ Design/Implementation Workplan NIEW DOCSI OU-1 B Fact Sheets p/IEW DOCS] -1B Design/Implementation W k l NIEW DOCSI -1A or p an Monitoring Report (NIEW DOCS1 OU-3 Land Use Restriction Monitoring Report Water 222/ E NIEW DOCSI Bo r ~ Technical Report Lead I n P R O ECT /~ D E VIEW DOCSI Monitoring Report Monitoring Report Monitoring Report 5/25/2009 This report certifies land use controls in compliance 5/25/2009 This complies with land use controls 3/17/2009 3/13/2009 Annual REport is complete 1/27/2009 No Comment 12/30/2008 No comment 12/30/2008 No comments 12/30/2008 12/30/2008 12/8/2008 Document complete 11 /18/2008 11 /18/2008 10/14/2008 9/9/2008 8/14/2008 land use annual report is complete 8/12/2008 Completed 7/23/2008 7/1 /2008 6/5/2008 1/28/2JC~8 11/8/2007 Report is complete. 10/2/2007 10/2/2007 9/28/2007 9/17/2007 Governor signed the Early transfer package on September 17, 2007. 7/26/2007 Completed 7/26/2007 The project is complete 7/26/2007 The fact sheet is complete. 7/12/2007 ... ,......_.~,.. __. _;.,- . _ 7/2/2007 - . .. _- , . 5/21 /2007 4/23/2007 4/9/2007 1 /24/2007 12/14/2006 NIEW DOCSI (NIEW DOCSI OU_1 B OU-3 i NIEW DOCSI OU-3 1 ! IEW DOCS N I OU-1A 1: NIEW DOCSI OU-3 NIEW DOCSI OU-3 Z NIEW DOCSI OU_4g 6 VIEW DOCSI -1A NIEW DOCSI PROJECT NIEW DOCSI WIDE PROJECT I WIDE NIEW DOCSI OU-3 Water NIEW DOCSI Board Lea NIEW DOCSI PROJECT WIDE VIEW DOCSI tPMRDOEECT PROJECT WIDE NIEW DOCS] P R OEECT , M D ;NIEW DOCSI -1A 'NIEW DOCSI OU-1A Removal Action Completion Report 12/14/2006 Monitoring Report 12/14/2006 5 Year Review 11/2012006 Reports Operations and Maintenance Report 10/12/2006 Completed Operations and DTSC reviewed the document. DTSC comments were adequately Maintenance Report 10/12/2006 addressed. Operations and Maintenance Report 10/12/2006 Completed Technical Workplan 10/11/2006 Operations and DTSC reviewed the document. DTSC comments were adequately Maintenance Report 10/10/2006 addressed. Monitoring Report 8/29/2006 Monitoring Report 8/29/2006 A land use covenant was recorded on July 20, 2006 that restricts residential, industrial and other use, since it was a former landfill. The Moffett Trenches and Crash Crew Burn Pit was designated as OU-3 and is also known as Installation Restoration Program Site 1. OU-3 is generally bounded to the northeast by the southern edge of Edinger Avenue, to the northwest by the western edge of the access road on the northwest edge of the Jamboree Road roadbed fill (approximately 20 feet west of the landfill gas probes), to the southwest by the toe of the northern concrete support structure for the Jamboree Road overpass above Moffett Drive, and to the southeast by the westem edge of the Peters Canyon Channel bottom where Land Use Restriction 7/20/2006 it meets the containment remedy wall or westem channel bank. The OU-3 Record of Decision/Remedial Action Plan (ROD/RAP) was approved on December 20, 2001and selected a surface cover, containment wall along Peters Canyon Channel; landfill gas, groundwater and surface water monitoring program; land use restrictions; and a contingency plan as the remedial action for OU-3. The ROD/RAP provided that the Covenant must provide for access for Department, the Regional Water Quality Control Board, and other regulatory agencies that have jurisdiction, including any contractor or representative acting at the direction of any such aforementioned entity. The areas of applicability of the restrictions set forth in this Covenant are referred to as the n Property^ and are more particularly described and depicted in Exhibit A and B, respectively. ~T Removal Action ~2 Completion Report Finding of Suitability to Transfer Final Site Management Plan Monitoring Report Monitoring Report Monitoring Report 13 Removal Action Completion Report 3/10/2006 Waterboard approved on 2/1/06 3/1/2006 DTSC letter was signed 1 /31 /2006 12/23/2005 12/23/2005 10/18/2005 9/9/2005 Water Board 2t~Z Technical Workplan 8/14/2005 Lead PROJECT Fieldwork 7/30/2005 WIDE The soil removal action achieved the objective of excavating VOC- contaminated soil in the vadose zone above the Geanup level. The confirmation soil samples indicated that the lateral extent of VOC- contaminated soil above the Geanup goal was removed. The removal of contaminated soil made it possible for the builder to install the utilities at this site. PROJECT WIDE NIEW DOCSI OU-1A ', NIEW DOCSI -1 B OU-4 @$ VIEW DOCSI OU-4 A~ OU-18 NIEW DOCSI OU-1A VIEW DOCSI PROJECT WIDE NIEW DOCSI OU-1 B NIEW DOCSI PROJECT WIDE BRAC Cleanup Team: Meetings/ 7/30/2005 Teleconference (12) Operations and Maintenance Report 7/22/2005 Design/Implementation Workplan 7/10/2005 Environmental 6/30/2005 Assessment Removal Action Completion Report 6/23/2005 Technical Workplan 6/19/2005 Monitoring Report 6/15/2005 Finding of Suitability to Transfer 5/15/2005 Technical Workplan 4/27/2005 Base /Site Management Plan 4/14/2005 Completeed DTSC concurred with the remedial design and remedial action for the OU- 16 soil. Completed This document is completed MMS_7 'Site Closure Report 4/6/2005 OU-1A Fact Sheets 1/21/2005 this task is completed -1A Monitoring Report 1/21/2005 OU-1 B Fact Sheets 1/21/2005 This task is completed Water Board T 90 'Site Closure Report 1/5/2005 Lead -4A Record of Decision 12/11/2004 VIEW DOCSI OU-1A NIEW DOCSI OU-1A 13S NIEW DOCSI -18 1 2~-~ Water 6186 1 ~~~ Motor ~~ Area NIEW DOCSI ~DOEECT Record of Decision 12/11/2004 Remedial Action Plan implements a Pump and Treat remedy for VOC contaminated groundwater. The OU-1A ROD/RAP presents the selected remedial action consisting of excavating soil contaminated with volatile organic compound (VOC) from a hot spot area, disposing this soil at a permitted facility, and extracting and treating VOC-contaminated groundwater using a granular activated carbon Remedial Action Plan 12/2/2004 (GAC) system from a hot spot area and containment wells at site IRP 13S. Hot spot areas are classified as soil and groundwater contamination area that are characterized by the highest concentrations of VOC chemicals. The remediation of soil and groundwater hot spots will expedite the cleanup of groundwater. The OU-1 B ROD/RAP presents the selected remedial action consisting of excavating soil contaminated with volatile organic compound (VOC) from a hot spot area, disposing this soil at a permitted facility, and extracting and treating VOC-contaminated groundwater using a granular activated carbon Remedial Action Plan 12/2/2004 (GAC) system from a hot spot area and containment wells at site IRP sites 3 and 12. Hot spot areas are classified as soil and groundwater contamination area that are characterized by the highest concentrations of VOC chemicals. The remediation of soil and groundwater hot spots will expedite the cleanup of groundwater. CEQA 11/18/2004 CEQA 11/18!2004 Removal Action 10/30/2004 completed Completion Report Monitoring Report 10/27/2004 Monitoring Report 10/24/2004 Finding of Suitability to 9/17/2004 Transfer where at least one VOC had been previously reported at concentrations exceeding its maximum contaminant level (MCL). Discrete groundwater Feasibility Study samples were collected at 121 locations using HydroPunch sampling Report $/31/2004 techniques and were analyzed for VOCs. Data obtained from the shallow groundwater investigation were used to revise risk assessments for some OU-4 sites and IRP-5N, IRP-5S(b), IRP-i3, IRP-11, IRP-16, MMS-04 Areas A and C were recommended for NFA. DTSC concurs with this recommendation. RIFS - OU4: The shallow groundwater investigation was performed at sites where at least one VOC had been previously reported at concentrations exceeding its maximum contaminant level (MCL). Discrete groundwater samples were collected at 121 locations using HydroPunch sampling techniques and were analyzed for VOCs. Data obtained from the shallow groundwater investigation were used to revise risk assessments for some OU-4 sites and IRP-5N, IRP-5S(b), IRP-8, IRP-11, IRP-16, MMS-04 Areas A and C were recommended for NFA. DTSC concurs with this recommendation. RIFS - OU4: The shallow groundwater investigation was performed at sites where at least one VOC had been previously reported at concentrations exceeding its maximum contaminant level (MCL). Discrete groundwater samples were collected at 121 locations using HydroPunch sampling techniques and were analyzed for VOCs. Data obtained from the shallow groundwater investigation were used to revise risk assessments for some OU-4 sites and IRP-5N, IRP-5S(b), IRP-8, IRP-11, IRP-16, MMS-04 Areas A and C were recommended for NFA. DTSC concurs with this recommendation. OU-3 Monitoring Report 8/27/2004 Water ~~ 2~6 'Site Closure Report 8/27/2004 ~ Lead i NIEW DOCSI U-4A Proposed Plan 8/27/2004 This project is complete Water Board T 16 'Site Closure Report 8/17/2004 Lead RAP - ASAOC: The Final Action Memeorandum (AM)/Remedial Action Plan (RAP) addresses anon-time critical removal action for removal of soil contaminated with arsenic at the Arsenic Area of Concern. The j NIEW DOCSI OU-4 ASS Remedial Action Plan 6/25/2004 contaminated soil will be disposed at permitted off-site facility. The Removal ~ ~ Action for this site is deemed consistent with Division 20, Chapter 6.8, ~ California Health and Safety Code. This removal action will reduce the ' human risk associted with arsenic contaminated soil. PEA-DSD7: The Site Inspection (SI) report summarizes the results of previous investigations conducted at DSD-07. Based on the delineation ' Preliminary results, DSD-07 does not appear to be the source of trichloroethylene (TCE) VIEW DOCSI PROJECT Endangerment 6/14/2004 contamination in the area. This is based on the low levels of TCE found in WIDE Assessment Report shallow soils directly below the storm drain line to 6 feet below ground surface. The site data do not indicate a release occured directly from DSD- 07. Based on the information Navy requested No Further Action (NFA) for the site. DTSC did concur with the NFA recommendation. Finding of Suitability to tVIEW DOCSI FOB Based upon DTSC's review of Final FOST #5 DTSC submitted anon- 9/12/2003 ~ Transfer concurrence letter RIFS - OU1A: The Feasibility Study develops and evaluates potential ' remedial alternatives to mitigate risks to human health from groundwater, Feasibility Study contaminated with volatile organic compounds originated at IRP Site 13S. NIEW DOCSI OU-1A 13S Report 9/5/2003 This FS involved screening technologiesand associated process options according to effectiveness,implementability, and cost. The retained options were assembled into remedial alternatives and then evaluated against ~' regulatory criteria. OM: This Operation and Maintenance Plan (OMP) presents inspection and maintenance, Long-Term Monitoring (LTM), and contingency plans, including frequency of monitoring and reporting requirements to be used in PROJECT Operations and NIEW DOCSI support of the final remedy selected for OU-3, with the goal of protecting 6/26/2003 WIDE Maintenance Plan human health and the environment. Detailed descriptions of requirements for conducting fieldwork and data management activities are presented as attachments to this OMP including Land-Use Control Implementation and Certification Plan. PEA - ST16A&ST16B: The Site Inspection (SI) report summarizes the results of previous investigations conducted at ST 16A and 16B. The Navy I ~ Preliminary found polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) in soils in earlier 'NIEW DOCS] 16AB Endangerment 2/7/2003 investigations at these two sites. They completed a removal action of Assessment Report contaminated soils in 1997. Post-removal soil sampling sound some additional contamination with PAH. The subject report documents the Department of the Navy's (DON's) risk screening evaluation at the site and ~, based on the risk estimates recommends a No Further Action (NFA) site closure for ST16A and ST16B. DTSC did not concur with the NFA recommendation. PPP -REV: The CRP describes a comprehensive community relations program being conducted in conjunction with the Installation Restoration Public Participation Program (IRP) investigation and environmental cleanup activities at the NIEW DOGS] REV Plan /Community 1/9/2003 Former MCAS Tustin. The purpose of the CRP is twofold: to identify Relations Plan concerns the community may have regarding Geanup efforts and to determine the best methods for conducting and enhancing communication between the Navy and the local community. FOST - FOST4: DTSC reviewed and commented on the FOST for a portion of Parcel 24. DTSC was unable to concur on the suitability of Parcel 24 for Finding of Suitability to transfer because the portion of Parcel 24, that is the the subject of this NIEW DOCSI FOST4 Transfer 12/4/2002 FOST, includes buildings where potential releases of lead from lead-based paint were not evaluated. Additionally, MCAS Tustin is a permitted Hazardous Waste Facility under California law and DTSC cannot concur with a FOST until the nece sa rmit di i ti i l t ry pe mo on s c ca s comp e e. PEA -MOOR Pad 4 and 5 (MOORS): The preliminary Assessment was pertormed to evaluate the distribution of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons at the Mooring pads, Twenty Seven direct-push soil samples were collected Preliminary from depths ranging from 6 inches to 18 inches below ground surtace at NIEW DOCSI MOORS Endangerment 11/21/2002 Mooring Pad 4. Five samples were collected at the degraded locations at Assessment Report the Mooring Pad 5. The results of the screening risk assessment indicate that concentrations at the Mooring Pad 4 and 5 are with in the risk management decision reange and pose acceptable risk levels and recommended no further action. DTSC concurs with the recommendation. ' Preliminary NIEW DOCSI ASAOC Endangerment 6/4/2002 Assessment Report Preliminary NIEW DOCSI MAW01 Endangerment 5/20/2002 j Assessment Report .NIEW DOGS] OU-3 1 Land Use Restriction 5/14/2002 ~ FOSL - FOSL3: DTSC reviewed and commented on the FOSL 3. DTSC NIEW DOGS] F L3 Finding of Suitability to 4/26/2002 concurs with the Navy that the property could be leased in a manner that is Lease protective of human health and the environment with the specified restrictions, conditions and notifications set forth in the FOSL. FOST - FOST3: DTSC reviewed and commented on the FOST 3 for Parcels 23,29,34,35,36 and portions of 1,16,17,24,27,28,40, and 41 and found parcel 36 and portions of 24 and 41 to be environmentoally suitable for transfer for their intended use. 'DTSC is unble to concur with the suitability of Parcels 1 and 17 for transfer. The 1998 MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan Errata identifies Parcels 1 and 17 as educational/recreational use. As a result, it is possible that the reuse of these parcels could include school sites, meaning kindergarden through grade 12 (elementary, middle and high schools). Additional detail is not provided for Parcel 1 and the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAG) Business Plan 2002 (in review) designates the land use of Parcel 17 as a High School. Pursuant to the California Education Code, section 17210 et seq; a separate and comprehesive environmental review is required for IEW DOGS F ST3 Finding of Suitability to ~ ] "~ sites where stat funds will be used for property acquisition or school 4/22/2002 - Transfer construction. This review process incudes an evaluation of whether hazardous materials on the property have been or could be released that would endanger students. Because this separate environmental review has not been conducted for Parcels 1 and 17, DTSC cannot determine if these parcels are suitable for the intended use. 'DTSC was unable to concur with the suitability of Parcels 23, 29, 34, 35, and portions of Parcels 1, 16, 27, 28, and 40 for transfer. These parcels incude buildings/structurestyhere potential releases of lead from lead-based paint (LBP) were not evaluated or where sufficient information was not provided for DTSC to detenmine if LBP is a potential issue. DTSC considers the presence of exterior LBP that has been released to the soil to pose a potential release to the environment pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCIA) as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986. VIEW DOCSI OU-1B Feasibility Study 3/21/2002 Report Transfer Finding of Suitability to VIEW DOCSI 2/27/2002 Parcels Lease ;MEW DOCSI OU-3 1 Remedial Action Plan 12/20/2001 VIEW DOCSI OU-1A 13S "Action Memorandum 10/22/2001 (if <$1M) I[VIEW DOCS1 F ST1 Finding of Suitability to g/27/2001 Transfer '.MEW DOCSI FO T2 Finding of Suitability to 9/19/2001 Transfer i RIFS - OU1 B: IRP Sites 3 and 12. The Feasibility Study (FS) develops and evaluates potntial remedial alternatives to mitigate risks to human health from groundwater, contaminated with volatile organic compounds, principally trichloroethene (TCE), and related organic solvents originated at Sites 3 and 12. This FS involved screening technologies and associated process options according to effectiveness, implementability, and cost. The retained options were assembled into remedial alternatives and then evaluated against regulatory criteria. DTSC reviewed and commented on the FOSL for Southern Parcels CO Areas 1,2,3 and 4. DTSC concurs with the Navy that the Southern Parcels CO Areas property is suitable for lease for the purposed intended (commercial/business) subject to the conditions, notifications, and restrictions set forth in the FOSL. The RODIRAP was issued on May 17, 2000 and signed by DTSC on December 18, 2001. The ROD/RAP documents the final selected remedial action for the Moffett Trenches and crash Crew Bum Pits site. The major components of the selected remedial action for OU-3 are institutional controls, groundwater and surface-water monitoring, landfill gas monitoring, inspection and maintenance of the containment wall and cover, maintenance of the French drain system and associated sumps, maintenance of monitoring wells and security features, and periodic reviews. In addition, the land use controls include use restrictions, notification procedures, inspections of physical structures, contingency plans, and five-year reviews. RAW - TCRAIA: An Action Memorandum/Removal Action Work Plan (AM/ RAW) was prepared to document for the administrative record the Department of Navy's decision to undertake atime-critical removal action (TCRA) to initiate grounwater extraction to hydraulically contain groundwater contaminated with volatile organic compounds (VOCs), principal) 1,2,3-TCP. The TCRA will eliminate further downgradient migration of contaminated ground- water and prevent vertical migration to the underlying regional aquifer. The extracted groundwater will be treated using granular activated carbon (GAC) and discharged to Peters Canyou Channel through a storm drain or injected back to the aquifer. Discharge to Peters Canyon Channel will comply with the substantive provisions of Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), Santa Ana Region, Order Number 96-18, General National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit Number CAG918001. Discharge will also comply with supplementary RWQCB requirements (e.g. discharge limits for 1,2,3-TCP) that are not inGuded in the General Permit. DTSC approved the AM/RAW on August 17, 2001. FOST - FOST1: DTSC reviewed and commented on the FOST for Parcels 3, 21, 38, 39, and Portions of 40 and found Parcels 3, 38 and portions of 40 to be environmentally suitable for transfer for their intended use as transitional/emergency housing, community park road and transportation/circulation facilities, respectively. ' DTSC was unable to concur on the suitaility of Parcels 21 and 39 for transfer. The MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan Errata (City of Tustin 1998) indentifies these parcels as future elementary school sites. Pursuant to the California Education Code, section 17210 et seq., a separate and comprehensive environmental review is required for sites where state funds will be used for property acquisition or school construction. The Education Code requires that DTSC make a determination as to the suitability of the property for school use based on this review. The review process includes an evaluation of whether hazardous materials on th property have been or could be released that would endanger school students. Because this separate environmental review has not been conducted for Parcels 21 and 39 ,DTSC was unable to determine if these parcels were suitable for use as elementary school sites and, therefore, we did not concur with the finding of Suitability for these two parcels. FOST - FOST2: DTSC reviewed and commented on the FOST for Southern Parcels 4 - 8, 10 - 12, 14, 42 and Parcels 25, 26, 30 -33, 37 and Portions of 40 and41 andfound Parcels 3 - 8, 10 - 12, 14, 42 and Parcels 25, 26, 30, 32, 33, 37and Portions 41 to be environmentally suitable for transfer for their intended use. 'DTSC was unable to concur on the suitability of Parcel 31 for transfer. The MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan Errata (City of Tustin 1998) identifies this parcel as future elementary school site. Pursuant to the California Education Code, section 17210 et seq., a separate and comprehensive environmental review is rewired for sites where state funds will be used for property acquisition or school construction. The Education Code requires that DTSC make a determination as to the suitability of the property for school use based on this review. Thereview process inGudes an evaluation of whether hazardous material on the property have been or could be released that would endanger school students. Because this separate environmental review has not been conducted for Parcel 31 DTSC was unable to determine if these parcel was suitable for use as elementary school sites and, therefore, we did not concur with the Finding of Suitability for this parcel. ' In addition, DTSC was unable to concur with the suitability of Parcel 4 and portions of Parcel 40 for transfer. These parcels may have lead based paint (LBP) that has been released to the soil. DTSC maintains that lead in soil from LBP is a Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Libablity Act (CERCLA) release to the environment. Building 176 (Parcel No. 4), Buildings 180, 181, 182 (Parcel No. 40), and Structure 237 (Parcel No. 4) were all constructed prior to 1978, the year when lead based paint products were discontinued. Navy did not conduct conduct soil sampling to determine whether soils surrounding these buildings contain concentrations of lead from LBP which may pose a threat to human health and the environment. Until such sampling is performed, DTSC cannot determine whether, pursuant to CERCLA 120(a)(3), all actions havebeen taken at these lwo parcels to remedy potential releases of lead to the environment from LBP. OU-1A 13S * CEQA 8/17/2001 Preliminary P L35 Endangerment 6/19/2001 Assessment Report Preliminary P 21 Endangerment 6/19/2001 Assessment Report BWEBS BW D rt t f D f d D rt t f th N li : - epa men ense an o e epa men o e avy po cy and guidance documents, along with currently available information generated from on-site investigations, visual inspections, personnel interviews, regulatory records searches, aerial photograph reviews, reviews of data for adjacent properties, and chain-of-title searches, are the basis for this report. This Basewide EBS Report supplements the April 1994 MCAS Tustin EBS for the Community Environmental Response Facilitation Act of 1992 Report and the April 1997 MCAS Tustin EBS for Parcels 6, 86, 8C, i 11A, 33, 38, 39, 41A, and 41 B. ' CEQA - OU3: DTSC completd a Special Initial Study to evaluate the potential for adverse environmental impact for the Proposed remedial action identified in fhe Record of Decision/Remedial Action Plan (ROD/RAP). The remedial action inGudes application of institutional controls, inspection and maintenance of the concrete containment wall and surface cover, monitoring of ground water and surface water, monitoring of landfill gas, maintenance of the french drain system PROJECT Environmental and associated sumps, periodic reviews of monitoring results, and 6!19/2001 WIDE Baseline Survey preparation of a contingency plan. Based on the Special Initial Study, a Negative Declaration was prepared pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. The draft Negative Decaration was circulated fora 30-day public review and comment period. DTSC has found, on the basis of the Special Initial Study and comments received on the Negative Declaration, that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. 'PEA - PCL35 and PCL 21: The Department of Navy has a lead-in-soil samplingprogram. Its objective, at MCAF Tustin is to evaluate potential lead-based paint hazards in the soil adjacent to the housing units within the housing areas costructed prior to 1978. Lead-based paint on the exterior of the houses could potentially Flakeoff of the housing units and impact soil in the yard and also in areas adjacent to the perimeter of the house. A work plan was developed for the evaluation of potential lead- based paint hazards in soil at the former housing areas, one of which is Moffett Meadows (PCL 35) and Tustin Villas (PCL21). The intent of the soil sampling at the housing areas was to determine whether further evaluation was sampling results, it was determined that no further action was required for lead-based paint in soil at Moffett Meadows or at Tustin Villas. PEA - MWA10: The contaminated soil was treated in a thermal desorption unit (TDU) located on site. In the non-landscaped excavated areas, non- impacted overburden and treated soil was used as backfill material. The excavation was compacted to greater than 90 percent relative compaction Preliminary to surface grade. In the landscaped excavation areas, no compaction VIEW DOCSI MWA10 Endangerment 5/30/2001 testing was performed. Analytical results for the rinse water samples, soil Assessment Report samples, and excavation samples collected at the site was below source water concentrations (collected from local fire hydrants), target cleanup levels, or laboratory reporting limits. These results indicate that impacted i soil at the site was removed. In addition, the results of the screening risk assessment support no further action. ~ PEA :Facility decontamination and subsurface sampling was conducted at eight sites. Excavation of impacted soil was performed at Sites ST-36, ST- ~ 51, and ST-88. The contaminated soil was treated in a thermal desorption unit (TDU)located on site. In the no-Landsgped excavated areas, non- impacted over- burden and treated soil was used as backfill material. The excavation was compacted to greater than 90 percent relative compaction to surface grade. In the landscaped excavation areas or areas scheduled for Preliminary demolition, no compaction testing was performed. ' ST-35, ST-89, ST-90 VIEW DOCSI T35 Endangerment 5/22/2001 and ST-91 -Analytical results for rinse water and soil boring samples Assessment Report support no further action. ' ST-36 and ST-51 -Analytical results for soil boring and confer- mation soil samples support no further action ' ST-72A - Results of the screening risk assessment indicate that the concentrations at ST-72A pose acceptable risk levels and support no further action. ' ST-88 - The analytical results for the rinse water samples and the deeper soil i sample results support no further action. However, the shallow hot spot areas with elevated concentrations of arsenic(as identified at ST-86, ST-88, and MAE-03) will be addressed as a separate arsenic AOC report. Preliminary NIEW DOCSI MAE7 Endangerment 5/17/2001 Assessment Report ~ t PEA - MWA15: Analytical results for hand-auger, pothole, and excavation j confirmation soil samples from Site MWA-15 were below the target Geanup j levels or laboratory reporting limits. These results indicate that soil at this site has not been impacted. Therefore, no further action is required for this ~ site. 'PEA - UST89: Analytical results for the confirmation soil sample ~ collected from the bottom floor of the excavation were below the target cleanup level or laboratory reporting limits, indicating that soil at the site has not been impacted. Therefore, no further action is required for this site. ' PEA -MAE7: This is a miscellaneous air emission area, consists of two Preliminary separate areas: Building 273(Test Cell) and Building 231 (Engine Test NIEW DOCSI MWA15 Endangerment 5/17/2001 Area). The activities of PEA inGuded fatality decontamination, collection and Assessment Report analysis of rinse water samples, and subsurface woil sampling using a hand auger. Analytical results for the rinse water samples and soil samples and i soil samples were below source water (i.e., fire hydrant water) concentrations with the following exceptions: aluminum, barium, iron, molybdenum, selenium, and vanadium, which were below the tap water PRGs; and calcium, magnesium, and potassium, which are common metals for which no PRGs have been established. Soil sample results were below target Geanup levels and laboratory reporting limits, indicating that soils at the site were not impacted. The results of the risk screening assessment indicate that concentrations at Site MAE-07 pose acceptable risk levels. Therefore, no further action is required. PEA - MAW7 : Sites MAW-7, MAW-8 and MAW-16 each abandoned well was closed according to Orange County Health Care Agency guidelines. Preliminary Samples were collected from the groundwater that was displaced during NIEW DOCSI MAW7 Endangerment 2/6/2001 backfilling of wells MAW-7 & MAW-16 with grout. The samples were Assessment Report analyzed for disposal characterization purposes. A minimal amount of water was produced during the grouting of MAW-8 and, therefore, a sample was not collected. Analytical results for the groundwater samples were below either target cleanup levels or laboratory reporting limits. Because soil VIEW DOCSI NIEW DOCSI QU_2 NIEW DOCSI OU_2 ,NIEW DOCSI IRP-9 samples were not collected from Sites MAW-7, MAW-8 and MAW-16, a risk screening assessment was not required. PEA -SITE 18B: In 1995, a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Preliminary (RCRA) FacilityAssessment was completed for MCAF Tustin. Site 186 was ST18B Endangerment 2/1/2001 identified as potentially contaminated site. Hand augar samples were Assessment Report collected and contaminated soil was excavated. The results of the screeninc 'CEQA 12/12/2000 Remedial Action Plan 12/12/2000 Removal Action Completion Report 9/26/2000 Preliminary ST13A Endangerment 6/26/2000 Assessment Report Preliminary ST-5A Endangerment 6/26/2000 Assessment Report Finding of Suitability to 6/26/2000 Lease RAP - OU2: No action is the selected remedy for the three IRP sites and nine AOCs. In selecting the no action remedy for these siteslAOCs, it was determined that the existing condition of the sites/AOCs is protective of ~ human health and the environment. 'CEQA - OU2: A Notice of Exemption ~ (NOE) for the OU-2 No Action Remedial Action Plan (RAP) was filed with ~ the State Clearinghouse on Sepember 28, 2000. DTSC found the project the project to be exempt under Title 14 California Code of Regulations (CCR), Section 15061(b)(3) based on the following: DTSC in conjunction with the RWQCB, U.S. EPA and DON, determined that no further remedial action is necessary to ensure the protection of human health and the environment at sites IRP-2, IRP-13E and AOCs AD-04, AS-06, AS-08, AST- 02, AST-04, MDA-04, MDA-07, MMS-01, and MWA-03. This determination was based upon extensive field investigations, laboratory analyses, and a ~ through assessment of potential human health risk assessments at each specific location. The results of the human health risk assessment at these sites/AOCs do not present an unacceptable risk to human health or the environment. Therefore, since DTSC has determined that there is no possibility that the project may have a significant effect on the environment, 'I the activity is not subject to CEQA. IRP 9A: Between July 1997 and September 1997, approximately 676 tons of PAH-contaminated soil and 25 tons of total petroleum hydrocarbon (TPH) -contaminated soil was excavated and treated from IRP-9A Subareas 1 and 2 combined. The contaminated soil was transported to the on-site thermal desorption unit (TDU), treated, and transported back to IRP-9A for use as backfill in the excavation. The removal action at IRP 9A Subarea 2 encompassed the boundaries of two STs: ST-40A and ST-406. The remaining STs were outside the excavation limits of the removal action. ' ~ IRP 9B: Between October 1998 and January 1999, approximately 3788 tons of PAH-contaminated soil from IRP 9B Subarea 1 and 3049 tons of PAH- contaminated soil from IRP 96 Subarea 3 were excavated and treated. The ~ contaminated soil was transported to the on-site thermal desorption unit (TDU), treated, and transported back to IRP-9B for use as backfill in the excavation. The removal action at IRP 9B Subarea 1 encompassed the boundaries of two STs: ST-47A and ST-476. 'Based on the post-removal action human health risk assessment, it was determined that exposure to the remaining soil and residual PAH concentrations at IRP 9A and IRP 96 would result in a human health risk well within the acceptable range for resident children and industrial workers, and at the NCP point of depature for resident adults, as defined by the EPA for unrestricted residential or industrial use. , PEA - ST-5A, ST-12, ST-22, ST-376, ST-39, ST-42, ST-45: 1.) ST-5A and ST-12: The concrete pads were decontaminated and samples collected from the rinse water were below action levels. Soilsamples were taken and results were also below action levels. 2.) ST-22: Soil samples were collected and results were below action levels. 3.) ST-37B: Results from soil samples triggered an excavation (approximately 129 tons) of TPH-impacted soil. The soil was treated at an on-site thermal desorption unit (TDU). confirmation sampling indicated that all TPH-impacted soil had been removed. 4.) ST-39 and ST-45: Results from soil samples triggered an excavation(approximately 22.3 tons and 27 tons) from ST-39 and ST-45 respectively of PAH-impacted soil. The soil was treated at an on-site VIEW DOCSI NIEW DOCSt Preliminary M A-6 Endangerment Assessment Report Preliminary MWA-5 Endangerment Assessment Report thermal desorption unit (TDU). confirmation sampling indicated that all PAH- impacted soil had been removed. 5.) ST-42: The concrete building was decontaminated and samples collected from the rinse water were below action levels. Soil samples were taken and results were also below action levels. 'PEA - ST-13A, ST-136, ST-18A, ST-26A, ST-34A, ST-46, ST-55, ST-60A, and ST-80: Facility decontamination was conducted at Sites ST- 13A, ST-18A, ST-26A, ST-34A, ST-46, ST-55 and ST-56. A rinse water sample was taken and analyzed for each of the above sites.Soil sampling was also conducted for each of these sites. Based on the results of the screening risk assessment, the concentrations at sites ST-13A ST-13B, ST- 18A, ST-26A, ST-34A and ST-56 pose acceptable risk levels. ~ Soil sample results for ST-46 and ST-55 indicated that excavation was required. All confirmation sample results for ST-46 and ST- 55 were below target cleanup levels and the results of the screening risk assessment indicate that concentrations at these two sites pose acceptable risk levels. ' Decontamination activities at ST-60A and ST-80 were not necessary because the sites were located on asphalt. The analytical results for soil samples from ST-60A and ST-80 were below target Geanup levels. The results of the screening risk assessment indicate that concentrations at ST- 60A and ST-80 pose acceptable risk levels. PEA -MDA-O6, AME-05, MAE-06, MWA-01, UST-5306, TOW-X1 8 TOW- X8: Under a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Facility Assessment completed on MCAS Tustin in 1995, the above sites were identified as potentially contaminated sites. Remediation actions were taken at these sites as follows; 1) At Site MDA-06, 1,247 tons of impacted soil were removed, of which 901 tons were impacted with Total Petroleum ~ Hydrocarbons (TPH) and trace pesticides and was transported for McKittrick r Waste Management for disposal. The remaining 346 tons were impacted with lead and pesticides and was transported to Chemical Waste I Management's Class I treatment, storage and disposal facility. 2) MAE-05 was decontaminated using mechanical scrubbing and pressure washing with detergent and rinsed with source water. A rinsate sample was taken, and was found to contain endrin aldehyde, methylene chloride and bromodichloro- methane with endrin aldehyde above action levels. The site was decontaminated again and endrin aldehyde dropped to acceptable levels. Two drums of paint chips were collected and shipped as non-RCRA hazardous waste to Chemical Waste Management's Facility, and 3,000 gallons of decontamination water were collected in a Baker tank and treated 3/22/2000 on site at the carbon adsorption treatment unit and properly discharged. 3) MAE-06 was decontaminated using mechanical scrubbing and pressure washing with detergent and rinsed with source water. A rinsate sample that I contained calcium ,magnesium, sodium and zine was collected; these ~ metals do not pose a risk on human health or the environment. 4) MWA-01 was decontaminated using mechanical scrubbing and pressure washing with detergent and rinsed with source water. A rinsate sample containing below action levels of trihalomethanes, bromodichlor- methane, chloroform, and dibromochloromethanetyas collected. Rinsate water from the site was treated at the onsite carbon adsorption treatment unit and discharged. 5) At UST-5308, approximately 926 tons of TPH impacted soil were removed and treated at the on-site Thermal Disorption Unit and 65,000 gallons of ground water were removed and treated at the onsite carbon adsorption treatment unit and properly discharged. 7) At TOW-X1, the oil/water separator was removed, and approximately 78 tons of polychlorinated biphenyl j (PCB)/pesticide impacted soil were removed and transported to proper treatment and recycling facility. TOW-X8; The oil/water separator was removed and after collection of soil samples it was noted that all samples showed contamination below action levels. PEA -MWA-O5, TOW-06, UST-508, MWA-12, TOW-11, UST-251, MWA-13, TOW-12, UST-252: Under a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Facility Assessment completed on MCAS Tustin in 1995, the above 3/15/2000 sites were identified as potentially contaminated sites. Remediation actions were taken at these sites as follows; 1) At Site MWA-05, a total of 25 samples were collectedand tested for TPH-extractable. TOW-06 and UST- 508 were excavated confirmation samples were taken. Sample results were below action levels. 2) At MWA-12, the concrete pad was decontaminated and final rinsate samples showed no detection of contamination. Risate water was collected and treated on site before being discharged into the channel under the NPDES permit. In addition, soil samples were taken at MWA-12, TOW-11, UST-251 after the removal of the oillwater separator and the assigned Storage tank (UST-251). Samples collected triggered an excavation of 156 tons of TPH impacted soil at UST-251 site. Deeper confirmation samples indicated the removal of the impacted soil which was treated at the onsite Themal Desorption Unit (TDU). 3) For MWA-13 the concrete pad was decontaminated and rinsate samples were taken. Rinsate samples indicated no contamination present, however rinsate water was collected and treated locally before being discharged into Peter Canyon Channel. For TOW-12 and UST-252, The oillwater and the tank were removed. Soil samples taken at both sites triggered an excavation of TPH impacted soil at UST-252. 82 tons of soil were removed and treated at the local TDU. PEA - ST-7, ST-8, ST-21 C, ST-21 D, ST-21 E, ST-21 F, ST-79, and ST- 82: Under a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Facility Assessment completed on MCAS Tustin in 1995, the above sites were identified as potentially contaminated sites. Investigation and cleanup work !, was conducted under the RCRA Stabilization as required by the RCRA Permit. The Regional Water quality Control Board provided oversight of cleanup of petroleum contamination. DTSC's Office of Military Facilities provided oversight of removal and remediation of hazardous material contamination and reviewed the final Gosure reports for the above sites in accordance with the RCRA and Comprehensive Environmental Recovery Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) guidelines, and pursuant to the Federal Facilities Site Remediation Agreement (FFSRA), signed on 8/18/1999. Remedial actions were taken at these sites as follows: 1) At Sites ST-7, ST-21 D and ST-82 the concrete slab was decontaminated using , mechanical scrubbing and pressure washing with detergent and rinsed with source water. A rinsate sample was taken and tested for metal and chlorinated solvents. In addition, soil samples were taken and analyzed for the same chemicals. Levels found where below action level. However rinse Preliminary water was still collectedand treated in the onsite thermal desorption unit NIEW DOCSI ST-7 Endangerment 3/3/2000 (TDU) before being discharged into the sanitary sewer. 2) At Site ST-8, soil Assessment Report samples where taken and analyzed for TPH-extractable, Solvents, PCBs, and metals. All samples were below PRGs. 3) At ST-21 C, soil and groundwater samples where taken and screened for solvents, metals and petroleum. Methyl-Tertiary- Butyl-Ether MTBE was detected in the soil above action level. Impacted soil was removed and treated on site at the local TDU, confirmation samples were taken. 4) At ST-21 E, soil samples were taken and analyzed for solvents. metals, PCBs, and petroleum. One sample indicated a high hit of benzo(a)pyrene. Impacted soil was removed and treated on site at the local TDU, confirmation samples were taken. 5) At ST-2F the concrete slab was decontaminated using mechani- cal scrubbing and pressure washing with detergent and rinsed with source water. A rinsate sample was taken and tested for metals, chlorinated solvents and PCBs. In addition, soil samples were taken and analyzed for the same chemicals. Levels found where below action level. However rinse water was still collected and treated in the onsite thermal desorption unit before being dis- charged into the sanitary sewer. 6) At ST-79, soil samples where taken and analyzed for TPH- extractable, chlorinated Solvents, pesticides, PCBs, and metals. One sample detected contained AroGor-1260, and dieldrin above action level. Impacted soil was removed and is being stockpilled and ' PROJECT Federal Facility SR will be transported off site for storage. ;NIEW DOCSI WIDE Agreement g/18/1999 PROJECT Federal Facilities 8/18!1999 This document is uplodaed Federal Facilities Agreement which was signed WIDE Agreement on August 18th 1999 Investigation of various AOC located throughout the base by reviewing i Feasibility Study verious reports and identifying if a hazardous release occurred or not. If this OU-3 1 Report 3/24/1999 could not be identified by researching the historical data, samples were collected and evaluated. All AOC that were found to be hazardous will be treated under the remedial action process or the removal action process. PR L3 Finding of Suitability to 1/29/1999 ~ Lease MWA03 Removal Action 12/20/1998 Completion Report OU-48 13W Removal Action 11/20/1998 Completion Report Removal Action SITE2 Completion Report 11/20/1998 * Community TUST2 Environmental 3/12/1998 Response Facilitation Act 9PRCL Finding of Suitability to Transfer 2/11/1998 HN R2 Environmental 5/28/1997 Baseline Survey N R2 Finding of Suitability to 5!28/1997 Lease Preliminary VAR. Endangerment 5/19/1997 Assessment Report 2 9 Feasibility Study 12/17/1996 Report PROJECT Preliminary WIDE Endangerment 12/17/1996 Assessment Report CEQA 11/7/1996 13W 'Action Memorandum 11/7/1996 (if <$1 M) B-93 Environmental Baseline Surv 7/26/1996 ey B 93 Finding of Suitability to 7/26/1996 Lease 1~ Reasibiliry Study 7/24/1996 Po PROJECT Feasibility Study WIDE Report 12/17/1995 This PEA was prepared to also satisfy RCRA Facility Assessment (RFA) requirements. PROJECT Feasibility Study 12/17/1995 WIDE Report Removal Action 16 Completion Report 12/17/1995 Environmental P-33 Baseline Survey 6/30/1995 `Community M AST Environmental 4/18/1994 Response Facilitation Act Environmental MCAST Baseline Survey 4!14/1994 PROJECT Public Participation WIDE Plan /Community 6/21/1993 Relations Plan Conditional approval of Navy's SI Report was granted. Navy pertormed SI sampling of 9 sites that were recommended for further study in their Initial Assessment Study (IAS). The following sites were recommended for RI in PROJECT Preliminary the report: Site 3 -Paint Stripper, Site 5 -Drainage No.1, Site 7 -Rapid WIDE Endangerment 8/27/1992 Refuel Sta Site 12 -Drum Stg. area No.2, & Site 13 -Drum Stg. area No.3. Assessment Report Site 9 -Hangar No. 1 is recommended for removal & confirmation sampling. Site 15 -Blimp Hangar Disposal does not exist. Although Sites 2 & 8 were recommended NFA, DTSC disagreed because the area had been graded and samples were not taken deep enough to test the original ground. NIEW DOCSI PROJECT Inventory Project WIDE Report (INPR) 7/2/1992 A Meeting was held at EI Toro MCAS to discuss scheduling of base closure V~ Site Screening 10/17/1991 and activities necessary. A Federal Facilities Site Remediation Agreement draft was sent to the base Comm- ander. Navy SVVDIV decided to negotiate a "blanket" FFSRA to cover all 23 bases in SWDIV. Conditions of Use ~ Privacy Policy Copyright ©2007 Department of Toxic Substances Control 0.09375 seconds