UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION IX 75 Hawthorne Street Sa n Francisco, CA 941 05-3901
September 30, 2010
Jerry W. Bingham, YD-02 Program Manager/COR AFCEEJEXC 2261 Hughes Ave, Suite 155 Lackland AFB, TX 78236
Re: Final Third Five-Year Review Report fo r Former Norton Air Force Base
Dear Mr. Bingham:
We have received the Final Third Five-Year Review Report!or Fonner NOrlon Air Force Base, San Bernardino County, California, dated September 2010 (5YR Report). EPA reviewed the 5YR Report along with other supporting documents and concurs with the findings, recommendations, and protectiveness statements of the 5YR Report.
We agree that the current remedy for CBA OU Component 1 is prOleclive in the short term since there is no exposure to contaminated groundwater, and in the long term due 10 the presence of institutiona1 controls to prevent use of groundwater as a drinking source. Nonetheless, the 5YR confirms the uncertainty regarding the relationship between long term management of the groundwater table and remaining vadose zone contamination, ifany. As documented in the 5YR and other site reporting, there has been a general decline in groundwater elevation attributed to an extended period of drought and continued production of groundwater for municipal uses. As a result of this decline, monitoring wells that previously had shown contamination above ARARs have gone dry and are no longer able to provide information on remedy effectiveness. We are concerned about the potential that remaini ng vadose zone contamination could be mobilized to groundwater if the groundwater table returns to historic levels at some point in the future. Consequently, we propose that the Air Force. EPA and the State work coll aboratively to develop an approach to resolve any uncertainty about performance of the remedy in addressing long tenn risk associated with this potential pathway.
Thank you for the opportuni ty to review this document. [f you have any questions about these issues. do not hesitate to contact Nadia HoUan Burke (415-972-3187).
rMichael M. Montgo ery Assistant Director Federal Facilities & Site Cleanup Branch
United States Air Force Installation Restoration Program
Final Third Five-Year Review Report for Former Norton Air Force Base San Bernardino County, California
September 2010
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
United States Air Force Installation Restoration Program
Final Third Five-Year Review Report for Former Norton Air Force Base San Bernardino County, California
September 201 0
Prepared by: AECOM Technical Services, Inc. Colton, CA
Contract No. FA8903-08-D-8779. Task Order No. 0090
Date: Approved bY(/?~ ~ Ah><
Robert M. Moore Director. Air Force Real Property Agency U.S. Air Force
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Former Norton AFB THIRD FIVE-YEAR REVIEW Content Checklist
Table ES-1. Content Checklist for Five-Year Review Reports, Former Norton AFB Page 1 of 5 Required Item Location in Document General Report Format [ ] Signed concurrence memorandum (as appropriate) Pending [ ] Title page with signature and date Title Page [ ] Completed five-year review summary form After List of Acronyms [ ] List of documents reviewed Section 7 [ ] Site maps See List of Figures [ ] List of tables and figures Table of Contents [ ] Interview report (as appropriate) Appendix B [ ] Site inspection checklist Appendix A [ ] Photos documenting site conditions (as appropriate) Not applicable Introduction [ ] The purpose of the five-year review Section 1.0 [ ] Authority for conducting the five-year review Section 1.0 [ ] Who conducted the five-year review (lead agency) and when Section 1.0 and 4.0 [ ] Organizations providing analyses in support of the review Section 1.0 and 4.0 (e.g., the contractor supporting the lead agency) [ ] Other review participants or support agencies Section 1.0 [ ] Review number (e.g., first, second) Section 1.0 [ ] Trigger action and date Section 1.0 [ ] Number, description, and status of all operable units at the site Section 3.10 [ ] lf review covers only part of a site, explain approach Not applicable [ ] Define which areas are covered in the five-year review Not applicable [ ] Summarize the status of other areas of the site that are not Not applicable covered in the present five-year review Site Chronology [ ] List all important site events and relevant dates (e.g., date of Section 2.0 initial discovery of problem, dates of pre-NPL responses, date Table 2-1 of NPL listing, etc.) Background [ ] General site description (e.g., size, topography, and geology) Sections 3.1 through 3.8 [ ] Former, current, and future land use(s) of the site and Section 3.3 surrounding areas [ ] History of contamination Section 3.9
WP/27-Sep-10/058-10 Page v Former Norton AFB THIRD FIVE-YEAR REVIEW Content Checklist
Table ES-1. Content Checklist for Five-Year Review Reports, Former Norton AFB Page 2 of 5 Required Item Location in Document
[ ] Initial response (e.g., removals) Section 3.0 [ ] Basis for taking remedial action (RA) (e.g., contaminants) Section 3.0 Remedial Actions (CBA OU and BW OU) [ ] Regulatory actions (e.g., date and description of Records of Section 2.0 Decision (RODs), Explanations of Significant Difference, Administrative Orders on Consent, Consent Decrees and Action Memorandum) [ ] Remedial action objectives (RAOs) Section 4.1 and 4.2 [ ] Remedy description Section 4.1.1, 4.2.1, 4.3.1, 4.4.1, 4.5.1, 4.6.1, 4.7.1, 4.8.1, 4.9.1, 4.10.1 [ ] Remedy implementation (e.g., status, history, enforcement Section 4.1.2, 4.2.2, 4.3.2, 4.4.2, actions, performance) 4.5.2, 4.6.2, 4.7.2, 4.8.2, 4.9.2, 4.10.2 [ ] Systems operations/Operations & Maintenance Section 4.1.3, 4.2.3, 4.3.3, 4.4.3, 4.5.3, 4.6.3, 4.7.3, 4.8.3, 4.9.3, 4.10.3 [ ] Systems operations/O&M requirements Section 4.1.3 and 4.2.3, [ ] Systems operations/O&M operational summary Section 4.2.3 (e.g., history, modifications, problems, and successes) [ ] Summary of costs of system operations/O&M Section 4.2.3 effectiveness (i.e., are requirements being met and are activities effective in maintaining the remedy?) Progress Since Last Five-Year Review (CBA OU and BW OU) [ ] Protectiveness statements from last review Section 4.1.4 [ ] Status of recommendations and follow-up actions from last Section 4.1.4 review [ ] Results of implemented actions, including whether they Section 4.1.4, 4.2.4, 4.3.4, 4.4.4, achieved the intended effect 4.5.4, 4.6.4, 4.7.4, 4.8.4, 4.9.4, 4.10.4 [ ] Status of any other prior issues Section 4.1.4 Five-Year Review Process (CBA OU and BW OU) [ ] Administrative Components Section 4.0 [ ] Notification of potentially interested parties of initiation of Section 4.0 review process [ ] Identification of five-year review team members (as Section 4.0 appropriate) [ ] Outline of components and schedule of your five-year Section 4.0 review
WP/27-Sep-10/058-10 Page vi Former Norton AFB THIRD FIVE-YEAR REVIEW Content Checklist
Table ES-1. Content Checklist for Five-Year Review Reports, Former Norton AFB Page 3 of 5 Required Item Location in Document
[ ] Community Involvement Section 4.0 [ ] Community notification (prior and post review) Section 4.0 [ ] Other community involvement activities (e.g., notices, fact Section 4.0 sheets, etc., as appropriate) [ ] Document review Section 4.0 [ ] Data review Section 4.0 [ ] Site inspection Appendix A [ ] Inspection date Appendix A [ ] Inspection participants Appendix A [ ] Site inspection scope and procedures Appendix A [ ] Site inspection results, conclusions Appendix A [ ] Inspection checklist Appendix A [ ] Interviews Appendix B [ ] Interview date(s) and location(s) Appendix B [ ] Interview participants (name, title, etc.) Appendix B [ ] Interview documentation Appendix B [ ] Interview summary Appendix B Technical Assessment (CBA OU and BW OU) [ ] Answer Question A: Is the remedy functioning as intended by Section 4.1.5, 4.2.5, 4.3.5, the decision documents? 4.4.5, 4.5.5, 4.6.5, 4.7.5, 4.8.5, 4.9.5, 4.10.5 [ ] RA performance (i.e., is the remedy operating as Section 4.1.5, 4.2.5, 4.3.5, designed?) 4.4.5, 4.5.5, 4.6.5, 4.7.5, 4.8.5, 4.9.5, 4.10.5 [ ] system operations/O&M Section 4.1.5, 4.2.5, 4.3.5, 4.4.5, 4.5.5, 4.6.5, 4.7.5, 4.8.5, 4.9.5, 4.10.5 [ ] cost of system operations/O&M not applicable [ ] opportunities for optimization Section 4.1.5, 4.2.5, 4.3.5, 4.4.5, 4.5.5, 4.6.5, 4.7.5, 4.8.5, 4.9.5, 4.10.5 [ ] early indicators of potential issues Section 4.1.5, 4.2.5, 4.3.5, 4.4.5, 4.5.5, 4.6.5, 4.7.5, 4.8.5, 4.9.5, 4.10.5 [ ] implementation of institutional controls and other measures Section 4.1.5, 4.2.5, 4.3.5, 4.4.5, 4.5.5, 4.6.5, 4.7.5, 4.8.5, 4.9.5, 4.10.5 [ ] Answer Question B: Are the exposure assumptions, toxicity Section 4.1.5, 4.2.5, 4.3.5, data, cleanup levels, and RAOs used at the time of the remedy 4.4.5, 4.5.5, 4.6.5, 4.7.5, 4.8.5, selection still valid? 4.9.5, 4.10.5
WP/27-Sep-10/058-10 Page vii Former Norton AFB THIRD FIVE-YEAR REVIEW Content Checklist
Table ES-1. Content Checklist for Five-Year Review, Former Norton AFB Page 4 of 5 Required Item Location in Document
[ ] changes in standards, newly promulgated standards, TBCs Section 4.1.5, 4.2.5, 4.3.5, 4.4.5, 4.5.5, 4.6.5, 4.7.5, 4.8.5, 4.9.5, 4.10.5 [ ] expected progress towards meeting RAOs Section 4.1.5, 4.2.5, 4.3.5, 4.4.5, 4.5.5, 4.6.5, 4.7.5, 4.8.5, 4.9.5, 4.10.5 [ ] changes in exposure pathways Section 4.1.5, 4.2.5, 4.3.5, 4.4.5, 4.5.5, 4.6.5, 4.7.5, 4.8.5, 4.9.5, 4.10.5 [ ] changes in land use none [ ] new contaminants and/or contaminant sources none [ ] remedy byproducts none [ ] changes in toxicity and other contaminant characteristics Section 4.1.5, 4.2.5, 4.3.5, 4.4.5, 4.5.5, 4.6.5, 4.7.5, 4.8.5, 4.9.5, 4.10.5 [ ] risk recalculation/assessment (as applicable) Section 4.1.5, 4.2.5, 4.3.5, 4.4.5, 4.5.5, 4.6.5, 4.7.5, 4.8.5, 4.9.5, 4.10.5 [ ] Answer Question C: Has any other information come to light Section 4.1.5, 4.2.5, 4.3.5, that could call into question the protectiveness of the remedy? 4.4.5, 4.5.5, 4.6.5, 4.7.5, 4.8.5, 4.9.5, 4.10.5 [ ] new or previously unidentified ecological risks none [ ] natural disaster impacts none [ ] any other information that could call into question the none protectiveness of the remedy [ ] Technical Assessment Summary Section 4.1.5, 4.2.5, 4.3.5, 4.4.5, 4.5.5, 4.6.5, 4.7.5, 4.8.5, 4.9.5, 4.10.5 Issues (CBA OU and BW OU) [ ] Issues identified during the technical assessment and other Section 4.1.6, 4.2.6, 4.3.6, five-year review activities 4.4.6, 4.5.6, 4.6.6, 4.7.6, 4.8.6, 4.9.6, 4.10.6 [ ] Determination of whether issues affect current or future Section 4.1.6, 4.2.6, 4.3.6, protectiveness 4.4.6, 4.5.6, 4.6.6, 4.7.6, 4.8.6, 4.9.6, 4.10.6 [ ] A discussion of unresolved issues raised by support agencies None and the community (States, Tribes, other Federal agencies, local governments, citizens, PRPs, other interested parties), if applicable
WP/27-Sep-10/058-10 Page viii Former Norton AFB THIRD FIVE-YEAR REVIEW Content Checklist
Table ES-1. Content Checklist for Five-Year Review, Former Norton AFB Page 5 of 5 Required Item Location in Document
Recommendations and Follow-up Actions (CBA OU and BW OU) [ ] Required/suggested improvements to identified issues or to Section 4.1.7, 4.2.7, 4.3.7, 4.4.7, current site operations 4.5.7, 4.6.7, 4.7.7, 4.8.7, 4.9.7, 4.10.7 [ ] Note parties responsible for actions Section 4.0 [ ] Note agency with oversight authority Section 4.0 [ ] Schedule for completion of actions related to resolution of Section 4.0 issues Protectiveness Statements (CBA OU and BW OU) [ ] Protectiveness statement for the CBA OU Section 5.0 [ ] Comprehensive protectiveness statement covering all of the Section 5.0 remedies at the site (if applicable) Next Review (CBA and BW OU) Section 6.0 [ ] Expected date of next review Not applicable [ ] If five-year reviews will no longer be done, provide a summary of that portion of the technical analysis presented in the report that provides the rationale for discontinuation of five-year reviews
WP/27-Sep-10/058-10 Page ix Former Norton AFB THIRD FIVE-YEAR REVIEW Content Checklist
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
WP/27-Sep-10/058-10 Page x Former Norton AFB THIRD FIVE-YEAR REVIEW Executive Summary
Executive Summary
The 2010 Five-Year Review presents the third Five-Year Review for the former Norton Air Force Base (AFB) in San Bernardino County, California. This review was conducted in accordance with the Comprehensive Five-Year Review Guidance issued by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA, 2001). The review covers the status of selected remedies to protect human health and the environment that have been chosen for individual sites in accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA), and the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). The remedial decisions were based on the findings of the Central Base Area (CBA) Operable Unit (OU) Feasibility Study (FS) (CDM, 1993d) and the Basewide (BW) OU FS (CDM, 2003) and other associated documentation included in the Norton AFB Administrative Record. The Air Force and the U.S. EPA have selected these remedies with the concurrence of the State of California, including the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) and the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB).
The CBA OU and the BW OU are the two designated OUs at the former Norton AFB. Sites considered in this review have completed RAs that left hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants on site at levels that preclude unlimited use and unrestricted exposure (UU/UE) or the RA is intended to achieve levels that allow for UU/UE but the action requires five or more years to complete. The status of sites investigated in both OUs is provided in Section 3 of this report. The 2010 Five Year Review Report reviews applicable selected remedies from the CBA and BW OU RODs including the issues and recommendations identified in the Second Five Year Review Report (Earth Tech, 2005e).
Central Base Area Operable Unit
The CBA OU ROD (USAF, 1993a), identified selected remedies for four components: the trichloroethene (TCE) groundwater (GW) plume, deep soil contamination in the area of monitoring well (MW) MW-90 and Building 763, shallow soil at Building 658 and Building 673, and shallow soil at Installation Restoration Program (IRP) Site 9. The primary contaminant of concern (COC) at all of these components is TCE with chromium also present in shallow subsurface soil at IRP Site 9.
The 1999 and 2005 CBA OU Five-Year Reviews concluded that the remedies implemented for shallow and deep soil contamination in the vicinity of Buildings 658, 673, 763 and IRP Site 9 had achieved levels that allow for UU/UE and therefore do not require further review. The TCE GW plume has not reached the UU/UE condition, and thus is included in the current review.
WP/27-Sep-10/058-10 Page xi Former Norton AFB THIRD FIVE-YEAR REVIEW Executive Summary
The results of this 2010 Five-Year Review indicate that the remedies implemented for the GW are protective of human health and the environment. The groundwater monitoring program (GWMP) and institutional controls (ICs) continue to operate as designed. No deficiencies impacting the protectiveness of the remedies were noted during this review.
Basewide Operable Unit
The BW OU ROD (Earth Tech, 2005a), identifies selected remedies for 21 IRP Sites (1-8 and 10-22), 73 Areas of Concern (AOC), the Small Arms Range (SAR), Building 752, and the Northeast Base Area (NBA) plume (see Figures 1-1 and 1-2). Statutory five-year reviews are required at the IRP Site 2 Landfill since wastes remain in place and at IRP Sites 5 and 19, the SAR, and AOC 4 since ICs are in place to protect against UU/UE. Remedies for IRP Sites 7 and 17, Building 752, and AOC 33 are intended to achieve levels that allow for UU/UE but RAs have taken longer than five years and, therefore, the sites are included in this 2010 Five-Year Review. Except for IRP Site 10, all other sites, AOCs, and the NBA plume were No Further Action (NFA) remedies in the BW OU ROD that do not require five-year review. IRP Site 10 was closed without restrictions after completion of the BW OU ROD remedy and also does not require five-year review. Of the BW OU sites, only IRP Site 19, which was subject to a remedy established in an Interim ROD (USAF, 1997b), was previously included in the Second Five Year Review completed in 2005.
The results of this 2010 Five-Year Review indicate that the remedies implemented for the sites covered by the BW OU ROD are protective of human health and the environment. These remedies continue to function as designed and were operated and maintained in an appropriate manner. No deficiencies impacting the protectiveness of the remedies were noted during this review.
WP/27-Sep-10/058-10 Page xii Former Norton AFB THIRD FIVE-YEAR REVIEW Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... xi LIST OF ACRONYMS ...... xix FIVE-YEAR REVIEW SUMMARY FORM ...... xxiii 1.0 INTRODUCTION...... 1 2.0 BASE CHRONOLOGY ...... 7 3.0 BASE BACKGROUND ...... 11 3.1 Location...... 11 3.2 Population ...... 11 3.3 Land Use ...... 11 3.4 Climate ...... 12 3.5 Geology and Hydrology ...... 12 3.6 Soil ...... 14 3.7 Surface Water and Wetlands ...... 14 3.8 Water Use and Well Inventory ...... 14 3.9 Site Locations and Activities ...... 15 3.10 Operable Units and Sites/Areas of Concern ...... 23 4.0 REMEDIAL ACTIONS ...... 37 4.1 CBA OU – Component 1, Groundwater ...... 38 4.1.1 Remedy Selection ...... 38 4.1.2 Remedy Implementation ...... 41 4.1.3 Systems Operations and Maintenance ...... 51 4.1.4 Progress Since the Last Five-Year Review ...... 51 4.1.5 Technical Assessment ...... 53 4.1.6 Issues Concerning the Remedy ...... 54 4.1.7 Recommendations and Follow-up Actions ...... 54 4.2 BW OU – IRP Site 2 ...... 55 4.2.1 Remedy Selection ...... 55 4.2.2 Remedy Implementation ...... 57 4.2.3 Systems Operations and Maintenance ...... 58 4.2.4 Progress Since Signature of BW OU ROD ...... 58 4.2.5 Technical Assessment ...... 62 4.2.6 Issues Concerning the Remedy ...... 63 4.2.7 Recommendations and Follow-up Actions ...... 63
WP/27-Sep-10/058-10 Page xiii Former Norton AFB THIRD FIVE-YEAR REVIEW Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
4.3 BW OU – IRP Site 5 ...... 63 4.3.1 Remedy Selection ...... 65 4.3.2 Remedy Implementation ...... 66 4.3.3 Systems Operations and Maintenance ...... 66 4.3.4 Progress Since Signature of BW OU ROD ...... 66 4.3.5 Technical Assessment ...... 66 4.3.6 Issues Concerning the Remedy ...... 67 4.3.7 Recommendations and Follow-up Actions ...... 67 4.4 BW OU – Small Arms Range (SAR) ...... 67 4.4.1 Remedy Selection ...... 69 4.4.2 Remedy Implementation ...... 69 4.4.3 Systems Operations and Maintenance ...... 70 4.4.4 Progress Since Signature of BW OU ROD ...... 70 4.4.5 Technical Assessment ...... 70 4.4.6 Issues Concerning the Remedy ...... 71 4.4.7 Recommendations and Follow-up Actions ...... 71 4.5 BW OU – IRP Site 7 ...... 71 4.5.1 Remedy Selection ...... 73 4.5.2 Remedy Implementation ...... 73 4.5.3 Systems Operations and Maintenance ...... 73 4.5.4 Progress Since Signature of BW-OU ROD ...... 73 4.5.5 Technical Assessment ...... 74 4.5.6 Issues Concerning the Remedy ...... 75 4.5.7 Recommendations and Follow-up Actions ...... 75 4.6 BW OU – IRP Site 17 ...... 76 4.6.1 Remedy Selection ...... 78 4.6.2 Implementation of Remedy ...... 78 4.6.3 Systems Operations and Maintenance ...... 78 4.6.4 Progress Since Signature of BW OU ROD ...... 78 4.6.5 Technical Assessment ...... 79 4.6.6 Issues Concerning the Remedy ...... 81 4.6.7 Recommendations and Follow-up Actions ...... 81
WP/27-Sep-10/058-10 Page xiv Former Norton AFB THIRD FIVE-YEAR REVIEW Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
4.7 BW OU – IRP Site 19 ...... 81 4.7.1 Remedy Selection ...... 83 4.7.2 Remedy Implementation ...... 83 4.7.3 Systems Operations and Maintenance ...... 83 4.7.4 Progress Since Signature of the BW OU ROD ...... 83 4.7.5 Technical Assessment ...... 84 4.7.6 Issues Concerning the Remedy ...... 85 4.7.7 Recommendations and Follow-up Actions ...... 85 4.8 BW OU – AOC 4 Building 301 ...... 85 4.8.1 Remedy Selection ...... 87 4.8.2 Remedy Implementation ...... 87 4.8.3 Systems Operations and Maintenance ...... 87 4.8.4 Progress Since Signature of BW OU ROD ...... 88 4.8.5 Technical Assessment ...... 88 4.8.6 Issues Concerning the Remedy ...... 89 4.8.7 Recommendations and Follow-up Actions ...... 89 4.9 BW OU – AOC 33 – Building 747 ...... 89 4.9.1 Remedy Selection ...... 91 4.9.2 Remedy Implementation ...... 91 4.9.3 Systems Operations and Maintenance ...... 91 4.9.4 Progress Since Signature of BW OU ROD ...... 91 4.9.5 Technical Assessment ...... 94 4.9.6 Issues Concerning the Remedy ...... 95 4.9.7 Recommendations and Follow-up Actions ...... 95 4.10 BW OU – Building 752 – Exterior Radium Spill ...... 95 4.10.1 Remedy Selection ...... 97 4.10.2 Remedy Implementation ...... 98 4.10.3 Systems Operations and Maintenance ...... 98 4.10.4 Progress Since BW-ROD Signature ...... 98 4.10.5 Technical Assessment ...... 99 4.10.6 Issues Concerning the Remedy ...... 100 4.10.7 Recommendations and Follow-up Actions ...... 100
WP/27-Sep-10/058-10 Page xv Former Norton AFB THIRD FIVE-YEAR REVIEW Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
5.0 PROTECTIVENESS STATEMENT ...... 101 5.1 CBA OU ...... 101 5.1.1 Component 1 – Groundwater ...... 101 5.2 Basewide OU ...... 101 5.2.1 IRP Site 2 ...... 102 5.2.2 IRP Site 5 ...... 102 5.2.3 Small Arms Range (SAR) ...... 102 5.2.4 IRP Site 7 ...... 103 5.2.5 IRP Site 17 ...... 103 5.2.6 IRP Site 19 ...... 103 5.2.7 AOC 4 – Building 301 ...... 104 5.2.8 AOC 33 – Building 747 ...... 104 5.2.9 Building 752 – Exterior Radium Spill ...... 105 6.0 NEXT FIVE-YEAR REVIEW ...... 107 7.0 REFERENCES ...... 109 APPENDICES Appendix A Site Inspection Appendix B Interview Records Appendix C ARARs Tables from CBA OU and BW OU RODs Appendix D Regulatory Comments and Responses
WP/27-Sep-10/058-10 Page xvi Former Norton AFB THIRD FIVE-YEAR REVIEW Table of Contents
LIST OF FIGURES
1-1 Location of Former Norton AFB ...... 2 1-2 Former Norton AFB Operable Units ...... 4 3-1 Location of Off-Base Monitoring and Production Wells ...... 16 3-2 Location of Five-Year Review Sites and On-Base Monitoring Wells ...... 21 4-1a TCE and Cis-1,2-DCE Groundwater Plumes 1994-1995 (April of each year) ...... 42 4-1b TCE and Cis-1,2-DCE Groundwater Plumes 1996-1997 (April of each year) ...... 43 4-1c TCE and Cis-1,2-DCE Groundwater Plumes 1998-1999 (April of each year) ...... 44 4-1d TCE and Cis-1,2-DCE Groundwater Plumes 2000-2001 (April of each year) ...... 45 4-1e TCE and Cis-1,2-DCE Groundwater Plumes 2002-2003 (April of each year) ...... 46 4-1f TCE and Cis-1,2-DCE Groundwater Plumes 2004-2005 (April of each year) ...... 47 4-1g TCE and Cis-1,2-DCE Groundwater Plumes 2006-2007 (April of each year) ...... 48 4-1h TCE and Cis-1,2-DCE Groundwater Plumes 2008-2009 (April of each year) ...... 49 4-2 IRP Site 2 Landfill Former Norton AFB ...... 56 4-2a IRP Site 2 Landfill Cap Paved Area Former Norton AFB ...... 61 4-3 IRP Site 5 Former Norton Air Force Base ...... 64 4-4 Small Arms Range (SAR) Former Norton Air Force Base ...... 68 4-5 IRP Site 7 Former Norton AFB California ...... 72 4-6 IRP Site 17 Former Norton AFB California ...... 77 4-7 IRP Site 19 Former Norton Air Force Base ...... 82 4-8 AOC 4 Former Norton Air Force Base ...... 86 4-9 AOC 33 Former Norton AFB California ...... 90 4-9a AOC 33 Former Norton AFB California ...... 93 4-10 Building 752 Former Norton AFB California...... 96
LIST OF TABLES
ES-1 Content Checklist for Five-Year Review Reports, Former Norton AFB ...... v 2-1 General Chronology ...... 8 3-1 Local Population ...... 12 3-2a Active Groundwater Production Wells ...... 17 3-2b Groundwater Monitoring Well Status, Norton Air Force Base ...... 18 3-3 Summary of Site Activities and Conclusions in the CBA OU and BW OU ...... 25 4-1 Issues Identified for the CBA and BW OU Remedies ...... 39 4-2 Recommendations and Follow-up Actions...... 40 4-3 CBA OU Groundwater Cleanup Standards...... 41
WP/27-Sep-10/058-10 Page xvii Former Norton AFB THIRD FIVE-YEAR REVIEW Table of Contents
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
WP/27-Sep-10/058-10 Page xviii Former Norton AFB THIRD FIVE-YEAR REVIEW Acronyms
LIST OF ACRONYMS
ACP Alternative Compliance Plan ADD average daily dose AFB Air Force Base AFCEE Air Force Center for Engineering and the Environment AFRPA Air Force Real Property Agency ALARA As Low As Reasonably Achievable AM Action Memorandum AOC Area of concern ARAR applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements BB Base Boundary BCT BRAC Cleanup Team BFI Browning Ferris Industries bgs below ground surface BMO Ballistic Missile Organization BRAC Base Realignment and Closure BTEX Benzene, toluene, xylenes (total), ethylbenzene (fuel additives) BW Basewide BWFS Basewide Feasibility Study BWPP Basewide Proposed Plan CBA Central Base Area CCR California Code of Regulations CDPH California Department of Public Health CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act CFR Code of Federal Regulations COC contaminant of concern CRP Community Relations Plan CS confirmation study CWA Chemical warfare agent DCA Dichloroethane DCB Dichlorobenzene DCE Dichloroethylene º degrees DOD Department of Defense DOT Department of Transportation DTSC Department of Toxic Substances Control EE/CA Engineering evaluation/cost assessment EPA Environmental Protection Agency ERA ecological risk assessment ESI Expanded source investigation FAA Federal Aviation Administration FFA Federal Facility Agreement FS Feasibility study GCA Golf Course Area gpm gallons per minute GW Groundwater GWMP Groundwater Monitoring Program
WP/27-Sep-10/058-10 Page xix Former Norton AFB THIRD FIVE-YEAR REVIEW Acronyms
HHRA human health risk assessment HI hazard index HQ hazard quotient IC Institutional controls IRIS Integrated risk information system IRP Installation Restoration Program IVDA Inland Valley Development Agency IWL Industrial Waste Line IWTP Industrial Waste Treatment Plant LADD lifetime average daily dose LUC Land Use Control 63 MAW 63rd Military Airlift Wing MCL maximum contaminant level mg/dL micrograms per deciliter ug/dL micrograms per deciliter ug/L micrograms per liter mg/kg milligrams per kilogram MW Monitoring well NBA Northeast Base Area NCP National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan NFA No Further Action NFRAP No further response action planned ng/kg Nanograms per kilogram NPL National Priorities List OEHHA Office of Environmental Human Health Assessment O&M Operation and maintenance OPS operating properly and successfully OU Operable Unit PAHs Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons PAT pump-and-treat PCBs Polychlorinated Biphenyls PCE Tetrachloroethene pCi/g picoCuries per gram PEF potency equivalency factor PRG preliminary remediation goal RAs remedial actions RAB Restoration Advisory Board RAO remedial action objective RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act RfD reference dose RI remedial investigation RI/FS remedial investigation/feasibility study RL reporting limit ROD Record of Decision RSLs Regional Screening Levels RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board SAP Sampling and Analysis Plan SAR Small Arms Range
WP/27-Sep-10/058-10 Page xx Former Norton AFB THIRD FIVE-YEAR REVIEW Acronyms
SARA Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act SBIAA San Bernardino International Airport Authority SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District SF Slope factor SLUC State Land Use Covenant SVE Soil vapor extraction SVOC Semivolatile organic compounds SWAP Satellite waste accumulation point TBC To be considered TCA Trichloroethane TCDD Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin TCE Trichloroethene TEDE total effective dose equivalent TEF toxic equivalency factors TMV toxicity, mobility, volume µg/L micrograms per liter UCL Upper Confidence Limit UCL95 95% upper confidence limit USAF United States Air Force USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service UST Underground storage tank UU/UE unlimited use / unrestricted exposure VOCs Volatile organic chemicals WSCP Water Supply Contingency Policy
WP/27-Sep-10/058-10 Page xxi Former Norton AFB THIRD FIVE-YEAR REVIEW Acronyms
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
WP/27-Sep-10/058-10 Page xxii Former Norton AFB THIRD FIVE-YEAR REVIEW Summary
Five-Year Review Summary Form SITE IDENTIFICATION
Site name (from WasteLAN): Norton Air Force Base
EPA ID (from WasteLAN): CA4570024345
Region: 9 State: CA City/County: San Bernardino, San Bernardino
SITE STATUS
NPL status: [X] Final [ ] Deleted [ ] Other (specify)
Remediation status (all that apply): [ ] Under Construction [ ] Operating [X] Complete
Multiple OUs? [X] Yes [ ] No Construction completion date: May 2006
Has site been put into reuse? [X] Yes [ ] No (to a limited extent)
REVIEW STATUS
Lead agency: [ ] EPA [ ] State [ ] Tribe [X] Other Federal Agency.
Author name: Matthew Hansen
Author title: Project Manager Author affiliation: AECOM Technical Services, Inc.
Review period: 2005 - 2010
Date(s) of site inspection: January 25, 2010
Type of review: [X] Post-SARA [ ] Pre-SARA [ ] NPL-Removal only [ ] Non-NPL RA site [ ] NPL State/Tribe lead [ ] Regional discretion
Review number: [ ] 1 (first) [ ] 2 (second) [X ] 3 (third) [ ] Other, specify:
Triggering action: [ ] Actual RA On-site construction at OU [ ] Actual RA start at OU [ ] Construction completion [X] Previous Five-Year Review Report [X] Other, specify: BW OU ROD
Triggering action date (from WasteLAN): September 2005 (BW OU ROD), 11 January 2006 (2nd FYR )
Due date (five years after triggering action date): September 2010
“OU” refers to “Operable Unit.”
WP/27-Sep-10/058-10 Page xxiii Former Norton AFB THIRD FIVE-YEAR REVIEW Summary
Five-Year Review Summary Form, cont’d. Issues Summarize issues (see Chapter 4). IRP Site 17: Additional characterization of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in soil gas and additional soil sampling to address data gaps is required. Based on completed site characterization, updated soil and vapor intrusion risk assessments are necessary to provide site risk characterization. Final site closure for IRP Site 17 is dependent on Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) corrective action termination associated with the IWTP interim status facility. AOC 33: Post-excavation soil gas confirmation sampling and soil gas sampling to address VOC site characterization data gaps is required. Based on completed site characterization, updated soil and vapor intrusion risk assessments are necessary to provide site risk characterization. Final site closure for AOC 33 is dependent on RCRA corrective action termination associated with the IWTP interim status facility.
Recommendations and Follow-up Actions Summarize recommendations and follow-up actions (see Chapter 4). IRP Site 17: Conduct the soil and soil gas sampling investigation to address data gaps in site characterization, utilize the data to complete updated soil and vapor intrusion risk assessments for the site, and, as appropriate based on the updated site characterization and risk assessment results, revise the Closure Certification Report. Sampling is planned for Summer/Fall 2010 and completion of the Closure Report is planned for 2011. Deed restrictions will remain in place until the site is closed and the restrictions are formally removed. Termination of RCRA corrective action for the former Norton AFB will be initiated after approval of the Final Closure Certification Reports for IRP Site 17 and AOC 33. AOC 33: Conduct a soil gas sampling investigation to address post-excavation site characterization, utilize soil and soil gas confirmation and characterization data to complete updated soil and vapor intrusion risk assessments for the site, and, as appropriate based on the updated site characterization and risk assessment results, revise the Closure Certification Report. Sampling is planned for Summer 2010 and completion of the Closure Report is planned for 2011. Deed restrictions will remain in place until the site is closed and the restrictions are formally removed. Termination of RCRA corrective action for the former Norton AFB will be initiated after approval of the Final Closure Certification Reports for IRP Site 17 and AOC 33.
Protectiveness Statement(s) Include individual OU protectiveness statements. For sites that have reached construction completion and have more than one OU, include an additional and comprehensive protectiveness statement covering all of the remedies at the site (see Chapter 5). CBA OU: The remedy outlined in the CBA OU ROD (U.S. Air Force, 1993a) will be protective of human health and the environment and, in the interim, exposure pathways that could result in unacceptable risks are being controlled. BW OU: The remedies outlined in the BW OU ROD (Earth Tech, 2005a) will be protective of human health and the environment and, in the interim, exposure pathways that could result in unacceptable risks are being controlled.
Other Comments Make any other comments here. None
WP/27-Sep-10/058-10 Page xxiv Former Norton AFB THIRD FIVE-YEAR REVIEW Section 1.0
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Air Force Center for Engineering and the Environment (AFCEE) directed AECOM Technical Services Inc. (ATS), to conduct a five-year review for the former Norton Air Force Base (AFB) (Figure 1-1). This 2010 review represents the third Five-Year Review for the former Norton AFB as required under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). All CERCLA remedies for the former Norton AFB were ultimately selected in the Central Base Area (CBA) Operable Unit (OU) Record of Decision (ROD) (Air Force, 1993) or the Basewide (BW) ROD (Earth Tech, 2005a). The first two Five-Year Reviews (1999, 2005) addressed the CBA OU. The CBA OU ROD selected remedies for trichloroethene (TCE)-contaminated groundwater (GW) and contaminant sources. The second Five-Year Review also included Installation Restoration Program (IRP) Site 19, a site with an institutional control (IC) remedy specified under an Interim ROD (USAF, 1997b). The BW OU ROD established additional remedies for sites located throughout the former Norton AFB. The remedy for IRP Site 19 specified in the BW OU ROD superseded the remedy in the IRP Site 19 Interim ROD. The 2010 Five Year Review addresses applicable remedies from the CBA and BW OU RODs including the issues and recommendations identified in the Second Five Year Review Report (Earth Tech, 2005e). The recommendations of the second Five Year Review were:
CBA OU: Continue to monitor GW in accordance with the Water Supply Contingency Policy (WSCP), and maintain effective implementation of ICs. BW OU: Obtain approval for the Basewide ROD and continue to implement the remedies outlined in that document, with the ultimate objective of closure of all sites in the OU.
This Five-Year Review is required under CERCLA and was conducted consistent with Comprehensive Five-Year Review Guidance (540-R-01-007) issued by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) (U.S. EPA, 2001). A statutory five-year review is required when hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants are left on-site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure (UU/UE) upon completion of remedial actions (RAs). Five-year reviews are also generally conducted as a matter of policy for RAs that will not leave hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants on site above levels that allow UU/UE, but require five years or more to complete. Certain sites at the former Norton AFB have hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants left on-site above levels that allow for UU//UE, so the 2010 Five-Year Review is a statutory review.
The CBA OU ROD addressed shallow and deep soil contamination in the vicinity of Buildings 658, 673, and 763, IRP Site 9, and the TCE-contaminated GW plume that resulted from the soil sources. Completion of the CBA OU ROD remedies for shallow and deep soil contamination achieved levels that allow for UU/UE and therefore do not require five-year review. The first and second Five-Year Reviews addressed the TCE-contaminated GW plume since the remedy is intended to attain levels that allow for UU/UE but requires greater than five years to complete. The TCE-contaminated GW plume is included in
WP/28-Sep-10/058-10 Page 1 Former Norton AFB THIRD FIVE-YEAR REVIEW Section 1.0
i J) ' I I San Bernardino """-...L1·----I...... ,./'" \' Highland )! ""' t Base Line Street Base line Street 01
Sth Street 5th Street
Mill Street
Colton
- /. Ji6L Red lands Boulevard ------:::'--__~,,~. Red I and s / I Lorna Linda \ I) INDEX MAP
Los Angele • I San Diego
Location of Former Norton AFB
rLJl ~ Figure 1·1 o 2500 5000 10000 Feet "
WP/27-Sep-10/058-10 Page 2 Former Norton AFB THIRD FIVE-YEAR REVIEW Section 1.0 the 2010 Five-Year Review since attainment of TCE concentration levels allowing for UU/UE has yet to be fully demonstrated.
The BW OU ROD was signed in September 2005 and included 21 IRP sites (1-8 and 10-22), 73 Areas of Concern (AOC), the Small Arms Range (SAR), Building 752, and the Northeast Base Area (NBA) plume. Statutory five-year reviews are required at the IRP Site 2 Landfill since wastes remain in place and at IRP Sites 5 and 19, the SAR, and AOC 4 since ICs are in place to protect against UU/UE. Remedies for IRP Site 7 and 17, Building 752 and AOC33 are intended to achieve levels that allow for UU/UE but RAs have taken longer than five years and, therefore, the sites are included in the 2010 Five-Year Review. Except for Site 10, the remaining BW OU sites, AOCs, and the NBA GW contaminant plume, were No Further Action (NFA) remedies in the BW OU ROD and do not require five-year review. IRP Site 10 was closed without restrictions after completion of the BW OU ROD excavation and disposal remedy and also does not require five-year review. The boundaries of the CBA OU and BW OU are shown on Figure 1-2.
The BW OU ROD also specifies that IRP Site 7, IRP Site 17, AOC 33, and AOC 70 were part of either the former Industrial Waste Treatment Plant (IWTP) or former Industrial Waste Line (IWL) which were Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Interim Status facilities that must also be closed as part of RCRA corrective action termination. AOC 70, a BW OU ROD NFA site, was acknowledged as closed without restrictions by the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) in December 2004; therefore, AOC 70 is not included in the 2010 Five-Year Review.
This review is required by statute. The U.S. EPA must implement five-year reviews consistent with CERCLA and the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). CERCLA 42 USC § 9621(c), states:
“If the President selects a RA that results in any hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remaining at the site, the President shall review such RA no less often than each five years after the initiation of such RA to assure that human health and the environment is being protected by the RA being implemented.”
The NCP part 300.430(f)(4)(ii) of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) states:
“If a remedial action is selected that results in hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remaining at the site above levels that allow for UU / UE, the lead agency shall review such action no less often than every five years after the initiation of the selected remedial action.”
The triggering action for this Third Five-Year Review is the signing of the BW OU ROD which took place in September 2005.
WP/27-Sep-10/058-10 Page 3 Former Norton AFB THIRD FIVE-YEAR REVIEW Section 1.0
'0' M
III LL f\
:---.J _ _ 1, ~1~ I' \ I=-'
v I-- v i" i" ~ 1 r (0 ii5 ii5 L v 'E I E "-" iI'" f- -.; Z 0 i" 0 ii5 III I I I z~ \ ~ « \ ..J enuaAV' ue JalEM D.. X I W lOOl!A!JlJNJE'~ - UO 0 ~ i
WP/27-Sep-10/058-10 Page 4 Former Norton AFB THIRD FIVE-YEAR REVIEW Section 1.0
This review was led by Mr. Jerry Bingham, the Environmental Program Manager for AFCEE, with assistance from Mr. Geoffrey Watkin, Booz Allen Hamilton, Inc. Mr. Matthew Hansen, Sr., performed the review with support provided by Mr. Brent Adair and Mr. Daniel Palacios, all of ATS. Members of the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Cleanup Team (BCT), which includes U.S. EPA and the State of California, represented by the DTSC and the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), also contributed to this report.
The technical assessments performed during this five-year review examined the following questions:
Question A Is the remedy functioning as intended by the decision documents?
Question B Are the exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup levels, and RA objectives (RAOs) used at the time of the remedy selection still valid?
Question C Has any other information come to light that could call into question the protectiveness of the remedy?
To answer these questions, the five-year review team performed the following:
Reviewed applicable site documents such as prior five-year reviews, RODs, (RA) design documents, and site operations and maintenance (O&M) records and reports Reviewed data from ongoing groundwater and site monitoring activities and from completed removal and remedial actions Reviewed newly promulgated standards and applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs) Interviewed site managers, O&M staff, and local regulatory authorities Performed site inspections including general site inspections Reviewed system operations and institutional or access controls.
Upon completion of the document reviews, interviews, and site inspections, conclusions for the five-year review were developed. These conclusions are intended to confirm that the selected RAs (RAs) comply with performance standards established in the CBA and BW OU RODs, cleanup goals are being achieved in accordance with the selected remedies, and that selected RAs continue to be protective of human health and the environment.
WP/27-Sep-10/058-10 Page 5 Former Norton AFB THIRD FIVE-YEAR REVIEW Section 1.0
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
WP/27-Sep-10/058-10 Page 6 Former Norton AFB THIRD FIVE-YEAR REVIEW Section 2.0
2.0 BASE CHRONOLOGY
Military operations at Norton AFB began in 1942, providing aircraft maintenance and repair services. After World War II, the base expanded operations to include maintenance, storage, and logistics support for various missile programs. From 1966 until base closure in 1994, the main operation at Norton AFB was the 63rd Military Airlift Wing (63 MAW). The primary function of the 63 MAW was to provide immediate airlift and sustenance capabilities for air and ground combat units worldwide. In 1968, the Aerospace Audiovisual Services established its headquarters at the base. In 1989, Norton AFB was identified as one of several military bases scheduled for closure by the Department of Defense (DOD). Norton AFB officially closed on March 31, 1994, and since that time, the base property has been transferred to local entities for reuse and development purposes, including a public airport, aircraft maintenance, cargo handling, warehousing, and office park development.
Activities related to identification, assessment, and remediation of environmental contaminants at the former Norton AFB are provided in Table 2-1. Identification and investigation of contamination and contaminant sources began in the early 1980s. The selected remedies for TCE-contaminated GW and contaminant sources at sites within the CBA OU were identified in the CBA OU ROD. The BW OU ROD documented completed actions and identified selected remedies for all remaining sites at the former Norton AFB. The Base IRP identified 21 Sites, 73 Areas of Concern (AOCs), the Small Arms Range (SAR), Building 752, and the Northeast Base Area (NBA) GW Plume during the investigations. GW treatment reached a peak with the operation of two pump-and-treat (PAT) systems (one near the source area and the other at the base boundary) from March 1995 to March 1999. Remedial actions began in the early 1990s with implementation of a pilot study at the CBA PAT system. Treatment of GW contamination, which also included the Base Boundary (BB) PAT system, continued until May 2002 when the CBA PAT system went offline permanently. Meanwhile, contaminated soils within the CBA and BW OUs were addressed with excavation and disposal, consolidation and capping, and soil vapor extraction remedies. The Preliminary Close-Out Report (PCOR) (Techlaw, 2006) documents the completion of remedial action construction and signifies the construction complete status for the CBA OU and BW OU remedies.
WP/27-Sep-10/058-10 Page 7 Former Norton AFB THIRD FIVE-YEAR REVIEW Section 2.0
Table 2-1. General Chronology Page 1 of 2 Date Event
October 1982 Phase I Records Search Report identified potential contamination at 20 IRP sites. July 1985 Phase II Problem Confirmation Study investigated 15 of 20 identified IRP sites, and found contamination at seven sites, and TCE in GW. July 1987 Norton AFB placed on the U.S. EPA’s National Priorities List (NPL) due to TCE in the GW. September 1987 Phase II Confirmation/Quantification, Stage 2 Final Report investigated 18 of the 20 identified IRP sites and two additional IRP sites were identified. September 1988 Maximum concentration of 4,630 micrograms per liter (µg/L) TCE was detected in groundwater from monitoring well (MW) MW-90, area, suspected as TCE source. December 1988 Norton AFB issued a Stage 3 Final Report that investigated 21 of the 22 IRP sites. June 1989 Air Force signed the Norton AFB Federal Facility Agreement. April 1990 Norton AFB formally designated the contaminated groundwater in the CBA and any contributing soil sources as the CBA OU. November 1990 Norton AFB began the CBA Groundwater Investigation to define the extent of the TCE groundwater plume. March 1991 Construction of the CBA PAT System began as a treatability test to evaluate the groundwater PAT technology. June 1991 TCE source investigation to locate and characterize soil sources that have contributed to the TCE in GW. July 1991 Lockheed completed removal action of approximately 4,200 cubic yards of soil containing TCE from Docks 3 and 4 in Building 763 and treated on site. Building 763 was an identified TCE source area. February 1992 Draft remedial investigation (RI) report issued (CBA Groundwater and TCE Source Investigation). On-base plume was characterized, and four TCE soil source areas identified: MW-90 Area, Bldg 658, IRP Site 9, and Bldg 763. April 1992 Draft CBA OU Feasibility Study (FS) and draft Proposed Plan (PP) issued. June 1992 Full monitoring of the CBA TCE plume commences. Pilot Study to assess the potential for a pump and treat groundwater system initiated. Treatability testing of the groundwater began with the BB PAT System, as did characterization of the off-base portion of the plume. August 1992 Air Force, U.S. EPA, and the Cal EPA entered into dispute resolution over the FS. September 1992 Air Force announced its intent to install an extraction system at the BB to impede further migration of the contaminated groundwater off base. January 1993 Air Force, U.S. EPA, and Cal EPA agreed to formally resolve remaining disputes in ROD after finalizing the FS and the PP. February 1993 Final CBA OU FS and PP issued. August 1993 Initial Water Supply Contingency Policy (WSCP) was issued. November 1993 The CBA OU ROD is signed.
WP/27-Sep-10/058-10 Page 8 Former Norton AFB THIRD FIVE-YEAR REVIEW Section 2.0
Table 2-1. General Chronology Page 2 of 2 Date Event
January 1994 Remedial design activities commenced. October 1994 Remodel of pilot project and construction of CBA PAT system began. December 1994 Remedial design was completed for the construction of the CBA PAT system. January 1995 CBA PAT System started. March 1995 BB PAT System started. August 1995 WSCP updated. April 1996 Final close-out report for the shallow soil removal at Site 9 and Building 658. July 1996 Certification that the CBA OU treatment system is operating properly and successfully (OPS) issued for the ROD. July 1997 Interim ROD OU3 IRP Site 19 issued. October 1997 Final close-out report for Buildings 673 and 763 TCE Source Area Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE) activities. August 1999 Draft Final PP, BW OU issued. October 1999 Initial CBA OU Five Year Review Report finalized. November 2001 Final shut-down of the BB Treatment System. May 2002 Final shut-down of the CBA Treatment System. September 2002 WSCP updated. June 2003 Final BW FS for former Norton AFB issued. July 2004 Final PP, BW OU issued. December 2004 RCRA acknowledgment of clean closure for AOC 70 received. September 2005 Final Basewide ROD for former Norton AFB is issued. December 2005 Final Second CBA OU Five-Year Review Report for former Norton AFB issued. December 2005 Revised Closure Certification Report (CCR) for IRP Site 7 issued (approved April 2006). February 2006 Final Closure Report for IRP Site 10 former Landfill is issued. May 2006 PCOR issued for CBA OU and BW OU remedies. October 2007 Closure Plan/Post-Closure Maintenance Plan Addendum issued for IRP Site 2 Landfill Cap modification. January 2009 CCR for AOC 33 issued (not yet approved at this time). Building 752 exterior released for unrestricted use by California Department of Public Health (CDPH). Revised Technical Memorandum for Site 2 landfill change from vegetative to asphaltic concrete cover issued. March 2009 Revised CCR for IRP Site 17 issued (not yet approved at this time). May 2009 DTSC comments on AOC33 CCR issued. July 2009 DTSC comments on Site 17 CCR issued. August 2009 Production well sampling under the WSCP terminated. December 2009 Excavation of tank pits and piping at AOC 33.
WP/27-Sep-10/058-10 Page 9 Former Norton AFB THIRD FIVE-YEAR REVIEW Section 2.0
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
WP/27-Sep-10/058-10 Page 10 Former Norton AFB THIRD FIVE-YEAR REVIEW Section 3.0
3.0 BASE BACKGROUND
3.1 Location The former Norton AFB is situated in the north-central portion of the San Bernardino valley area, approximately 65 miles east of Los Angeles, California (see Figure 1-1). The San Bernardino valley is one of the major alluvial valleys of the South Coastal Basin of California. The former Norton AFB is situated on an alluvial terrace on the north bank of the Santa Ana River, approximately 2 miles south of the City of San Bernardino. The base is situated at 117º (degrees) 15’ (minutes) longitude and 34º 6' latitude in Township 1 South, Range 4 West (Sections 11, 12, 13, and 14), and Township 1 South, Range 3 West (Sections 7, 18, and 19). Other adjacent cities include Redlands, Loma Linda, Colton, Rialto, and Highland. Another nearby city, Riverside, is important not only because it is the largest in the Inland Empire, but also because it derives some of its water supply from wells located just downgradient from the former base.
Norton AFB is comprised of approximately 2,000 acres bounded by the Santa Ana River on the south, Third Street to the north, Lena Road to the west, and Alabama Street to the east. Two off-site "annexes" include a 1.5-acre parcel southwest of the base, which was used as a navigational marker, and a 30-acre parcel north of the northeast portion of the base, which was used for base housing. Property transfers of parcels of the former base were administered by the Air Force Real Property Agency (AFRPA). All of the base property has been transferred.
3.2 Population The population count of San Bernardino County estimated by the U.S. Census Bureau for the year 2007 was 2,007,800 persons which represents a 17.5 % increase since the last official U.S. Census was done in 2000. However, San Bernardino County covers a large area, and the population associated with cities adjacent to (or nearby) the former Norton AFB is a fraction of the total population of the county. The largest cities surrounding the former base, and their estimated populations, are provided in Table 3-1 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2007). The total population of the communities surrounding the former Norton AFB is about a quarter (24.5%) of the total population of San Bernardino County.
3.3 Land Use Before closing in 1994, the land use at the former Norton AFB was classified as a mixture of residential and light industrial. In addition to the residential areas, maintenance facilities, warehouses, and administrative centers were located on base. The residential areas of the former base no longer function as residential areas. The runways, taxiways, and other aircraft support facilities are part of the San Bernardino International Airport (SBIAA), although the land use is classified as commercial and services according to the 2001 land use map (SCAG, 2004). The 2001 land use map shows that more than half the land to the north and west of the former base is considered residential area, with smaller amounts of
WP/27-Sep-10/058-10 Page 11 Former Norton AFB THIRD FIVE-YEAR REVIEW Section 3.0
Table 3-1. Local Population Percent of County City Population Population Colton 50,817 2.5% Highland 51,304 2.6% Loma Linda 21,699 1.1% Redlands 69,941 3.5% Rialto 98,713 4.9% San Bernardino 199,285 9.9%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2007 (estimated) vacant commercial and service land, and very small amounts of industrial and agricultural land. South and east of the former base, the predominant land use is agricultural, with a large amount of vacant land (mostly the Santa Ana River bed), and very small amounts of industrial and residential land uses.
3.4 Climate The San Bernardino Valley (also the upper Santa Ana River watershed), lies in an area of Mediterranean climate with a rainy season lasting from approximately November through April, and a dry season from May to October. Almost 90% of the average annual precipitation in San Bernardino falls during the rainy season, while the remaining 11% occurs during the dry season. Average annual precipitation at San Bernardino has been measured at 15.7 inches during the period from 1951 to 1980. The average high temperature ranges from a minimum of 66.4º F in January to a maximum of 97.6º F in July, while the average low temperature ranges from 39.4º F in January to 61.2º F in August. Generally the winds are from the west to northwest and average about 3 knots. However, during Santa Ana conditions (high pressure inland), winds from the east can easily gust to over 65 knots (Ruffner, 1985).
3.5 Geology and Hydrology The geological setting of Norton AFB is typical of a fault-controlled alluvial basin environment. The sediments underlying Norton AFB consist of unconsolidated, relatively undisturbed gravels, sands, silts, and clays in varying proportions. While the specific depositional setting across Norton AFB varies considerably from one location to another, sediments can be grouped into various lithologic sets. These lithologic sets occur within the regional upper hydrogeologic units (river channel deposits, younger alluvium, older alluvium).
The western half of the base contains three general lithologic sets:
1. The interval from 0 to approximately 30 feet below ground surface (bgs) is comprised of silts, sands, and gravels with minor amounts of clay. The sands are fine to coarse grained, poorly sorted, and are light yellowish-brown in color. The gravels range in size from 1/8- to 2-inch-diameter granitic rock fragments that are angular to sub-rounded. The gravels and coarser sands tend to be dry, while the finer-grained sands, silts, and clays range from dry to moist.
WP/27-Sep-10/058-10 Page 12 Former Norton AFB THIRD FIVE-YEAR REVIEW Section 3.0
2. The interval from approximately 30 to 75 feet bgs is comprised of silts, clays, and sands. The sands are very fine grained to coarse grained (typically coarsening downward), moderately to poorly sorted, and range in color from light yellowish-brown to very dark gray. The clays and silts range from loose to very stiff, and are brown to very dark gray in color. Moisture content varies from dry to wet. Locally discontinuous gravel interbeds, approximately 1 to 5 feet thick, also occur. This interval of fine-grained units acts locally as a confining member (the regional upper confining member). 3. The interval from approximately 75 to 200+ feet bgs comprises predominantly sands and gravels, with intercalated 1- to 5-feet-thick silt and clay lenses. The sands are fine to coarse-grained, poorly sorted, angular to sub-rounded, and light yellowish-brown to gray in color. Gravels range in size from 1/4 to 3 inches in diameter, are angular to sub-rounded, are poorly to moderately sorted, and are comprised of granitic and gneissic material. This interval makes up what is known as the upper aquifer.
The former Norton AFB hydrogeology is very similar to the regional hydrogeology. The major hydrologic units investigated within the former Norton AFB include the upper confining member and the upper aquifer. The middle confining member and deeper units were not encountered during the 1990 to 1993 investigations. The off-base WSCP program monitored off-base wells that extend down into the middle aquifer. The hydrologic units investigated correlate well with the regional designations, and are consistent with the lithologic descriptions above.
The uppermost hydrologic unit at Norton AFB is the confining member that overlies the upper aquifer. This confining member correlates regionally with what is known as the upper confining member. This unit appears to be absent in the northeast corner of the CBA and across much of the eastern half of the base. The upper confining member is present in the southwest portion of the base, the former IWTP, and the former Palm Meadows golf course area (GCA). In general, the confining member consists of fine-grained clays, silty sands, and sands. The confining member contains more clay in the west portion of the base, and becomes siltier toward the east edge of the unit.
The actual extent of confined water beneath the confining member is variable, depending on recharge and other factors. The confining member locally supports perched water zones that occur from depths between 30 to 60 feet. The clay layers that support the perched water are not laterally continuous, and locally, there may be one or more perched zones. Perched water zones can only be maintained if recharge water is available. Many of the perched zone wells that were installed as part of the earlier investigations have gone dry and have been abandoned. Artificial recharge of the perched zone along the southern part of the base due to irrigation of the former golf course has ceased. No perched zone wells were installed in the NBA because there is no perched zone in that area.
The upper aquifer extends from historic depths of approximately 75 feet to depths in excess of 250 feet. Dutcher and Garrett (1963) state that the upper aquifer is approximately 200 to 250 feet thick in the vicinity of the former Norton AFB. The base of the upper aquifer (i.e., the contact with the middle confining member) does not appear to have been encountered during the investigations. Mud-rotary borings drilled to depths of 300 feet have not penetrated lithologic units that can clearly be identified as
WP/27-Sep-10/058-10 Page 13 Former Norton AFB THIRD FIVE-YEAR REVIEW Section 3.0 representative of the middle confining unit. However, because the contact between the upper aquifer and the middle confining zone is gradational, a clear distinction between the two units cannot easily be made.
The results of GW investigations suggest that the upper aquifer should be considered as one hydrologic unit (CDM, 1993a). Although fine-grained lenses exist within the upper aquifer, they are not laterally extensive, and cannot be used to designate separate units. This is consistent with other interpretations (Mendenhall, 1905; Dutcher and Garrett, 1963; Hardt and Hutchenson, 1980).
To investigate the vertical extent of contamination, monitoring wells have been installed at various "levels" within the upper aquifer (i.e., A-Level, B-Level, C-Level, etc.). The former Norton AFB GW monitoring wells were installed near the top of the upper aquifer (to investigate the current water table) and at approximate 50-foot intervals below the top of the upper aquifer, using July 1991 GW elevations as the basis for establishing the A-level designation. A-level wells were screened at the water table. B-level wells were screened approximately 50 feet below the top of the upper aquifer; C-level wells at 100 feet; D-level wells at 150 feet; E-level wells at 200 feet below the top of the upper aquifer.
3.6 Soil Surface soils over virtually the entire area of the former base are classified as Tujunga gravelly loamy sand, with a very gently sloping surface (0 to 9 percent). This soil is typically highly permeable (6 to 20 inches per hour) and has a slow to very slow surface runoff rating. These characteristics translate into a low potential for erosion from surface water, but a relatively high susceptibility for wind erosion on unprotected surfaces (Woodruff, 1980).
3.7 Surface Water and Wetlands The former Norton AFB is situated in the upstream end of one of the largest watersheds in Southern California, the Santa Ana River basin. The southern boundary of the former base is coincident with the main channel of the Santa Ana River. Much of the northern boundary is coincident with City Creek, a major tributary to the Santa Ana River whose confluence with the river is west and south of the former base. The general slope of the ground surface, and the direction of flow of these two channels, is to the southwest. The drainage area of City Creek is north of the former base, while that of the Santa Ana River is east and north of the base. Both watersheds originate in the San Bernardino Mountains. Both channels have only intermittent flows, usually in the wet season, when rainfall is heavy enough and long enough to produce runoff. There are no identified wetlands within the boundaries of the former Norton AFB.
3.8 Water Use and Well Inventory The upper Santa Ana River watershed is one of the fastest growing areas in the country, and supports two (City of Riverside and City of San Bernardino) of the 20 largest metropolitan areas in California. The water supply of this area is a mixture of surface runoff, GW, imported water (California Water Project water and Colorado River water), and recycled water. The Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control
WP/27-Sep-10/058-10 Page 14 Former Norton AFB THIRD FIVE-YEAR REVIEW Section 3.0
Board’s Basin Plan designates the beneficial uses for groundwater in the San Bernardino Valley (Bunker Hill B Basin) as municipal and domestic supply (MUN), agricultural supply (AGR), industrial service supply (IND) and industrial process supply (PROC). Native GW in this basin is augmented through recharge with surface runoff and imported water sources. In the vicinity of the former Norton AFB, several drinking water supply wells in four distinct well fields have been drilled primarily into the middle and lower water bearing zones (Figure 3-1). The historic well fields in the vicinity of the former base include the following:
1. Gage wells 2. Warren-Thorne complex 3. Raub wells 4. Meeks and Daley well
These historic well fields have provided water supply for the City of Riverside for decades. Basic data on existing production wells is provided in Table 3-2a. The GW monitoring wells currently installed at the base in association with IRP investigation activities are listed in Table 3-2b. The water supply wells and off-base monitoring wells are shown on Figure 3-1; monitoring wells located on-base are shown on Figure 3-2.
3.9 Site Locations and Activities The CBA comprises the western one-third of the former Norton AFB (see Figure 1-2). In general, aircraft maintenance and repair work were performed in the east portion of the CBA (from the flight line to Del Rosa Drive). Aircraft were stored, prepared for flight, fueled, and repaired along the flight line. Adjacent to the flight line and extending west to Del Rosa Drive are structures that were used for maintaining, overhauling, and washing of aircraft; maintaining vehicles and aircraft-support ground equipment; storage of supplies and other materials; and housing testing facilities, administrative offices, and educational facilities. It is in this portion of the CBA where most of the historical chemical use and disposal activities occurred. The central and west portions of the CBA (between Del Rosa Drive and Tippecanoe Avenue and the western base boundary was comprised of supply warehouses, offices, housing units (single family residences, apartments, and dormitory-style housing), and other facilities previously used to support Norton AFB's operations. Storage yards and maintenance areas were also situated in this area.
The eastern section of the former base property is bounded by Third Street on the north, Palm Avenue on the east and generally follows the boundary of the Santa Ana River bed on the south. This property comprises the majority of the air field runways and also includes the NBA located north of the airfield which represents the portion of the base with the oldest buildings. The original aircraft hangars and repair facilities are located within the NBA, as is the former base Landfill No. 2 (IRP Site 2). South of the air field and bounding the Santa Ana River bed is the former IWTP and the former GCA which includes the former base Landfill No. 1 (IRP Site 10).
WP/27-Sep-10/058-10 Page 15 Former Norton AFB THIRD FIVE-YEAR REVIEW Section 3.0
~I
" "
MW317 MW31 ' MW31t
MlW-5 .
,' ," , "
EXPLANATION Location of Off-Base ... Monitoring Well Cluster _ •• - Norton AFBBoundary • Multilevel Monitoring Well Monitoring and (MlW) Phase II Production Wells o Multilevel Monitoring Well (MLW) Phase HI ® PrOOuction Well Screened < 300 loot (depth) • Production Well Screened:l: 300 feet (depth)
Figure 3-1 ~~Feet O
WP/27-Sep-10/058-10 Page 16 Former Norton AFB THIRD FIVE-YEAR REVIEW Section 3.0
Table 3-2a. Active Groundwater Production Wells
Well Field Well ID Aquifer Maximum Average Capacity Production (gpm) (af/yr.) Gage 26-1 2,500 1,500 Gage 27-1 2,400 3,650 Gage 27-2 1,800 1,630 Gage 29-1 1,450 1,444 Gage 29-2 2,300 2,868 Gage 29-3 2,150 1,815 Gage 30-1 1,000 100 Gage 31-1 1,600 666 Gage 46-1 2,700 2,199 Gage 51-1 Middle 1,000 825 Gage 56-1 1,150 1,222 Gage 66-1 Middle 1,600 2,615 Gage 92-1 Middle/Lower 2,000 2,986 Gage 92-2 Middle/Lower 2,350 2,599 Gage 92-3 Middle/Lower 1,700 2,788 Gage 98-1 2,900 3,310 Meeks & Daley 59 2,200 0 Raub 4 Middle 1,500 1,126 Raub 5 Upper/Middle 1,650 884 Raub 6 Middle 2,800 1,222 Raub 7 2,300 2,000 Raub 8 Middle 2,100 1,257 Thorne 12 1,300 38 Warren 1 1,500 90 Warren 2 Upper/Middle Inactive 0 Warren 3 Inactive 0 Warren 4 1,450 93 Data from City of Riverside, May 2010 af/yr. = acre feet per year bgs = below ground surface ft. = feet gpm = gallons per minute in. = inches
WP/27-Sep-10/058-10 Page 17 Former Norton AFB THIRD FIVE-YEAR REVIEW Section 3.0
Table 3-2b. Groundwater Monitoring Well Status, Norton Air Force Base Page 1 of 3
Sampling Frequency Well Number Semiannual Annual Biannual Notes CBA MW80 C Decommissioned January 2009 per 11th Annual GDTR MW183 A Decommissioned January 2009 per 14th Annual GDTR MW184 C VOCs TCE vertical extent well MW190 A Decommissioned January 2009 per 14th Annual GDTR MW191 B Decommissioned December 2009 per 15th Annual GDTR MW197 A Decommissioned January 2009 per 14th Annual GDTR MW198 A Decommissioned October 2008 per 14th Annual GDTR MW201 A Decommissioned January 2009 per 11th Annual GWMP MW202 A Decommissioned October 2008 per 14th Annual GDTR MW213 B Recommended for decommissioning per 17th Annual GDTR MW215 B VOCs TCE plume vertical extent well MW218 A Decommissioned January 2009 per 14th Annual GDTR MW220 A Decommissioned January 2009 per 14th Annual GDTR MW224 A Decommissioned January 2009 per 14th Annual GDTR MW226 A Decommissioned January 2009 per 14th Annual GDTR MW247 B Upgradient background well – Water level control MW261 C VOCs CBA TCE plume definition well MW263 B VOCs TCE plume definition well. MW268 A Decommissioned October 2008 per 14th Annual GDTR MW274 C VOCs Upgradient background well for IWL – Water level control MW288 D Water level measurements only MW289 D VOCs BB well, Sample annually MW400 B Recommended for decommissioning per 17th Annual GDTR MW401 C VOCs TCE plume definition well WSCP – Off-Base MW300 B Removed from sampling program per 17th Annual GDTR MW301 C Removed from sampling program per 17th Annual GDTR MW302 D Removed from sampling program per 17th Annual GDTR MW303 A Decommissioned January 2009 per 13th Annual GDTR MW304 A Removed from sampling program per 13th Annual GDTR MW305 B Removed from sampling program per 17th Annual GDTR MW306 D Removed from sampling program per 17th Annual GDTR MW307 C Removed from sampling program per 17th Annual GDTR MW308 A Decommissioned January 2007 for redevelopment and per 13th Annual GDTR MW309 B Decommissioned January 2007 for redevelopment and per 13th Annual GDTR MW310 C Decommissioned January 2007 for redevelopment. Monitoring coverage provided by MW405 and MW 406.
WP/27-Sep-10/058-10 Page 18 Former Norton AFB THIRD FIVE-YEAR REVIEW Section 3.0
Table 3-2b. Groundwater Monitoring Well Status, Norton Air Force Base Page 2 of 3
Sampling Frequency Well Number Semiannual Annual Biannual Notes MW311 D Decommissioned January 2007 for redevelopment. Monitoring coverage provided by MW405 and MW 406. MW312 A Decommissioned January 2009 per 13th Annual GDTR MW313 B Removed from sampling program per 17th Annual GDTR MW314 D Removed from sampling program per 17th Annual GDTR MW315 C Removed from sampling program per 17th Annual GDTR MW316 A Decommissioned January 2009 per 13th Annual GDTR MW317 B Recommended for decommissioning per 17th Annual GDTR MW318 C Recommended for decommissioning per 17th Annual GDTR MW319 D Recommended for decommissioning per 17th Annual GDTR MW320 A Removed from sampling program per 13th Annual GDTR MW321 B Removed from sampling program per 13th Annual GDTR MW322 C Removed from sampling program per 13th Annual GDTR MW323 D Removed from sampling program per 17th Annual GDTR MW324 A Decommissioned January 2009 per 13th Annual GDTR MW325 B Removed from sampling program per 17th Annual GDTR MW326 C Removed from sampling program per 17th Annual GDTR MW327 D Removed from sampling program per 17th Annual GDTR MW405 C Removed from sampling program per 17th Annual GDTR MW406 D Removed from sampling program per 17th Annual GDTR MLW-1 Recommended for decommissioning per 17th Annual GDTR MLW-2 Recommended for decommissioning per 17th Annual GDTR MLW-3 Recommended for decommissioning per 17th Annual GDTR MLW-4 Recommended for decommissioning per 17th Annual GDTR MLW-5 Recommended for decommissioning per 17th Annual GDTR MLW-6 Recommended for decommissioning per 17th Annual GDTR MLW-7 Removed from sampling program per 17th Annual GDTR MLW-8 Decommissioned December 2009 per 13th Annual GDTR MLW-9 Recommended for decommissioning/transfer per 17th Annual GDTR MLW-10 Decommissioned December 2009 per 13th Annual GDTR GCA MW1R P VOCs(1) IRP Site 1 perched zone MW29R P VOCs(1) IRP Site 1 perched zone MW200 A Decommissioned October 2008 per 14th Annual GDTR MW238 A Decommissioned October 2008 per 14th Annual GDTR MW278 A Decommissioned October 2008 per 14th Annual GDTR IRP Site 17 MW20 P VOCs(1) IRP Site 17 perched zone MW63R P VOCs(1) IRP Site 17 perched zone MW97 C VOCs(1) Gage Canal Company guard well MW101R P VOCs(1) IRP Site 17 perched zone
WP/27-Sep-10/058-10 Page 19 Former Norton AFB THIRD FIVE-YEAR REVIEW Section 3.0
Table 3-2b. Groundwater Monitoring Well Status, Norton Air Force Base Page 3 of 3
Sampling Frequency Well Number Semiannual Annual Biannual Notes MW109 P VOCs(1) IRP Site 17 perched zone MW152 P VOCs(1) IRP Site 17 perched zone MW154 P VOCs(1) IRP Site 17 perched zone MW204 A Decommissioned October 2008 per 14th Annual GDTR MW205 A Decommissioned October 2008 per 14th Annual GDTR MW207 B VOCs(1) Gage Canal Company guard well MW299 A Decommissioned January 2009 per 14th Annual GDTR NBA MW113 B VOCs NBA PCE Secondary Plume Well MW157 B Recommended for decommissioning per 17th Annual GDTR MW235 A Decommissioned October 2008 per Site 2 POC Well Work Plan. Monitoring coverage provided by MW402, MW403, and MW404. MW244 A Decommissioned October 2008 per Site 2 POC Well Work Plan. Monitoring coverage provided by MW402, MW403, and MW404. MW246 A Decommissioned October 2008 per 14th Annual GDTR MW248 B Recommended for decommissioning per 17th Annual GDTR MW252 A Decommissioned October 2008 per 14th Annual GDTR MW259 A Decommissioned October 2008 per 14th Annual GDTR MW272 B Recommended for decommissioning per 17th Annual GDTR MW275 D Water level measurements only MW294 A Decommissioned October 2008 per Site 2 POC Well Work Plan. Monitoring coverage now will be provided by MW402, MW403, and MW404. MW295 B Decommissioned October 2008 per 13th Annual GDTR. MW402 B Water level measurement only MW403 B Water level measurement only MW404 B Water level measurement only Notes: (1) Well will be sampled after an average or above average rainfall year in accordance with the 17th Annual GDTR (see Section 9 of the GDTR for further details). A = Well screened at the water table relative to 1991 water table elevation. B = Well screened approximately 50 feet below water table (1991). C = Well screened approximately 100 feet below water table (1991). CBA = Central Base Area D = Well screened approximately 150 feet below water table (1991). GDTR = Groundwater Data Trends Report ug/L = micrograms per liter MLW = multilevel well MW = monitoring well NBA = Northeast Base Area P = Well screened in a perched zone. PCE = tetrachloroethylene TCE = trichloroethene VOC = volatile organic compound WSCP = Water Supply Contingency Plan
WP/27-Sep-10/058-10 Page 20 Former Norton AFB THIRD FIVE-YEAR REVIEW Section 3.0
Art Townsend Dr
Rialto Avenue Rialto AvI/l W-2 -191 J D Enterprise Dr Bldg 752 Har She ard Blvd MW- 213
D Ii Ii Ii .;:" ----- ~ • ~ ~ ~ ~ Du g "~ '" 0 ;ol AOC 33 N '" ~ § !r 1= ~ D Paul Villasenor Blvd MW-26
Mill
Central Avenue
• B- Level Monitoring Well • D-Level Monitoring Well Location of Five-Year Review Sites c=J Five-Year Review Sites o C-Level Monitoring Well • Perched Zone Monitoring Well and On-Base Monitoring Wells rL...J----"'1 ~ o 500 1000 2000 Feet ~, Figure 3-2
WP/27-Sep-10/058-10 Page 21 Former Norton AFB THIRD FIVE-YEAR REVIEW Section 3.0
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
WP/27-Sep-10/058-10 Page 22 Former Norton AFB THIRD FIVE-YEAR REVIEW Section 3.0
3.10 Operable Units and Sites/Areas of Concern As described in Section 1.0, there are two OUs that encompass all of the sites identified and investigated under the IRP at the former Norton AFB. Under the requirements of the five-year CERCLA review process, only sites that still have contaminants above levels that allow for UU/UE or sites where selected remedial actions to reduce contaminants below levels that allow for UU/UE will take five or more years to complete are evaluated in detail.
Central Base Area Operable Unit. The CBA OU ROD identifies selected remedies for GW contaminated with solvents and related volatile organic chemicals (VOCs), primarily TCE, and for several source locations of TCE in the soil within the CBA OU.
GW contamination was found within the upper aquifer (depths generally ranging from 75 feet bgs to 250 feet bgs). The extent of this contamination has decreased significantly since remedial actions began in 1991, but at one time extended from the TCE source area (near Buildings 658, 673, and 763) across the southwestern corner of the former base. Pumping of contaminated GW from the CBA began in March 1991 as a treatability test. The CBA PAT was eventually expanded into a full-fledged treatment system, and a second (downgradient) system (BB PAT) was installed near the boundary lines at the southwestern corner of the former base. These systems proved very effective in reducing the size and concentration of the plume. A combination of excavation and removal of contaminated soil, and soil vapor extraction (SVE) treatment have also proven very effective in reducing the contaminant sources in the shallow and deep soils within the CBA OU. Active remediation has ceased and the CBA and BB PAT and CBA SVE systems have been decommissioned.
As a result of these remedial actions (RAs), the only site within the CBA OU that still requires review under the five-year evaluation process is the GW TCE plume (also called Component 1). The sites identified within the CBA OU are identified in Table 3-3, which provides a summary of the selected remedies and current status.
Basewide Operable Unit. In contrast, the BW OU encompasses the entire footprint of the base, and is concerned primarily with surface and near surface contamination of various types. As a result of these definitions of OU extent, there is some overlap in the boundaries of these two OUs (see Figure 1-2). The distinction between the two OUs is that the GW contaminant plume (one of four components of the CBA OU) is primarily at depths greater than 70-80 bgs. The BW OU coverage in the overlapping area is at the surface or depths generally shallower than 50 feet bgs.
The BW OU includes 21 of the 22 IRP sites, all 73 AOCs, the SAR, Building 752, and the NBA Plume. Actual or potential environmental contamination at these sites generally falls into one of four categories:
Petroleum hydrocarbons or constituents such as benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene, and xylenes (BTEX) from fuel spills or leaks VOCs from solvent spills, leaks, or disposal
WP/27-Sep-10/058-10 Page 23 Former Norton AFB THIRD FIVE-YEAR REVIEW Section 3.0
Metals from maintenance facility wastes, plating and other manufacturing operations Other miscellaneous constituents (e.g., dioxins, Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons [PAHs], Polychlorinated Biphenyls [PCBs], herbicides, pesticides, radionuclides, etc.).
However, the various investigations performed at these locations showed that most sites did not require RAs. Ninety-two of the sites in the BW OU including 18 IRP sites, 72 AOCs, and two other areas (Building 752 and the NBA PCE Plume) were recommended for NFA because RAs or interim RAs prior to the ROD led to closure of the sites, or the sites were determined to pose no adverse risk to human health and the environment. RAs exercised on the remaining sites included RAs (generally through excavation), landfill capping, stabilization, SVE, bioremediation, and IC. A summary of the sites in the BW OU is provided in Table 3-3 for general background purposes. Figure 3-2 shows the locations of IRP Sites 2, 5, 7, 17, 19, AOCs 4 and 33, SAR, and Building 752.
WP/27-Sep-10/058-10 Page 24 Former Norton AFB THIRD FIVE-YEAR REVIEW Section 3.0
Table 3-3. Summary of Site Activities and Conclusions in the CBA OU and BW OU Page 1 of 12
Current Site ID References Selected Remedy Status CBA OU IRP Site 9 CDM, 1999d The selected remedy for Site 9 was a removal action that included NFA Electroplating Shop contaminated soils, concrete flooring, wall footings, and electrical conduit encasement. The air ducts at AOC 71 were also removed during the Site 9 removal action and disposed off site. The Air Force concluded that the removal action addressed the contamination, and no further action is required for Site 9. Component 1 Earth T, 1996b The selected remedy for the CBA Component 1 was GW extraction with Monitoring CBA Groundwater Earth T, 2004a wellhead treatment, treatment by air stripping, and reinjection of treated and ICs USAF, 1993a water. The remedy included direct discharge of emissions to atmosphere, or treatment by vapor phase carbon, GW monitoring and deed restrictions. The Air Force constructed and operated the CBA and Base boundary pump and treat (PAT) systems from 1992 through 2006 when decommissioning of both systems was completed. GW monitoring was performed under the BW Groundwater Monitoring Program (GWMP). Component 2 USAF, 1993a The selected remedy was to install a soil vapor extraction (SVE) system to NFA Deep Subsurface Earth T, 1997a pull air from the soils, treat it using an air sparging system employing Soil TCE Sources activated carbon. This system operated continuously for 19 months adjacent to buildings (except for routine maintenance) beginning in October 1995. It was shut 673 and 763 down in August 1997 and then removed in October 1998.
Component 3 USAF, 1993a The selected remedy included excavation and removal of TCE containing NFA Shallow Subsurface Earth T, 1996 soils. A total of 350 cubic yards of soils were removed near Building 658, Soil TCE Sources and these were remediated ex-situ in a treatment cell on base to TCE near buildings 658 concentrations less than 5 micrograms per kilogram (µg/kg). The and 763 remaining TCE-containing soil at Building 763 (which did not also contain chromium) was addressed through the SVE activities described above for Component 2. BW OU IRP Site 1 Earth T, 2005a The selected remedy was the excavation and removal of soil from an area NFA of approximately 25,000 square feet, to the top of the perched-zone GW at Industrial Waste a depth of approximately 29 feet bgs, and disposed off site. The Lagoons excavation was backfilled with clean soil. Based on confirmation sampling and GW monitoring the Air Force concluded that residual contamination does not pose an adverse risk to GW quality. Therefore, no further action is required for Site 1. GW monitoring of the Site 1 perched zone has continued under the BW GWMP. IRP Site 2 Earth T, 2005a The selected remedy for Site 2 is ICs through land use restrictions, coupled OM&M and Geologic, 2007 with the long term operation, maintenance and monitoring (OM&M) of the ICs Former base landfill Geologic, 2009 landfill containment systems in compliance with State landfill closure No. 2 regulations. An approved modification of the landfill cover to asphalt was performed in 2010. Ongoing OM&M is being performed in accordance with the regulatory-approved Closure and Post-Closure Maintenance Plan and related plans. IRP Site 3 E & E, 1987 IRP investigations failed to locate the site or any potential contamination in NFA E & E, 1989 the area. Based on the findings of three investigations, the Air Force Waste Pit No. 2 CDM, 1993c concluded that there was no release of contamination, and no further action CDM, 1995d is required for Site 3. CDM, 1996j
WP/27-Sep-10/058-10 Page 25 Former Norton AFB THIRD FIVE-YEAR REVIEW Section 3.0
Table 3-3. Summary of Site Activities and Conclusions in the CBA OU and BW OU Page 2 of 12
Current Site ID References Selected Remedy Status IRP Site 4 E & E, 1987 IRP investigations failed to locate the site or any potential contamination in NFA E & E, 1989 the area. Based on the findings of these three investigations, the Air Force Waste Pit No. 1 CDM, 1993c concluded that there was no release of contamination, and no further action CDM, 1995d is required for Site 4. CDM, 1996j IRP Site 5 CDM, 1993a The selected remedy for Site 5 is ICs through land use covenants and deed IC CDM, 1994d restrictions. The property is further restricted by proximity to airfield and Fire Protection Earth T, 1993 FAA restrictions that prohibit residential use. The Air Force performed Area 2 Earth T, 1997b remedial actions including soil vapor extraction, excavation, and disposal of Earth T, 1999 contaminated soil, burial of lead impacted materials from the Small Arms Earth T, 2005a Range, and backfilling of clean cover soil. IRP Site 6 Bechtel, 1997a The selected remedy included excavation and removal of petroleum NFA Bechtel, 1996 contaminated soils to a depth of about 40 feet bgs, backfilling with clean Underground Waste soil, and regrading to become a portion of the parking lot for the San Oil Storage Tanks Bernardino International Airport. The Air Force received approval from the RWQCB for the removal action. The Air Force concluded that all contamination in excess of residential preliminary remediation goals (PRGs) was addressed by the removal action, which removed the contamination, and no further action is required for Site 6. IRP Site 7 CDM, 2003 The selected remedy was removal of the former drying beds, including NFA Earth T, 2005a surrounding concrete walls and surface soils. The Air Force concluded that IWTP Sludge Drying the removal action addressed the residual contamination, and no further Beds action is required for Site 7. CERCLA Closure Certification Report was issued in 2005 and determination of NFA was obtained in 2006. RCRA corrective action termination for Site 7 as part of the Interim Status IWTP/IWL facility is still pending. IRP Site 8 E & E, 1989 The selected remedy was removal of contaminated soil, which was NFA CDM, 1993c completed in November 1996. Cleanup achieved residential soil PRGs for PCB Spill Area CDM, 1996h the site area. The Air Force concluded that all contamination in excess of USAF, 1996d PRGs was addressed by the removal action, which removed the Bechtel, 1997b contamination, and no further action is required for IRP Site 8. IRP Site 10 Earth T, 2005a The selected remedy was removal of dioxin contaminated soil in excess of NFA Earth T, 2006a 10 ng/kg, which was completed in 2004, thus reducing the level of dioxins Base Landfill No. 1 and residual cancer risk. The Air Force concluded that this removal action addressed the residual contamination, and no further action is required for Site 10. A final closure report was issued in 2006 and a determination of NFA was obtained. IRP Site 11 CDM, 1993c During the RI, soil samples were collected from soil pits to identify the NFA USAF, 1996d presence of sludge waste. Sludge material was not observed in any of the Fuel Sludge Drying CDM, 2003 pits, and no COCs were detected above residential PRGs. Thus, the risk Beds assessment indicated no adverse risk for the site. The Air Force concluded that contamination does not exceed residential PRGs (unrestricted land use), and no further action is required for Site 11. IRP Site 12 CDM, 1993c The selected remedy was removal and disposal of metals-contaminated NFA CDM, 1995d soil, completed in March 2004. The Air Force concluded that all Waste Pit No. 3 CDM 1997d contamination in excess of residential PRGs was addressed by this CDM, 2000c remedy, and no further action is required at Site 12. CDM, 2003 Earth T, 2003a Earth T, 2004b
WP/27-Sep-10/058-10 Page 26 Former Norton AFB THIRD FIVE-YEAR REVIEW Section 3.0
Table 3-3. Summary of Site Activities and Conclusions in the CBA OU and BW OU Page 3 of 12
Current Site ID References Selected Remedy Status IRP Site 13 E & E, 1989 The selected remedy includes excavation and removal of contaminated soil NFA CDM, 1993c and disposal at the Site 2 landfill, where it was used as a sub-base for the IWTP Sludge Ogden, 1996a final cover. BWFS concluded that the residual contamination left at Site 13 Disposal Area USAF, 1996b does not pose a risk to human health. The Air Force concluded that all Ogden, 1996b contamination in excess of residential PRGs was addressed in the 1996 Ogden, 1997 removal action, which removed the contamination, and no further action is CDM, 2003 required at Site 13. IRP Site 14 CDM, 1993c The selected remedy included excavation and removal of contaminated NFA Ogden, 1996a soils from the site and disposed at the Laidlaw facility in Westmoreland, Waste Pit No. 4 USAF, 1996b California. Minor paint waste remains below 18 feet bgs. Because the Ogden, 1997 original risk was acceptable, the Air Force concluded that all contamination in excess of residential PRGs was addressed by the removal action, which removed the contamination, and no further action is required for Site 14. IRP Site 15 E & E, 1989 IRP investigations found no evidence of metals, fuels, oils, or grease above NFA CDM, 1993c residential PRGs. Therefore, the Air Force concluded that contamination UST S-290 USAF, 1996d should not preclude unrestricted land use, and no further action is required CDM, 2003 for Site 15. IRP Site 16 E& E, 1989 The selected remedy involved the removal of the evaporation basins at the NFA M & K, 1996a ACCS waste treatment facility, and follow-up GW monitoring. The Air Air Combat Camera M & K, 1996b Force completed its obligations for GW sampling, and the site was Services CDM, 1993c approved for RCRA closure without controls. The Air Force concluded that Evaporation Basins CDM, 1996k all contamination in excess of residential PRGs was addressed by the CDM, 1996i removal action, and no further action is required for Site 16. Ca DTSC, 2002 IRP Site 17 Earth T, 2005a The selected remedy for Site 17 was the removal of the waste storage RA Earth T, 2009b facility, which was accomplished in two phases. The CERCLA closure Drummed Waste report was issued in 2006. The Air Force concluded that the due to the Storage Area/Waste small size of the site (1.0 acre) and the depth of residual soil contamination Fuel and Solvent (30 feet bgs), no further action is required for Site 17. Comments from Sump DTSC elicited further investigative work. The Revised Final Closure Certification report was issued in 2009. Review of additional regulatory comments is continuing. GW monitoring of the Site 17 perched zone has continued under the BW GWMP. The selected remedy addresses the CERCLA and RCRA requirements for Site 17. Site 17 is considered part of the former Norton AFB RCRA Interim Status Facility, so, as specified in the Basewide ROD, RCRA corrective action termination will be required once the Site 17 closure report is completed. IRP Site 18 CDM, 1993c During the RI, surface soil samples were analyzed, with PAHs and lead NFA USAF, 1996d detected at average concentrations, but below the residential PRGs. The Aviation Gas Spill CDM, 2003 Air Force concluded that contamination does not exceed residential PRGs Area (unrestricted land use), and no further action is required for Site 18. IRP Site 19 CDM, 1993c The selected remedy for Site 19 is ICs through land use restrictions IC USAF, 1997b incorporated in the transfer deed that prevent exposure, restrict site uses Waste Drum Earth T, 2005a and maintain site access for inspections and monitoring. The land is Storage Area No. 1 protected by an FAA covenant that allows only industrial, commercial, and airport support activities. An aircraft washing facility was removed in 1966, and the area was resurfaced with 20 to 24 inches of concrete as part of the flight line taxiway. This action removed exposure pathways to any residual PCB contamination.
WP/27-Sep-10/058-10 Page 27 Former Norton AFB THIRD FIVE-YEAR REVIEW Section 3.0
Table 3-3. Summary of Site Activities and Conclusions in the CBA OU and BW OU Page 4 of 12
Current Site ID References Selected Remedy Status IRP Site 20 E & E, 1989 Investigations for Site 20 included GPR surveys to locate a suspected NFA CNI, 1992 concrete bunker and exploratory excavations of geophysical anomalies at Low-Level IT Corp, 1994 the golf course. Because a concrete bunker was never encountered the Air Radioactive Bunker IT Corp, 1996 Force concluded that contamination does not exceed residential PRGs Burial Site CDM, 2003 (unrestricted land use), and no action is required for Site 20. IRP Site 21 E & E, 1989 The selected remedy for Site 21 was removal of the waste treatment tanks NFA M & K, 1996a and additional GW monitoring of the site location. No COCs were detected Underground M & K, 1996b above their MCL values during GW monitoring, and in October 2000 the Ferricyanide Tank CDM, 1996k site was approved for closure without controls by RCRA. The Air Force CDM, 1996i concluded that contamination does not exceed residential PRGs CDM, 1997c (unrestricted land use), and no further action is required for Site 21 under Earth T, 2001a CERCLA. DTSC, 2002 IRP Site 22 Ogden, 1996a The selected remedy for Site 22 was the excavation and mixing of soil NFA USAF, 1996b containing arsenic from the site for the preparation of road base for the IWTP Discharge paving Palm Meadows Drive. The resulting assessment was based on an Ditch and Outfall average exposure point concentration of arsenic (the only COC detected), Area which was below U.S. EPA accepted background average of 5 mg/kg. The Air Force concluded that contamination does not exceed residential PRGs (unrestricted land use), and no further action is required for IRP Site 22. AOC 1 Ogden, 1996a Two investigations showed residential soil PRGs were not exceeded for the NFA USAF, 1996b AOC 1 area overall. Based on these results, the Air Force concluded that Building 248, Dry contamination does not exceed residential PRGs (unrestricted land use), Well Area and no further action is required for AOC 1. AOC 2 CDM, 1995d Investigation of the sumps and adjacent soil showed metals, cyanide, and NFA CDM, 2003 PAHs at concentrations typically below residential soil PRGs. The Air Building 258, Floor Force concluded that contamination does not exceed residential PRGs Drains and Exterior (unrestricted land use), and no further action is required for AOC 2. Sump AOC 3 CDM, 1995d The selected remedy included cleaning of the sump located at the former NFA Bechtel, 1997b vehicle repair/washing facilities, and no further investigation of AOC 3. The Building 295, CDM, 2003 sump was cleaned out as part of a series of basewide cleanup actions. Automotive The Air Force concluded that contamination does not exceed residential Maintenance Shop PRGs (unrestricted land use), and no further action is required for AOC 3. AOC 4 CDM, 1997a The selected remedy for AOC 4 is ICs through land use restrictions IC CDM, 2003 incorporated in the transfer deed that prevent exposure, restrict site uses Building 301, Bechtel, 1997a and maintain site access for inspections and monitoring. The land is Automotive USAF, 1997a protected by an FAA covenant that allows only industrial, commercial, and Maintenance Shop Earth T, 2005a airport support activities. AOC 5 CDM, 1995d Investigation of AOC 5 showed no COCs were detected in any of the soil NFA CDM, 2003 gas or soil samples. Therefore, the Air Force concluded that there was no Building 302 Aircraft release of contamination, and no further action is required for AOC 5. Maintenance Facility AOC 6 CDM, 1995d Investigation of AOC 6 showed no solvent or fuel chemicals in the soil and NFA CDM, 2003 soil gas samples. No COCs were detected in excess of residential PRGs. Buildings 313, 317, The Air Force concluded that contamination does not exceed residential and 320 PRGs (unrestricted land use), and no further action is required for AOC 6. AOC 7 CDM, 1995d Investigation of AOC 7 revealed detectable levels metals and compounds NFA CDM, 1996c indicative of oil and grease. However, these values did not exceed Building 330 CDM, 2003 residential soil PRGs overall. The Air Force concluded that contamination does not exceed residential PRGs (unrestricted land use), and no further action is required for AOC 7.
WP/27-Sep-10/058-10 Page 28 Former Norton AFB THIRD FIVE-YEAR REVIEW Section 3.0
Table 3-3. Summary of Site Activities and Conclusions in the CBA OU and BW OU Page 5 of 12
Current Site ID References Selected Remedy Status AOC 8 CDM, 1995d Investigation of AOC 8 produced samples in which PAHs and metals were NFA CDM, 2003 detected below residential soil PRGs. Thus, the Air Force concluded that Building 337 contamination does not exceed residential PRGs (unrestricted land use), and no further action is required for AOC 8. AOC 9 CDM, 1995d Investigation of AOC 9 showed no COCs were detected above residential NFA CDM, 2003 PRGs. The Air Force concluded that contamination does not exceed Buildings 333 and residential PRGs (unrestricted land use), and no further action is required 341 for AOC 9. AOC 10 CDM, 1995d The selected remedy for AOC 10 was to clean the grease trap associated NFA CDM, 2003 with Building 336, and properly dispose of its contents. The Air Force then Building 336 concluded that there was no release of contamination at the site, and no further action is required for AOC 10. AOC 11 CDM, 1995d The investigation for AOC 11 showed all metals detected to be within NFA CDM, 2003 background range, and the soil pH in the neutral range. Thus, the Air Building 338 Force concluded that contamination does not exceed residential PRGs (unrestricted land use), and no further action is required for AOC 11. AOC 12 CDM, 1995d The investigation of AOC 12 showed through soil sampling and soil gas NFA sampling that no COC constituent levels were detected above residential Building 344 PRGs. The BWFS concluded that AOC 12 does not pose an adverse risk due to the inhalation pathway. The Air Force therefore concluded that contamination does not exceed residential PRGs (unrestricted land use), and no further action is required. AOC 13 CDM, 1995d No COC constituent levels were detected above residential PRGs in the NFA investigation of AOC 13 with soil and soil gas sampling. The BWFS Building 345 concluded that AOC 13 does not pose adverse risk due to the inhalation pathway. The Air Force concluded that contamination does not exceed residential PRGs (unrestricted land use), and no further action is required. AOC 14 CDM, 1995d Investigation of AOC 14 using soil gas surveys, GPR survey, and NFA IT Corp., 1996 exploratory excavations revealed no COCs to be present. Thus the Air Buildings 405 and Force concluded that there was no release of contamination, and no further 408 action is required for AOC 14. AOC 15 CDM, 1995d No detectable COCs were found in the soil sample collected in the NFA CDM, 2003 investigation of AOC 15. The Air Force concluded that contamination does Building 432 not exceed residential PRGs (unrestricted land use), and no further action is required for AOC 15. AOC 16 CDM, 1995d The investigation of AOC 16 produced no soil gas samples with detectable NFA levels of COCs. Therefore, the Air Force concluded that there was no Building 435 release of contamination, and no further action is required for AOC 16. AOC 17 CDM, 1995d No detectable COCs were found in the soil gas samples collected as part NFA of the investigation of AOC 17. The Air Force therefore concluded that Buildings 441 and there was no release of contamination, and no further action is required for 442 AOC 17. AOC 18 CDM, 2003 Although investigation of AOC 18 indicated the presence of xylene and NFA Earth T, 2005a naphthalene at concentrations exceeding residential PRGs, evaluation of Buildings 451/452 the site in subsequent times projected acceptable direct contact and indoor air inhalation risk. The Air Force concluded that the residual fuel contamination has been reduced to acceptable levels for unrestricted, and no further action is required for AOC 18.
WP/27-Sep-10/058-10 Page 29 Former Norton AFB THIRD FIVE-YEAR REVIEW Section 3.0
Table 3-3. Summary of Site Activities and Conclusions in the CBA OU and BW OU Page 6 of 12
Current Site ID References Selected Remedy Status AOC 19 CDM, 1995d Investigation of AOC 19 with soil and soil gas sampling revealed limited NFA CDM, 2003 detectable levels of fuel chemicals. As a result, the Air Force concluded Buildings 576 and that contamination does not exceed residential PRGs (unrestricted land 578 use), and no further action is required for AOC 19. AOC 20 CDM, 1995d Investigation of AOC 20 showed no COCs were detected in the soil NFA CDM, 2003 samples above residential PRGs. The Air Force concluded that Building 635 contamination does not exceed residential PRGs (unrestricted land use), and no further action is required for AOC 20. AOC 21 CDM, 1995d No COCs were detected in the soil and soil gas samples collected in the NFA investigation of AOC 21. The Air Force concluded that there was no Building 638 release of contamination, and no further action is required for AOC 21. AOC 22 CDM, 1995d The investigation of AOC 22 revealed detectable but very low NFA CDM, 2003 concentrations of Toluene and TCE in only one sample. The Air Force Building 653 concluded that contamination does not exceed residential PRGs (unrestricted land use), and no further action is required for AOC 22. AOC 23 CDM, 1995d Investigation of ACO 23 included soil and soil gas sample analyses, which NFA CDM, 2003 found only detectable concentrations of TCE and diesel, although none Building 655 were above residential PRGs. Based on these results and risk analysis the Air Force concluded that contamination does not exceed residential PRGs (unrestricted land use), and no further action is required for AOC 23. AOC 24 CDM, 1995d The selected remedy included removal of a sump and TCE-contaminated NFA CDM, 2003 soil immediately north of Building 658. The Air Force concluded that all Building 658 contamination in excess of residential PRGs was addressed by the removal action, and no further action is required for AOC 24. AOC 25 CDM, 1995d Investigation of ACO 25 included soil and soil gas sample analyses, which NFA CDM, 2003 found only detectable concentrations of PCE in one soil gas sample and no Building 678 detectable levels of any COCs in the soil samples. The Air Force concluded that contamination does not exceed residential PRGs (unrestricted land use), and no further action is required for AOC 25. AOC 26 CDM, 1995d Investigation of AOC 26 showed no detectable levels of any COCs. NFA Therefore, the Air Force concluded that there was no release of Building 695 contamination, and no further action is required for AOC 26. AOC 27 CDM, 1995d Investigation of AOC 27 showed no detectable levels of any COCs. NFA Therefore, the Air Force concluded that there was no release of Building 705 contamination, and no further action is required for AOC 27. AOC 28 CDM, 1995d Investigation of AOC 28 found low, but detectable, levels of TCE and NFA CDM, 2003 diesel. Based on the low levels found, the Air Force concluded that Building 707 contamination does not exceed residential PRGs (unrestricted land use), and no further action is required for AOC 28. AOC 29 CDM, 1995d Investigation of AOC 29 indicated that a suspected UST had been removed NFA CDM, 1996c previously and only low levels of benzene, toluene, and xylene were Building 723, 724, CDM, 2003 detected. The Air Force concluded that contamination does not exceed and 725 residential PRGs (unrestricted land use), and no further action is required for AOC 29. AOC 30 CDM, 1995d Investigation of AOC 30 showed detectable, but low concentrations of fuel NFA CDM, 2003 chemicals in only one sample. The Air Force concluded that contamination Building 726 does not exceed residential PRGs (unrestricted land use), and no further action is required for AOC 30.
WP/27-Sep-10/058-10 Page 30 Former Norton AFB THIRD FIVE-YEAR REVIEW Section 3.0
Table 3-3. Summary of Site Activities and Conclusions in the CBA OU and BW OU Page 7 of 12
Current Site ID References Selected Remedy Status AOC 31 CDM, 1995d Investigation of AOC 31 included soil gas sample analysis and indoor air NFA CDM, 2003 risk modeling. The BWFS concluded that AOC 31 does not pose a risk to Building 736 human health due to the inhalation pathway. Therefore, the Air Force concluded that contamination does not exceed residential PRGs (unrestricted land use), and no further action is required. AOC 32 CDM, 1995d Investigation of AOC 32 did not find any detectable solvents or fuels. The NFA Air Force concluded that there was no release of contamination, and no Building 741 further action is required for AOC 32. AOC 33 CDM, 2003 The selected remedy for AOC 33 was the removal of a sump and the RA Earth T, 2005a surrounding soil, completed in 2003. Post removal investigations found Building 747 Earth T, 2009a elevated, levels of COCs associated with tank pits and piping under the Building 747 slab. Additional excavations were performed in 2009 and confirmation samples were below residential PRGs. A post excavation soil vapor investigation is planned for 2010. Site characterization and risk assessments will be updated based on the post excavation soil and soil vapor data and a revised Closure Certification Report will be submitted. The selected remedy addresses the CERCLA and RCRA requirements for AOC 33. AOC 33 is considered part of the former Norton AFB RCRA Interim Status Facility, so, as specified in the Basewide ROD, RCRA corrective action termination will be required once the AOC 33 closure report is completed. AOC 34 CDM, 1995d Investigation of AOC34 included soil gas sample analysis and indoor air NFA CDM, 2003 risk modeling. The BWFS concluded that AOC 34 does not pose a risk to Building 749 human health due to the inhalation pathway. The Air Force concluded that contamination does not exceed residential PRGs (unrestricted land use), and no further action is required for AOC 34. AOC 35 CDM, 1995d Investigation of AOC 35 included soil and soil gas sample analysis and NFA CDM, 2003 indoor air risk modeling. The BWFS concluded that AOC 35 does not pose Building 755 a risk to human health due to the inhalation pathway. The Air Force concluded that contamination does not exceed residential PRGs (unrestricted land use), and no further action is required for AOC 35. AOC 36 CDM, 1995d Investigation of AOC 36 did not find any detectable levels of COCs in soil NFA CDM, 2003 samples and only TCE was detected in the soil gas samples. As a result of Building 795 these results, the Air Force concluded that contamination does not exceed residential PRGs (unrestricted land use), and no further action is required for AOC 36. AOC 37 CDM, 1995d The remedy selected for AOC37 was removal of contaminated soils which NFA CDM, 1996c was performed from October through December 1996. As a result of this Refuse Dump Area CDM, 1996h removal action, the Air Force concluded that all contamination in excess of USAF, 1996d residential PRGs was addressed by the removal action, which removed the Bechtel, 1997b contamination, and no further action is required for AOC 37. AOC 38 CDM, 1995d The remedy selected for AOC38 was removal of contaminated soils which NFA CDM, 1996c was performed from October through December 1996. As a result of this C Street Storm Drain Outfall CDM, 1996h removal action, the Air Force concluded that all contamination in excess of USAF, 1996d residential PRGs had been addressed, and no further action is required for Bechtel, 1997b AOC 38. AOC 39 CDM, 2003 Investigation of AOC 39 included soil sample analyses and risk NFA Earth T, 2005a assessment modeling. The final evaluation decided that sample collection Golf Course Outfall Area locations had biased results, thus leading to an overestimation of the actual risk. Therefore, the Air Force concluded that residual contamination was within acceptable levels for unrestricted land use, and no further action is required for AOC 39.
WP/27-Sep-10/058-10 Page 31 Former Norton AFB THIRD FIVE-YEAR REVIEW Section 3.0
Table 3-3. Summary of Site Activities and Conclusions in the CBA OU and BW OU Page 8 of 12
Current Site ID References Selected Remedy Status AOC 40 CDM, 1995d The remedy selected for AOC40 was removal of metal sheds, floors, NFA CDM, 1996c foundations, and soils which was accomplished in March 2004. As a result Golf Course Maintenance Area USAF, 1997a of this removal action the Air Force concluded that all contamination in Earth T, 2004b excess of residential PRGs was addressed by the removal investigation of AOC 41ction, and no further action is required for AOC 40. AOC 41 McL-H, 1991a Investigation of AOC 41 included sampling of soils within and underlying NFA McL-H, 1991b the treatment cell after use of the cell for treatment was complete. Al Lockheed Soil Excavation McL-H, 1992 though TCE had been reported in the soil within the cell during the treat Treatment Cell CDM, 1995d ment process, no TCE was detected in any of the post-treatment samples. The Air Force concluded that there was no release of contamination, and no further action is required for AOC 41. AOC 42 CDM, 1995d Investigation of AOC 42 included soil and soil gas sample analysis and only NFA CDM, 2003 low levels of VOCs were detected in the soil gas samples. No COCs were Building 514 detected above residential PRGs in soils. Based on these results, the Air Force concluded that contamination does not exceed residential PRGs (unrestricted land use), and no further action is required for AOC 42. AOC 43 CDM, 1995d The selected remedy included SVE of a large area within the CBA that NFA CDM, 2003 included Building 763. As a result of the effectiveness of this SVE Building 763 treatment, the Air Force concluded that contamination does not exceed residential PRGs (unrestricted land use), and no further action is required for AOC 43. AOC 44 CDM, 1996c The selected remedy was excavation and removal of soils and ash for off NFA CDM, 2000b site disposal as part of the Sites 10 and 12 remediation. The BWFS Golf Course Ash Layer CDM, 2003 identified no further action as the preferred alternative for AOC 44 based on the cleanup of IRP Site 10 (see Figure 2-6). The Air Force concluded that contamination does not exceed residential PRGs (unrestricted land use), and no further action is required for AOC 44. AOC 45 CDM, 1995d The investigation of AOC 45 included soil gas sample analysis and indoor NFA CDM, 2003 air risk modeling. The BWFS concluded that AOC 45 does not pose a risk 500-Series Buildings to human health due to the inhalation pathway. The Air Force concluded that contamination does not exceed residential PRGs (unrestricted land use), and no further action is required for AOC 45. AOC 46 CDM, 1996a Investigation of AOC 46 included extensive soil gas sampling and analysis NFA USAF, 1996a and limited follow-up soil sampling. Only 1,1,1-TCA was detected in the 900-Series Buildings CDM, 2003 soil gas samples and no solvents were detected in the two soil boreholes sampled. As a result of these results, the Air Force concluded that contamination does not exceed residential PRGs (unrestricted land use), and no further action is required for AOC 46. AOC 47 CDM, 1996a Investigation of AOC 47 included soil and soil gas sample analysis, in NFA which no COCs were detected. The Air Force concluded that there was no Detachment 10 release of contamination, and no further action is required for AOC 47. AOC 48 CDM, 1996a Investigation of AOC 48 included soil gas sample analysis, in which no NFA COCs were detected. The Air Force concluded that there was no release Former Communication of contamination, and no further action is required for AOC 48. Facility
AOC 49 CDM, 1996a Investigation of AOC 49 included a single soil borehole, form which soil NFA samples showed no detectable VOCs or cyanide present, but did have very Building 248, SWAP low pH. The soil pH was below the neutral range for Norton AFB soils and above pH 2.0, but did not indicate contamination. The Air Force concluded that there was no release of contamination, and no further action is required at AOC 49.
WP/27-Sep-10/058-10 Page 32 Former Norton AFB THIRD FIVE-YEAR REVIEW Section 3.0
Table 3-3. Summary of Site Activities and Conclusions in the CBA OU and BW OU Page 9 of 12
Current Site ID References Selected Remedy Status AOC 50 CDM, 1996a Investigation of AOC 50 included one soil borehole, with samples showing NFA CDM, 2003 no solvents, fuels, petroleum compounds, PCBs, and metals were detected Building 329, SWAP above residential soil PRGs. As a result, the Air Force concluded that contamination does not exceed residential PRGs (unrestricted land use), and no further action is required at AOC 50. AOC 51 CDM, 1996a Investigation of AOC 52 included soil and soil gas samples, and no COCs NFA CDM, 2003 were detected above residential soil PRGs. Therefore, the Air Force Building 333, SWAP concluded that contamination does not exceed residential PRGs (unrestricted land use), and no further action is required for AOC 51. AOC 52 CDM, 1996a Investigation of AOC 52 included soil and soil gas sampling. No COCs NFA CDM, 2003 were detected above residential soil PRGs. The Air Force concluded that Building 341, SWAP contamination does not exceed residential PRGs (unrestricted land use), and no further action is required for AOC 52. AOC 53 CDM, 1996a Investigation of AOC 53 included soil and soil gas sampling. No COCs NFA were detected. Based on these findings, the Air Force concluded that there Building 403, SWAP was no release of contamination, and no further action is required for AOC 53. AOC 54 CDM, 1996a Investigation of AOC 54 included soil and soil gas sampling. COCs were NFA not detected. The Air Force concluded that there was no release of Building 407, SWAP contamination, and no further action is required for AOC 54. AOC 55 CDM, 1996a Investigation of AOC 55 included soil and soil gas sampling. Although NFA CDM, 2003 some VOCs were detected in the soil, no COCs were detected in soil Building 412, SWAP above residential PRGs. The Air Force concluded that contamination does not exceed residential PRGs (unrestricted land use), and no further action is required for AOC 55. AOC 56 CDM, 1996a Investigation of AOC 56 included soil and soil gas sampling. Acetone and NFA CDM, 2003 methyl ethyl ketone were reported at low concentrations in soil gas, but no Building 417, SWAP COCs were detected in soil. The Air Force concluded that contamination does not exceed residential PRGs (unrestricted land use), and no further action is required for AOC 56. AOC 57 CDM, 1996a Investigation of AOC 57 included soil sampling, and no COCs were NFA detected. The Air Force concluded that there was no release of Building 427, SWAP contamination, and no further action is required for AOC 57. AOC 58 CDM, 1996a Investigation of AOC 58 included soil and soil gas sampling, and a number NFA CDM, 1996d of COCs were detected at low concentrations. Only a single detection of Building 468, SWAP CDM, 2003 benzo(a) pyrene exceeded the residential PRG. However, in the final analysis, the Air Force concluded that contamination does not exceed residential PRGs (unrestricted land use), and no further action is required for AOC 58. AOC 59 CDM, 1996a Investigation of AOC 59 included soil and soil gas sampling. Only acetone NFA CDM, 2003 and methyl ethyl ketone were reported at low concentrations. As a result, Building 620, SWAP the Air Force concluded that contamination does not exceed residential PRGs (unrestricted land use), and no further action is required at AOCs 59 and 68. AOC 60 CDM, 1996a Investigation of AOC 60 included soil, soil gas and indoor air risk modeling. NFA CDM, 1996d Although fuels and fuel additives were detected at low concentrations, all Building 675, SWAP CDM, 2003 detections were below residential soil PRGs. The BWFS concluded that AOC 60 does not pose a risk to human health due to the inhalation pathway. The Air Force concluded that contamination does not exceed residential PRGs (unrestricted land use), and no further action is required for AOC 60.
WP/27-Sep-10/058-10 Page 33 Former Norton AFB THIRD FIVE-YEAR REVIEW Section 3.0
Table 3-3. Summary of Site Activities and Conclusions in the CBA OU and BW OU Page 10 of 12
Current Site ID References Selected Remedy Status AOC 61 CDM, 1996a Investigation of AOC 61 used soil and soil gas sample analyses to find only NFA CDM, 2003 low levels of TCE in soil gas, and no detectable COCs in the soil. The Air Building 680, SWAP Force concluded that contamination does not exceed residential PRGs (unrestricted land use), and no further action is required for AOC 61. AOC 62 CDM, 1996a Investigation of AOC 62 included soil sample analyses and found no COC NFA CDM, 1996d concentrations above residential soil PRGs. The Air Force concluded that Building 825, SWAP CDM, 2003 contamination does not exceed residential PRGs (unrestricted land use), and no further action is required for AOC 62. AOC 63 CDM, 1996a Investigation of AOC 63 showed no COCs detected above residential NFA CDM, 2003 PRGs. The Air Force concluded that contamination does not exceed Building 950, SWAP residential PRGs (unrestricted land use), and no further action is required at AOC 63. AOC 64 CDM, 1996a Investigation of AOC 64 used soil sample analysis to find low levels of NFA CDM, 2003 metals in only 1 of 31 samples and pesticides below residential PRGs. Building 976, SWAP Therefore, the Air Force concluded that contamination does not exceed residential PRGs (unrestricted land use), and no further action is required for AOC 64. AOC 65 CDM, 1996a Investigation of AOC 64 included soil and soil gas sample analysis to show NFA CDM, 2003 no COCs in the soil gas, and only metals were detected in the soil, which Delta 7, SWAP were within the background range. Therefore, the Air Force concluded that contamination does not exceed residential PRGs (unrestricted land use), and no further action is required for AOC 65. AOC 66 CDM, 1996a Investigation of AOC 66 used both soil and soil gas sample analysis to NFA CDM, 2003 show detectable levels of PCE in the soil gas and only metals in the soils Gate 10, SWAP (which were within the background range). Therefore, the Air Force concluded that contamination does not exceed residential PRGs (unrestricted land use), and no further action is required for AOC 66. AOC 67 CDM, 1996b Investigation of AOC 67 produced detectable levels of several VOCs. NFA CDM, 2003 However, this AOC is adjacent to the Building 763 TCE source location, Building 763, SWAP which was subjected to an SVE removal action. The results of that SVE removal action led the Air Force to conclude that contamination does not exceed residential PRGs (unrestricted land use), and no further action is required for AOC 67. AOC 68 CDM, 1996a See AOC 59 Description NFA CDM, 2003 Building 620, Wash Pad
AOC 69 CDM, 1996b Investigation of AOC 69 used soil sample analysis to show limited COCs NFA CDM, 2003 were detectable, and their concentrations were below levels of concern. Chemical Warfare Training Area The Air Force concluded that contamination does not exceed residential PRGs (unrestricted land use), and no further action is recommended for AOC 69. AOC 70 CDM, 2003 The remedy selected for AOC 70 was a removal action excavating NFA Earth T, 2005a contaminated soil followed by backfilling with certified clean fill. A IWTP Effluent Percolation Pond subsequent risk assessment demonstrated reduction of contaminants to within acceptable levels. Therefore, the Air Force concluded that due to the small size of residual contamination beneath 3 to 10 feet of fill, no further action is required for AOC 33. A CERCLA determination of NFA was obtained on 1998 and a certification of RCRA clean closure was obtained in 2004.
WP/27-Sep-10/058-10 Page 34 Former Norton AFB THIRD FIVE-YEAR REVIEW Section 3.0
Table 3-3. Summary of Site Activities and Conclusions in the CBA OU and BW OU Page 11 of 12
Current Site ID References Selected Remedy Status AOC 71 Earth T, 1997a The selected remedy at AOC 71 was removal and off-site disposal of the NFA HVAC air ducts that had become contaminated with a buildup of plating Building 763, IRP Site 9 Air Ducts materials which was accomplished as part of the Site 9 removal action. The Air Force concluded that all contamination in excess of residential PRGs was addressed by the removal action, which removed the contamination, and no further action is required for AOC 71. AOC 72 CDM, 1996b Investigation of AOC 72 included soil gas sample analysis which found no NFA detectable levels of any COCs. The Air Force concluded that there was no Aircraft Refueling Vehicle Wash Pad release of contamination, and no further action is required for AOC 72. AOC 73 CDM-AT, 1996 Investigation of AOC 73 was conducted under a special plan to account for NFA CDM-AT, 1997 the possible presence of explosives and explosives waste. Geophysical Explosive Ordnance Disposal Training surveys and exploratory excavations were used to establish no presence of Facility explosives waste or residual chemicals related to explosives. Because AOC 73 has been cleared for explosives waste, the Air Force concluded that all contamination in excess of residential PRGs was addressed by the removal action, which removed contamination, and no further action is required for AOC 73. Building 752 IT Corp., The selected remedy was excavation and off-site disposal of soils NFA 1999a containing radium-226 in excess of 2 pCi/g. The site was remediated in Exterior Pipeline/ Washwater spill Earth T, 2005a 2005 and a request for unrestricted use was issued in 2006. California Areas Weston, 2006 Department of Public Health comments were addressed in 2008 and a USAF, 2008 request for concurrence for unrestricted use has been re-issued in 2009. USAF, 2009a Approval is pending. The exterior of the building was released in January 2009 for unrestricted use by the California Department of Public Health. Site cleanup was completed in 2005 and the Final Status Survey Report was completed in 2006. EPA provided concurrence with no further action for the exterior spill in December 2008 followed by CDPH concurrence in January 2009. Based on EPA/CDPH concurrence, the CERCLA remedy is complete. However, the Building 752 interior, which is being addressed as a non-CERCLA issue, has not yet been released for unrestricted use by CDPH. PCE Plume Earth T, 2004a The selected remedy is to not perform any GW remediation activities NFA Earth T, 2005a because the concentrations of contaminants have decreased through NBA Groundwater natural attenuation to the point of being protective of human health and the environment. GW monitoring of the residual PCE Plume has continued under the BW GWMP. SAR Earth T, 2004a The remedy selected at the SAR is ICs to restrict land use and maintain NFA Earth T, 2005a access to the site for inspections. The ICs are in place as land use Small Arms Range covenants specified in the transfer deed to prohibit residential and other sensitive uses. Reuse of the property for residential purposes is not possible due to the proximity to the airfield and FAA restrictions. The property is currently zoned industrial/commercial by the City of San Bernardino.
WP/27-Sep-10/058-10 Page 35 Former Norton AFB THIRD FIVE-YEAR REVIEW Section 3.0
Table 3-3. Summary of Site Activities and Conclusions in the CBA OU and BW OU Page 12 of 12
Note: (a) Explanation of Current Status NFA Site or location shows no evidence of contamination, or was determined to have concentrations of contaminants below (No Further Action) unrestricted levels, and therefore no further action is necessary to be protective of human health and the environment. Methods used to make this determination included one or more of the following: Records search Geophysical assessment Sample collection and analysis
Some type of remedial action has been performed at the site or location which has reached an acceptable conclusion. Such a conclusion could be one of the following: Contaminant has been reduced to concentrations below action level(s) and unrestricted use of the site can be allowed. Contaminant has been reduced to concentrations near the action level(s) but cannot be further reduced due to technical impracticability or economic viability. However, because risk is low enough, institutional controls are not necessary and unrestricted use of the site can be allowed.
RA Closure of the site based on completion of the selected remedy has not been attained to date. (Remedial Action)
IC Remedial action has not reduced (or is not expected to be able to reduce) contaminant concentrations below action levels; and (Institutional risk is high enough to warrant restriction of contact with contaminated media. Therefore, institutional controls have been Control) implemented to provide protection of the local population from exposure.
WP/27-Sep-10/058-10 Page 36 Former Norton AFB THIRD FIVE-YEAR REVIEW Section 4.0
4.0 REMEDIAL ACTIONS
This section describes past RAs for the ten sites under consideration, including the review process, issues, evaluations, and recommendations for any additional activities that may be warranted. The Five-Year Review process includes review by an administrative team, community involvement, document review, data review, site inspection, and interviews with local government officials.
Administrative Review. Members of the BRAC BCT began discussing the Five-Year Review in October 2009. Mr. Jerry Bingham, Environmental Program Manager for the AFCEE, directed the 5-year review with support from Mr. Geoffrey Watkin, Booz Allen Hamilton, Inc., Mr. Matthew Hansen, conducted the review with support provided by Mr. Brent Adair, Mr. Daniel Palacios, all ATS. Community Involvement. To inform the community about this third Five-Year Review for the former Norton AFB, the Air Force published a notice in the San Bernardino Sun, a newspaper with wide distribution in the area of, and surrounding, the former base. The notice announced the initiation of the Five Year Review process and requested that the community contact the Air Force or regulatory agencies regarding any applicable issues or knowledge regarding cleanup remedies at the former Norton AFB. When the Five-Year Review is completed, another public notice will be issued informing the community the review is complete. The Five-Year Review report will then be provided to the local information repository (Feldheym Central Library, San Bernardino, CA) and posted on the Administrative Record website (https://afrpaar.lackland.af.mil/ar/docsearch.aspx). The BRAC BCT decided that a public meeting for the review would not be necessary unless interest was shown as a result of the initial announcement and request for community input. There has been minimal community response to the initial Five Year Review announcement so a public meeting is not anticipated. Prior community involvement at the former Norton AFB included annual public forums held from 1999, when the Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) was established, through 2004, when the RAB was adjourned. The forums provided detailed information on the progress of cleanup of the TCE plume and other sites, and also gave opportunity for formal and informal interaction with representatives of the Air Force and U.S. EPA, California DTSC, and California RWQCB. Document Review. The Five-Year Review considers all relevant documents, including EPA guidance documents previous reports, records of decision, O&M records and monitoring data. Data Review. This Five-Year review included a review of all ARARs, federal drinking water standards, Federal and State Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs), and toxicity standards (Integrated risk information system [IRIS], Office of Environmental Human Health Assessment (OEHHA), EPA Region IX PRGs, and EPA Regional Screening Levels (RSLs) to identify and evaluate any potential changes to exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup levels or RAOs. Data review included ongoing GW and site monitoring data and data from completed removal and remedial actions. Site Inspection. Each of the sites was inspected in January 2010 to evaluate success of the remedy. Summaries of the results of these inspections are provided in Appendix A. In addition, all monitoring and extraction/injection wells are regularly checked to ensure security when sampling is conducted.
WP/28-Sep-10/058-10 Page 37 Former Norton AFB THIRD FIVE-YEAR REVIEW Section 4.0
Interviews. Interviews with U.S. Air Force, local agency, and private companies were completed in January 2010, and are summarized in Appendix B. The BRAC BCT has reviewed the progress on a regular basis, as have representatives of the Inland Valley Development Agency (IVDA) and the cities of Riverside and San Bernardino.
Issues identified in association with the CBA and BW remedies reviewed in this Third Five Year Review Report are summarized in Table 4-1. Recommendations and follow-up actions for the issues are provided in Table 4-2.
4.1 CBA OU – Component 1, Groundwater
The purpose of this component was to prevent exposure to GW containing VOCs exceeding MCLs for drinking water and to protect GW resources. Exposure to GW would be prevented through deed restrictions, and GW resources would be protected by removal of VOCs from the GW to levels protective of human health and the environment. The CBA OU ROD also contained provisions for off-base water supply wells where TCE contaminant levels exceeded the MCL of 5 ug/L. The CBA GW VOC plume originated from the on-base source areas beneath Buildings 658 and 673 and extended southwest off-base to Hospitality Lane (see Figure 4-1a). The VOCs identified in the CBA OU ROD were 1,2-dichloroethane (1,2-DCA), 1,2-dichloroethene (1,2-DCE), tetrachloroethene (PCE), 1,1,1,-trichlorothane (1,1,1-TCA), TCE, and vinyl chloride (VC).
4.1.1 Remedy Selection
The remedy for GW contamination in the CBA OU ROD was addressed as Component 1, and included four primary elements.
1. Groundwater Treatment. The selected remedy included GW extraction, treatment by air stripping, and return (i.e., injection) of treated water into the GW. Direct releases of emissions from the air stripping operations were allowed as long as they were in compliance with all applicable air quality regulations. If air quality requirements could not be met, then additional treatment by vapor-phase carbon adsorption was required. 2. Groundwater Monitoring. The CBA OU ROD specified quarterly sampling from specified wells and analysis for VOCs to monitor GW conditions occurring beneath the base and beyond the BB. 3. Off-Base Water Supply. For off-base supply wells where contaminant levels exceeded the MCLs, the selected remedy provided for short-term well-head treatment actions using mobile granular activated carbon (GAC) treatment units or long-term well-head treatment actions using “permanent” air stripping systems, replacement wells or other actions. 4. Institutional Controls. Deed restrictions were to be placed on any Norton AFB property that overlies the VOC-contaminated GW plume prior to its sale or transfer. These restrictions were intended to prevent the installation of water wells in areas that contain VOCs above cleanup standards.
The remedial cleanup standards (federal or state MCLs) specified in the CBA OU ROD are presented in Table 4-3. The cleanup standards presented in the CBA OU ROD have not changed except for the 1,2-DCA MCL which has been revised from 0.5 ug/L to a less stringent MCL of 5 ug/L. The remedy was
WP/27-Sep-10/058-10 Page 38 Former Norton AFB THIRD FIVE-YEAR REVIEW Section 4.0
Table 4-1. Issues Identified for the CBA and BW OU Remedies Affects Protectiveness (Y/N) Issues Current Future CBA OU – Component 1, Groundwater: No issues N N were identified that affect the protectiveness of the CBA OU Groundwater Remedy. IRP Site 2: No issues were identified that affect the N N protectiveness of the remedy at IRP Site 2. IRP Site 5: No issues were identified that affect the N N protectiveness of the remedy at IRP Site 5. Small Arms Range (SAR): No issues were identified N N that affect the protectiveness of the remedy at the SAR. IRP Site 7: No issues were identified that affect the N N protectiveness of the remedy at IRP Site 7. Final site closure for IRP Site 7 is dependent on RCRA corrective action termination associated with the IWTP interim status facility. IRP Site 17: Additional characterization of VOCs in N N soil gas and additional soil sampling to address data gaps is required. Based on completed site characterization, updated soil and vapor intrusion risk assessments are necessary to provide site risk characterization. Final site closure for IRP Site 17 is dependent on RCRA corrective action termination associated with the IWTP interim status facility. Protectiveness provided by deed restrictions that will remain in place until after closure is achieved. IRP Site 19: No issues were identified that affect the N N protectiveness of the remedy at IRP Site 19. AOC 4: No issues were identified that affect the N N protectiveness of the remedy at AOC 4. AOC 33: Post-excavation soil gas confirmation N N sampling and soil gas sampling to address VOC site characterization data gaps is required. Based on completed site characterization, updated soil and vapor intrusion risk assessments are necessary to provide site risk characterization. Final site closure for AOC 33 is dependent on RCRA corrective action termination associated with the IWTP interim status facility. Protectiveness provided by deed restrictions that will remain in place until after closure is achieved. Building 752: No issues were identified that affect N N the protectiveness of the remedy at Building 752. Release of Building 752 interior (non-CERCLA) for unrestricted use by CDPH is pending.
WP/27-Sep-10/058-10 Page 39 Former Norton AFB THIRD FIVE-YEAR REVIEW Section 4.0
Table 4-2. Recommendations and Follow-up Actions Follow-up Actions: Affects Recommendations/ Party Oversight Milestone Protectiveness (Y/N) Follow-up Actions Responsible Agency Date Current Future IRP Site 17: Conduct the soil ‐ Air Force ‐ U.S. EPA In accordance with N N and soil gas sampling ‐ CA DTSC FFA and ROD investigation to address data ‐ Santa Ana requirements gaps in site characterization, RWQCB utilize the data to complete updated soil and vapor intrusion risk assessments for the site, and, as appropriate based on the updated site characterization and risk assessment results, revise the Closure Certification Report. Deed restrictions will remain in place until the site is closed and the restrictions are formally removed. AOC 33: Conduct a soil gas ‐ Air Force ‐ U.S. EPA In accordance with N N sampling investigation to ‐ CA DTSC FFA and ROD address post-excavation site ‐ Santa Ana requirements characterization, utilize soil RWQCB and soil gas confirmation and characterization data to complete updated soil and vapor intrusion risk assessments for the site, and, as appropriate based on the updated site characterization and risk assessment results, revise the Closure Certification Report. Deed restrictions will remain in place until the site is closed and the restrictions are formally removed.
WP/27-Sep-10/058-10 Page 40 Former Norton AFB THIRD FIVE-YEAR REVIEW Section 4.0
Table 4-3. CBA OU Groundwater Cleanup Standards Cleanup Media Compound Standard Cleanup Standard Source Groundwater Benzene 1 ug/L State of California Maximum Contaminant Level 1,2-Dichloroethane (DCA) 5 ug/L State of California Maximum Contaminant Level 1,2-DCE (total) 6 ug/L State of California Maximum Contaminant Level PCE 5 ug/L USEPA Maximum Contaminant Level 1,1,1-TCA 200 ug/L USEPA Maximum Contaminant Level TCE 5 ug/L USEPA Maximum Contaminant Level Vinyl Chloride 0.5 ug/L State of California Maximum Contaminant Level
expected to take 30 years to complete cleanup to MCLs, and all cost estimates were based on that assumption. ARARs identified in the CBA OU ROD for the GW component are presented in Appendix C.
4.1.2 Remedy Implementation At the time the ROD was completed, the CBA PAT system had been in operation in a limited capacity of 200 gallons per minute (gpm) for a year. It continued to operate in this capacity for another year and a half before being upgraded to a final capacity of 400 gpm in November 1994. The upgraded facility went into service in January 1995. Two months after the upgraded CBA PAT went into service, a second treatment plant, with an installed capacity of 2,250 gpm, went into service to capture and treat GW at the BB. This BB PAT operated for a combined duration of 5 years and 9 months, and removed an estimated total of 292.9 pounds (lbs) of TCE by treating approximately 5.65 billion gallons of GW. The CBA PAT treated about 1.28 billion gallons of GW, and removed an estimated 174 lbs of TCE during the total operational period. The BB and CBA PAT systems ceased active operation in November 2001 and May 2002, respectively.
Quarterly sampling results and annual reports of GW monitoring and ground water level measurements have been provided to the regulatory agencies since 1996 under the BW Groundwater Monitoring Program (GWMP). The Air Force continues to monitor the GW to evaluate the effectiveness of compliance with all applicable regulations identified in the CBA OU ROD.
Figure 4-1 shows the diminishing size of GW contaminant plumes associated with the former Norton AFB from April 1994 through July 2009 as depicted in the Seventeenth Annual Groundwater Data Trends Report (GDTR) (ATS, 2009). As seen in Figure 4-1a thru 4-1e for the period 1994 through 2002, which includes the period that the BB and CBA PAT systems were operating, the size of the plumes were significantly reduced through GW extraction and contaminant mass removal. In 2002, due to the portion
WP/27-Sep-10/058-10 Page 41 Former Norton AFB THIRD FIVE-YEAR REVIEW Section 4.0
TCE and Cis. l ,2.QCE Groundwat&r PlulTKIS -"-<>IIOc>C ...... =._ _ .. , ~ 1994-1995 (April of net! yur) ,cr --.... • .,...... rx:E - ---, ~ Flgur& 4-11
WP/27-Sep-10/058-10 Page 42 Former Norton AFB THIRD FIVE-YEAR REVIEW Section 4.0
• -
-"-<>I ...... __ f .... ~ TeE and Cis. l ,2.DCE Groundwllter Plumes ,cr _ ___ ' ... o..c- 19'96·1997 (April of each year) • .,...... rx:E --- Figure 4-1b
WP/27-Sep-10/058-10 Page 43 Former Norton AFB THIRD FIVE-YEAR REVIEW Section 4.0
~;-
-"-<>I ...... __ f .... ~ TeE and Cis. l ,2.DCE Groundwllter Plumes ,cr _ ___ ' ... o..c- 1998·1999 (April of each year) • .,...... rx:E --- Figure 4-1 c
WP/27-Sep-10/058-10 Page 44 Former Norton AFB THIRD FIVE-YEAR REVIEW Section 4.0
-"-<>I ...... __ f .... ~ TCE and Cis. l ,2.DCE Groundwat&r PlulTKIl ,cr 2000·2001 (April of each year) .... • .,...... rx:E - ---, ~ --- Flgllr& 4·1d
WP/27-Sep-10/058-10 Page 45 Former Norton AFB THIRD FIVE-YEAR REVIEW Section 4.0
WP/27-Sep-10/058-10 Page 46 Former Norton AFB THIRD FIVE-YEAR REVIEW Section 4.0
-"-<>I ...... __ f .... ~ TCE and Cis. l ,2.DCE Groundwat&r PlulTKIl ,cr 2004·2005 (April of each year) .... • .,...... rx:E - ---, ~ --- Flgllr& 4·1f
WP/27-Sep-10/058-10 Page 47 Former Norton AFB THIRD FIVE-YEAR REVIEW Section 4.0
-- . L
. J - . - ....-
-"-<>I ...... __ f .... ~ TeE and Cis.l ,2.DCE Groundwllter Plumes ,cr _ __ _ ' ... o..c- 200ti·2007 (April of each year) • .,...... rx:E --- Figure 4-1g
WP/27-Sep-10/058-10 Page 48 Former Norton AFB THIRD FIVE-YEAR REVIEW Section 4.0
WP/27-Sep-10/058-10 Page 49 Former Norton AFB THIRD FIVE-YEAR REVIEW Section 4.0 of Norton AFB GW contaminant plumes that remained in the off-base area south of the base, the Air Force established the WSCP to monitor and mitigate potential adverse affects on off-base municipal well production.
Monitoring of the on- and off-base plume areas has continued through the present and Figure 4-1 shows the continued reduction, or elimination, of remaining plume areas. Concurrent with the last decade shown in the Figure 4-1 panels (2000-2009), there has been a continuing regional decline in GW levels in the area of Norton AFB. As noted in the GDTR, GW elevations in the area of Norton AFB exhibited a relatively stable pattern of seasonal fluctuations through 1999 but have declined steadily since that time while still exhibiting the seasonal fluctuations. The declining water levels during this period are attributed to GW extraction to support water uses throughout the San Bernardino Valley and drought conditions.
As can be seen in Figures 4-1a thru 4-1c, the operating BB and CBA PAT systems had significantly reduced plume size before the decline in water levels started after 1999, and had further reduced plume size by the time the systems were completely shut off in 2002. Monitoring results depicted on Figure 4-1d for 2004, after which the last (Second) Five Year review was conducted, indicate only very small areas of remaining GW contaminant plume areas on-base. Due to the regionally declining water levels that have occurred since 1999, it is possible that some portion of contaminant mass associated with these reduced GW contaminant plume areas were isolated in the deep (>100 ft bgs) vadose zone. This potential phenomenon is further discussed for more recent years in Section 4.1.4. It is important to note that the source remedies completed in the CBA pursuant to the CBA OU ROD (CBA OU Components 2 and 3, see Table 3-3) addressed removal of TCE from shallow and deep subsurface soils near Buildings 658, 673, and 763. The off-base portions of the GW contaminant plumes had been drawn deeper into the GW aquifer by the pumping influence of the off-base municipal wells so the decline in GW levels has not resulted in a similar situation for the off-base plume areas.
The Air Force designed and installed a wellhead treatment system at the off-base Raub 5 production well (see Figure 3-1) for the City of Riverside. In addition, the Air Force monitored GW constituents at the Raub 5 water supply well twice a month, and checked treatment system status on a monthly basis. If the status check indicated a need, or the City of Riverside advised the Air Force of a need, the carbon media of the treatment system was exchanged for new carbon media by the Air Force. Monitoring requirements of the WSCP varied with the level of contaminants found in the GW, and changed over time as TCE concentrations changed. In 2005, the City of Riverside bypassed the treatment system located at Raub 5 and connected the production well to their treatment system. The Air Force continued to sample the Raub 5 production well in addition to other production wells in the vicinity in accordance with the WSCP until production well sampling was terminated with BCT approval in August 2009 (Air Force, 2009b).
Institutional controls in the form of deed restrictions have been incorporated into the base property transfer process. The total area of the former base is comprised of 42 parcels that have been transferred (excluding parcels without separate areas like roadways and utility rights of way). Included among the
WP/27-Sep-10/058-10 Page 50 Former Norton AFB THIRD FIVE-YEAR REVIEW Section 4.0 transferred properties are 20 parcels that have deed restrictions which prohibit the drilling of water supply wells anywhere on the parcel. It is important to note that in 1996 this remedy was given the status of "operating properly and successfully," thus allowing transfer of property overlying the plume.
4.1.3 Systems Operations and Maintenance The Air Force has provided O & M coverage for both of the CBA PAT and the BB PAT GW treatment systems at the former Norton AFB from 1992 through 2006 when decommissioning of both systems was completed.
Based on the post-shutdown contaminant concentrations and concentration trends observed in the CBA and BB PAT system extraction wells and the system GW monitoring wells (MWs), it was recommended that the CBA PAT and BB PAT be decommissioned and all system components be removed or destroyed in place as appropriate. In 2005, regulatory approval was obtained and the removal/decommission/ destruction of the CBA and BB PAT systems and associated components was completed in 2006 (Earth Tech, 2006b).
4.1.4 Progress Since the Last Five-Year Review The protectiveness statement from the last review was “The remedy for the CBA OU is expected to be protective of human health and the environment, and in the interim, exposure pathways that could result in unacceptable risks are being controlled.”
The CBA and BB PAT systems treated approximately 6.9 billion gallons of water and removed nearly 467 pounds of TCE from the local GW (Earth Tech, 2006b). Both PAT systems are decommissioned and the Air Force continues to routinely sample the GW MWs under the BW GWMP. The focus of the GWMP has changed from defining the plumes to evaluating the effect of the treatment systems on GW contamination, to monitoring post-treatment water quality, contaminant levels, extents, and rate of migration in order to determine the long-term effectiveness of the remedies. Sampling frequencies have changed over the five-year review period according to changes in plume geometry and are addressed in the semiannual and annual GWMP reports. As noted earlier, GW elevations are declining and were at a 10-year low in July 2009. As a result, all A-level wells were dry and have been decommissioned, and numerous B-level wells are dry.
Figures 4-1f through 4-1h show the changes in the extent of Norton AFB GW contaminant plumes since the last Five Year Review, completed in 2005, through July 2009. As seen on Figure 4-1h, there are no longer any GW contaminant plume areas that exceed the MCL located on the former Norton AFB. As of July 2009, there was only one off-base well location (MLW-7) where the MCL for TCE was exceeded. The GW monitoring result for November 2009 at MLW-7 (0.94 ug/L) was below the MCL for TCE, as reported in the 2009 Basewide Groundwater Monitoring Report (CH2MHill, 2010).
The Figure 4-1 sequence of panels show that the last areas of diminishing GW contaminant plumes were located in the CBA near the identified source areas. GW monitoring has shown that the TCE plume with
WP/27-Sep-10/058-10 Page 51 Former Norton AFB THIRD FIVE-YEAR REVIEW Section 4.0 concentrations above the MCL has been limited to the shallower zones of the aquifer, closest to the water table (CH2MHill, 2010). As regional GW levels continue to decline, the zone of the aquifer in which TCE has been detected falls with it. This phenomenon, discussed in the 2009 Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report, has resulted in the detection of TCE in successively deeper wells near the historical source areas north of the flightline, such as in B-zone wells MW-191, MW-215 and MW-263 (Figure 3-2). The phenomenon is being monitored under the Basewide GWMP and is expected to continue as the water table declines. C-zone monitoring wells that may be affected include MW-261 (co-located with MW-191), MW-184 (co-located with MW-215) and MW-410 (located directly downgradient of MW-263). If the TCE concentrations in these wells do increase, the concentrations are expected to be less than the most recent results from the nearby and co-located B-level wells that are now dry. The falling water table is likely to decrease the TCE concentrations in GW by processes such as:
Sorption onto soil particles which are left behind in the vadose zone Volatilization at the water table and into the vadose zone Confinement in vadose zone pore water Chemical and biological degradation processes within the GW.
In July 2009, the EPA requested that MW-184 (installed in a former TCE source area) be sampled at discrete depths of 5 and 15 feet below the top of the screen interval using the HydraSleeve™ sampling method, in addition to the sample collected with the dedicated pump at mid-screen (10 feet below top of screen). The sampling was performed to identify if a contaminant concentration gradient existed within the well screen. A significant difference in concentration between the top interval and bottom interval of the well screen might indicate the continued presence of a minute TCE plume near the top of the aquifer which was present in MW215 and MW183 before these wells went dry. The detected constituents of the samples collected from MW-184 at the 3 locations within the screen interval were reported as estimated values below the reporting limit (RL) of 1.0 ug/L. There was not statistical difference between the results. It is likely that there is no longer a significant source of residual contaminants leaching into the GW in this area (ATS, 2009).
Beginning in April 1999 (Figure 4-1c), the Crafton-Redlands plume is depicted on Figure 4-1. The Crafton-Redlands Plume is south of the former Norton Air Force Base and generally flows from the former Lockheed Propulsion Company site in Mentone, toward the Colton narrows (geological fault barrier near the intersection of Interstates 10 and 215). Lockheed Martin, as the responsible party under Santa Ana RWQCB Cleanup and Abatement Orders 94-37 and 97-58, monitors for TCE and perchlorate in accordance with the approved Water Supply Monitoring Plan. Lockheed Martin also provides for mitigation and treatment of impacts to the municipal water supplies affected by the Crafton-Redlands plume. The leading edge of the Crafton-Redlands Plume is depicted in Figure 4-1 beginning in April 1999 through present day. Over time, definition of the plume area has improved as the monitoring network was increased.
WP/27-Sep-10/058-10 Page 52 Former Norton AFB THIRD FIVE-YEAR REVIEW Section 4.0
4.1.5 Technical Assessment The following answers form the technical assessment and conclude that the RAs performed are protective of human health and the environment for the GW component.
Question A: Is the remedy functioning as intended by the decision documents? Yes. Implementation of ICs and Other Measures. Deed restrictions that “run with the land” were implemented on properties overlying the plume that have been transferred by the Air Force. These deed restrictions prevent exposure by drilling of drinking water wells on former base property that overlies contaminated GW. The deed restrictions also allow the Air Force, Air Force contractors, and regulatory agencies access to the properties to monitor the effectiveness of cleanup actions, perform five-year CERCLA reviews, and/or take additional remedial or RAs. There are no identified immediate threats that require other measures for the CBA GW remedy.
Remedial Action Performance. RA for GW (Component 1) continues as monitoring and deed restrictions only. GW monitoring continues under the BW GWMP, as of 4th Quarter 2009, there are no VOCs in the CBA that exceed MCLs. ICs are incorporated in the deeds and State land use covenants to prevent exposure and limit land uses. The owner of record conducts annual inspections and reporting for ICs. The RA has functioned as designed and is effective in attaining the RAO.
System Operations and Maintenance. Closure and dismantling of both the CBA and BB PAT systems (Earth Tech, 2005b) was approved by the regulators in 2005. The removal/decommission/ destruction of the CBA and BB PAT systems and associated components was completed in 2006 (Earth Tech, 2006b).
Because low levels of TCE/DCE are indicative of the current state of the GW concentrations, a number of wells were approved by the BCT for decommissioning (i.e., destruction). The rationale for decommissioning a MW was tied to its usefulness in defining the area of contamination. Since 1996, a total of 292 MWs were decommissioned. The deed restrictions on land overlying the plume that has been transferred to the community, allows the Air Force, Air Force contractors, and regulatory agencies access to the properties to monitor and maintain MWs.
Opportunities for Optimizations. Since the last five-year review, GW monitoring was optimized on an annual basis in the Annual Groundwater Data Trends Reports to focus the location, number, and frequency of well sampling necessary based on the configuration of the GW contaminant plume. All changes to the GWMP were reviewed and approved by the BCT.
Early Indicators of Potential Remedy Issues. All indications for the GW component are that the remedy has been extremely successful. Both the CBA and BB PATs were turned off in 2002 and decommissioned in 2006. There are no indicators of potential issues for the CBA GW remedy.
WP/27-Sep-10/058-10 Page 53 Former Norton AFB THIRD FIVE-YEAR REVIEW Section 4.0
Question B: Are the exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup levels, and remedial action objectives (RAOs) used at the time of remedy selection still valid? Yes. Changes in Standards. There have been no changes in MCL values for the constituents of concern that affect the selected remedy during the last five-year review period. The MCL for 1,2-DCA has been revised from 0.5 ug/L to 5 ug/L (less stringent, see Table 4-3). There have been no changes to the chemical, action or location specific ARARs identified in the CBA OU ROD for the GW remedy (Appendix C). Therefore, the results of protectiveness evaluations are still valid.
Changes in Exposure Pathways. Decommissioning and removal of the CBA and BB PAT systems and associated extraction wells along with abandonment of surplus monitoring and piezometer wells on-base and off-base, have reduced potential exposure pathways to GW. No other changes in site conditions that affect exposure pathways were identified in the course of the five-year review.
Changes in Toxicity or Other Contaminant Characteristics. There have been no changes in toxicity or other contaminant characteristics that would affect the protectiveness of the remedy.
Changes in Risk Assessment Methodologies. Risk evaluation methods have not changed during the current review period nor is there basis to alter the assumptions used for remedy selection for the GW component of the CBA OU.
Expected Progress Towards Meeting RAOs. VOC contaminated GW results are below the MCL in all on-base and off-base MWs. GW monitoring will continue in accordance with the GWMP until verification and agreement of remedy completion by the BCT.
Question C: Has any other information come to light that could call into question the protectiveness of the remedy? No. No additional information has come to light that could call into question the protectiveness of the CBA GW remedy.
4.1.6 Issues Concerning the Remedy The sources of GW contamination in the TCE plume have been remediated using SVE, and these components (CBA OU Components 2 through 4) were closed prior to the first five-year review. The CBA GW component, which was contaminated with VOCs, has been remediated to meet the respective MCLs. The on-base CBA OU TCE plume has remained below the MCL of 5.0 ug/L since July 2008. The off base portion of the CBA OU TCE plume was isolated around MLW-7 zone 4 (330 feet bgs) until sampling conducted in the 4th quarter 2009 showed that VOC concentration in this well had dropped below the MCL. No issues were identified for the CB OU Remedy.
4.1.7 Recommendations and Follow-up Actions There are no recommendations or follow-up actions specified for the CB OU remedy. Implementation of the GW monitoring and IC elements of the remedy will continue until attainment of the cleanup objectives is demonstrated and completion of the remedy is approved by the BCT.
WP/27-Sep-10/058-10 Page 54 Former Norton AFB THIRD FIVE-YEAR REVIEW Section 4.0
4.2 BW OU – IRP Site 2 IRP Site 2 is located in the northeast corner of the former Norton AFB and is the location of a former base landfill used between 1958 and 1980 (Figure 4-2). Originally, it covered 31 acres and was used for the disposal of general refuse, office waste, industrial waste, and IWTP sludge.
The Base Wide Feasibility Study (BWFS) concluded that IRP Site 2 does not pose an unacceptable risk to human health or GW (CDM, 2003). However, state landfill closure laws and regulations establish closure and maintenance requirements for IRP Site 2.
4.2.1 Remedy Selection Landfill closure and post closure care of IRP Site 2 is required for compliance with federal and state ARARs. The RAOs for IRP Site 2 are:
Prevent contact with landfill waste and gases. Prevent or minimize migration of landfill contents to the vadose zone and to GW. Protect remedial system components and landfill cover from damage and protect the integrity of the cover and associated systems. Limit use of the property, by prohibiting use for residential purposes, hospitals for human care, public or private schools for persons less than 18 years of age, or day-care centers for children.
There are no human health-based contaminants of concern (COCs) for IRP Site 2. The BW OU ROD (Earth Tech, 2005a) describes the remedy selection and implementation for IRP Site 2. The selected remedy is ICs, coupled with long term operation, maintenance, and monitoring (OM&M) of the landfill containment systems. The ICs run with the land through deed restrictions and prohibit residential (or unrestricted) use of this property. The ICs specified by the selected remedy include the following use restrictions:
Grantee covenants and agrees that it will not use IRP Site 2 for Residential purposes, hospitals for human care, public or private schools for persons under 18 years of age, or day-care centers for children. Grantee covenants and agrees that it will not conduct of allow others to conduct any construction, excavation, drilling, grading, removal, trenching, filling, earth movement, mining, planting that would disturb the soil or the landfill cover, including the vegetative cap, or the injection or release of water or other fluids except for the purpose of monitoring GW of landfill gas. Grantee covenants and agrees that it will not conduct or allow others to conduct any construction, excavation, drilling, grading, removal, trenching, filling, earth movement, mining, planting that would result in contact with landfill waste materials. Grantee covenants and agrees that it will not conduct of allow others to conduct activities that would cause disturbance of removal of fencing of signs intended to exclude the public from the landfill. Grantee covenants and agrees that it will not conduct or allow others to conduct activities that would cause the surface application of water (e.g., irrigation) to the extent that the integrity of the landfill is impacted; nor the injection of water of other fluids that might affect GW flow direction.
WP/27-Sep-10/058-10 Page 55 Former Norton AFB THIRD FIVE-YEAR REVIEW Section 4.0
, :====="b======51 __ " __ ---- .....0- ' ... c-__ Former Norton AFB ,. . . -,"o__ .--.o r • • __.-~~ _ Figur& 4-2 -_"
WP/27-Sep-10/058-10 Page 56 Former Norton AFB THIRD FIVE-YEAR REVIEW Section 4.0
Grantee covenants and agrees that is will not conduct or allow others to conduct activities that would cause disturbance of any landfill equipment of systems, including the GW monitoring systems, and settlement monuments, or that could affect the drainage, sub-drainage, or erosion controls for the landfill cover. Grantee covenants and agrees that it will not conduct or allow others to conduct activities that limit access to any landfill equipment and systems, including the GW monitoring systems, settlement monuments, or the drainage, sub-drainage, or erosion controls for the landfill cover.
The existing implementation of long-term OM&M and ICs provide assurance that ARARs will continue to be met in the future and that RAOs will be achieved. ARARs identified in the BW OU ROD for IRP Site 2 are presented in Appendix C. Implementation of the selected remedy at IRP Site 2 allows for current and most likely future reuse for the site.
4.2.2 Remedy Implementation Under CERCLA, the presumptive remedy for landfills is to leave waste in place and to provide an appropriate containment system (U.S. EPA, 1993a, 1993b). The rationale supporting this presumptive remedy reflects the cost and efforts required to excavate and transport landfill waste to a separate landfill, coupled with the CERCLA preference for on-site remedies and against moving wastes from one site to another. Under the presumptive remedy guidelines, various cover systems and associated gas control systems were evaluated in an Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis (EE/CA) for IRP Site 2 (CDM, 1996b), and a natural soil monolithic cover was selected with an appropriate surface water control system (USAF, 1996c, IT Corporation, 1998). Because landfill gas (e.g., methane, PCE, TCE, and vinyl chloride) was present, a landfill gas control system was also required. The monolithic cover, surface water control, and gas control systems were described in an Action Memorandum (AM) (USAF, 1996c). The design (IT Corporation, 1998) for the landfill was implemented with consolidation into a smaller footprint and construction of the landfill cover and gas collection/control systems was completed in December 1998 and accepted by the BCT in February 1999.
IRP Site 2 is designated a closed landfill and is currently zoned industrial/commercial by the City of San Bernardino. The projected long term use of the site is expected to be a parking lot.
IRP Site 2 GW monitoring wells were installed to monitor the GW below the closed landfill in support of post-closure activities. Six GW monitoring wells constituted the GW monitoring system: upgradient well MW-235 and MW-259, and downgradient wells MW-244, MW-246, MW-252, and MW-294. GW monitoring below IRP Site 2 Landfill was required by 27 California Code of Regulations (CCR) 20420 and RWQCB Order No. 98-99 to monitor ongoing corrective action and to provide early detection of a potential release. The detection monitoring parameters were VOCs and general chemistry. The initial six monitoring wells were analyzed for VOCs and general chemistry for five years until mid 2002, when decreasing GW levels rendered the original six wells dry. During this time, the results of analytical data showed the landfill had no impact on the GW.
WP/27-Sep-10/058-10 Page 57 Former Norton AFB THIRD FIVE-YEAR REVIEW Section 4.0
4.2.3 Systems Operations and Maintenance The IRP Site 2 remedy provides for long-term control of the site through ICs that prohibit activities that would adversely affect the integrity of the cover and control systems. The ICs do allow the Air Force access to the site for long-term OM&M and inspections. Site fencing and signs warning against unauthorized personnel entry of the landfill area are posted. There are no short-term exposure concerns because all landfill construction actions have been completed, and the landfill gas treatment system has been constructed to address air quality-related ARARs. Landfill closure ARARs require GW and soil gas monitoring until analytical results show no statistically significant releases from the landfill. Post-closure compliance monitoring is defined by the following scheduled activities from the Final OM&M Plan (IT Corp., 1999b), and the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 1150.1 Alternative Compliance Plan (ACP) (Earth Tech, 2001):
GW Corrective Action and Detection Monitoring (quarterly). 5-year cycle GW Monitoring for Constituents of Concern (COCs). Monolithic Cap Moisture Monitoring (semiannually). Unsaturated Zone Moisture Monitoring (semiannually). Instantaneous Landfill Gas Surface Monitoring (semiannually). Integrated Landfill Surface Gas Monitoring (semiannually). Perimeter Probe Monitoring (quarterly). Landfill Gas Sampling from Gas Collection System (annually). Ambient Air Monitoring at Landfill Perimeter (annually).
4.2.4 Progress Since Signature of BW OU ROD Quarterly, semiannual, and annual monitoring and inspection has been performed since 1999, in conformance with the OM&M Plan. Annual OM&M reports document the status of the landfill operations, maintenance, and monitoring. Based on the Operations, Maintenance and Monitoring 2009 Annual Report (CH2MHill, 2010), the following is a summary of site inspection and maintenance status:
The drainage system was maintained in accordance with 27 California Code of Regulations (CCR) 21090(c)(4) by visually inspecting the site channels for siltation and other damage. Vegetation accumulating in the drainage channels was cleared away as part of the normal maintenance activities at the site. Vegetation maintenance included visual inspection of the cover area for evidence of sheet and rill erosion to evaluate the effectiveness of the vegetation as erosion control, in accordance with 27 CCR 21090(c)(4). During 2009, regular inspections were made to locate and repair surface cracks caused by dry conditions. Security control maintenance included inspection of fencing and gates for evidence of structural damage, vandalism, and missing parts. Disturbance of soil under the fence because of burrowing animals was observed in March and December, and repair work was performed. Repair work consisted of using nearby soil to backfill the areas excavated by the burrowing animals.
WP/27-Sep-10/058-10 Page 58 Former Norton AFB THIRD FIVE-YEAR REVIEW Section 4.0
Quarterly inspection of GW monitoring wells, landfill gas monitoring probes, and neutron access tubes included opening the protective surface casing and inspecting for damage in the well riser or the steel pipe, the surface protective casing, and the concrete surface pad. No damage or necessary repairs were noted in the inspection forms. (Monolithic Cap Moisture Monitoring and Unsaturated Zone Moisture Monitoring were eliminated in October 2005 with RWQCB approval). No damage to the cap resulting from rain was noted during the 2009 monthly inspections.
During the 2009 monitoring events, methane was not reported or detected at levels near or above regulatory limits in the instantaneous and integrated air monitoring nor in any of the landfill perimeter probes. There is no evidence that the landfill gas is leaking through the cap into the atmosphere in reportable quantities. Quarterly methane readings for all perimeter probes meet the 5 percent regulatory compliance threshold. Low gas readings in the perimeter probes confirm that the landfill gas collection system is effectively controlling potential subsurface offsite landfill gas migration by using the extraction wells screened at comparable depths.
Since 2002, subsurface methane migration along the western edge of the landfill had exceeded concentration limits in the air quality ARARS in at least one of the subsurface monitoring perimeter probes. Based on a risk assessment presented in the 10th Annual 2008 Report of Operations, Monitoring, and Maintenance for IRP Site 2 (Earth Tech, 2009), the discharge of non-combusted landfill gas into the atmosphere from the IRP Site 2 landfill gas collection system using 2008 data was found to be an insignificant health risk. In January 2008, the flare burner was deactivated with BCT approval and the landfill gas collection and treatment system was operated with the blower only. Since this change in operation, methane levels in perimeter probes have remained below the 5% limit and emission requirements of the landfill gas collection and control system are being met without operating the flare.
The initial six GW MWs used for detection monitoring at IRP Site 2 went dry in 2002. Monitoring continued at a single B-level well until 2006, when replacement MW-402, MW-403, and MW-404 were installed (Figure 4-2). The replacement MWs were sampled for VOCs and general chemistry for two years until 2008 when they also went dry. The data from the replacement MWs were consistent with previous wells. RWQCB approved the decision to discontinue GW sampling per the recommendation in the Fourteenth Annual GDTR (Earth Tech, 2007a). The six original wells were decommissioned in 2008 (Earth Tech, 2009d). The three replacement wells (MW-402, MW-403, and MW-404) are currently monitored quarterly for GW elevations only and are dry. RWQCB requested these wells remain in place to monitor any impacts the planned landfill asphalt cap may have on GW.
On May 15, 2009, the 5-year settlement monument survey was performed. The final 2009 settlement monument survey results are summarized in the Informal Technical Information Report, April – June 2009 Landfill Gas Monitoring Data (AECOM, 2009b). The results show an average settlement of the cover of approximately 0.83 foot since 1999. A review of the December 2004 results show that approximately half of the settlement at each monument has occurred in the last 5 years. The uniformity of the settlement at
WP/27-Sep-10/058-10 Page 59 Former Norton AFB THIRD FIVE-YEAR REVIEW Section 4.0 the four cover settlement monuments indicates a low possibility of damage to the containment structures of the landfill closure. Settlement monuments will be surveyed again in 2014.
In December 2004, a significant rainstorm event caused erosion of the drainage berm along the south section of the cap. The incident was reported to the regulators and repair of the damaged area was completed in May 2005. In October 2005, six points on the cap were excavated as part of an engineering study by SBIAA. During the excavations, a small quantity of waste was brought to the surface. The incident was reported to the regulators and the excavated points on the cap were restored to their original condition in May 2006 under a work plan developed in coordination with AFRPA, RWQCB, and SBIAA.
IRP Site 2 landfill was transferred by the Air Force to the SBIAA in September 2007. The deed was recorded with San Bernardino County on September 20, 2007, Document #2007-0540619. SBIAA continues as owner of record for IRP Site 2 property through 2010. ICs specified as part of the selected remedy in the Basewide ROD are included in the deed as environmental restrictive covenants that run with the land.
In September 2007, the SBIAA, as the owner of record of IRP Site 2, entered into a state land use covenant (SLUC) agreement with the California DTSC to maintain the ICs specified in the transfer deed. Under the 2007 SLUC agreement with DTSC, the SBIAA is required to annually inspect the site to verify compliance with the covenant including compliance with the ICs. An annual inspection report is provided to DTSC by January 15 of each year. Since taking possession of IRP Site 2, SBIAA has annually inspected IRP Site 2 and reported the results of each inspection to the DTSC. No violations have been noted.
In 2009, SBIAA began modification of the cover of IRP Site 2 in order to convert the surface into a parking lot for commercial vehicles. A Technical Memorandum IRP Site 2 Landfill (Geologic Associates, 2009) was completed to address the modification of the selected remedy under the BW OU ROD. On September 1, 2009, a deed covenant modification was signed to address the changes resulting from paving of the landfill cap (signed September 1, 2009; recorded on September 11, 2009, Document # 2009-0402115). The paving work was performed under a DTSC approved Closure Plan/Post-Closure Maintenance Plan Addendum (Geologic, 2007). Vegetation was removed from 20 acres of the landfill deck and the area was scarified. After re-compacting the subgrade to original specifications, six inches of crushed aggregate base were placed and compacted over the subgrade. Finally, 4.2 inches of asphaltic concrete was placed over the base. Figure 4-2a presents the Landfill Cap paved area. Asphaltic concrete berms and an asphaltic concrete swale were constructed around the perimeter of the parking lot area to minimize erosion potential by protecting the surrounding exposed cover soils from rainwater runoff. The asphaltic concrete cover is intended to provide protection that is equivalent to the original monolithic cover. SBIAA continues as the owner of record for IRP Site 2 as of September 2010.
WP/27-Sep-10/058-10 Page 60 Former Norton AFB THIRD FIVE-YEAR REVIEW Section 4.0
....i~I= --~--:~i.,.------,. ..-- -- ;----~~~~~---.~-... ------~ J::j
) :~\ ~~". ).~ \ ~---- ,h.
i \.... -- r--.../ '''' -~=]:===1.:~P~A~V:E~D~A~R~E~A~I ,,", ,~- , \ ,
r,------t------+-----1110'--~~~-=-----~--'-'·----~: .1 \ . ~ 1 \ b ______~ : " If) ______(Xl 1 m ~ ~ I I ~'" :It h'v = ::.---+------i- 1063'---_+ ____ -1 \ ~ , \ \ \
, ~r ~I -IP"" ......
\ ""'--~;-- - \~~ ~ ---- (,\ ------I'
I .....",~ ~- .-,,~?"> , ~...... --- ~, .--:;,- - -:-~-~~"":~-
, ,I"~ ---;/-...... - ? --". tJl......
EXPLANATION IRP Site 2 Landfill Cap Paved Area Approx. Paved Area = 889,950 SF Former Norton AFB 20.43AC) r1.....rI '-" Figure 4·2a o 50 100 200Feet "
WP/27-Sep-10/058-10 Page 61 Former Norton AFB THIRD FIVE-YEAR REVIEW Section 4.0
4.2.5 Technical Assessment
The following answers form the technical assessment and conclude that the RAs performed are protective of human health and the environment for IRP Site 2.
Question A: Is the remedy functioning as intended by the decision documents? Yes. Implementation of ICs and Other Measures. The IRP Site 2 remedy provides for long-term control of the site through ICs that prevent exposure and prohibit activities that would adversely affect the integrity of the cover and control systems. The ICs allow the Air Force access to the site for long term OM&M and inspections. Site fencing and signs warning against unauthorized personnel entry of the landfill are installed. There are no identified immediate threats that require other measures at IRP Site 2.
Remedial Action Performance. The remedy of ICs in addition to the continuing OM&M, and monitoring of the IRP Site 2 landfill as specified in the existing, regulator-approved O&M Work Plan has performed well. The ICs run with the land through deed restrictions that prevent exposure and prohibit residential (or unrestricted) use of this property. Coupled with the existing long-term OM&M, they provide assurance that ARARs and RAOs will continue to be met in the future.
System Operations and Maintenance. OM&M, and monitoring of the IRP Site 2 landfill as specified in the existing, regulator-approved O&M Work Plan are continuing.
Opportunities for Optimizations. In January 2008, the flare burner system at IRP Site 2 was removed from service with regulatory approval after demonstration that stack emissions met regulatory discharge requirements without flaring. Operation of the blower package without a flare has significantly reduced natural gas consumption and reduced O&M and sampling costs associated with operation of the flare burner.
Early Indicators of Potential Remedy Issues. There are no indicators of potential issues for the IRP Site 2 Landfill remedy.
Question B: Are the exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup levels, and remedial action objectives (RAOs) used at the time of remedy selection still valid? Yes. Changes in Standards. There have been no changes in standards during the last five-year review period that affect the remedy. Action specific ARAR CCR Title 27; Section 20937 (B)-(G)2 has been moved to create a new CCR Title 27 Section 20939 (Register 2007 no.35-2). The change is administrative with no substantive change in standards. There have been no changes to the chemical or action specific ARARs identified for IRP Site 2 in the BW OU ROD (Appendix C). Therefore, the results of protectiveness evaluations are still valid.
Changes in Exposure Pathways. No changes in site conditions that affect exposure pathways were identified in the course of the Five-Year Review.
WP/27-Sep-10/058-10 Page 62 Former Norton AFB THIRD FIVE-YEAR REVIEW Section 4.0
Changes in Toxicity or Other Contaminant Characteristics. There have been no changes in toxicity or other contaminant characteristics that would affect the protectiveness of the remedy.
Changes in Risk Assessment Methodologies. Risk evaluation methods have not changed during the current review period, nor is there basis to alter the assumptions for remedy selection for the IRP Site 2 Landfill.
Expected Progress Towards Meeting RAOs. Implementation of OM&M and deed restrictions in accordance with the remedy are effective in achieving the RAOs.
Question C: Has any other information come to light that could call into question the protectiveness of the remedy? No. No additional information has come to light that could call into question the protectiveness of the remedy at the IRP Site 2 Landfill.
4.2.6 Issues Concerning the Remedy No issues that affect the protectiveness of the remedy were identified for IRP Site 2.
4.2.7 Recommendations and Follow-up Actions There are no recommendations or follow-up actions specified for the IRP Site 2 remedy. Implementation of landfill OM&M and IC elements of the remedy will continue in accordance with the requirements of the BW OU ROD.
4.3 BW OU – IRP Site 5 IRP Site 5 served as the training area for fire control and abatement exercises from the late 1950s through the 1970s (Figure 4-3). IRP Site 5 is in the southern portion of the former base, east of the former golf course. Fire training exercises involved floating a layer of oil, fuel, or other combustible material on a layer of water and repeatedly igniting and extinguishing the material. Remedial Investigation (RI) results showed the site to contain metals (cadmium, copper, lead, and zinc) and dioxins in near surface soils (to 10 feet bgs) and fuels, BTEX, solvents, and PAHs in deeper soils up to 40 feet (CDM, 1993a, 1993c; Earth Tech, 1993).
Based on an EE/CA (Earth Tech, 1995b), a removal action including SVE for remediation of fuel hydrocarbon contamination, excavation followed by stabilization for metals/dioxin-contaminated soil, and excavation and disposal for PAH contaminated soil was implemented under the IRP Site 5 AM (USAF, 1997c). Some of the non-contaminated material from the contiguous SAR impact berm was used as backfill for the IRP Site 5 excavation. Completion of the RA is documented in the IRP Site 5 and Small Arms Range Closure Report (Earth Tech, 1999). The SVE system was installed and operated from January 10, 1996, until July 10, 1997, and removed 22,600 pounds of hydrocarbons. The SVE system was then decommissioned. Model simulations indicated that the SVE removal adequately addressed the hydrocarbon contamination and was protective of the GW. The contaminated soil RA was completed during 1998 and involved an area of approximately 100,000 square feet. Excavation was performed to a
WP/27-Sep-10/058-10 Page 63 Former Norton AFB THIRD FIVE-YEAR REVIEW Section 4.0
APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF SMALL ARMS RANGE ----, IMPACT BERM EXCAVATION
SMALL ARMS RANGE FIRING LINE
SITE 10 BOUNDARY
EXPLANATION Excavation Depth IRP Site 5 Site 5 Boundary Former Norton Air Force Base ; - ~ ... • 3' t05 ' : } Excavation Alea Phase II ...~~ .... CJ 5' 108' ~ 10' 1013' n....r-1 ~ Figure 4·3 o 25 50 100 Feel" Source: Earth Tech, 1999.
WP/27-Sep-10/058-10 Page 64 Former Norton AFB THIRD FIVE-YEAR REVIEW Section 4.0 maximum depth of 13 feet bgs, and confirmation samples were taken on the sidewalls and bottom of the excavation.
The soil excavation was performed in two phases. In the first phase 21,104 tons of contaminated soil and 4,589 tons of rock and debris were excavated and transported to the IRP Site 2 landfill. The contaminated soil was stabilized with 15 percent (by weight) Portland cement. Stabilized soils that met California nonhazardous waste criteria were used as foundation material for the IRP Site 2 landfill cap. The remaining 1,440 tons of stabilized soil met federal non-hazardous waste criteria and were shipped to Browning Ferris Industries (BFI) landfill in La Paz, Arizona, for disposal. In the second phase, 3,496 tons of contaminated soil, stabilized with 15 percent (by weight) Portland cement, was shipped to BFI landfill in Arizona for disposal as a RCRA non-hazardous waste. The excavation area was backfilled with clean soil to the level of the former topographic grade.
Confirmation sampling indicated the presence of cadmium and lead (from 3 feet bgs to at least 10 feet bgs) and dioxins (from 3 feet bgs to at least 10 feet bgs) above the residential PRGs but below the industrial PRGs. Arsenic was detected above the residential PRG but only slightly in excess of the background concentration. The area of impacted soil is approximately 150 feet by 350 feet. No GW contamination is associated with IRP Site 5.
The property is zoned industrial/commercial by the City of San Bernardino. The projected use of the site is expected to be industrial/commercial-related.
4.3.1 Remedy Selection The selection of the remedy for IRP Site 5 is discussed in the BW OU ROD (Earth Tech, 2005a). The BWFS concluded that IRP 5 does not pose unacceptable cancer risk or non-cancer Hazard Index (HI). However, the modeled child blood-lead level was unacceptable for unrestricted land use. The RAO for IRP Site 5 is;
Limit use of property to prevent exposure to lead-contaminated soil under an unrestricted land use scenario.
Due to residual lead concentrations that exceed levels that allow for unrestricted use, the selected remedy for IRP Site 5 is ICs. The ICs run with the land through deed restrictions that prohibit residential (or unrestricted) use of the property. The ICs specified by the selected remedy include the following use restrictions:
Grantee covenants and agrees that it will not use IRP Site 5 for residential purposes, hospitals for human care, public or private schools for persons under 18 years of age, or day-care centers for children. Grantee covenants and agrees that it will not conduct or allow others to conduct activities that limit access to the site for inspections.
ARARs identified in the BW OU ROD for IC sites such as IRP Site 5 are presented in Appendix C.
WP/27-Sep-10/058-10 Page 65 Former Norton AFB THIRD FIVE-YEAR REVIEW Section 4.0
4.3.2 Remedy Implementation The land is zoned for industrial/commercial uses, and the proposed base master plan identifies the site area for industrial buildings. In order to provide for long term protectiveness for human health and the environment, ICs in the form of land use restrictions that “run with the land” as part of the property transfer deed have been implemented. The ICs that are in place restrict use of the property for residential use and other sensitive uses specified in the BW OU ROD. The ICs also ensure that IRP Site 5 will remain accessible for periodic inspections to verify that the uncontaminated soil cover at the site is kept in place. The property is currently zoned industrial/commercial by the City of San Bernardino.
4.3.3 Systems Operations and Maintenance Since the selected remedy for IRP Site 5 is ICs, there are no systems requiring operation and maintenance.
4.3.4 Progress Since Signature of BW OU ROD In August 2007, IRP Site 5 was included in a parcel transferred by deed to the IVDA. The deed was recorded with San Bernardino County on September 17, 2007, Document # 2007-0532871. The restrictions specified as part of the BW OU ROD selected remedy were incorporated in the deed. In September 2007, the IVDA, as the owner of record of IRP Site 5, entered into a SLUC agreement with the California DTSC to maintain the ICs specified in the transfer deed. Under the covenant agreement with the DTSC, the IVDA is required to annually inspect the site to verify compliance with the covenant including compliance with the ICs. An annual inspection report is provided to DTSC by January 15 of each year. Since taking possession of IRP Site 5, IVDA has annually inspected IRP Site 5 and has reported the results of each inspection to the DTSC. No violations have been noted. IVDA continues as owner of record for the IRP Site 5 property as of September 2010.
4.3.5 Technical Assessment The following answers form the technical assessment and conclude that the RAs performed are protective of human health and the environment for IRP Site 5.
Question A: Is the remedy functioning as intended by the decision documents? Yes. Implementation of ICs and Other Measures. The IRP Site 5 remedy prevents exposure and provides for long-term control of the site through ICs that entail land use restrictions. The ICs allow for access to the site for inspections. There are no identified immediate threats that require other measures at IRP Site 5.
Remedial Action Performance. ICs that prevent exposure and limit uses are incorporated in the deed and State land use covenant. The owner of record conducts annual inspections and reporting for ICs. The RA has functioned as designed and is effective in attaining the RAO.
System Operations and Maintenance. No systems are currently operating at this site.
WP/27-Sep-10/058-10 Page 66 Former Norton AFB THIRD FIVE-YEAR REVIEW Section 4.0
Opportunities for Optimizations. Since the last five-year review, no opportunities for optimizations have been presented for the remedy at IRP Site 5.
Early Indicators of Potential Remedy Issues. There are no indicators of potential remedy issues at IRP Site 5.
Question B: Are the exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup levels, and remedial action objectives (RAOs) used at the time of remedy selection still valid? Yes. Changes in Standards. There has been no change to the target blood lead level (10 micrograms per deciliter [ug/dL]) that affects the selected remedy during the last five-year review period. There have been no changes to the chemical, action or location specific ARARs identified in the BW OU ROD for IC sites such as IRP Site 5 (Appendix C). Therefore, the results of protectiveness evaluations are still valid.
Changes in Exposure Pathways. No changes in site conditions that affect exposure pathways were identified in the course of the Five-Year Review.
Changes in Toxicity or Other Contaminant Characteristics. There have been no changes in toxicity of other contaminant characteristics that would affect the protectiveness of the remedy.
Changes in Risk Assessment Methodologies. Risk evaluation methods have not changed during the current review period, nor is there basis to alter the assumptions for remedy selection for IRP Site 5.
Expected Progress Towards Meeting RAOs. RAOs have been achieved through implementation of deed restrictions in accordance with the remedy,
Question C: Has any other information come to light that could call into question the protectiveness of the remedy? No. No additional information has come to light that could call into question the protectiveness of the remedy for IRP Site 5.
4.3.6 Issues Concerning the Remedy No issues that affect the protectiveness of the remedy were identified for IRP Site 5.
4.3.7 Recommendations and Follow-up Actions There are no recommendations or follow-up actions specified for the IRP Site 5 remedy. Implementation of the IC remedy will continue in accordance with the requirements of the Basewide OU ROD.
4.4 BW OU – Small Arms Range (SAR) The SAR was located immediately adjacent to IRP Site 5 and historically included an impact berm (Figure 4-4). The berm was contaminated by lead projectiles as a result of small arms practice, and because the berm was contiguous with IRP Site 5, portions of the berm were removed during the IRP Site 5 removal action. A total of 11,478 tons of material was removed from the SAR, including 210 tons
WP/27-Sep-10/058-10 Page 67 Former Norton AFB THIRD FIVE-YEAR REVIEW Section 4.0
PERIMETER ROAD
APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF SMALL ARMS RANGE ~ IMPACT BERM EXCAVATION J
P .... ". - = = ,· , . ,' ,' , , , '- , ' ' SM~LLARMS \, ,'" RANGE ,: \, q ,, ,, ,, , , '-_...' \ SMALL ARMS RANGE FIRING LINE SITE5
,
~ SITE 10
i!h:====~~~======B=O=U=N=D=A=R=Y==~======:======~======~~:7==" EXPLANATION Small Arms Range (SAR) Site 5 Boundary Former Norton Air Force Base Excavation Alea Phase II
n....r-1 ~ Figure 4-4 o 25 50 100 Feel" Source: Earth Tech, 1999.
WP/27-Sep-10/058-10 Page 68 Former Norton AFB THIRD FIVE-YEAR REVIEW Section 4.0 of bullet fragments and rock, classified as RCRA hazardous waste, and disposed at the Laidlaw Environmental Services Landfill in Westmoreland, California. Nonhazardous waste, including 128 tons of rock and debris and 9,124 tons of soil, was placed in the IRP Site 2 landfill.
The remaining 2,106 tons of soil were stabilized with 15 percent (by weight) Portland cement. This material did not meet California non-hazardous waste criteria and was shipped to the BFI landfill in Arizona for disposal. Confirmation samples were collected, and lead was detected above the residential PRG at one location. Completion of the RA is documented in the IRP Site 5 and Small Arms Range Closure Report (Earth Tech, 1999).
Following completion of the soil RA, much of the remaining SAR impact berm was pushed into the IRP Site 5 excavation as fill. The soil from the berm was then covered with soil imported from the adjacent riverbed to bring the IRP Site 5 area back to its original grade. The firing line area of the SAR remains as a ground depression and is not being used. Projected long-term plans for the area are industrial/commercial use.
4.4.1 Remedy Selection
The selection of the remedy for the SAR is discussed in the BW OU ROD (Earth Tech, 2005a). After excavation was completed in 2003, the BWFS (CDM, 2003) risk analysis concluded that the child estimated blood lead level exceeded levels allowed for unrestricted use. The RAOs for the SAR are:
Limit use of the property to prevent exposure to lead-contaminated soil under an unrestricted land use scenario, and Limit use of the property to prevent exposure to non-cancer risk contaminated soil under an unrestricted land use scenario.
Due to residual lead concentrations that exceed levels that allow for unrestricted use, the selected remedy for the SAR is ICs. The ICs run with the land through deed restrictions that prohibit residential (or unrestricted) use of the property. The ICs specified by the selected remedy include the following use restrictions:
Grantee covenants and agrees that it will not use the SAR for residential purposes, hospitals for human care, public or private schools for persons under 18 years of age, or day care centers for children. Grantee covenants and agrees that it will not conduct or allow others to conduct activities that limit access to the site from inspections.
ARARs identified in the BW OU ROD for IC sites such as the SAR are presented in Appendix C.
4.4.2 Remedy Implementation The land is zoned for industrial/commercial uses, and the proposed base master plan identifies the site area for industrial buildings. In order to provide for long term protectiveness for human health and the environment, ICs in the form of land use restrictions that “run with the land” as part of the property transfer
WP/27-Sep-10/058-10 Page 69 Former Norton AFB THIRD FIVE-YEAR REVIEW Section 4.0 deed have been implemented. The ICs that are in place restrict use of the property for residential use and other sensitive uses specified in the BW OU ROD. The ICs also ensure that IRP Site 5 will remain accessible for periodic inspections to verify that the uncontaminated soil cover at the site is kept in place. The property is currently zoned industrial/commercial by the City of San Bernardino.
4.4.3 Systems Operations and Maintenance Since the selected remedy for the SAR is ICs, there are no systems requiring operation and maintenance.
4.4.4 Progress Since Signature of BW OU ROD In August 2007, the SAR was included in a parcel transferred by deed to the IVDA. The deed was recorded with San Bernardino County on September 17, 2007, Document #2007-0532871. The restrictions specified as part of the BW OU ROD selected remedy were incorporated in the deed. In September 2007, the IVDA, as the owner of record of the SAR, entered into a SLUC agreement with the California DTSC to maintain the ICs specified in the transfer deed. Under the SLUC agreement, the IVDA is required to annually inspect the site to verify compliance with the covenant including compliance with the ICs. An annual inspection report is provided to DTSC by January 15 of each year. Since taking possession of the SAR, IVDA has annually inspected the SAR and has reported the results of each inspection to the DTSC. No violations have been noted. IVDA continues as owner of record for the SAR property as of September 2010.
4.4.5 Technical Assessment The following answers form the technical assessment and conclude that the RAs performed are protective of human health and the environment for the SAR.
Question A: Is the remedy functioning as intended by the decision documents? Yes. Implementation of ICs and Other Measures. The SAR remedy prevents exposure and provides for long-term control of the site through ICs that entail land use restrictions. The ICs allow for access to the site for inspections. There are no identified immediate threats that require other measures at the SAR.
Remedial Action Performance. ICs that prevent exposure and limit uses are incorporated in the deed and SLUC. The owner of record conducts annual inspections and reporting for ICs. The RA has functioned as designed and is effective in attaining the RAO.
System Operations and Maintenance. No systems are currently operating at this site.
Opportunities for Optimizations. Since the last five-year review, no opportunities for optimizations have been presented for the remedy at the SAR.
Early Indicators of Potential Remedy Issues. There are no indicators of potential remedy issues at the SAR.
WP/27-Sep-10/058-10 Page 70 Former Norton AFB THIRD FIVE-YEAR REVIEW Section 4.0
Question B: Are the exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup levels, and remedial Action objectives (RAOs) used at the time of remedy selection still valid? Yes. Changes in Standards. There has been no change to the target blood lead level (10 µg/dL) that affects the selected remedy during the last five-year review period. There have been no changes to the chemical, action or location specific ARARs identified in the BW OU ROD for IC sites such as the SAR (Appendix C). Therefore, the results of protectiveness evaluations are still valid.
Changes in Exposure Pathways. No changes in site conditions that affect exposure pathways were identified in the course of the Five-Year Review.
Changes in Toxicity or Other Contaminant Characteristics. There have been no changes in toxicity or other contaminant characteristics that would affect the protectiveness of the remedy.
Changes in Risk Assessment Methodologies. Risk evaluation methods have not changed during the current review period, nor is there basis to alter the assumptions for remedy selection for the SAR.
Expected Progress Towards Meeting RAOs. RAOs have been achieved through implementation of deed restrictions in accordance with the remedy,
Question C: Has any other information come to light that could call into question the protectiveness of the remedy? No. No additional information has come to light that could call into question the protectiveness of the remedy for the SAR.
4.4.6 Issues Concerning the Remedy No issues that affect the protectiveness of the remedy were identified for the SAR.
4.4.7 Recommendations and Follow-up Actions There are no recommendations or follow-up actions identified for the SAR remedy. Implementation of the IC remedy will continue in accordance with the requirements of the Basewide OU ROD.
4.5 BW OU – IRP Site 7 IRP Site 7 is located in the southeast corner of the former IWTP compound (Figure 4-5). IRP Site 7 is an CERCLA site that is also a component of the former Norton AFB’s RCRA Interim Status Facility. Final closure of IRP Site 7 is pending termination of corrective actions associated with the IWTP interim status facility. IRP Site 7 included 12 concrete walled, unlined sludge drying beds, covering approximately 17,280 square feet. The beds were used to dry sludge generated at the IWTP until 1987. During removal of the sludge, it was temporarily stored at the northeast corner of the site.
Remedial investigations indicated some metal concentrations above background levels in near surface samples (CDM, 1993c). In 1999, DTSC, as part of the RCRA closure evaluation for the IWTP facility, requested sampling of the concrete walls and soils within the waste pile area. Sampling was performed
WP/27-Sep-10/058-10 Page 71 Former Norton AFB THIRD FIVE-YEAR REVIEW Section 4.0
Indel(Map _Ll ----- I -- I I• FOR MER I ~,~ I I SITE 7 • j.. ,,,, I .--. .: ------...... ~ Site 7 r--
I >- J ......
------/
, P ... L M ..."' . M EAOOWS DR ' V E
.. 1oIW-207
•~ ! MW- 'fIoI . EXPLANATION IRP Site 7 ... Monitoring Well Former Norton AFB California
n...rl ~ Figure 4·5 o 12.5 25 50 Feel "
WP/27-Sep-10/058-10 Page 72 Former Norton AFB THIRD FIVE-YEAR REVIEW Section 4.0 during January 2000. Low concentrations of pesticides, PCBs, and PAHs were reported in the concrete samples and low concentrations of metals, pesticides, PCBs, and PAHs were reported in the soils taken from the surface interval only. Additional soil sampling of the waste pile area confirmed the presence of cadmium and several PAHs above the PRGs.
4.5.1 Remedy Selection IRP Site 7 exhibited surface soil contamination by PAHs, PCBs, and metals. Risk analysis showed the site did pose a potential direct contact risk, primarily due to the presence of PAHs. The site is adjacent to the former golf course and long term reuse plans for the site were as an extension of the golf course or for industrial/commercial related uses. The RAOs for IRP Site 7 are intended to integrate both the CERCLA response and RCRA corrective action obligations:
Remove concrete drying beds (RCRA obligation). Reduce the non-cancer risk to an individual to a HI less than 1 (Non-cancer risk remediation goal in NCP) (CERCLA/RCRA obligations).
The BW OU ROD selected remedy for IRP Site 7 was excavation and off-site disposal. The remedy provides for long term effectiveness and permanence by removing contamination from the site. The expected outcome of the selected remedy was unrestricted reuse of the site (Earth Tech, 2005a).
ARARs identified in the BW OU ROD for excavation sites such as IRP Site 7 are presented in Appendix C.
4.5.2 Remedy Implementation Physical removal and disposal of the concrete walled sludge drying beds and surface soils were completed in March 2004, and a Final Revised Closure Certification Report for IRP Site 7 was issued for regulatory review (Earth Tech, 2005f). Confirmation samples collected following removal of the drying beds showed residual concentrations slightly exceeding residential PRGs for benzo(a)pyrene [B(a)P] and dibenzo(a,h)anthracene [D(a,h)A] at several locations. Based on the highest concentration of PAHs detected in the confirmation samples, the maximum residual excess cancer risk for the residential scenario was determined to be at the lower end of the risk management range. Pending termination of corrective action, ICs in the form of land use restrictions that “run with the land” as part of the property transfer deed have been implemented. The ICs that are in place restrict use of the property for residential use and other sensitive uses.
4.5.3 Systems Operations and Maintenance There are no remaining systems in place and no further operations or maintenance is required.
4.5.4 Progress Since Signature of BW-OU ROD
In April 2006, DTSC approved CERCLA closure of IRP Site 7 for NFA. Since IRP Site 7 was part of the RCRA Interim Status facility at the former Norton AFB, termination of RCRA corrective action is required to achieve final closure of IRP Site 7.
WP/27-Sep-10/058-10 Page 73 Former Norton AFB THIRD FIVE-YEAR REVIEW Section 4.0
In June 2007, Parcel C-IWTP, which includes Site 7, was transferred to IVDA through a quitclaim deed transfer. The deed was recorded with San Bernardino County on July 25, 2007, Document #2007 0435180. In April 2008, Parcel C-IWTP was transferred from IVDA to HW Southgate, L.P. through a quitclaim deed transfer. The deed was recorded with San Bernardino County on April 12, 2008, Document #2008-0145374. HW Southgate, L.P. continues as owner of record for the IRP Site 7 property as of September 2010. Included in the deed for IRP Site 7 were restrictive use covenants that run with the land. The restrictions prohibited the following:
No use of property for residential purposes, hospitals for human care, public or private schools for persons under 18 years of age, or day care centers for children. No activities that limit the site for inspections. No construction, excavation, drilling, grading, removal, trenching, filling, earth movement, mining, and planting that would disturb the soil without regulatory approval. No extraction of GW for any purpose except monitoring. No damage to GW monitoring wells at the site or restriction of Air Force access to wells.
The above restrictions will remain in place at least until the termination of corrective action for the RCRA Interim Status Facility. The property is currently zoned industrial/commercial by the City of San Bernardino.
4.5.5 Technical Assessment The following answers form the technical assessment and conclude that the RAs performed are protective of human health and the environment for IRP Site 7.
Question A: Is the remedy functioning as intended by the decision documents? Yes. Implementation of ICs and Other Measures. Pending RCRA corrective action termination, deed restrictions that prevent exposure, limit use of the site, and retain site access for inspection and monitoring were implemented in the transfer deed for IRP Site 7 (contained within Parcel C-IWTP). There are no identified immediate threats that require other measures at IRP Site 7.
Remedial Action Performance. RAs performed for IRP Site 7 resulted in a NFA determination and CERCLA closure. Deed restrictions that prevent exposure and limit uses for the site are being implemented pending termination of RCRA corrective action for the RCRA interim status facility (former IWTP).
System Operations and Maintenance. No systems are currently operating at this site.
Opportunities for Optimizations. Since the last five-year review, no opportunities for optimizations have been presented for the remedy at IRP Site 7.
Early Indicators of Potential Remedy Issues. There are no indicators of potential remedy issues at IRP Site 7.
WP/27-Sep-10/058-10 Page 74 Former Norton AFB THIRD FIVE-YEAR REVIEW Section 4.0
Question B: Are the exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup levels, and remedial action objectives (RAOs) used at the time of remedy selection still valid? Yes. Changes in Standards. The PAH RSLs for B(a)P and D(a,h)A are 0.015 mg/kg which is different from the 0.062 mg/kg PRG used to evaluate soil confirmation sample data in the Closure Report. Three of the four B(a)P confirmation results reported in the Final Revised Closure Certification Report for IRP Site 7 exceed the May 2010 RSL (EPA, 2010) as was the case for the 2004 PRG. One of the two D(a,h)A confirmation results exceed the RSL as was the case for the PRG. Using the maximum D(a,h)A detection (0.13 mg/kg) from the confirmation samples, as was done in the closure report, the updated maximum excess cancer risk is 8 x 10-6 which is higher than reported in the closure report (2 x 10-6) but still in the risk management range of 10-4-10-6. Based on the limited extent of PAHs after the IRP Site 7 excavation, site risk is still considered acceptable and the change in screening level does not affect the remedy. There have been no changes to the chemical, action or location specific ARARs identified in the BW OU ROD for excavation sites such as IRP Site 7 (Appendix C). Therefore, the results of protectiveness evaluations are still valid.
Changes in Exposure Pathways. No changes in site conditions that affect exposure pathways were identified in the course of the Five-Year Review.
Changes in Toxicity or Other Contaminant Characteristics. There have been no changes in toxicity or other contaminant characteristics that would affect the protectiveness of the remedy.
Changes in Risk Assessment Methodologies. Risk evaluation methods have not changed during the current review period, nor is there basis to alter the assumptions for remedy selection for IRP Site 7.
Expected Progress Towards Meeting RAOs. Implementation of the excavation and disposal remedy has achieved the RAOs.
Question C: Has any other information come to light that could call into question the protectiveness of the remedy? No. No additional information has come to light that could call into question the protectiveness of the remedy for IRP Site 7.
4.5.6 Issues Concerning the Remedy No issues that affect the protectiveness of the remedy were identified for IRP Site 7.
4.5.7 Recommendations and Follow-up Actions There are no recommendations or follow-up actions identified for the IRP Site 7 remedy. Deed restrictions on property use will remain in place until final closure of IRP Site 7 as part of corrective action termination for the former Norton AFB RCRA interim status facility is completed.
WP/27-Sep-10/058-10 Page 75 Former Norton AFB THIRD FIVE-YEAR REVIEW Section 4.0
4.6 BW OU – IRP Site 17
IRP Site 17 is located in the southwestern corner of the former IWTP compound (Figure 4-6). IRP Site 17 is a CERCLA site that is also a component of the former Norton AFB’s RCRA Interim Status Facility. Final closure of IRP Site 17 will be completed with termination of corrective actions associated with the IWTP RCRA interim status facility. IRP Site 17 and the nearby IRP Site 7 were not included in the original IWTP RCRA characterization and closure process as they were considered by the Air Force to be in the IRP at the former Norton AFB, and as such were being characterized and closed under the Federal Facilities Agreement (FFA) which provides for CERCLA-RCRA integration (FFA Section 17, 1989). Although IRP Sites 17 and 7 were not included in the original RCRA Part A permit for the IWTP filed by the Air Force, DTSC considered them part of the IWTP so termination of RCRA corrective action is required to achieve final closure for the sites. IRP Site 7 is discussed in a separate section of this report.
IRP Site 17 is comprised of two connected brick lined sumps that the Air Force constructed during the early 1960s for the purpose of burning waste fuels and solvents. The Air Force conducted one test burn, but in 1961 permission for continued burning was denied by local air quality authorities. The sumps were then used primarily as holding tanks for the IWTP and as an oil/water separator until 1985. The area immediately south of the sumps was used for storage of solvent and plating wastes contained in 55 gallon drums.
IRP Site 17 was subject to a series of site investigations beginning in 1984. IRP investigators sampled the site for metals, radionuclides, semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs), PCBs, and VOCs. VOCs, particularly TCE, were the only contaminants reported. Further site investigations (CDM, 1996g, CDM, 1997b) have assessed the subsurface conditions at the site. Soil samples were collected from the surface to approximately 40 feet bgs at the site to determine the TCE source. Based on the results of the soil borings, the area of affected soil covered approximately 1,000 square feet.
There are two water bearing zones below the IRP Site 17 area. A perched GW layer (perched zone) is supported by a layer of finer grained silts and clays extending from approximately 25 to 55 feet bgs. TCE was detected in the perched zone soil between 25 and 30 feet bgs (CDM, 1996g). The second zone, termed the “upper aquifer” comprises sands and gravels that extend at least 500 feet below the site. In the early 1980s, the top of the upper aquifer was in contact with the silt and clay layer supporting the perched zone at 50 feet bgs. Since then the water level in the vicinity of IRP Site 17 has continued to drop due to drought and local pumping. In 2005, the depth to GW ranged from 75 to 90 feet bgs depending on seasonal variations. By 2009, the GW level around IRP Site 17 averaged approximately 150 feet bgs. TCE has been detected in the perched zone GW in excess of the MCL, but not in the upper aquifer below IRP Site 17.
WP/27-Sep-10/058-10 Page 76 Former Norton AFB THIRD FIVE-YEAR REVIEW Section 4.0
Index Map _ll-----
FORM~R +MW-l09 IWTPAREA
SIT!; 7
FORMER I""" WI:.SI SUM ... FORMER EAST SUMP I ,~ ' I ..- ,--,--- - -::.:6 .. - * '\
SITE 17
fUl r------
+MW10,R
FORMER DRUM
STORAGE AREA -$-MW.2Q
------I
E P A L M M E A D 0 W S D R I V E <~ ! EXPLANATION IRP Site 17 +- Monitoring Well Former Norton AFB California
Figure 4-6
WP/27-Sep-10/058-10 Page 77 Former Norton AFB THIRD FIVE-YEAR REVIEW Section 4.0
The perched zone GW contamination is assumed to have resulted from the former chemical waste stored at IRP Site 17 or leakage from the IRP Site 17 sumps. Due to the sandy nature of the surface soils, the solvent migrated downward to the perched zone, where further downward migration was retarded by the finer grained soils. The IRP Site 17 EE/CA (CDM, 1997b) evaluated potential migration of TCE from the perched zone into the upper aquifer. The modeling assumed future reuse as a golf course fairway and included infiltration due to irrigation. The modeling indicated that TCE and 1,2-DCE will eventually leach into the upper aquifer, but at concentrations well below their respective MCLs. TCE has not been detected in the upper aquifer wells in concentrations above 1 ug/L.
4.6.1 Remedy Selection The BWFS concluded that IRP Site 17 does not pose adverse risk to human health or the environment because there is no exposure pathway for the low levels of residual VOC contamination located at approximately 30 feet bgs, i.e., there is no direct contact, inhalation, or ingestion pathway with receptors on the ground surface. The BWFS recommendation was to remove the concrete sumps based on RCRA closure requirements to remove all waste management facilities. The RAO for IRP Site 17 is:
Removal of the Sumps (RCRA obligation).
The BW OU ROD selected remedy for IRP Site 17 was excavation and off-site disposal. The expected outcome of the selected remedy was unrestricted reuse of the site. ARARs identified in the BW OU ROD for excavation sites such as IRP Site 17 are presented in Appendix C.
4.6.2 Implementation of Remedy The removal of the IRP Site 17 sumps was performed in accordance with the approved RCRA Closure Plan Addendum, Sampling and Analysis Plan Former Industrial Waste Treatment Plant Area (Earth Tech, 2003b). DTSC approval of the plan was conditional on changes to the Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP). Additional soil and soil vapor sampling requirements were requested including sampling and analysis for dioxins, furans, PAHs, and radionuclides.
Demolition and removal of the two concrete sumps at IRP Site 17 took place from December 15, 2003 to December 24, 2003. This was followed in 2004 by soil sampling and soil gas sampling per the requirements of the work plan. Analytical results from borehole soil samples collected in March 2004 at IRP Site 17 indicated detections of VOCs, total chromium, and cadmium that exceeded residential PRGs below the east sump.
4.6.3 Systems Operations and Maintenance There are no systems in place requiring operations or maintenance.
4.6.4 Progress Since Signature of BW OU ROD The Air Force initiated an excavation action in May 2006 to remove contaminated soil detected under the east sump. Approximately 490 tons of soil was excavated and confirmation soil samples were taken to verify removal of the contamination. Analytical results from confirmation samples collected after
WP/27-Sep-10/058-10 Page 78 Former Norton AFB THIRD FIVE-YEAR REVIEW Section 4.0 excavation in May 2006 generally achieved cleanup goals but residual concentrations of D(ah)A and vanadium were reported at some locations in soil at levels marginally above residential PRGs. A Closure Certification Report for IRP Site 17 was issued for regulatory review (Earth Tech, 2006c).
In 2007, per an agreement with the DTSC, the Air Force agreed to conduct additional soil gas sampling to confirm indoor risk assessment conclusions in the Closure Certification Report. The supplemental soil gas survey was performed on July 24-25, 2007. The results of this survey were used for vapor intrusion calculations and risk assessment and incorporated into a Revised Closure Certification Report for IRP Site 17 (Earth Tech, 2009). The Air Force recommended closure with NFA except for land use restrictions on the use of GW.
On July 23, 2009, DTSC submitted additional comments concerning the completeness of the Revised Final Closure Certification Report for IRP Site 17. As a result, the Air Force is planning a soil and soil vapor investigation for 2010 to fill data gaps in the site characterization. After completion of the investigation, the IRP Site 17 risk characterization will be updated and, as appropriate, the Closure Certification Report will be submitted for final closure.
In June 2007, Parcel C-IWTP, which includes Site 17, was transferred to IVDA through a quitclaim deed transfer. The deed was recorded with San Bernardino County on September 17, 2007, Document #2007 0435180. In April 2008, Parcel C-IWTP, which includes IRP Site 17, was transferred from IVDA to HW Southgate, L.P. through a quitclaim deed transfer. The deed was recorded with San Bernardino County on April 12, 2008, Document #2008-0145374. HW Southgate, L.P. continues as owner of record for IRP Site17 property as of September 2010. Included in the deed for IRP Site 17 were restrictive use covenants that run with the land. The restrictions prohibited the following:
No use of property for residential purposes, hospitals for human care, public or private schools for persons under 18 years of age, or day care centers for children. No activities that limit the site for inspections. No construction, excavation, drilling, grading, removal, trenching, filling, earth movement, mining, and planting that would disturb the soil without regulatory approval. No extraction of GW for any purpose except monitoring. No damage to GW monitoring wells at the site or restriction of Air Force access to wells.
The restrictions will remain in place at least until the termination of corrective action for the RCRA Interim Status Facility.
4.6.5 Technical Assessment The following answers form the technical assessment and conclude that the RAs performed are protective of human health and the environment for IRP Site 17.
WP/27-Sep-10/058-10 Page 79 Former Norton AFB THIRD FIVE-YEAR REVIEW Section 4.0
Question A: Is the remedy functioning as intended by the decision documents? Yes. Implementation of ICs and Other Measures. Pending termination of corrective actions, deed restrictions that prevent exposure, limit use of the site, and retain access for inspection and monitoring were implemented in the transfer deed for IRP Site 17 (contained within Parcel C-IWTP). There are no identified immediate threats that require other measures at IRP Site 17.
Remedial Action Performance. Excavation and disposal of the sumps and associated contaminated soils has been completed. A limited extent of metal, PAH and VOC contaminants of concern remain at the site. An additional investigation is planned to address data gaps in the site characterization and to update the risk assessment and Closure Certification Report. Deed restrictions that prevent exposure and limit uses for the property are in place and will remain until the site is closed and corrective action termination of the RCRA interim status facility is obtained.
System Operations and Maintenance. No systems are currently operating at this site.
Opportunities for Optimizations. Since the last five-year review, no opportunities for optimizations have been presented for the remedy at IRP Site 17.
Early Indicators of Potential Remedy Issues. There are no indicators of potential remedy issues at IRP Site 17.
Question B: Are the exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup levels, and remedial action objectives (RAOs) used at the time of remedy selection still valid? Yes. Changes in Standards. The RA and closure certification at IRP Site 17 is being implemented to attain current U.S. EPA and State of California cleanup levels. There have been no changes to the chemical, action, or location specific ARARs identified in the BW OU ROD for excavation sites such as IRP Site 17 (Appendix C). Therefore, the results of protectiveness evaluations are still valid.
Changes in Exposure Pathways. No changes in site conditions that affect exposure pathways were identified in the course of the Five-Year Review.
Changes in Toxicity or Other Contaminant Characteristics. There have been no changes in toxicity of other contaminant characteristics that would affect the protectiveness of the remedy.
Changes in Risk Assessment Methodologies. Risk evaluation methods have not changed during the current review period, nor is there basis to alter the assumptions for remedy selection for IRP Site 17.
Expected Progress Towards Meeting RAOs. The RAO of removing the IRP Site 17 sumps has been attained. Underlying contaminated soils have also been excavated and removed. The Air Force is planning a soil and soil vapor investigation for 2010 to fill data gaps in the site characterization. After completion of the investigation, the IRP Site 17 risk characterization will be updated and, as appropriate, the Closure Certification Report will be submitted for final closure under
WP/27-Sep-10/058-10 Page 80 Former Norton AFB THIRD FIVE-YEAR REVIEW Section 4.0
a determination of NFA. However, final closure of IRP Site 17 is pending termination of corrective action for the RCRA interim status IWTP facility (the former IWTP facility).
Question C: Has any other information come to light that could call into question the protectiveness of the remedy? No. No additional information has come to light that could call into question the protectiveness of the remedy for IRP Site 17.
4.6.6 Issues Concerning the Remedy Additional characterization of VOCs in soil gas and additional soil sampling to address data gaps is required. Based on completion of the site characterization, updated soil and vapor intrusion risk assessments are necessary to provide site risk characterization.
Final site closure for IRP Site 17 is dependent on RCRA corrective action termination associated with the IWTP interim status facility.
4.6.7 Recommendations and Follow-up Actions A soil and soil gas sampling investigation will be conducted to address data gaps in site characterization. The data will be utilized to complete updated soil and vapor intrusion risk assessments for the site. As appropriate based on the updated site characterization and risk assessment results, the Closure Certification Report will be revised and submitted for agency review. Deed restrictions will remain in place until the site is closed and the restrictions are formally removed.
4.7 BW OU – IRP Site 19 IRP Site 19 was identified as an IRP site during the initial Phase I records search in October 1982 (Figure 4-7). The site was previously used for drum storage and aircraft washing. Drums containing fuels, oils, electroplating solutions, TCE, TCE sludge, and cyanide wash solutions were stored on the ground without a liner or containment. The remedial investigation report included data for IRP Site 19 that showed 23 of 67 soil samples collected contained PCBs. Only 2 of the 23 samples containing PCBs had concentrations that exceeded the 10 mg/kg residential PRG for PCB at the time (CDM 1993c). The PCBs on site are encountered primarily in the top 6-inches of soil, which is presently covered by 20 inches to 24 inches of concrete that serves as runway apron. The long term future land use for IRP Site 19 is to retain the runway apron for use by the SBIAA airfield.
IRP Site 19 is currently buried beneath 20 to 24 inches of concrete that serves as a ramp area for aircraft parking. The most likely future use of the site is parking for aircraft being repaired in the adjacent Building 763 hangar. There is no risk to human health as long as the concrete remains in place. The concern for the site is the uncontrolled removal of the concrete cover and then unrestricted reuse of the property.
WP/27-Sep-10/058-10 Page 81 Former Norton AFB THIRD FIVE-YEAR REVIEW Section 4.0
BLDG 763
George Webster Dr. 766
o , ASPHALT ASPHALT
SITE 19
n ASPHALT •.:: ~ ~
o
EXPLANATION IRP Site 19 Site 19 Boundary Former Norton Air Force Base D Open Grass
n.....r---1 ~ Figure 4·7 o 50 100 200 Feel ~, Source: COM Federal Programs Corporalon
WP/27-Sep-10/058-10 Page 82 Former Norton AFB THIRD FIVE-YEAR REVIEW Section 4.0
4.7.1 Remedy Selection
The BWFS (CDM, 2003) concluded that the PCBs are immobile and capped, and have no viable exposure pathway as long as they remain in this condition. No GW contamination is associated with this site. The BWFS risk assessment calculated theoretical risks based upon removal of the runway apron.
The BWFS concluded that, although the cancer risk and non-cancer adult HI were acceptable, the child non-cancer risk was unacceptable for unrestricted use. The RAO for IRP Site 19 is:
Limit use of the property to prevent exposure to PCB contaminated soil under an unrestricted land use scenario. The interim ROD (U.S. Air Force, 1997b) described the original IC remedy selection and implementation for IRP Site 19. The BW OU ROD IC selected remedy for IRP Site 19 has superseded the interim ROD remedy. Due to residual PCB concentrations that exceed levels that allow for unrestricted use, the selected remedy for IRP Site 19 is ICs. The ICs run with the land through deed restrictions that prohibit residential (or unrestricted) use of the property. The ICs specified by the selected remedy include the following use restrictions:
Grantee covenants and agrees that it will not use IRP Site 19 for residential purposes, hospitals for human care, public or private schools for persons under 18 years of age, or day-care centers for children. Grantee covenants and agrees that it will not conduct or allow others to conduct activities that limit access to the site for inspections.
Implementation of the selected remedy at IRP Site 19 allows for the most likely current and future reuse plans for the site. ARARs identified in the BW OU ROD for IC sites such as IRP Site 19 are presented in Appendix C.
4.7.2 Remedy Implementation The land that includes IRP Site 19 is part of Parcel A-IWL, which has been deeded to SBIAA. The deed was recorded with San Bernardino County on August 31, 2007, Document #2007-0505542. The deed included environmental restrictive use covenants that run with the land to address the IC limitations specified in the BW OU ROD. SBIAA continues as owner of record for IRP Site 19 property as of September 2010. IRP Site 19 is on land covered under a FAA covenant that limits land use options to commercial, industrial, or airport support activities.
4.7.3 Systems Operations and Maintenance There are no systems in place requiring operations or maintenance.
4.7.4 Progress Since Signature of the BW OU ROD The protectiveness statement from the last review was “The remedy outlined Interim ROD for IRP Site 19 is expected to be protective of human health and the environment (U.S. Air Force, 1997b)”.
WP/27-Sep-10/058-10 Page 83 Former Norton AFB THIRD FIVE-YEAR REVIEW Section 4.0
In June 2007, IRP Site 19 was included in a parcel transferred by deed to the SBIAA. The restrictions specified as part of the BW OU ROD selected remedy were incorporated in the deed. In July 2007, SBIAA entered into a SLUC agreement with the California DTSC for the ICs specified in the BW OU ROD and transfer deed. Though the BW OU ROD identified 1.8 acres of affected area that require use restrictions, the IRP Site 19 restricted area used for the deed and SLUC is approximately 4.6 acres (199,621 square feet by legal description).
Under the covenant agreement with the DTSC, the SBIAA is required to annually inspect the site to verify compliance with the covenant including compliance with the ICs. An annual inspection report is provided to DTSC by January 15 of each year. Since taking possession of the property, SBIAA has annually inspected IRP Site 19 and has reported the results of each inspection to the DTSC. No issues violations have been noted.
4.7.5 Technical Assessment The following answers form the technical assessment and conclude that the RAs performed are protective of human health and the environment for IRP Site 19.
Question A: Is the remedy functioning as intended by the decision documents? Yes. Implementation of ICs and Other Measures. The IRP Site 19 remedy prevents exposure and provides for long-term control of the site through ICs that entail land use restrictions. The ICs allow for access to the site for inspections. There are no identified immediate threats that require other measures at IRP Site 19.
Remedial Action Performance. ICs that prevent exposure and limit uses are incorporated in the deed and SLUC. The owner of record conducts annual inspections and reporting for ICs. The RA has functioned as designed and is effective in attaining the RAO.
System Operations and Maintenance. No systems are currently operating at this site.
Opportunities for Optimizations. Since the last five-year review, no opportunities for optimization have been presented for the remedy at IRP Site 19.
Early Indicators of Potential Remedy Issues. There are no indicators of potential remedy issues at IRP Site 19.
Question B: Are the exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup levels, and remedial action objectives (RAOs) used at the time of remedy selection still valid? Yes. Changes in Standards. There have been no changes in PRG or RSL values for the constituents of concern (PCBs) that affect the selected remedy during the last five-year review period. There have been no changes to the chemical, action or location specific ARARs identified in the BW OU ROD for IC sites such as IRP Site 19 (Appendix C). Therefore, the results of protectiveness evaluations are still valid.
WP/27-Sep-10/058-10 Page 84 Former Norton AFB THIRD FIVE-YEAR REVIEW Section 4.0
Changes in Exposure Pathways. No changes in site conditions that affect exposure pathways were identified in the course of the Five-Year Review.
Changes in Toxicity or Other Contaminant Characteristics. There have been no changes in toxicity of other contaminant characteristics that would affect the protectiveness of the remedy.
Changes in Risk Assessment Methodologies. Risk evaluation methods have not changed during the current review period, nor is there basis to not alter the assumptions for remedy selection for IRP Site 19.
Expected Progress Towards Meeting RAOs. RAOs have been achieved through implementation of deed restrictions in accordance with the remedy.
Question C: Has any other information come to light that could call into question the protectiveness of the remedy? No. No additional information has come to light that could call into question the protectiveness of the remedy for IRP Site 19.
4.7.6 Issues Concerning the Remedy No issues that affect the protectiveness of the remedy were identified at IRP Site 19.
4.7.7 Recommendations and Follow-up Actions There are no recommendations or follow-up actions identified for the IRP Site 19 remedy. Implementation of the IC remedy will continue in accordance with the requirements of the Basewide OU ROD.
4.8 BW OU – AOC 4 Building 301 Building 301, located in the north base area near U and 102nd streets, was an equipment and vehicle washing facility (see Figure 4-8). During the 1950s, the building was part of a spray painting facility. At the time of base closure (1994), it was used by civilian auto hobby personnel. AOC 4 consists of the foundation of former Building 301, an adjacent washing slab, and adjacent soil areas.
A separator/dosing chamber was removed and its location evaluated as part of the basewide underground storage tank (UST) program (Bechtel Environmental, 1997a). A solids collection pit and two trench drains were identified during the site investigation. The concrete washing slab was heavily stained, particularly near the trench drains. Drums of oil and other materials were stored in sheds along the southern drain line. A 4-foot-by 4-foot-wide area surrounded by a 6-foot-tall chain-link fence is located to the north of the washing slab and may represent the location of a former waste receptacle.
Soil sampling results during the Basewide Confirmation Study (CS) and Expanded Source Investigation (ESI) (CDM, 1996a) indicated the presence of VOCs, PAHs, fuels, and metals in soils at AOC 4. However, only antimony (34.6 mg/kg), arsenic (30.1 mg/kg), cadmium (80.7 mg/kg), and lead (8,460 mg/kg) exceeded residential PRGs. The contaminants are limited to near-surface depths (less than 1 foot bgs) and are not widespread horizontally. The area of affected soil is approximately 40 feet by
WP/27-Sep-10/058-10 Page 85 Former Norton AFB THIRD FIVE-YEAR REVIEW Section 4.0
I 302 ,....- -- I ------f------W 1 W a: I I- I AOC4 "' I E--GRATED I FORMER E TRENCH -+-PAINTING 301 ROOM V E DRAIN I WASHING SLAB E FORLER I I BLDG 301 ~ I I I :: OPEN I :: DRAIN :,\~RENCH I SOLIDS STAINED @ V ~OLLECTIONtT L CONCRETE I Li "doD ,__ 00' I , I --I , , ~. \J ------.\\'0 ~-- --" U STREET
EXPLANATION AOC 4 Former Norton Air Force Base D Open Grass
Figure 4-8 ~ oF•• t8 Source: COM Federal ProgramsCorporaton
WP/27-Sep-10/058-10 Page 86 Former Norton AFB THIRD FIVE-YEAR REVIEW Section 4.0
120 feet. No GW contamination is associated with this AOC. The BWFS (CDM, 2003) concluded that AOC 4 does not pose an unacceptable risk to human health using the industrial reuse scenario. Also, the unrestricted cancer risk and adult non-cancer HI were acceptable; however, the child non-cancer risk and child blood-lead levels were unacceptable for unrestricted land use. There are no RAOs for AOC 4 since there is no unacceptable risk to human health under the current use scenario.
4.8.1 Remedy Selection The BW OU ROD selected remedy for AOC 4 is NFA. The basis of the NFA remedy was that an institutional control in the form of a deed restriction had already been implemented at AOC 4 due to residual lead contamination that exceeds unrestricted use levels. Restrictions in the deed limit use of the property to airport, commercial and industrial uses, and prohibit the use of AOC 4 for any type of dwelling unit or any type of special use, including dwelling units, where numbers of children are expected to congregate for the substantial part of a day, such as day care centers, recreation facilities, resident health care facilities and schools. City zoning provisions also preclude unrestricted use. In addition, SLUC regulation 22 CCR 67391.1(b), which was identified as an ARAR, specifies that a SLUC may be executed to provide DTSC with an enforcement mechanism to assure compliance with the restriction on residential and sensitive uses. The selected remedy will allow for reuse of AOC 4 in accordance with the current and expected future use of the property. ARARs identified in the BW OU ROD for sites with ICs are presented in Appendix C.
4.8.2 Remedy Implementation AOC 4 is on a parcel that was transferred to the SBIAA December 1999. The deed was recorded with San Bernardino County on December 17, 1999, Document #1999-0517892. ICs were not specified as part of the selected remedy in the BW OU ROD. In order to provide for long term protectiveness for human health and the environment, ICs in the form of land use restrictions that “run with the land” were included in the property transfer deed. SBIAA has since leased the property to the San Bernardino County Fire Department under an FAA covenant that allows only industrial, commercial, or aircraft support usage. The Fire Department has refurbished Building 302 for office use and vehicle repair and is using the area west of the building (north of AOC 4) as a household hazardous waste collection point. Paved areas south of Building 302 are being used for vehicle and equipment storage. The western half of AOC 4 is covered by grassy weeds, while the eastern half is paved and includes a covered storage area. The Fire Department plans to use the paved area for equipment storage, while there are no plans for use of the grassy area of AOC 4 outside of the fenced storage yard. The property is currently zoned industrial/commercial by the City of San Bernardino. Projected long-term use of the site is expected to be for industrial/commercial purposes.
4.8.3 Systems Operations and Maintenance There are no systems in place and no operations or maintenance is required.
WP/27-Sep-10/058-10 Page 87 Former Norton AFB THIRD FIVE-YEAR REVIEW Section 4.0
4.8.4 Progress Since Signature of BW OU ROD SBIAA continues as owner of record for the AOC 4 property as of September 2010. Deed restrictions remain in place and the San Bernardino County Fire Department continues to use Building 302 for office use and vehicle repair and is using the area west of the building (north of AOC 4) as a household hazardous waste collection point. Paved areas south of Building 302 are being used for vehicle and equipment storage. The western half of AOC 4 is covered by grassy weeds, while the eastern half is paved and includes a covered storage area. The Fire Department plans to use the paved area for equipment storage.
4.8.5 Technical Assessment The following answers form the technical assessment and conclude that the RAs performed are protective of human health and the environment for AOC 4.
Question A: Is the remedy functioning as intended by the decision documents? Yes. Implementation of ICs and Other Measures. The AOC 4 remedy provides for long-term control of the site through ICs that entail land use restrictions. The ICs prevent exposure, restrict property from residential usage, and allow access to the site for inspections. There are no identified immediate threats that require action at AOC 4.
Remedial Action Performance. RA for the residual metals in the soil at this site continues as a land use restriction.
System Operations and Maintenance. No systems are currently operating at this site.
Opportunities for Optimizations. Since the last five-year review, no opportunities for optimizations have been presented for the remedy at AOC 4.
Early Indicators of Potential Remedy Issues. There are no indications of failure of the remedy at this site. There are no indicators of potential remedy issues at AOC 4.
Question B: Are the exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup levels, and remedial action objectives (RAOs) used at the time of remedy selection still valid? Yes. Changes in Standards. There have been no changes in PRG or RSL values that affect the selected remedy during the last five-year review period. There have been no changes to the specific ARARs identified for IC sites in the BW OU ROD (Appendix C). Therefore, the results of protectiveness evaluations are still valid.
Changes in Exposure Pathways. No changes in site conditions that affect exposure pathways were identified in the course of the Five-Year Review.
Changes in Toxicity or Other Contaminant Characteristics. There have been no changes in toxicity of other contaminant characteristics that would affect the protectiveness of the remedy.
WP/27-Sep-10/058-10 Page 88 Former Norton AFB THIRD FIVE-YEAR REVIEW Section 4.0
Changes in Risk Assessment Methodologies. Risk evaluation methods have not changed during the current review period, nor is there basis to alter the assumptions for remedy selection for AOC 4.
Expected Progress Towards Meeting RAOs. RAOs have been achieved through implementation of deed restrictions in accordance with the remedy,
Question C: Has any other information come to light that could call into question the protectiveness of the remedy? No. No additional information has come to light that could call into question the protectiveness of the remedy for AOC 4.
4.8.6 Issues Concerning the Remedy No issues that affect the protectiveness of the remedy were identified for AOC 4.
4.8.7 Recommendations and Follow-up Actions There are no recommendations or follow-up actions identified for the IRP Site 19 remedy. Implementation of the IC remedy will continue in accordance with the requirements of the Basewide OU ROD.
4.9 BW OU – AOC 33 – Building 747 Building 747, located in the southeastern corner of the CBA, was one of the primary industrial facilities at the former Norton AFB (Figure 4-9). AOC 33 was a sump that received wastewater from Building 747 before discharge to the IWL. AOC 33 is an IRP/CERCLA site that is also a component of the former Norton AFB’s RCRA Interim Status Facility. Final closure of AOC 33 will be completed with termination of corrective actions associated with the IWTP interim status facility.
Building 747 was constructed in 1942 and renovated in 1944, 1953, and 1955. From 1942 to 1966, the building supported operations for the repair and overhaul of engines and other aircraft parts. Building 747 was converted into a freight terminal facility in 1966, and the building served as offices and storage facilities. AOC 33 is on property that has been transferred by the Air Force to SBIAA. Building 747 has been transferred by SBIAA to several entities for commercial use. The property is currently zoned industrial/commercial by the City of San Bernardino. Projected long-term use of the site is expected to be industrial/commercial-related options for the property, including aviation support.
Subsurface soil contamination at AOC 33 is associated with sumps that were buried beneath an asphalt access road immediately south of Building 747. AOC 33 was investigated during the CBA OU RI, CS, and the ESI (CDM, 1992, 1995d, 1996c). Sampling results indicated the presence of dichlorobenzene (DCB) in excess of industrial and residential PRGs, primarily within the upper 10 feet bgs of soil. No GW contamination is associated with AOC 33. Remedial alternatives were evaluated in an EE/CA (CDM, 1997e).
WP/27-Sep-10/058-10 Page 89 Former Norton AFB THIRD FIVE-YEAR REVIEW Section 4.0
HARRY SHEPERD BLVD D D D D
GEORG WEaST R DR ------,, , STATER FORMER I BROS. BLDG 147 ,I DISTRIBUTION , ______...J
AOC 33 ----::c--
!
EXPLANATION AOC33 Former Norton AFB California
ruI ~ Figure 4-9 o 125 250 500 Feet"
WP/27-Sep-10/058-10 Page 90 Former Norton AFB THIRD FIVE-YEAR REVIEW Section 4.0
The combined child/adult excess cancer risk for exposure to the soil is approaching the lower end of the risk management range (3.6 x 10-6) and the non-cancer HI for children is 3.5. The most significant risk would occur if a small commercial structure was to be constructed over the site. Indoor air risk modeling predicts an unacceptable risk potential of 2.7 x 10-4. The contaminants are volatile and degradable, and the concentrations in soil are expected to decrease with time (Earth Tech, 2005a).
The Air Force identified a deed restriction in the AM (USAF, 1997a) as the preferred RA.
4.9.1 Remedy Selection The BW OU ROD RAOs for AOC 33 were intended to integrate both the CERCLA response and RCRA corrective action obligations. The RAOs are:
Remove the IWL sump (RCRA obligation). Remove contaminated soils that pose an unacceptable indoor inhalation risk (CERCLA/RCRA obligations). Reduce the non-cancer risk to an individual to a hazard index (HI) less than 1. (Non-cancer risk remediation goal in NCP).
The selected remedy for AOC33 is excavation and removal of the sump and associated soils that pose an unacceptable indoor air risk. The expected outcome of the selected remedy was unrestricted reuse of the site. ARARs identified in the BW OU ROD for excavation sites such as AOC33 are presented in Appendix C.
4.9.2 Remedy Implementation The AOC 33 sump and surrounding soil were removed in the fall of 2003 (Earth Tech, 2009a). The area surrounding the sump was over excavated by approximately one to two feet, until visual signs indicated that clean soil had been reached, except for the north wall of the excavation (adjacent to Building 747). Although visually clean soil had not been reached on the north face of the excavation, additional material could not be removed without potentially compromising the building foundation. Confirmation sampling revealed contaminants of potential concern. In April 2004, to further characterize the site, eight borings were drilled within the excavation, and soil samples were taken to 30 feet bgs; no elevated levels of contaminants of potential concern were detected. Additional sampling (soil gas) was conducted in October 2004 during which multiple VOCs were detected. Site data from all sampling events were incorporated in the risk assessment and Closure Certification Report discussed in Section 4.9.4.
4.9.3 Systems Operations and Maintenance There are no systems in place requiring operations or maintenance.
4.9.4 Progress Since Signature of BW OU ROD The Closure Certification Report for AOC 33 was completed in August 2006. Results of the soil gas sampling from 2003 and 2004 were initially used to calculate risk associated with potential indoor vapor intrusion issues. Subsequent review by, and discussions with, DTSC resulted in the development of a
WP/27-Sep-10/058-10 Page 91 Former Norton AFB THIRD FIVE-YEAR REVIEW Section 4.0 work plan for collection additional sampling data in 2007. A Closure Certification Report for AOC 33 was issued in January 2009 (Earth Tech, 2009a) with the results of the 2007 sampling.
Further soil gas sampling was conducted in May 2009. The May 2009 soil gas sample results from under the Building 747 slab significantly exceeded risk based soil gas screening levels (RBSLs) for the industrial scenario for 1,4-dichlorobenzene (DCB), 1,2-DCA, and VC. Based on review of engineering drawings for Building 747, the soil gas results were determined to be associated with the former location of three floor drains and piping that led from a tank pit installation within the building to the AOC 33 waste solvent sump. The three former tank pits were designed in 1944 and, based on the engineering drawings, they were used to drain liquid chemical wastes and water used during the aircraft engine repair and maintenance operations conducted in Building 747. Concrete trench drains that surrounded the areas directly above and adjacent to the tank pits led to the bottom drains located in the eastern end of the tank pits. These drains connected to piping that led to the AOC 33 sump. It is unknown when the tank pits were decommissioned.
In late 2009, the Air Force implemented an excavation action to remove the former tank pits and piping, including associated contaminated soil from beneath and adjacent to the Building 747 slab (Figure 4-9a). Soil confirmation sample results established that the action had sufficiently achieved residential PRG levels and the excavation was backfilled. A post excavation soil vapor sampling event is planned for 2010 to provide post-excavation confirmation results and address data gaps in site characterization. Using the updated data, the risk assessment will be updated and, as appropriate, a revised Closure Certification Report will be prepared.
AOC 33 is part of the property known as parcel A-IWL which was transferred by the Air Force to the SBIAA in June 2007. The deed was recorded with San Bernardino County on August 31, 2007, Document #2007-0505542. SBIAA continues as owner of record for AOC33 property as of September 2010. Included in the deed for AOC33 were restrictive use covenants that run with the land. The restrictions will remain in place at least until the termination of RCRA corrective action. The restrictive covenants include:
Grantee covenants and agrees that it will not use the property for residential purposes, hospitals for human care, public or private schools for persons under 18 years of age, or day-care centers for children. Grantee covenants and agrees that it will not conduct or allow others to conduct activities that limit access to the site for inspections. The grantee covenants and agrees that it will not conduct or allow others to conduct any subsurface construction, excavation, drilling, grading, removing, trenching, filling, earth movement, mining and planting that would disturb that would disturb the soil without regulatory approval.
WP/27-Sep-10/058-10 Page 92 Former Norton AFB THIRD FIVE-YEAR REVIEW Section 4.0
;~ • " •
EXI't..AHAnoH Aoe 33 .-.. -.-~,- .. - ~" F •• .,3' Former Norton AFB - 0.... _ t>o¢alF ... • da California
0._""" .... ='0 _ -a --._ -wi .... Figu ... 4 -911 ! 15 'Sf......
WP/27-Sep-10/058-10 Page 93 Former Norton AFB THIRD FIVE-YEAR REVIEW Section 4.0
Future plans for this area are commercial/industrial. The eastern portion of Building 747 was demolished in September 2008. However, the building’s cement slab was left in place, covered with asphalt and used as a parking lot. The area between former Building 749 and Building 747, including AOC 33, was repaved and used as a roadway to the remaining western portion of Building 747. In 2009, a portion of the paving and eastern slab was removed in association with the AOC 33 excavation. After backfilling, the area was resurfaced with asphalt and returned to use as a parking area. The adjacent western portion of Building 747 has been renovated and is occupied for light industrial/office uses.
4.9.5 Technical Assessment
The following answers form the technical assessment and conclude that the RAs performed are protective of human health and the environment for AOC 33.
Question A: Is the remedy functioning as intended by the decision documents? Yes.
Implementation of ICs and Other Measures. Pending RCRA corrective action termination, deed restrictions that prevent exposure, limit use of the site, and retain site access for inspection and monitoring were implemented in the transfer deed for AOC 33 (contained within Parcel A-IWL). There are no identified immediate threats that require other measures at AOC 33.
Remedial Action Performance. The AOC 33 sump and surrounding soil were removed in 2003 and disposed offsite. Subsequent investigations identified soil contamination associated with three tank pits within the Building 747 slab that connected by subsurface piping to the AOC 33 sump. Excavation and disposal of the tank pits, piping and associated contaminated soils was completed in 2009. Based on soil confirmation samples, the excavation removed contaminants of concern to residential PRG levels. The site has been backfilled and repaved for use as a parking and roadway area. An additional investigation is planned to address post-excavation soil vapor site characterization and to update the risk assessment and Closure Certification Report. Deed restrictions that prevent exposure and limit uses for the property are in place and will remain until the site is closed and corrective action termination of the RCRA interim status facility is obtained.
System Operations and Maintenance. No systems are currently operating at this site.
Opportunities for Optimizations. Since the last five-year review, no opportunities for optimizations have been presented for the remedy at AOC 33.
Early Indicators of Potential Remedy Issues. There are no indicators of potential remedy issues at AOC 33.
Question B: Are the exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup levels, and remedial action objectives (RAOs) used at the time of remedy selection still valid? Yes. Changes in Standards. The RA and closure certification at AOC 33 is being implemented to attain current U.S. EPA and State of California cleanup levels. There have been no changes to the
WP/27-Sep-10/058-10 Page 94 Former Norton AFB THIRD FIVE-YEAR REVIEW Section 4.0
chemical, action or location specific ARARs identified in the BW OU ROD for excavation sites such as AOC33 (Appendix C). Therefore, the results of protectiveness evaluations are still valid.
Changes in Exposure Pathways. No changes in site conditions that affect exposure pathways were identified in the course of the Five-Year Review.
Changes in Toxicity or Other Contaminant Characteristics. There have been no changes in toxicity of other contaminant characteristics that would affect the protectiveness of the remedy.
Changes in Risk Assessment Methodologies. Risk evaluation methods have not changed during the current review period, nor is there basis to alter the assumptions for remedy selection for AOC 33.
Expected Progress Towards Meeting RAOs. The IWL sump, associated components, and contaminated soils have been excavated and disposed offsite in accordance with the selected remedy. A post excavation soil vapor sampling event is planned for 2010 to provide post-excavation confirmation results and address data gaps in site characterization. The risk assessment will be updated and, as appropriate, a revised Closure Certification Report will be submitted for final closure.
Question C: Has any other information come to light that could call into question the protectiveness of the remedy? No. No additional information has come to light that could call into question the protectiveness of the remedy for AOC 33.
4.9.6 Issues Concerning the Remedy Post-excavation soil gas confirmation sampling and soil gas sampling to address VOC site characterization data gaps is required. Based on completed site characterization, updated soil and vapor intrusion risk assessments are necessary to provide site risk characterization.
Final site closure for AOC 33 is dependent on RCRA corrective action termination associated with the IWTP interim status facility.
4.9.7 Recommendations and Follow-up Actions A soil and soil gas sampling investigation will be conducted to address data gaps in site characterization. The data will be utilized to complete updated soil and vapor intrusion risk assessments for the site. As appropriate based on the updated site characterization and risk assessment results, the Closure Certification Report will be revised and submitted for agency review. Deed restrictions will remain in place until the site is closed and the restrictions are formally removed.
4.10 BW OU – Building 752 - Exterior Radium Spill Building 752 is located in the eastern portion of the CBA adjacent to the airfield (see Figure 4-10). The building was used during the 1940s and 1950s for the repair of aircraft instruments, including painting instrument dials with radio-luminescent paint containing radium-226. The room used for painting dials was sealed in 1955 when painting operations ceased. During the period that painting occurred, paint
WP/27-Sep-10/058-10 Page 95 Former Norton AFB THIRD FIVE-YEAR REVIEW Section 4.0
HARRV SHEPERD BLVD BLDG 752 D D D ~ 0 •2 •8 0z 0 D •~ [? •"
GEORGE weBSTER DR ------, , ,
, ______...J
EXPLANATION Building 752 Former Norton AFB California
n...rI ~ Figure 4-10 o 125 250 SOD Feet"
WP/27-Sep-10/058-10 Page 96 Former Norton AFB THIRD FIVE-YEAR REVIEW Section 4.0 waste was flushed into a sink connected to the sanitary sewer. Investigations of the sink and piping system showed that they were contaminated by radium-226. This included the piping system outside of the building to where it connected with the sanitary sewer. Cleanup of the interior piping system and interior surfaces of Building 752 were handled under separate programs. Cleanup of soils affected by radium-226 waste outside of Building 752 are addressed in the BW OU ROD.
To determine whether soils outside of the building had been affected by the discharge of paint waste into the sanitary sewer pipe, the pipe was excavated for visual characterization and soil sampling. The pipe was constructed of 6-inch vitreous clay in 3-foot sections. Two soil samples collected as part of the initial site characterization were found to contain radium-226 at 169 ±10 picoCuries per gram (pCi/g) and 1,940 ±20 pCi/g (background is 1.41 pCi/g). The entire waste line piping was surveyed with a field instrument and found to exhibit gamma radiation above background levels.
Excavation of the piping system was conducted July 23 through August 1, 1996. The excavation was approximately 3 feet deep where the waste line exited the southwest corner of the building, and extended to a depth of 9 feet where the waste line entered the sanitary sewer. All excavated soil and piping was disposed off site (IT Corporation, 1999a).
A total of 40 confirmation soil samples were collected at approximately 10-foot intervals before backfilling and analyzed for radium-226. Detections ranged between 0.84 and 6.5 pCi/g. The mean concentration of the samples was 1.7 pCi/g (IT Corporation, 1999a). The Norton AFB background level for radium is 1.41 pCi/g. Before backfilling the trench, a new waste line was installed between the building and the sanitary sewer. After backfilling the trench, asphalt pavement was placed over the excavation.
As part of the overall radium-226 investigation of the Building 752 area, additional radium-226 contamination was discovered in an area immediately west of the building. Building drawings from the 1950s indicate a wooden loading dock attached to the building over the affected area. In February 2001, the loading dock area was sampled for radium-226. Fourteen samples were collected, and radium-226 ranged between 10 and 240 pCi/g. The investigators determined that the area of concern is 11 by 55 feet, with depth of contamination between 1 and 4 feet bgs (USAF, 2001). The estimated volume of affected soil is 1,400 cubic feet.
4.10.1 Remedy Selection The BWFS concluded that the cancer risk due to residual radium-226 is at the high end of the acceptable range for industrial reuse and unacceptable for unrestricted reuse. The RAOs for Building 752 Radium Spill are:
Reduce the lifetime excess cancer risk to an individual of between 1 x 10-4 and 1 x 10-6 using 1 x 10-6 as the point of departure for the remediation goal (“the NCP cancer risk remedial goal”).
WP/27-Sep-10/058-10 Page 97 Former Norton AFB THIRD FIVE-YEAR REVIEW Section 4.0
The selected remedy for the Building 752 exterior radium spill is discussed in the BW OU ROD. The selected remedy is excavation and disposal of soil containing radium-226 in excess of 2 pCi/g. Implementation of the selected remedy will allow for unrestricted use of the site. ARARs identified in the BW OU ROD for excavation sites such as Building 752 are presented in Appendix C.
4.10.2 Remedy Implementation In 2003, the Air Force, State of California, and U.S. EPA negotiated a Ra-226 cleanup goal for Building 752 Ra-226 Spill Site of 2.0 pCi/g, inclusive of the ambient Ra-226 background prevailing in the area. After preparation and approval of work documents, the site was remediated in two campaigns; October 11 through November 24, 2004, and March 24 through May 24, 2005. Approximately 145 cubic yards of contaminated soil was excavated and placed into U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT)-approved shipping containers for transport to the U.S. Ecology disposal facility in Grand View, Idaho.
Following remediation activities, 29 confirmation soil samples were collected from the impacted area and submitted to a commercial radiochemistry laboratory for analysis by gamma spectrometry. The analytical results of all 29 samples reported by the laboratory contained less than the cleanup goal of 2.0 pCi/g. The Upper Confidence Limit (UCL) of the mean of the 29 confirmation samples was 1.1 pCi/g. The TEDE calculated from the UCL, which is inclusive of the ambient Ra-226 background, calculates to be 7.3 mrem/y during the first year, t = 0.0. The Basewide Radionuclide Characterization Report (IT Corporation, 1996) reports a mean Ra-226 background concentration of 0.71 pCi/g. The net TEDE from an estimated residual Ra-226 contamination concentration of 0.4 pCi/g above background calculates to be 2.6 mrem/y, also during the first year. The net TEDE estimate is below the 5 mrem/yr value considered to be protective of human health and the environment by the EPA. Therefore, it was concluded that the former Norton AFB Building 752 Spill Site had been successfully remediated commensurate with future land use.
4.10.3 Systems Operations and Maintenance No systems are currently operating at this site.
4.10.4 Progress Since BW-ROD Signature The Final Status Survey Report for the Building 752 Exterior Spill Site (Weston Solutions, Inc., 2006) was published in 2006 documenting the site cleanup, confirmation sampling, and risk assessment. The Air Force has concluded that Building 752 and the surrounding area have been successfully remediated commensurate with future land use and that contamination is reduced As Low As Reasonably Achievable (ALARA). The USAF Radioisotope Committee has terminated the permit associated with this facility and the area is considered to be protective of human health and the environment. On 12 December 2008, the EPA provided their concurrence that no further action is required at the exterior spill site. On 5 January 2009, California Department of Public Health (CDPH) provided their agreement that the exterior spill site is acceptable for unrestricted release. On 5 January 2009, the CDPH also provided their agreement that the trenches inside the building are also acceptable for unrestricted release. The Air Force has
WP/27-Sep-10/058-10 Page 98 Former Norton AFB THIRD FIVE-YEAR REVIEW Section 4.0 responded to comments on the Survey Report from the CDPH regarding the survey of the building interior and is awaiting release of Building 752 for unrestricted use.
Building 752 is part of the property known as parcel A-IWL which was transferred by the Air Force to the SBIAA in June 2007. Pending final release of Building 752 for unrestricted use, deed restrictions prevent exposure, limit site use and maintain site access for inspections. The restrictive deed covenants that run with the land and include:
Grantee covenants and agrees that it will not use the property for residential purposes, hospitals for human care, public or private schools for persons under 18 years of age, or day-care centers for children. Grantee covenants and agrees that it will not conduct or allow others to conduct activities that limit access to the site for inspections. The grantee covenants and agrees that it will not conduct or allow others to conduct any subsurface construction, excavation, drilling, grading, removing, trenching, filling, earth movement, mining and planting that would disturb that would disturb the soil without regulatory approval.
The current and anticipated future land use for this portion of the property is commercial/light industrial to support the surrounding land uses, which include mixed-use facilities.
4.10.5 Technical Assessment The following answers form the technical assessment and conclude that the RAs performed are protective of human health and the environment for Building 752.
Question A: Is the remedy functioning as intended by the decision documents? Yes. Implementation of ICs and Other Measures. Pending release of Building 752 for unrestricted use, deed restrictions that prevent exposure, limit use of the site, and retain site access for inspection and monitoring were implemented in the transfer deed for Building 752 (contained within Parcel A IWL). There are no identified immediate threats that require other measures at Building 752.
Remedial Action Performance. The exterior sewer pipeline at Building 752 was addressed by a removal action in 1996. The selected remedy of excavation and disposal for the wash water spill location on the west side of the building was completed in 2005. EPA and DTSC, with CDPH concurrence, have approved completion of the selected remedy and unrestricted use of the Building 752 exterior. Based on the available information demonstrating that the net dose and risk from residual radioactivity at Building 752 are within acceptable limits, the RA addressed the RAO.
System Operations and Maintenance. No systems are currently operating at this site.
Opportunities for Optimizations. Since the last five-year review, no opportunities for optimizations have been presented for the remedy at Building 752.
WP/27-Sep-10/058-10 Page 99 Former Norton AFB THIRD FIVE-YEAR REVIEW Section 4.0
Early Indicators of Potential Remedy Issues. There are no indicators of potential remedy issues at Building 752.
Question B: Are the exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup levels, and remedial action objectives (RAOs) used at the time of remedy selection still valid? Yes. Changes in Standards. There have been no changes in PRG or RSL values for the constituents of concern that affect the selected remedy during the last five-year review period. There have been no changes to the chemical, action or location specific ARARs identified in the BW OU ROD for excavation sites such as Building 752 (Appendix C). Therefore, the results of protectiveness evaluations are still valid.
Changes in Exposure Pathways. No changes in site conditions that affect exposure pathways were identified in the course of the Five-Year Review.
Changes in Toxicity or Other Contaminant Characteristics. There have been no changes in toxicity of other contaminant characteristics that would affect the protectiveness of the remedy.
Changes in Risk Assessment Methodologies. Risk evaluation methods have not changed during the current review period, nor is there basis to alter the assumptions for remedy selection for Building 752.
Expected Progress Towards Meeting RAOs. RAOs for the selected remedy have been achieved and the cleanup of the Building 752 exterior has been closed without restriction. Pending concurrence and final release by CDPH of the Building 752 interior (non-CERCLA) for unrestricted use, deed restrictions prevent exposure, limit site uses and maintain site access for inspections.
Question C: Has any other information come to light that could call into question the protectiveness of the remedy? No. No additional information has come to light that could call into question the protectiveness of the remedy for Building 752.
4.10.6 Issues Concerning the Remedy No issues that affect the protectiveness of the remedy were identified for Building 752.
4.10.7 Recommendations and Follow-up Actions There are no recommendations or follow-up actions identified for the Building 752 remedy.
WP/27-Sep-10/058-10 Page 100 Former Norton AFB THIRD FIVE-YEAR REVIEW Section 5.0
5.0 PROTECTIVENESS STATEMENT
5.1 CBA OU The remedy outlined in the CBA OU ROD (U.S. Air Force, 1993a) will be protective of human health and the environment and, in the interim, exposure pathways that could result in unacceptable risks are being controlled. The protectiveness of the remedy for the GW component assessed in this third Five-Year Review of the CBA OU ROD is summarized below.
5.1.1 Component 1 - Groundwater The CBA GW remedy outlined in the CBA OU ROD will be protective of human health and the environment and, in the interim, exposure pathways that could result in unacceptable risks are being controlled.
The purpose of the CBA GW selected remedy was to prevent exposure to GW containing VOCs exceeding MCLs for drinking water and to protect GW resources. Exposure to GW is prevented through monitoring, GW treatment, and deed restrictions. Groundwater resources have been protected by removal of VOCs from the GW to levels protective of human health and the environment. The ROD also provided for monitoring and protection of off-base water supply wells where contaminant levels exceeded the MCLs.
The RAs implemented and modified during the operations and maintenance period are protective of human health and the environment. All work was done in conformance with the requirements set forth in the ROD (U.S. Air Force, 1993a) and documented in the CBA OU Summary of Remedial Actions (U.S. Air Force, 1996f). Two PAT systems were installed to remove TCE from the GW. The two systems treated 6.9 billion gallons of GW and removed 467 pounds of TCE. After BCT approval, the BB and CBA systems were turned off in November 2001 and May 2002, respectively. The most recent data from the monitoring program (for 4th Quarter 2009) shows no TCE-contaminated GW detected above MCL (5.0 ug/L) in the CBA OU. All other VOCs, including cis-1,2-DCE, were also below their MCLs in all CBA OU monitoring wells. Groundwater monitoring will continue under the GWMP to evaluate the long- term effectiveness of the CBA OU remedy. There are no issues or recommendations requiring additional action for CBA GW.
5.2 Basewide OU The remedies outlined in the BW OU ROD (Earth Tech, 2005a) will be protective of human health and the environment and, in the interim, exposure pathways that could result in unacceptable risks are being controlled. The protectiveness of the remedies for sites assessed in this first Five-Year Review of the BW OU ROD is summarized below.
5.2.1 IRP Site 2 The IRP Site 2 remedy outlined in the BW OU ROD is protective of human health and the environment.
WP/27-Sep-10/058-10 Page 101 Former Norton AFB THIRD FIVE-YEAR REVIEW Section 5.0
The selected remedy for IRP Site 2 is ICs through land use restrictions, coupled with long term OM&M of the landfill containment systems in compliance with state landfill closure regulations. Deed restrictions consistent with the selected remedy were included in the deed when the property was transferred from the Air Force to the SBIAA in 2007. In 2009, modifications to change the vegetative cover to an asphaltic cover were instituted pursuant to a post-ROD Technical Memorandum (Geologic, 2009) and revised CPCMP (Geologic, 2007). Vegetation was removed from 20 acres of the landfill deck, the deck was scarified, and after an addition of six inches of crushed aggregate, asphaltic concrete paving was placed over the cover. The asphalt paved cover will be used for parking and storage. Landfill maintenance and monitoring of the asphalt-covered IRP Site 2 landfill will continue in accordance with the revised CPCMP and OM&M Plan. There are no issues or recommendations requiring additional action at IRP Site 2.
5.2.2 IRP Site 5 The IRP Site 5 remedy outlined in the BW OU ROD is protective of human health and the environment.
The remedy selected at IRP Site 5 is ICs to restrict land use and maintain access to the site for inspections. The human health risk assessment for IRP Site 5 concluded that the child estimated blood lead level exceeded levels allowed for unrestricted use. The ICs for IRP Site 5 are in place as land use covenants specified in the transfer deed to prohibit residential and other sensitive uses and to prohibit activities that would disrupt site access for investigations, actions, or inspections. The property is currently zoned industrial/commercial by the City of San Bernardino.
IRP Site 5 will remain accessible by the Air Force, Air Force contractors, and regulators for periodic inspections to verify land use. There are no issues or recommendations requiring additional action at IRP Site 5.
5.2.3 Small Arms Range (SAR) The SAR remedy outlined in the BW OU ROD is protective of human health and the environment.
The remedy selected at the SAR is ICs to restrict land use and maintain access to the site for inspections. The human health risk assessment for the SAR concluded that the child estimated blood lead level exceeded levels allowed for unrestricted use. The ICs for the SAR are in place as land use covenants specified in the transfer deed to prohibit residential and other sensitive uses and to prohibit activities that would disrupt site access for investigations, actions, or inspections. The property is currently zoned industrial/commercial by the City of San Bernardino.
The SAR will remain accessible by the Air Force, Air Force contractors, and regulators for periodic inspections to verify land use. There are no issues or recommendations requiring additional action at the SAR.
WP/27-Sep-10/058-10 Page 102 Former Norton AFB THIRD FIVE-YEAR REVIEW Section 5.0
5.2.4 IRP Site 7 The IRP Site 7 remedy outlined in the BW OU ROD is protective of human health and the environment.
The BW OU ROD selected remedy for IRP Site 7 was excavation and off-site disposal. Physical removal and disposal of the concrete walled sludge drying beds and surface soils contaminated with PCBs, PAHs, and metals was completed in 2004. The remedy provides for long-term effectiveness and protection of human health and environment through the removal of surface contamination. The action resulted in an NFA determination and CERCLA closure. Final site closure for IRP Site 7 is dependent on RCRA corrective action termination associated with the IWTP interim status facility. Deed restrictions that prevent exposure, restrict site uses and maintain site access for inspections and monitoring will remain implemented until termination of corrective action for the RCRA interim status facility (former IWTP) is obtained. There are no issues or recommendations requiring additional action at IRP Site 7.
5.2.5 IRP Site 17 The IRP Site 17 remedy outlined in the BW OU ROD will be protective of human health and the environment and, in the interim, exposure pathways that could result in unacceptable risks are being controlled.
The BW OU ROD selected remedy for IRP Site 17 was excavation and off-site disposal. Demolition and removal of the two concrete sumps at IRP Site 17 took place from December 15, 2003 to December 24, 2003. The Air Force implemented an additional excavation action in May 2006 to remove contaminated soil detected under the sumps. Approximately 490 tons of soil was excavated and confirmation soil samples were taken to verify removal of the contamination. The Air Force is planning a soil and soil vapor investigation for 2010 to fill data gaps in the post-excavation site characterization. After completion of the investigation, the IRP Site 17 risk characterization will be updated and, as appropriate, a revised Closure Certification Report will be submitted for final closure. Deed restrictions that prevent exposure, restrict site uses, and maintain site access for inspections and monitoring will remain in place until CERCLA site closure and termination of corrective action for the RCRA interim status facility (former IWTP) is obtained.
5.2.6 IRP Site 19 The IRP Site 19 remedy outlined in the BW OU ROD is protective of human health and the environment.
The remedy selected for IRP Site 19 is ICs to restrict land use and maintain access to the site for inspections. Soil containing PCBs is currently beneath 20 inches to 24 inches of concrete installed as part of the flightline taxiway in 1966. The human health risk assessment for IRP Site 19 concluded that although the cancer risk and adult non-cancer HI were acceptable, the child non-cancer risk exceeded levels allowed for unrestricted use. The ICs for IRP Site 19 are in place as land use covenants specified in the transfer deed, to prohibit residential and other sensitive uses and to prohibit activities that would
WP/27-Sep-10/058-10 Page 103 Former Norton AFB THIRD FIVE-YEAR REVIEW Section 5.0 disrupt site access for investigations, actions, or inspections. Reuse of the property for residential purposes is not possible due to the proximity to the airfield and FAA restrictions. The property is currently zoned industrial/commercial by the City of San Bernardino.
IRP Site 19 will remain accessible by the Air Force, Air Force contractors, and regulators for periodic inspections to verify land use. There are no issues or recommendations requiring additional action at IRP Site 19.
5.2.7 AOC 4 - Building 301 The AOC 4 remedy outlined in the BW OU ROD is protective of human health and the environment.
The remedy selected at AOC 4 is NFA on the basis that ICs to restrict land use and maintain access to the site for inspections were already in place at the time of the BW OU ROD. The human health risk assessment for AOC 4 concluded that the child estimated blood lead level exceeded levels allowed for unrestricted use. The ICs for AOC 4 are in place as land use covenants specified in the transfer deed to prohibit residential and other sensitive uses and to prohibit activities that would disrupt site access for investigations, actions, or inspections. In addition, reuse of the property for residential purposes is not possible due to the proximity to the airfield and FAA restrictions. The property is currently zoned industrial/commercial by the City of San Bernardino.
AOC4 will remain accessible by the Air Force, Air Force contractors, and regulators for periodic inspections to verify land use. There are no issues or recommendations requiring additional action at AOC 4.
5.2.8 AOC 33 - Building 747 The AOC 33 remedy outlined in the BW OU ROD will be protective of human health and the environment and, in the interim, exposure pathways that could result in unacceptable risks are being controlled.
The BW OU ROD selected remedy for AOC 33 was excavation and off-site disposal. The AOC 33 sump and surrounding soil were removed in the fall of 2003. Confirmation sampling revealed contaminants of potential concern. Additional investigations to further address site characterization were conducted in 2004, 2007, and 2009. The 2009 soil gas sample results from under the Building 747 slab significantly exceeded risk based soil gas screening levels (RBSLs) for the industrial scenario for 1,4-DCB, 1,2-DCA, and VC. In late 2009, the Air Force implemented an excavation action to remove the former tank pits and piping, including associated contaminated soil from beneath and adjacent to the Building 747 slab. Soil confirmation sample results established that the action had sufficiently achieved residential PRG levels and the excavation was backfilled. A post excavation soil vapor sampling event is planned for 2010 after which the risk assessment will be updated and, as appropriate, a revised Closure Certification Report will be submitted for final closure. Deed restrictions that prevent exposure, restrict site uses, and maintain site access for inspections and monitoring will remain implemented until CERCLA site closure and termination of corrective action termination for the RCRA interim status facility (former IWTP) is obtained.
WP/27-Sep-10/058-10 Page 104 Former Norton AFB THIRD FIVE-YEAR REVIEW Section 5.0
5.2.9 Building 752 - Exterior Radium Spill The Building 752 remedy outlined in the BW OU ROD is protective of human health and the environment.
The BW OU ROD selected remedy for Building 752 was excavation and off-site disposal. Approximately 145 cubic yards of contaminated soil was excavated at the Building 752 Exterior Radium Spill area for off- site disposal. The remedy is protective of human health and the environment through permanent removal of contaminated soil above unrestricted use levels. EPA and DTSC, with CDPH concurrence, have approved closure of the Building 752 Exterior Radium Spill and have released the building exterior for unrestricted use. CDPH has not provided concurrence for unrestricted release of the building interior (non-CERCLA). The Air Force has concluded that appropriate and sufficient responses have been provided to CDPH comments regarding unrestricted use of the Building 752 interior. Based on the available information demonstrating that the net dose and risk from residual radioactivity at Building 752 are within acceptable limits, no additional action on the part of the Air Force is planned.
The Building 752 land is zoned for industrial/commercial use and deed restrictions are in place to prevent exposure and limit site uses. Deed restrictions will continue to be implemented for this property (as part of Parcel A-IWL) until the interior of Building 752 is released by CDPH for unrestricted use. There are no issues or recommendations requiring additional action at Building 752.
WP/27-Sep-10/058-10 Page 105 Former Norton AFB THIRD FIVE-YEAR REVIEW Section 5.0
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
WP/27-Sep-10/058-10 Page 106 Former Norton AFB THIRD FIVE-YEAR REVIEW Section 6.0
6.0 NEXT FIVE-YEAR REVIEW
The final remedies for the BW OU ROD leave contamination in place at levels that exceed unlimited use and unrestricted exposure (IRP Site 2, IRP Site 5, IRP Site 19, AOC 4, and the SAR). Therefore, subsequent five-year reviews will be necessary as required by CERCLA. The next five-year review will be due by September 2015.
WP/27-Sep-10/058-10 Page 107 Former Norton AFB THIRD FIVE-YEAR REVIEW Section 6.0
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
WP/27-Sep-10/058-10 Page 108 Former Norton AFB THIRD FIVE-YEAR REVIEW Section 7.0
7.0 REFERENCES
Numbers in brackets provide identification used in the Norton AFB IRP Administrative Record. The Administrative Record can be accessed at https://afrpaar.lackland.af.mil/ar/docsearch.aspx.
AECOM Technical Services, Inc., 2008. 10th Annual Report of Operations, Monitoring, and Maintenance for Installation Restoration Program Site 2 Former Landfill Closure Former Norton Air Force Base, California, April. _____ 2009a. Seventeenth Annual (August 2008-July 2009) Groundwater Data Trends Report, Basewide Groundwater Monitoring and Water Supply Contingency Policy, Volume 1. October. _____ 2009b. Informal Technical Information Report, April-June 2009, Landfill Gas Monitoring Data (April). Bechtel Environmental, 1996. Closure Report, Former Underground Storage Tank Site at Building 647, IRP Site 6, Norton Air Force Base, California. [1804] _____ 1997a. Project Summary Report Underground Storage Tank Removal Program, Norton Air Force Base. [2323] _____ 1997b. Final Closure Report, IRP Site 8, Areas of Concern 3, 23, 37, 38, and the Heating Oil Line. [2252] _____ 1998. Final Closure Report for AOC 70 and Ecological Risk Reduction at IRP Site 10. December. [2773] California Department of Toxic Substances Control, 2002. Partial Closure Certification Acceptance for Hazardous Waste Management Units at the Air Combat Camera Services Unit, Former Norton Air Force Base, EPA ID No. CA4570024345. [3897] _____ 2004. Letter from Jose Kou, Partial Clean Closure Certification Acknowledgement for Area of Concern 70 and Ecological Risk Reduction at IRP Site 10, EPA ID No. CA4570024345. December. [4064] California Department of Water Resources, 1991. California Well Standards, Bulletin 74-90. CDM Federal Programs Corporation, 1991. Final Field Sampling Plan for the Comprehensive Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study, 2 volumes, prepared for Martin Marietta Energy Systems (HAZWRAP). March. [496-497] _____ 1992. Remedial Investigation Report, Central Base Area Operable Unit. [977-978] _____ 1993a. Norton AFB Final Remedial Investigation Report, Installation Restoration Program Sites Operable Unit (15 Sites), prepared for Martin Marietta Energy Systems (HAZWRAP). March. _____ 1993b. Groundwater Data Trends Report for Norton Air Force Base, prepared for Martin Marietta Energy Systems (HAZWRAP). September. [708] _____ 1993c. Final Norton Air Force Base Remedial Investigation Report, Installation Restoration Program Sites Operable Unit (15 Sites). [1121] _____ 1993d. Central Base Area Operable Unit Feasibility Study. February. [2806] _____ 1994a. Groundwater Monitoring Plan for Norton Air Force Base, San Bernardino, California, prepared for Martin Marietta Energy Systems (HAZWRAP). February. [1256] _____ 1994b. Draft Technical Memorandum, Groundwater Sampling Procedures, Comprehensive Groundwater Monitoring Program for Norton Air Force Base, San Bernardino, CA, prepared for Martin Marietta Energy Systems (HAZWRAP). August. [1194] _____ 1994c. Final IRP Sites 2 and 10 Landfill Investigation Data Report, Addendum No. 2 to the IRP Sites Operable Unit (15 Sites) Remedial Investigation Report. [1192]
WP/27-Sep-10/058-10 Page 109 Former Norton AFB THIRD FIVE-YEAR REVIEW Section 7.0
_____ 1994d. Final Remedial Investigation Report Addendum No. 1 Installation Restoration Program Sites Operable Unit. [1193] _____ 1995a. Second Annual Groundwater Data Trends Report for Norton Air Force Base, San Bernardino, CA, prepared for Martin Marietta Energy Systems (HAZWRAP). March. [1832-1834] _____ 1995b. Final Soil Vapor Extraction Treatability Study Test Report, Central Base Area Operable Unit. March. [1504] _____ 1995c. Norton AFB Proposed Well Abandonment and Repair Plan, San Bernardino, CA, prepared for Martin Marietta Energy Systems (HAZWRAP). April. [1505] _____ 1995d. Final Technical Memorandum, Basewide Confirmation Study Results/Expanded Source Investigation Work Plan for Norton Air Force Base, San Bernardino, California. [1251] _____ 1996a. Final Technical Memorandum, Results of the Confirmation Study Addendum No. 1/Expanded Source Investigation Addendum No. 1 Work Plan for Norton Air Force Base, San Bernardino, California. [1635] _____ 1996b. Final Technical Memorandum Results of the Confirmation Study Addendum Number 2. [1919] _____ 1996c. Final Technical Memorandum, Expanded Source Investigation Results, Norton Air Force Base, San Bernardino, California. [1814] _____ 1996d. Final Technical Memorandum, Expanded Source Investigation Addendum Number 1, Norton Air Force Base, San Bernardino, California. [1974] _____ 1996e. Third Annual Groundwater Data Trends Report and Long-Term Groundwater Monitoring Plan for Norton Air Force Base, San Bernardino, CA, prepared for Lockheed Martin Energy Systems (HAZWRAP). February. [1747] _____ 1996f. Addendum No. 1 to Final Technical Memorandum, Norton AFB Proposed Well Abandonment and Repair Plan, Norton Air Force Base, San Bernardino, CA, prepared for Lockheed Martin Energy Systems (HAZWRAP). February. [1630] _____ 1996g. Addendum No. 2 to the Final Technical Memorandum, Norton AFB Proposed Well Abandonment and Repair Plan, Norton Air Force Base, San Bernardino, CA, prepared for Lockheed Martin Energy Systems (HAZWRAP). November. _____ 1996h. Final Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis, Parcel I-3, Norton Air Force Base, San Bernardino, California. [2803] _____ 1996i. Summary Report for Installation of MW298 and Sampling of Wells Monitoring the Air Combat Camera Services Unit. [1948] _____ 1996j. Decision Document to Support NFRAP at Sites 3 and 4. [1879] _____ 1996k. Work Plan and Field Sampling and Analysis Plan for Installation of MW298 and Groundwater Sampling of Wells Monitoring ACCS. [1667] _____ 1996l. Final Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis, IRP Site 2, Norton Air Force Base, San Bernardino, California. [2803] _____ 1996m. Draft Technical Memorandum, Data Summary Supporting Document for IRP Site 17 and IWTP Area Perched Zone Groundwater engineering Evaluation/Cost analysis. [1938] _____ 1997a. Fourth Annual Groundwater Data Trends Report and Long-Term Groundwater Monitoring Plan for Norton Air Force Base, prepared for Lockheed Martin Energy Systems (HAZWRAP). February. [2159, 2160] _____ 1997b. Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis, IRP Site 17 Perched Zone Groundwater for Norton Air Force Base, San Bernardino, California, prepared for Lockheed Martin Energy Systems (HAZWRAP). [2805]
WP/27-Sep-10/058-10 Page 110 Former Norton AFB THIRD FIVE-YEAR REVIEW Section 7.0
_____ 1997c. Technical Memorandum, Groundwater Sampling Data Results and Four Quarters Data Trends Report for the Monitoring Wells ACCS Unit. [2352] _____ 1997d. Action Memorandum, AOC 44/IRP Site 10/IRP Site 12. July. [2304] _____ 1997e. Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis Areas of Concern 4, 18, 33, 39, 40, and 70, Norton Air Force Base, San Bernardino, California. [2299] _____ 1998a. Fifth Annual Groundwater Data Trends Report and Long-Term Groundwater Monitoring Plan for Norton Air Force Base, prepared for Lockheed Martin Energy Systems (HAZWRAP). February. [2532] _____ 1998b. Addendum No. 3 to the Well Abandonment and Repair Plan for Wells Identified under the Fifth Annual Data Trends Report and Long-Term Groundwater Monitoring Plan for Norton Air Force Base, San Bernardino, CA, prepared for Lockheed Martin Energy Systems (HAZWRAP). August. [2818] _____ 1998c. Final Work Plan and Field Sampling Plan for Installation of Two Monitoring Wells downgradient of Installation Restoration Program Site 17. [2594] _____ 1999a. Sixth Annual Groundwater Data Trends Report and Long-Term Groundwater Monitoring Plan for Norton Air Force Base, San Bernardino, California, prepared for Lockheed Martin Energy Systems (HAZWRAP). March. [2816] _____ 1999b. Seventh Annual Groundwater Data Trends Report and Long-Term Groundwater Monitoring Plan for Norton Air Force Base, San Bernardino, California, prepared for Lockheed Martin Energy Systems (HAZWRAP). October. [2927, 3019] _____ 1999c. Technical Memorandum, July 1999 Groundwater Sampling Data Results Summary Report, Comprehensive Groundwater Monitoring Program, Norton Air Force Base, San Bernardino, CA, prepared for Lockheed Martin Energy Systems (HAZWRAP). November. [2997, 3041] _____ 1999d. Final Former Norton Air Force Base Central Base Area Operable Unit Five-Year CERCLA Review. October. [3027] _____ 1999e. Technical Memorandum, October 1998 Groundwater Sampling Results Summary Report, Comprehensive Groundwater Monitoring Program, Norton AFB. [2781, 2867] _____ 2000a. Addendum No. 4 to the Well Abandonment and Repair Plan for Wells Identified under the Sixth Annual Data Trends Report and Long-Term Groundwater Monitoring Plan for Norton Air Force Base, San Bernardino, CA, prepared for Lockheed Martin Energy Systems (HAZWRAP). February. _____ 2000b. Draft Eighth Annual Groundwater Data Trends Report and Long-Term Groundwater Monitoring Plan for Norton Air Force Base, San Bernardino, California. June. [3160] _____ 2000c. Technical Memorandum, Additional Soil Characterization, IRP Site 10, August. [3199] _____ 2000d. IRP Sites 10 and 12, Additional Soil Characterization in Support of the Basewide Feasibility Study, November. [3207] _____ 2003. Basewide Feasibility Study. June. [3911] CDM and Allied Technology Group, 1996. Final Work Plan for Explosive Ordnance Training Area Clearance, Area of Concern 73, Norton Air Force Base, San Bernardino, California. [2070] _____ 1997. Explosive Ordnance Disposal Proficiency Training Range (Area of Concern 73) Clearance Report, Norton Air Force Base, San Bernardino, California. [2353] CH2MHill, 2009. Final Seventeenth Annual (August 2008-July 2009) Groundwater Data Trends Report, Basewide Groundwater Monitoring and Water Supply Contingency Policy, Volume 2. December. _____ 2010. Basewide Groundwater Monitoring Report. 2009 Annual Report, March.
WP/27-Sep-10/058-10 Page 111 Former Norton AFB THIRD FIVE-YEAR REVIEW Section 7.0
Chem-Nuclear Systems, Inc., 1992. Final Project Report, Draft for the Investigation of the Norton Air Force Base Installation Restoration Program Site 20, January. [688] Dutcher, L.C., and A.A. Garrett, 1963. Geologic and Hydrologic Features of the San Bernardino Area, California, U.S. Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 1419, 109 p. Earth Tech, 1993. Treatability Test and Plan, Soil Remediation, IRP Site 5. [1293] ______1995b. Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis IRP Site 5, Norton Air Force Base, San Bernardino, California. [1584] _____ 1996. Final Closure Report, Building 658 and IRP Site 9 TCE Source Area Remediation Central Base Area Operable Unit, April 26. [AR1817] _____ 1997a. Soil Vapor Extraction Closure Report – Building 673 and 763, TCE Source Area Remedial Action, Central Base Area Operable Unit, Norton AFB, October. [2394] _____ 1997b. Work Plan for Remediation of Lead-Contaminated Soil, Small Arms Range Norton Air Force Base, San Bernardino, California. [2191] _____ 1999. Final Installation Restoration Program (IRP) Closure Report, IRP Site 5 and Small Arms Range, Norton AFB. [2929, 2865] _____ 2001a. Technical Memo October 2000, Groundwater Sampling Data Results Summary Report, Comprehensive Groundwater Monitoring Program. [3183] _____ 2001b. Final Sampling and Analysis Plan, prepared for Basewide Groundwater Monitoring Program and Water Supply Contingency Policy Groundwater Sampling Program, Norton Air Force Base. October. [3661] _____ 2001c. Norton Air Force Base Rule 1550.1 Alternative Compliance Plan, IRP Site 2 Former Landfill Closure. August. [3650] _____ 2003a. Action Memorandum, Sites 10 and 12. November. [3970] _____ 2003b. Final RCRA Closure Plan Addendum, Sampling and Analysis Plan, Former Industrial Waste Treatment Plant Area, Former Norton Air Force Base, California. [3969] _____ 2004a. Installation Restoration Program Closure Report, IRP Site 12, prepared for Air Force Real Property Agency, October. [4047] _____ 2004b. Installation Restoration Program Draft-Final Closure Report, AOC 40, Former Golf Course Maintenance Area, prepared for Air Force Real Property Agency, December. [4063] _____ 2005a. Basewide Record of Decision, Former Norton Air Force Base, California. September. [4221] _____ 2005b. Letter Report, Request for Closure Central Base Area and Base Boundary Pump Treat Systems. April. [4148] _____ 2005e. Final Second CBA OU Five-Year Review Report for Former Norton Air Force Base San Bernardino County, California. December. [4235] _____ 2005f. Final Revised Closure Certification Report for Site 7, Former Sludge Drying Beds, Former Norton Air Force Base, San Bernardino, California. December. [4237] _____ 2006a. Final Closure Report for IRP Site 10 Former Landfill, Former Norton Air Force Base, San Bernardino, California. February. [4257] _____ 2006b. Revised Final Report Central Base Area (CBA) and Base Boundary (BB) Pump and Treat Decommission, Former Norton Air Force Base, San Bernardino, California. December. [4375] _____ 2006c. Final Closure Certification Report for IRP Site 17, Drummed Waste Storage Area/Waste Fuel and Solvent Sumps, Former Industrial Waste Treatment Plant Area, Former Norton Air Force Base, San Bernardino, California. [4295]
WP/27-Sep-10/058-10 Page 112 Former Norton AFB THIRD FIVE-YEAR REVIEW Section 7.0
_____ 2007a. Draft Fourteenth Annual Groundwater Data Trends Report, Basewide Groundwater Monitoring and Water Supply Contingency Policy, Former Norton Air Force Base, San Bernardino, California. August. [4401] _____ 2007b. Work Plan, Soil Gas Sampling, AOC 33, Former Norton Air Force Base, San Bernardino, California. January. [4395] _____ 2009a. Final Closure Certification Report for AOC 33, Waste Solvent Sump, Former Norton Air Force Base, San Bernardino, California. January. [4438] _____ 2009b. Revised Final Closure Certification Report for IRP Site 17, Drummed Waste Storage Area/Waste Fuel and Solvent Sumps, Former Industrial Waste Treatment Plant Area, Former Norton Air Force Base, San Bernardino, California. March. [4457] _____ 2009c. Final Abbreviated Work Plan, CERCLA Five-Year Review, CBA and BW OU RODs, Former Norton Air Force Base, California. December. _____ 2009d. Technical Memorandum Report of Monitoring Wells Decommissioned During October 2008, Former Norton Air Force Base, California. March. Ecology and Environment, Inc., 1987. Installation Restoration Program, Phase II – Confirmation/Quantification, Stage 2. Final Report, May 1986-September 1987. [84-89] _____ 1989. Installation Restoration Program, Stage 3, Final Report, September 1987-December 1988, Norton Air Force Base, California. [253-259] GEC Environmental Consultants, Inc., 1993a. RCRA Closure Plan for the Industrial Waste Treatment Plant at Norton Air Force Base, San Bernardino, California. [4002] _____ 1993b. RCRA Closure Plan for the Defense Reutilization and Marketing Office at Norton Air Force Base. [3943] Geo-Logic Associates, Inc., 2007. Closure Plan/Post-Closure Maintenance Plan Addendum, IRP Site Landfill, Former Norton Air Force Base, San Bernardino, California. October. [4402] _____ 2009. Technical Memorandum Change of Vegetative Cover to Asphaltic Concrete Cover, IRP Site 2 Landfill, Former Norton Air Force Base, San Bernardino, California. Revised. January. Hardt, W., and C. Hutchenson, 1980. Development and Use of a Mathematical Model of the San Bernardino Valley Ground-Water Basin, California, U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 80-576, p. 1-10. IT Corporation, 1994. Site 20 Bunker Investigation Work Plan [1218] _____ 1996. Final Basewide Soil Characterization Report, Basewide Radionuclide Characterization, Norton Air Force Base, California. [1878] _____ 1998. Final IRP Site 2 Landfill Closure and Postclosure Plan, Norton Air Force Base, California, prepared for U.S. Air Force Base Conversion Agency. January. [2326] _____ 1999a. Final Basewide Soil and Radionuclide Characterization Report, Building 752 Pipeline Removal Project, Norton AFB, California (draft). [3007] _____ 1999b. Final Operating, Monitoring, and Maintenance Plan for IPR Site 2 Landfill Closure Former Norton AFB. [2798, 2938, 3040] McLaren-Hart, 1991a. Project Work Plan Contaminated Soil Excavation and On-Site Vapor Extraction Treatment [474] _____ 1991b. Results of Soil Disposal Characterization and Evaluation of Treatment and/or Disposal Options. [557] _____ 1992. Soil Treatment Cell Post Decommissioning Sampling Results. [727] Mendenhall, 1905. The Hydrology of San Bernardino Valley, California, Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 142, p. 1-14.
WP/27-Sep-10/058-10 Page 113 Former Norton AFB THIRD FIVE-YEAR REVIEW Section 7.0
Morrison Knudsen Corporation, 1996a. RCRA Closure Plan Phase II for Norton Air Force Base Air Combat Services Unit. [2272] _____ 1996b. Norton Operating Location Air Combat Camera Services Closure Certification Report. [1959-1960] Ogden Environmental and Energy Services Company, Inc., 1996a. Final Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis, Sites 13, 14, and 22, Norton Air Force Base, San Bernardino, California, March. [1640] _____ 1996b. IRP Site 13 Bench-Scale Test Plan and Bench-Scale Test Sampling and Analysis Plan. [1914] _____ 1997. Final Closure Report, IRP Sites 13 and 14, Norton Air Force Base, California, Former Industrial Waste Treatment Plant Sludge Disposal Area and Waste Pit Number 4, July. [2310-2315] Ruffner, J.A., 1985. Climates of the States: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Narrative Summaries, Tables, and Maps for Each State. Gale Research Company: Detroit, MI. Southern California Association of Governments, 2004. 2001 San Bernardino and Highland Land Use Maps. Techlaw Inc., 2006. Preliminary Close-Out Report (PCOR) For the Former Norton Air Force Base, San Bernardino, California. [4272] Tetra Tech, Inc., 1994. Site Assessment Work Plan for RCRA Closure of the Industrial Waste Treatment Plant (IWTP), Norton Air Force Base, San Bernardino, California. [1489] _____ 1996. Draft Final Site Assessment Report for RCRA Closure of the Industrial Waste Treatment Plant, Norton Air Force Base, San Bernardino, California. [1646-1649] The Integrated Regional Water Management Plan. Downloaded from the San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District website at: http://www.sbvmwd.com/integrated_regional_groundwater_management_plan/ The Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the Santa Ana River Basin (The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB or State Board) - January 24, 1995 Updated February 2008). U.S. Air Force, 1993a. Central Base Area Operable Unit Record of Decision. [1039, 2845] _____ 1993b. Water Supply Contingency Policy. _____ 1996a. RCRA Closure of the Defense Reutilization and Marketing Office, Norton Air Force Base Hazardous Material/Waste Storage Facility. [1882] _____ 1996b. Action Memorandum, Sites 13, 14, and 22, Norton Air Force Base, San Bernardino, California. [1666] _____ 1996c. Final Action Memorandum for Parcel I-3, Norton Air Force Base. [1778] _____ 1996d. Final Decision Document to Support No Further Response Action Planned at IRP Sites 7, 11, 15, and 18. [1774] _____ 1996e. Final Action Memorandum, Norton Air Force Base IRP Site 2. [1785] _____ 1996f. Central Base Operable Unit, Summary of Remedial Actions. [1789] _____ 1997a. Action Memorandum Areas of Concern 4, 18, 33, 39, 40, and 70, Norton Air Force Base, San Bernardino, California. [2298] _____ 1997b. Interim Record of Decision, OU 3, IRP Site 19, Waste Drum Storage Area No. 1. USAF-HQ, U.S. Air Force Base Conversion Agency, Norton AFB. July. [2301] _____ 1997c. Action Memorandum, IRP Site 5 Norton Air Force Base, San Bernardino, California. [2186]
WP/27-Sep-10/058-10 Page 114 Former Norton AFB THIRD FIVE-YEAR REVIEW Section 7.0
_____ 1997d. Action Memorandum, Installation Restoration Program Site 17, Perched Zone Groundwater. [2324] _____ 1999. Final Former Norton Air Force Base Central Base Area Operable Unit Five-Year CERCLA Review. [3027] _____ 2000. Minutes of the BRAC Cleanup Team Meeting, April 18, 2000. May 11. _____ 2001. Consultative Letter, IERA-SD-BR-CL-2001. Characterization of Survey of Soil Behind Building 752, Former Norton AFB, CA, Seven E. Rademacher, Chief, Radiation Surveillance Division, USAF. _____ 2006. Unrestricted Release of Building 752, Former Norton Air Force Base, San Bernardino, California. June. [4283] _____ 2008. Response to California Department of Public Health Comments and Request for Release for Unrestricted Use of Building 752 and Surrounding Property at the Former Norton Air Force Base. August. [4414] _____ 2009a. Response to California Department of Public Health Comments and Request for Release for Unrestricted Use of Building 752 and Surrounding Property at the Former Norton Air Force Base. March. [4444] _____ 2009b. Termination of Air Force Sampling of Production Wells Included in the Water Supply Contingency Policy. August. U.S. Census Bureau, 2008. http://www.census.gov/popest/cities/tables/SUB-EST2007-04-06.xls. July. U.S. Department of Energy, 1996. Requirements for Quality Control of Analytical Data (DOE/HWP- 65/R2), prepared by the HAZWRAP Environmental Management and Enrichment Facilities and the Oak Ridge K-25 Site Customer Services Division. September. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1993a. Guide to Conducting Non-Time Critical Removal Actions Under CERCLA, EPA 540-R-93-057. August. _____ 1993b. Presumptive Remedy for CERCLA Municipal Landfill Sites, EPA 540-F-93-035. September. _____ 2001. Comprehensive Five-Year Review Guidance. June. _____ 2010. Regional Screening Levels (Formerly PRGs). http://www..epa.gov/region9/superfund/prg/. May. Weston Solutions, Inc., 2006. Final Status Survey Report, Building 752, Norton Air Force Base, San Bernardino, California. August. [4334] Woodruff, G.A., 1980. Soil Survey of San Bernardino County Southwestern Part, California. United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service in Cooperation with University of California Agricultural Experiment Station, GPO: Washington, DC.
WP/27-Sep-10/058-10 Page 115 Former Norton AFB THIRD FIVE-YEAR REVIEW Section 7.0
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
WP/27-Sep-10/058-10 Page 116 APPENDIX A
SITE INSPECTION
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Former Norton AFB INSPECTION SIGN-IN Central Base Area au and Basewide au 2S-January-2010
Name Affiliation Contact Information (pbone and/or e-mail)
909 ~- J',/-SO 3 3 1 DA tv' l,s L PA cA-(.IOS AGC.o,.vt d41t;" {. PAl. ""[email protected]..
~ (CfOCf) ,.:Ll 3 -ocr" I 2- ~} t /c:> rt V 'firlt; LS A J4 ( LO rv\ (tt/j°7 ) SSL-( .- SC>I 3 ( I 3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
2010 Five-Year Review THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Former Norton AFB : rc E= P l v Yn e.. INSPECTION CHECKLIST Central Base Area au
I. SITE INFORMATION
Site name: TC £ GW Pl-clJV1& Date of inspection: 1/2~-//O • • t='OR.1'1 SA. /'I()RTIJN ,4'::B LocatIOn and Region: C BA oU Re.t4 I ,,~ ~ EPA ID: CA4570024345 ... Agency, office, or company leading the five-year Weather/temperature: L I 0-/'1 r WI PDS review: AECOM Remedy Includes: (Check all that apply) [ ] Landfill cover/containment [ ] Monitored natural attenuation [ ] Access controls [ ] Groundwater containment rxr Institutional controls [ ] Vertical barrier walls [ ] Surface water collection and treatment [ ] Groundwater pump and treatment [)(J Other G-V'oeJ'" J. w{/! t-e i"" J'.If 00'" :1-011"'1;'" ~
Attachments: [,c] Inspection team roster attached [ ] Site map attached
2010 Five-Year Review Page 1 Former Norton AFB : rc Ii! Piu W1 e... INSPECTION CHECKLIST Central Base Area au
.. 'C,::": " :, " , : II. INTERVIEWS (Check all that apply)
1. O&M site manager AI/A Name Title Date Interviewed [ ] at site [ ] at office [ ] by phone. Phone no: Problems, suggestions; Report attached
2. O&M staff AIL~ Name Title Date Interviewed [ ] at site [ ] at office [ ] by phone. Phone no: Problems, suggestions; _ Report attached
3. Local regulatory authorities and response agencies (Le., State and Tribal offices, emergency response office, police department, office ofpublic health or environmental health, zoning office, recorder of deeds, or other city and county offices, etc.) Fill in all that apply. Agency Air F()V'c.e.. Relf.{ Prot: e.,,;t~A 9 e"...c:1 ISN 1/1(.0 ;i4.'- ~ ~ Contact J"e v v:y B f &1 tJ ha. VV1 PRoG~ ,w1A.N~ I~~9 Name Title Date Phone no. Problems; suggestions: [~ Report attached (I V DA) Agency I,. {f4 rJ VeA..lle'd Deve..iOPV'1f2HrA.,-BHG '1 Contact ;[lliNIeS c;.oc.Jvole1 cCtJj..l ..... ,ANr/iIlOA '/S-/IO Name Title Date Phone no. Problems; suggestions: [q'Report attached
Agency I V DA /S 6l AA P'ftElT'"ut:? 6 F Contact ALex G st'...... et.J A ItGI''- \/(;1.PPIfC.,jI'"VI{) I~B/IO Name Title rt2AAISfl61!.rAn AfJ Date Phone no. Problems; suggestions: [.J" Report attached
4. Other interviews (optional) [ ] Report attached.
2010 Five-Year Review Page 2 Former Norton AFB ~ TC IS P ( '" "" e.. INSPECTION CHECKLIST Central Base Area au
ill. ON-SITE DOCUMENTS & RECORDS VERIFIED (Check all that apply) 1. O&M Documents N'A [ ] O&M manual [ ] Readily available [ ] Up to date ~N/A [ ] As~built drawings [ ] Readily available [ ] Up to date D4N/A [ ] Maintenance logs [ ] Readily available [ ] Up to date ~N/A Remarks
2. Site-Specific Health and Safety Plan [ ] O&M manual [ ] Readily available [ ] Up to date [XI N/A [ ] Emergency response plan [ ] Readily available [ ] Up to date f)d N/A Remarks
3.· O&M and OSHA Training Records [ ] Readily available [ ] Up to date ~N/A Remarks
4. Permits and Service Agreements I [ ] Air discharge perinit [ ] Readily available [ ] Up to date !Xl N/A [ ] Effluent discharge [ ] Readily available [ ] Up to date ~N/A [ ] Waste disposal, POTW [ ] Readily available [ ] Up to date IXfN/A [ ] Other permits [ ] Readily available [ ] Up to date I)dN/A Remarks ,
5. Gas Generation Records [ ] Readily available [ ], Up to date ~N/A Remarks
6. Settlement Monument Records [ ] Readily available [ ] Up to date fX1N/A Remarks
7. Groundwater Monitoring Records [X] Readily available Pt'J Up to date [ ] N/A Remarks I
8. Leachate Extraction Records [ ] Readily available [ ] Up to date ~N/A . Remarks
'9. Discharg~ Compliance Records [ ] Air [ ] Readily available [ ] Up to date IX! N/A [ ] Water (effluent) [ ] Readily available [ ] Up to date 1)(1 N/A Remarks
10. Daily Access/Security Logs [ ] Readily available [ ] Up to date L~N/A Remarks
2010 Five-Year Review Page 3 Former Norton AFB: rCE PLt) tit'1<.. INSPECTION CHECKLIST Central Base Area au
IV. O&M COSTS 1. O&M Organization IV/A [ ] State (in-house) [ ] Contractor (for State) [ ] PRP (in-house) [ ] Contractor (for PRP) [ ] Federal Facility in-house [ ] Contractor (for Federal Facility) [ ] Other
2. O&M Cost Records IJ/A [ ] Readily available [ ] Up to date [ ] Funding mechanism/agreement in place Original O&M cost estimate [ ] Breakdown attached Total annual cost by year for review period if available ) From '0 $ [ ] Breakdown attached Date Date Total cost From '0 $ [ ] Breakdown attached Date Date Total cost From $ [ ] Breakdown attached Date Date Total cost From To $ [ ] Breakdown attached Date Date Total cost From '0 $ [ ] Breakdown attached Date Date Total cost
3. Unanticipated or Unusually High O&M Costs During Review Period Describe costs and reasons: N/A
2010 Five-Year Review Page 4 Former Norton AFB : TeE P Lv1.lt1 e. INSPECTION CHECKLIST Central Base Area OU
V. ACCESS AND INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS !XI Applicable [] N/A
A. Fencing 1. Fenci{lg damaged [ ] Location shown on site map [ ] Gates secured [)a N/A
"D""n'\!:lI...k~
B. Other Access Restrictions 1. Signs and other security measures [ ] Location shown on site map IX! N/A "D""n'\"' ..k~
C. Institutional Controls (lCs) 1. Implementation and enforcement Site conditions imply les not properly implemented [ ] Yes [)(1 No [] N/A Site conditions imply les not being fully enforced [ ] Yes . [)(l No [ ] N/A
Type ofmonitoring (e.g., self-reporting, drive by) 5ej£.. r~H.'Jl?;,rl~6 7 ctfG/lIJ{, fr b-+ Frequency atlAv #v L Responsible party/agency A"_lit t:.~.,/ rC£ Contact .J-t.rl"ln 51:r..1b,,~ N e Title Date Phone no. Reporting is up-to-date [ ] Yes [ ] No j)(1 N/A Reports are verified by the lead agency [ ] Yes [ ] No t;dN/A Specific requirements have been met pqYes [ ] No [] N/A (in deed or decision documents) Violations have been reported [ ] Yes [ ] No DlN/A Other problems or suggestions: [ ] Report attached
2. Adequacy [)(] les are adequate [ ] les are inadequate [ ]N/A Remarks
D. General
1. Vandalism/trespassing [ ] Location shown on site map [~ No vandalism evident Remarks
2. Land use changes on site [:(I N/A Remarks
3. Land use changes off site ~N/A Remarks
2010 Five-Year Review Page 5 Former Norton AFB ~ 're E P l u ...... , eo INSPECTION CHECKLIST Central Base Area au
VI. GENERAL SITE CONDITIONS
A. Roads Dd Applicable [ ] N/A
1. Roads damaged fXl Location shown on site map IX1 Roads adequate [ ]N/A Remark"1
B. Other Site Conditions
Remarks NO o-C:he.V"" c-o lit J., r( OIA.s of ..... ute.
2010 Five-Year Review Page 6 Former Norton AFB : ,e. f P t. CJ £Nt e.. INSPECTION CHECKLIST Central Base Area au
VII. LANDFILL COVERS [ ] Applicablc(l'x. ]'N/Y
A. Landfill Surface B. Benches C. Letdown Channels D. Cover Penetrations E. Gas Collection and Treatment F. Cover Drainage Layer G. Detention/Sedimentation Ponds H. Retaining Walls I. Perimeter Ditches/Off-Site Discharge
VIII. VERTICAL BARRIER WALLS [ ] APPlicable@ ] N0)
l. Settlement [ ] Location shown on site map [ ] Settlement not evident Areal Depth Rp,m::.rh.
2. Performance Monitoring Type III [ ] Performance not monitored ...... 1.',-"'1- 'U-J [ ] Evidence ofbreaching Head differential 0 ...... ,.,.,.1£.,
2010 Five-Year Review Page 7 Former Norton AFB : Ie E P LfJ .,..., e INSPECTION CHECKLIST Central Base Area au
IX. GROUNDWATER/SURFACE WATER REMEDIES [] Applicable [ ]N/A
A. Ground~ater Extraction Wells, Pumps, and Pipelines [ ] Applicable ) [)lN/A 1. Pumps, Wellhead Plumbing, and Electrical [ ] Good condition [] All required wells properly opelat~ [] Needs Maintenance P(T N/A Remarks I VI 2. 0,,(, 4, II C BII (). IIIl 11 ~ PA- f 9'1" t--t2•.At S wft.,V'e. 1/'e V"'l8 "4.J I J e-t! t'rr ,., , s S. I , ..,..,1 I ).. es f (1"'0 j i.IJ
2. Extraction System Pipelines, Valves, Valve Boxes, and Other Appurtenances [ ] Good condition [ ] Needs Maintenance Remarks
3. Spare Parts and Equipment [ ] Good condition [] Readily available [] Requires upgrade [ ] Needs to be provided Remarks
B. Surface Water Collection Structures, Pumps, and Pipelines [] Applicable ~N/A 1. Collection Structures, Pumps, and Electrical [ ] Good condition [] Needs Maintenance Remarks A(L ~ V' te WI.>
2. Surface Water Collection System Pipelines, Valves, Valve Boxes, and Other Appurtenances [ ] Good condition [] Needs Maintenance Remarks
3. Spare Parts and Equipment [ ] Good condition [] Readily available [] Requires upgrade [ ] Needs to be provided Remarks
2010 Five-Year Review Page 8 Former Norton AFB : re IE P l fJ ~ e INSPECTION CHECKLIST Central Base Area au
IX. GROUNDWATERISURF ACE WATER REMEDIES (Continued)
c. Treatment System [ ] Applicable [)(N/A 1. Treatment Train (Check components that apply) [ ] Metals removal [ ] Oil/water separation [ ] Bioremediation [ ] Air stripping [ ] Carbon adsorbers [ .] Filters [ ] Additive (e.g." chelation agent, flocculent) [ ] Others [ ] Good condition [ ] Needs Maintenance [ ] Sampling ports properly marked and functional [ ] Equipment properly identified [ ] Sampling/maintenance log displayed and up to date Quantity treated annually: Groundwater (gallons) Surface water (gallons) Remarks
2. Electrical Enclosures and Panels (properly rated and functional) h 3. Tanks, Vaults, Storage Vessels IXI N/A [ ] Good condition [ ] Needs maintenance [ ] Proper secondary containment Remarks 4. Discharge Structure and Appurtenances [)4'N/A [ ] Good condition [ ] Needs maintenance Remarks 5. Treatment Building(s) I)4"N/A [ ] Good condition (especially roof and doorways) [ ] Needs repair Remarks 6. Monitoring Wells (pump and treat remedy) I)d Properly secured/locked [ ] Functioning [)('J Routinely sampled !Xl Good condition /)q. All required wells located [ ] Needs Maintenance [ ] N/A Remarks 2010 Five~Year Review Page 9 Former Norton AFB ~ ,e E Pi u WI e... INSPECTION CHECKLIST Central Base Area au IX. GROUNDWATER/SURFACE WATER REMEDIES (Continued) D. Monitoring Results 1. Monitoring Data [)4 Is routinely submitted on time L){Is of acceptable quality Remarks 1. Results. Monitoring data suggests: [XI Groundwater plume is effectively contained P<1 Contaminant concentrations are declining Remarks E. Monitored Natural Attenuation 1. Monitoring Wells (natural attenuation remedy) [ ] Properly secured/locked [ ] Functioning [ ] Routinely sampled [ ] Good condition [ ] All required wells located [ ] Needs Maintenance I)cl N/A Remarks X. OTHER REMEDIES If there are remedies applied at the site that are not covered above, attach an inspection sheet describing the physical nature and condition of any facility associated with the remedy. An example would be soil vapor extraction. ~/A 2010 Five.-Year Review Page 10 Former Norton AFB : rc E PL v k1 e.. INSPECTION CHECKLIST Central Base Area au XI. OVERALL OBSERVATIONS A. Implementation of the Remedy Describe issues and observations relating to whether the remedy is effective and functioning as designed. Begin with a brief statement of what the remedy is to accomplish (Le., to contain contaminant plume, minimize infiltration and gas emission, etc.). f( ~ Ih1 e J ~ w ~ $' Q.. F+e. '1:-\.\.1 e -r VI!7 on ," "fov I "H '1 sit ow.s. Co..., "t-,"'.", I./d Q PF 42.. a.. t-: ve.vrQ.s;:s reB p( v Ih'I e. we l(~ ..... II"C!! ;r,{ {l below MeL 6. t.. fo1W'L-7 e. er,,-1: B. Adequacy of O&M Describe issues and observations related to the implementation and scope ofO&M procedures. In particular, discuss their relationship to the current and long-term protectiveness ofthe remedy. tA J. e i 1./ a.. 1:- e. 41 '" 7 ;r e.a1-...... ", e...."-( S ~ .:S t-t:!! 11'1'1 41"'" ~1A'l otJe..J tI I') +- t1 l1 ar- V' e 1- v t v-J c. Early Indicators of Potential Remedy Problems Describe issues and observations such as unexpected changes in the cost or scope of O&M or a high frequency ofunscheduled repairs, that suggest that the protectiveness ofthe remedy may be compromised in the future. No e.//'o £:'le~.s ~ D. Opportunities for Optimization Describe possible opportunities for optimization in monitoring tasks or the operation ofthe remedy. !1'1 (2 I!!. / t- (::J v"" "" ~ If{ ~ .5oe S S 6il- J el vt i1 va li j. 2010 Five-Year Review Page 11 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Former Norton AFB: IRP Site 2 INSPECTION CHECKLIST Basewide au I. SITE INFORMATION Site name: , RP S I r,f; 2- Date of inspection: I / 2S-/ 20/1:) F 1I11""5IfII61-" A/fJ vt'o fII,4F.D Location and Region: EPA ID: CA4570024345 Ae-'ffI(;111... , Agency, office, or company leading the five-year Weather/temperature: review: AE-co ft// 4-I(;HT WI""IJ~ C.L.IHtIPS/ Remedy Includes: (Check all that apply) [\tfLandfill cover/containment [ ] Monitored natural attenuation [~Access controls [ ] Groundwater containment ['1 Institutional controls [ ] Vertical barrier walls [ ] Surface water collection and treatment [ ] Groundwater pump and treatment r4.,Other (t:.Fv) ~ V"1It c:. , I 0 ... +- ActJI/e. va v--JfJ" ftC. e r C' "" r VIII Attachments: I> 2010 Five-Year Review Page 1 Former Norton AFB: IRP Site 2 INSPECTION CHECKLIST Basewide au II. INTERVIEWS (Check all that apply) 1. O&M site manager ~it:..tt.. La" J. t/!.a. v A".fi -Co Tec.1I Name Title "",V Date Interviewed [ ] at site [ ] at office [ ] by phone. Phone no: 6 I t:fl. tt; 3 s--" ", 'Z- Problems, suggestions; _ Report attached 2. O&Mstaff Name Title Date Interviewed [ ] at site [ ] at office [ ] by phone. Phone no: Problems, suggestions; Report attached 3. Local regulatory authorities and response agencies (Le., State and Tribal offices, emergency response office, police department, office ofpublic health or environmental health, zoning office, recorder of deeds, or other city and county offices, etc.) Fill in all that apply. Agency A I"," 1=1I"..c.,. Roe..a.f f'V"'Q "etl"~ A:-;e He.L 1:11 I t:t " 1'1 eNT. 2 r Contact J'e. v .... ~ B, III #- It III ... fl'ItO(I:I1.,4,!!t1 /1A1t1..f6t1l. 1 / ';"7 Name Title Date Phone no. Problems; suggestions: nf2.A1E".. [)(I Report attached IVpA/SCUAA Agency ];;> f r /?.t;..Jelle (01' .,..,elll t , .....jC Of/' ~ ~ &A" 4/11)0 Contact A(i!..~ E S.-t 'rA''!Ii "M r ..... "'st."~t"-+.... t:)1. tp~ ~ , 0., -., '3.- Name Title Date Phone no. 'lT1I1: a..' Problems; suggestions: [)(] Report attached Agency tV 1)A Contact ;r" ...~ G,.o",,£eJ Co... $"."t-."" t/tvP,4 "1/s:-jla ilI2S" - , S" -']'1 V S"' Name Title Date Phone no. Problems; suggestions: ["4 Report attached 4. Other interviews (optional) [ ] Report attached. 2010 Five-Year Review Page 2 Former Norton AFB: IRP Site 2 INSPECTION CHECKLIST Basewide au I ID. ON-SITE DocuMENTS &REcoIiliSVERIFmD (Checkallthatapply) l. O&M Documents [ l4' O&M manual [ ] Readily available [)JUp to date [ ]N/A [,(I As-built drawings [ ] Readily available [~Up to date [ ]N/A ['il Maintenance logs [ ] Readily available ~ Up to date [ ]N/A Remarks 2. Site-Specific Health and Safety Plan [)(] O&M manual [ ] Readily available fXf Up to date [ ] N/A [ "" Emergency response plan [ ] Readily available [>d Up to date [ ]N/A Remarks 3. O&M and OSHA Training Records [..tl Readily available [J<] Up to date [ ]N/A Remarks 4. Permits and Service Agreements [ ] Air discharge permit [ ] Readily available [ ] Up to date [Xl N/A [ ] Effluent discharge [ ] Readily available [ ] Up to date [x] N/A [ ] Waste disposal, POTW [ ] Readily available [ ] Up to date k1N/A [ ] Other permits [ ] Readily available [ ] Up to date P<1 N/A Remarks , 5. Gas Generation Records [~ Readily available M Up to date [ ] N/A Remarks 6. Settlement Monument Records [~ Readily available ~Uptodate [ ] N/A Remarks 7. Groundwater Monitoring Records [S(] Readily available ~ Up to date [ ] N/A Remarks 8. Leachate Extraction Records [ ] Readily available [ ] Up to date [~N/A Remarks 9. Discharge Compliance Records [XI Air [X Readily available [XJ Up to date [ ]N/A [ ] Water (effiuent) [ ] Readily available [ ] Up to date [ ]N/A Remarks 10. Daily Access/Security Logs [ ] Readily available [ ] Up to date [~N/A Remarks 2010 Five-Year Review Page 3 Former Norton AFB: IRP Site 2 INSPECTION CHECKLIST Basewide OU rV~ O&M·COSTS ... 1. O&M Organization [ ] State (in-house) [ ] Contractor (for State) [ ] PRP (in-house) !Xl Contractor (for PRP) [ ] Federal Facility in-house [ ] Contractor (for Federal Facility) [ ] Other 2. O&M Cost Records [)9 Readily available LXJ Up to date [)4'Funding mechanism/agreement in place Original O&M cost estimate [ ] Breakdown attached Total annual cost by year for review period ifavailable From To $ [ ] Breakdown attached Date Date Total cost From To $ [ ] Breakdown attached Date Date Total cost From '0 $ [ ] Breakdown attached Date Date Total cost From To $ [ ] Breakdown attached Date Date Total cost From To $ [ ] Breakdown attached Date Date Total cost 3. Unanticipated or Unusually High O&M Costs During Review Period Describe costs and reasons: 2010 Five-Year Review Page 4 Former Norton AFB: IRP Site 2 INSPECTION CHECKLIST Basewide au I:~~ : V. ACCESS AND INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS [ ] Applicable [] NIA A. Fencing 1. Fencing damaged 1:>1 Location shown on site map [Xl Gates secured [ ]N/A Remarks B. Other Access Restrictions 1. Signs and other security measures I><] Location shown on site map [ ]N/A Remarks Ne..~ b.~,c.k. 1A.Ia.. , ( 11!1J.6 12:ea ~ VI i .... .s t-c '( e/' C. Institutional Controls (ICs) 1. Implementation and enforcement Site conditions imply ICs not properly implemented [ ] Yes [~No []N/A Site conditions imply ICs not being fully enforced [ ] Yes IX1 No [ ]N/A Type ofmonitorin¥ (e.g., self-reporting, drive by) ~1?-111e i I3tj Frequency _4(J/J 1I/'J L' ' Responsible party/agency" /1LI< r"IZ-(,.~ Contact .:J€~ lS.!116tiAM NamJ Title Date Phone no. Reporting is up-to~date ~es [ ] No ~N/A Reports are verified by the lead agency [ ] Yes [ ] No []N/A Specific requirements have been met [)(I Yes [ ] No []N/A (in deed or decision documents) Violations have been reported 68 [ ] No ~N/A Other problems or suggestions: [ ] Report attached 2. Adequacy [><.I ICs are adequate [ ] I Cs are inadequate [ ] N/A Remarks D. General 1. Vandalism/trespassing [ ] Location shown on site map b4 No vandalism evident Remarks 2. Land use changes on site [ ]N/A Remarks ~ $ e.ft till. {.,. c. • e. ft ~ S' t"'e.f. 1:_ e. eo J ~ ..... "to.,; 1,1'4 ( c.. 0"60"". ,I,e ,s,''fc: IS 5(.leeJ,,(eJ rtf) id(!!. 'i:-V't.lc.r /pa",./<,,,,,'I ( • 'f " 3. Land use changes off site "'" [)()N/A Remarks 201 0 Five-Year Review Page 5 Former Norton AFB: IRP Site 2 INSPECTION CHECKLIST Basewide au VI. GENERAL SITE CONDITIONS A. Roads [ ] Applicable [,c} N/A 1. Roads damaged [ ] Location shown on site map [ ] Roads adequate pqN/A n _1. B. Other Site Conditions Remarks 2010 Five-Year Review Page 6 Former Norton AFB: IRP Site 2 INSPECTION CHECKLIST Basewide OU ,: Vll. LANDFILL COVERS f)(J Applicable [~N/A : ..•... A. Landfill Surface A $,. «£ r (..1(/1/ .e. /I"" B. Benches C. Letdown Channels v' D. Cover Penetrations E. Gas Collection and Treatment v F. Cover Drainage Layer V G. Detention/Sedimentation Ponds H. Retaining Walls I. Perimeter Ditches/Off-Site Discharge V""'" VIII. VERTICAL BARRIER WALLS [ ] Applicable [X] N/A 1. Settlement [ ] Location shown on site map [ ] Settlement not evident Areal extent Depth n _1. 2. Performance Monitoring Type ofmonitoring [ ] Perfonnance not monitored TO_ ~'1 • [ ] Evidence ofbreaching " " .1 Head .1' 'it: Illi n ._1. 2010 Five-Year Review Page 7 Former Norton AFB: IRP Site 2 INSPECTION CHECKLIST Basewide au IX. GROUNDWATER/SURFACE WATER REMEDIES [ ] Applicable [)Q"N/A A. Groundwater Extraction Wells, Pumps, and Pipelines [ ] Applicable [)(1 N/A 1. Pumps, Wellhead Plumbing, and Electrical [. ] Good condition [ ] All required wells properly operating [ ] Needs Maintenance [.10 N/A Remarks 2. Extraction System Pipelines, Valves, Valve Boxes, and Other Appurtenances [ ] Good condition [ ] Needs Maintenance Remarks 3. Spare Parts and Equipment [ ] Good condition [ ] Readily available [ ] Requires upgrade [ ] Needs to be provided Remarks B. Surface Water Collection Structures, Pumps, and Pipelines [l(J Applicable [ ] N/A 1. Collection Structures, Pumps, and Electrical M Good condition [ ] Needs Maintenance Remarks 2. Surface Water Collection System Pipelines, Valves, Valve Boxes, and Other Appurtenances [ ] Good condition [ ] Needs Maintenance Remarks 3. Spare Parts and Equipment [ ] Good condition [ ] Readily available [ ] Requires upgrade [ ] Needs to be provided Remarks 2010 Five-Year Review PageS Former Norton AFB: IRP Site 2 INSPECTION CHECKLIST Basewide au : IX. GROUNDWATER/SURFACE WATER REMEDIES (Continued) C. Treatment System [ ] Applicable [X1 N/A 1. Treatment Train (Check components that apply) [ ] Metals removal [ ] Oil/water separation [ ] Bioremediation [ ] Air stripping [ ] Carbon adsorbers [ ] Filters [ ] Additive (e.g., chelation agent, flocculent) [ ] Others [ ] Good condition [ ] Needs Maintenance [ ] Sampling ports properly marked and functional [ ] Equipment properly identified [ ] Sampling/maintenance log displayed arid up to date Quantity treated annually: Groundwater (gallons) Surface water (gallons) Remarks 2. Electrical Enclosures and Panels (properly rated and functional) [XI N/A [ ] Good condition [ ] Needs maintenance Remarks 3. Tanks, Vaults, Storage Vessels [)(1N/A [ ] Good condition [ ] Needs maintenance [ ] Proper secondary containment Remarks 4. Discharge Structure and Appurtenances I)d N/A [ ] Good condition [ ] Needs maintenance Remarks 5. Treatment Building(s) [XJ N/A [ ] Good condition (especially roof and doorways) [ ] Needs repair Remarks 6. Monitoring Wells (pump and treat remedy) [ ] Properly secured/locked [ ] Functioning [ ] Routinely sampled [ ] Good condition [ ] All required wells located [ ] Needs Maintenance ~N/A Remarks 2010 Five-Year Review Page 9 Former Norton AFB: IRP Site 2 INSPECTION CHECKLIST Basewide au :'" IX. GROUNDWATER/SURFACE WATER REMEDIES (Continued) .,. D. Monitoring Results 1. Monitoring Data [ ] Is routinely submitted on time [ ] Is of acceptable quality Remarks 1. Results. Monitoring data suggests: [ ] Groundwater plume is effectively contained [ ] Contaminant concentrations are declining Remarks E. Monitored Natural Attenuation 1. Monitoring Wells (natural attenuation remedy) [Xl' Properly secured/locked [ ] Functioning [ ] Routinely sampled [ ] Good condition [ ] All required wells located [ ] Needs Maintenance [ ]N/A Remarks 1~V"''''v"",J wa. 'fe".. w 4!e.( ( .$ 0"'; s~'f:-.., c::IV"~ e. c./< e.d '" VA. vt- e.". ("'I ...J:..o rr IIif r.'ItIrJ. Mol...., t-e.v t!!!leva 7-, IIH 0"("" c.' v v I'ev- Awq 'c.ts " x. OTHER REMEDIES If there are remedies applied at the site that are not covered above, attach an inspection sheet describing the physical nature and condition ofany facility associated with the remedy. An example would be soil vapor extraction. S" II Va.l'oV' e ~ l'V"'etc. 1-'011 <;.::Js.f eYlf 'IS o;'ev"f,;'y -ro CD" t V" 0 ( .!5 v b .5 LJ II" .fa c.. e... VVI (:J r IfII. -+ (0 It 0 ~ fa fAJ. p, ( ~ a. &., 5:JsT-e...",.. 15 cl'e.v 01(. --Fe;" J ~v c. e >~ .,t.() it 2010 Five-Year Review Page 10 Former Norton AFB: IRP Site 2 INSPECTION CHECKLIST Basewide OU XI. OVERALL OBSERVATIONS A. Implementation of the Remedy Describe issues and observations relating to whether the remedy is effective and functioning as designed. Begin with a brief statement of what the remedy is to accomplish (Le., to contain contaminant plume, minimize infiltration and gas emission, etc.). 7lte. c." ve.. v ,t:> f!. "e ~ .e.. t Ii{. "f r 0"'" II ell(. .::s ok e. -e. t:] fA//t-"'" 4.11 as~k4(t- Ct:) "'" c..W"'-e.. f-e ~eplac-.e.d• CttAf· f""rrl!.D ..se of D VII J"" 4 (' C-4" P """..cS (..D · t ".,... t V'" e f::> 1-- V" f C ~ « ev t..e.vc-o/.a.t, • ..., Df ...vc:csl-e ","'(0 ~ yo Q C. Early Indicators of Potential Remedy Problems Describe issues and observations such as unexpected changes in the cost or scope ofO&M or a high frequency ofunscheduled repairs, that suggest that the protectiveness ofthe remedy may be compromised in the future. ~ 0. AI E. D. Opportunities for Optimization Describe possible opportunities for optimization in monitoring tasks or the operation ofthe remedy. ti.()),//i 2010 Five-Year Review Page 11 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Former Norton AFB: IRP Site 5 INSPECTION CHECKLIST Basewide OU ... !: I. SITE INFORMATION .. Site name: I f< P :> t rEi: ..s..- Date of inspection: 1/2.S"'/2. 010 • • fU...... :. til'" /II(I".t .... AF13 LocatIOn and Region: It EPA ID: CA4570024345 e,t:fltJ- vt 9 c... •• c. ",.,.Je...... t--e Agency, office, or company leading the five-year Weather/temperature:( . .,,,, t review: A EG o l1 c:t."Js Remedy Includes: (Check all that apply) [ ] Landfill cover/containment [ ] Monitored natural attenuation [ ] Access controls [ ] Groundwater containment [..(Institutional controls [ ] Vertical barrier walls , [ ] Surface water collection and treatment [ ] Groundwater pump and treatment [ ] Other Attachments: [~] Inspection team roster attached [ ] Site map attached 2010 Five-Year Review Page 1 Former Norton AFB: IRP Site 5 INSPECTION CHECKLIST Basewide OU II. INTERVIEWS (Check all that apply) 1. O&M site manager AliA Name Title Date Interviewed [ ] at site [ ] at office [ ] by phone. Phone no: Problems, suggestions; _ Report attached 2. O&M staff N~ Name Title Date Interviewed [ ] at site [ ] at office [ ] by phone. Phone no: Problems, suggestions; _ Report attached 3. Local regulatory authorities and response agencies (Le., State and Tribal offices, emergency response office, police department, office ofpublic health or environmental health, zoning office, recorder ofdeeds, or other city and county offices, etc.) Fill in all that apply. Agency AFR PA eAlvllltJlIIl'f.t:N'lA.' P!lII&.{I..A.,tf !1M146irll.. t 7..f7/lJ 9 Contact :Fe. V" .... 7 Bi-a'· ...., , Nam Title Date Phone no. Problems; suggestions: [~Report attached Agency .VJ)A/SOtAA P'1f" C> r: IIt..IJ t:lle.{.",.eu.i " ..tA f/r""'SI'Odat".",, ,/0 B/IO 00 Contact A.....s-x Es.-tv-a J tJ( ,().-~g2-- 1.(1.,.., , Name Title Date Phone no. IJ!;~'" Problems; suggestions: [A'Report attached Agency LV DA Contact V",Me.4 (ir.. ...lff' {.~ (,.pili sv( r._T' .,/,IT!!_ ~ z..r- -~S"... 2JVS Name Title Date Phone no. Problems; suggestions: [~ Report attached 4. Other interviews (optional) [ ] Report attached. 2010 Five-Year Review Page 2 Former Norton AFB: IRP Site 5 INSPECTION CHECKLIST Basewide OU , .: :i III. ON-SITE DOCUMENTS & RECORDS VERIFIED (Check all that apply) 1. O&M Documents [ ] O&M manual [ ] Readily available [ ] Up to date ~N/A [ ] As-built drawings [ ] Readily available [ ] Up to date pqN/A [ ] Maintenance logs [ ] Readily available [ ] Up to date [X]'N/A Remarks 2. Site-Specific Health and Safety Plan [ ] O&M manual [ ] Readily available [ ] Up to date [X] N/A [ ] Emergency response plan [ ] Readily available [ ] Up to date [;qN/A Remarks 3. O&M and OSHA Training Records [ ] Readily available [ ] Up to date f)dN/A Remarks 4. Permits and Service Agreements [ ] Air discharge permit [ ] Readily available [ ] Up to date fXN/A [ ] Effiuent discharge [ ] Readily available [ ] Up to date IX] N/A [ ] Waste disposal, POTW [ ] Readily available [ ] Up to date D<1N/A [ ] Other permits [ ] Readily available [ ] Up to date (X!N/A Remarks 5. Gas Generation Records [ ] Readily available [ ] Up to date [,-1 N/A Remarks 6. Settlement Monument Records [ ] Readily available [ ] Up to date [)4N/A Remarks 7. Groundwater Monitoring Records [ ] Readily available [ ] Up to date [AN/A Remarks 8. Leachate Extraction Records [ ] Readily available [ ] Up to date [)f.N/A Remarks 9. Discharge Compliance Records [ ] Air [ ] Readily available [ ] Up to date f><1 N/A Remarks 10. Daily Access/Security Logs [ ] Readily available [ ] Up to date ~N/A Remarks 2010 Five-Year Review Page 3 Former Norton AFB: IRP Site 5 INSPECTION CHECKLIST Basewide OU IV. O&M COSTS 1. 0&1\:'1 Organization ft.//A [ ] State (in-house) [ ] Contractor (for State) [ ] PRP (in-house) [ ] Contractor (for PRP) [ ] Federal Facility in-house [ ] Contractor (for Federal Facility) [ ] Other 2. O&M Cost Records tJ/A [ ] Readily available [ ] Up to date [ ] Funding mechanism/agreement in place Original O&M cost estimate [ ] Breakdown attached Total annual cost by year for review period if available From '0 $ [ ] Breakdown attached Date Date Total cost I From $ [ ] Breakdown attached Date Date Total cost From To $ [ ] Breakdown attached Date Date Total cost From $ [ ] Breakdown attached Date Date Total cost From $ [ ] Breakdown attached Date Date Total cost 3. Unanticipated or Unusually High O&M Costs During Review Period Describe costs and reasons: 2010 Five-Year Review Page 4 Former Norton AFB: IRP Site 5 INSPECTION CHECKLIST Basewide au v. ACCESS AND INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS [ ] Applicable [~N/A .:; A. Fencing 1. Fencing damaged [ ] Location shown on site map [ ] Gates secured IX] N/A Remarks B. Other Access Restrictions 1. Signs and other security measures [ ] Location shown on site map [XI'N/A ...... C. Institutional Controls (ICs) 1. Implementation and enforcement Site conditions imply rcs not properly implemented [ ] Yes IXlNo [] N/A Site conditions imply rcs not being fully enforced [ ] Yes ~No [ ]N/A Type ofmonitoring (e.g., self-reporting, drive by) 5~ /..(' r~po ilE6 d&lve-~ 1 1 rD . Frequency all(l ua..t Responsible party/agency S 8::£'A A Contact e/eJ~ &1~ Name Title Date Phone no. Reporting is up-to-date [ ] Yes [ ] No KlN/A Reports are verified by the lead agency [ ] Yes [ ] No UlN/A Specific requirements have been met [ ] Yes [ ] No [;tN/A (in deed or decision documents) Violations have been reported [ ] Yes [ ] No ~N/A Other problems or suggestions: [ ] Report attached 2. Adequacy ~ rcs are adequate [ ] rcs are inadequate [ ]N/A Remarks D. General 1. Vandalism/trespassing [ ] Location shown on site map [)g No vandalism evident Remarks 2. Land use changes on site [Xl N/A Remarks 3. Land use changes off site ~N/A Remarks 2010 Five-Year Review PageS Former Norton AFB: IRP Site 5 INSPECTION CHECKLIST Basewide au , VI. GENERAL SITE CONDITIONS A. Roads [ ] Applicable [Xj N/A 1. Roads damaged [ ] Location shown on site map [ ] Roads adequate [AfN/A n _1, B. Other Site Conditions Remarks 2010 Five-Year Review Page 6 Former Norton AFB: IRP Site 5 INSPECTION CHECKLIST Basewide OU VII. LANDFILL COVERS [ ] Applicable [X] N/A A. Landfill Surface B. Benches C. Letdown Channels D. Cover Penetrations E. Gas Collection and Treatment F. Cover Drainage Layer G. Detention/Sedimentation Ponds H. Retaining Walls I. Perimeter Ditches/Off-Site Discharge , VIII. VERTICAL BARRIER WALLS [ ] Applicable [X] N/A , 1. Settlement [ ] Location shown on site map [ ] Settlement not evident Areal extent Depth Remluh:. 2. Performance Monitoring Type of monitoring [ ] Perfonnance not monitored Frequency [ ] Evidence ofbreaching Head differential T> ,,1, 2010 Five-Year Review Page 7 Former Norton AFB: IRP Site 5 INSPECTION CHECKLIST Basewide au .,. IX.GROUNnWATEWSURFA.CE'WATERREMEDIES []Applicable fXN/A ...... , A. Groundwater Extraction Wells, Pumps, and Pipelines [ ] Applicable [) 2. Extraction System Pipelines, Valves, Valve Boxes, and Other Appurtenances [ ] Good condition [ ] Needs Maintenance Remarks 3. Spare Parts and Equipment [ ] Good condition [ ] Readily available [ ] Requires upgrade [ ] Needs to be provided Remarks B. Surface Water Collection Structures, Pumps, and Pipelines [ ] Applicable MN/A 1. Collection Structures, Pumps, and Electrical [ ] Good condition [ ] Needs Maintenance Remarks 2. Surface Water Collection System Pipelines, Valves, Valve Boxes, and Other Appurtenances [ ] Good condition [ ] Needs Maintenance Remarks 3. Spare Parts and Equipment [ ] Good condition [ ] Readily available [ ] Requires upgrade [ ] Needs to be provided Remarks 2010 Five-Year Review PageS Former Norton AFB: IRP Site 5 INSPECTION CHECKLIST Basewide OU ,.. IX. GROUNDWATERISURF ACE WATER REMEDIES (Continued) C. Treatment System [ ] Applicable rMN/A 1. Treatment Train (Check components that apply) [ ] Metals removal [ ] Oil/water separation [ ] Bioremediation [ ] Air stripping [ ] Carbon adsorbers [ ] Filters [ ] Additive (e.g., chelation agent, flocculent) [ ] Others [ ] Good condition [ ] Needs Maintenance [ ] Sampling ports properly marked and functional [ ] Equipment properly identified [ ] Sampling/maintenance log displayed and up to date Quantity treated annually: Groundwater (gallons) Surface water (gallons) Remarks 2. Electrical Enclosures and Panels (properly rated and functional) [ ] N/A [ ] Good condition [ ] Needs maintenance Remarks 3. Tanks, Vaults, Storage Vessels [ ]N/A [ ] Good condition [ ] Needs maintenance [ ] Proper secondary containment Remarks 4. Discharge Structure and Appurtenances [ ]N/A [ ] Good condition [ ] Needs maintenance Remarks 5. Treatment Building(s) [ ]N/A [ ] Good condition (especially roof and doorways) [ ] Needs repair Remarks 6. Monitoring Wells (pump and treat remedy) [ ] Properly secured/locked [ ] Functioning [ ] Routinely sampled [ ] Good condition [ ] All required wells located [ ] Needs Maintenance [)g N/A Remarks 2010 Five-Year Review Page 9 Former Norton AFB: IRP Site 5 INSPECTION CHECKLIST Basewide au IX. GROUNDWATER/SURFACE WATER REMEDIES (Continued) D. Monitoring Results .tJ/A 1. Monitoring Data [ ] Is routinely submitted on time [ ] Is ofacceptable quality Remarks 1. Results. Monitoring data suggests: [ ] Groundwater plume is effectively contained [ ] Contaminant concentrations are declining Remarks E. Monitored Natural Attenuation 1. Monitoring Wells (natural attenuation remedy) [ ] Properly secured/locked [ ] Functioning [ ] Routinely sampled [ ] Good condition [ ] All required wells located [ ] Needs Maintenance [)q'N/A Remarks x. OTHER REMEDIES I' Ifthere are remedies applied at the site that are not covered above, attach an inspection sheet describing the physical nature and condition of any facility associated with the remedy. An example would be soil vapor extraction. 2010 Five-Year Review Page 10 Former Norton AFB: IRP Site 5 INSPECTION CHECKLIST Basewide OU XI. OVERALL OBSERVATIONS A. Implementation of the Remedy Describe issues and observations relating to whether the remedy is effective and functioning as designed. Begin with a briefstatement ofwhat the remedy is to accomplish (Le., to contain contaminant plume, minimize infiltration and gas emission, etc.). R.e-l41 Q..j ~ I S ll71 IE. elA? e.H:fQ~/ b..e.ltt!1 l t B. Adequacy of O&M Describe issues and observations related to the implementation and scope ofO&M procedures. In particular, discuss their relations2to the current and long-term protectiveness ofthe remedy. .Ii) A c. Early Indicators of Potential Remedy Problems Describe issues and observations such as unexpected changes in the cost or scope ofO&M or a high frequency ofunscheduled repairs, that suggest that the protectiveness oftbe remedy may be compromised in the future. D. Opportunities for Optimization Describe possible opportunities for optimization in monitoring tasks or the operation ofthe remedy. 2010 Five-Year Review Page 11 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Former Norton AFB: SAR INSPECTION CHECKLIST Basewide au .., " '" i,'::' i":, " ',: :,',:,: ':,' i ' 'i" ',; I. SITE INFORMATION ,':, ,: ""', Site name: 5""a.I' A··r""',c R'" #II,e.(.s Ai) Date of inspection: 1/:2-.>/20 I (;) FtfJ V tM e... AI.. .,...l'lt" AF,t! Location and Region: It , EPA ID: CA4570024345 elll/,ttI,. "" Agency, office, or company leading the five-year Weather/tem perature: c-o_{ ,.., .Je...vrtt"ff! review: A s;;. c. t:) 1'1 (. ( ~ J, r e:. (t!) v'/s Remedy Includes: (Check all that apply) [ ] Landfill cover/containment [ ] Monitored natural attenuation [ ] Access controls [ ] Groundwater containment [~stitutional controls [ ] Vertical barrier walls [ ] Surface water collection and treatment [ ] Groundwater pump and treatment [ ] Ler Attachments: [Xl Inspection team roster attached [ ] Site map attached 2010 Five-Year Review Page 1 Former Norton AFB: SAR INSPECTION CHECKLIST Basewide OU i,i " ,', i: 'i , . " , .. ',·i'·" ll. INTERVIEWS (Check all that apply) 1. O&M site manager N/A Name Title Date Interviewed [ ] at site [ ] at office [ ] by phone. Phone no: Problems, suggestions; Report attached 2. O&M staff 4LIA Name Title Date Interviewed [ ] at site [ ] at office [ ] by phone. Phone no: Problems, suggestions; Report attached 3. Local regulatory authorities and response agencies (Le., State and Tribal offices, emergency response office, police department, office ofpublic health or environmental health, zoning office, recorder of deeds, or other city and county offices, etc.) Fill in all that apply. Agency AF~fA EN"IItOHMGlflrAt. pit 0 o-t Agency I V D,4. [S tllAA '" ~ e-crort () p ~ G " ~'V E L t:J PMff,v'r 1/8}0 Contact ~L~ ~ ~S(Vtlt.J'!j AllP ritA III S 10m-;,tJI( Name Title Date Phone no. Problems; suggestions: [vI' Report attached Agency tv.DA COA/SuL T.A III,/ Contact J...... e& if. QUII" 4. Other interviews (optional) [ ] Report attached. 2010 Five-Year Review Page 2 Former Norton AFB: SAR INSPECTION CHECKLIST Basewide au ...... , ," :i", ',':i" ,":'" " .. ' '''>, "',:', ,'" ", ':, J' .. :::,' '" ' ':,:" IlL ON-SITE DOCUMENTS & RECORDS VERIFIED (Check all that apply) ''': ,;, 1. O&M Documents [ ] O&M manual [ ] Readily available [ ] Up to date [>iN/A [ ] As-built drawings [ ] Readily available [ ] Up to date I><1N/A [ ] Maintenance logs [ ] Readily available [ ] Up to date MN/A Remarks 2. Site-Specific Health and Safety Plan [ ] O&M manual [ ] Readily available [ ] Up to date k]N/A [ ] Emergency response plan [ ] Readily available [ ] Up to date ~N/A Remarks 3. O&M and OSHA Training Records [ ] Readily available [ ] Up to date [X] N/A Remarks 4. Permits and Service Agreements [ ] Air discharge permit [ ] Readily available [ ] Up to date [XN/A [ ] Effluent discharge [ ] Readily available [ ] Up to date (><] N/A [ ] Waste disposal, POTW [ ] Readily available [ ] Up to date MN/A [ ] Other pennits [ ] Readily available [ ] Up to date r> 5. Gas Generation Records [ ] Readily available [ ] Up to date D<1 N/A Remarks 6. Settlement Monument Records [ ] Readily available [ ] Up to date J)d N/A Remarks 7. Groundwater Monitoring Records [ ] Readily available [ ] Up to date [)<]N/A Remarks 8. Leachate Extraction Records [ ] Readily available [ ] Up to date ~N/A Remarks 9. Discharge Compliance Records [ ] Air [ ] Readily available [ ] Up to date ~N/A [ ] Water (effluent) [ ] Readily available [ ] Up to date I> 10. Daily Access/Security Logs [ ] Readily available [ ] Up to date [XfN/A Remarks 2010 Five-Year Review Page 3 Former Norton AFB: SAR INSPECTION CHECKLIST Basewide au , ' ", .. " .. ,:: " "':, " IV. O&M COSTS 1. O&M Organization fti!,4 [ ] State (in-house) [ ] Contractor (for State) [ ] PRP (in-house) [ ] Contractor (for PRP) [ ] Federal Facility in-house [ ] Contractor (for Federal Facility) [ ] Other ~ 2. O&M Cost Records /J/A [ ] Readily available [ ] Up to date [ ] Funding mechanism/agreement in place Original O&M cost estimate [ ] Breakdown attached Total annual cost by year for review period if available From To $ [ ] Breakdown attached Date Date Total cost From To $ [ ] Breakdown attached Date Date Total cost From To $ [ ] Breakdown attached Date Date Total cost From To $ [ ] Breakdown attached Date Date Total cost From To $ [ ] Breakdown attached Date Date Total cost 3. Unanticipated or Unusually High O&M Costs During Review Period Describe costs and reasons: 2010 Five-Year Review Page 4 Former Norton AFB: SAR INSPECTION CHECKLIST Basewide au ... '. .. ..: .' ...... : '.:: '" .' ..... , ":, , .. v. ACCESS AND INSTITUTIONAL CONTR.OLS [] Applicable !XI N/A A. Fencing 1. Fencing damaged [] Location shown on site map [] Gates secured ~N/A 1> ...... " B. Other Access Restrictions 1. Signs and other security measures [ ] Location shown on site map [Xl N/A Rernark~ C. Institutional Controls (ICs) 1. Implementation and enforcement Site conditions imply ICs not properly implemented [ ] Yes [>1 No [] N/A Site conditions imply les not being fully enforced [ ] Yes I)(] No [ ] N/A Type of monitoring (e.g., self-rer0rting, drive by) &/vE. -'1, sdf- r~p()r1) ~6 Frequency a 11 yt Utt. Responsible party/agency ___s~~~r-...,...A..\- Reporting is up-to-date [ ] Yes [ ] No ~N/A Reports are verified by the lead agency [ ] Yes [ ] No MN/A Specific requirements have been met [ ] Yes [ ] No ~N/A (in deed or decision documents) Violations have been reported [ ] Yes [ ] No roN/A Other problems or suggestions: [ ] Report attached 2. Adequacy [>(lIes are adequate [ ] I Cs are inadequate [ ] N/A Remarks D. General 1. Vandalism/trespassing [ ] Location shown on site map P 3. Land use changes off site [Xl N/A Remarks 2010 Five-Year Review PageS Former Norton AFB: SAR INSPECTION CHECKLIST Basewide au ..i· ': " .' :, .;..; i • ": " VI. GENERAL SITE CONDITIONS " .... A. Roads [ ] Applicable I>(1N/A 1. Roads damaged [ ] Location shown on site map [ ] Roads adequate ~N/A Remark~ B. Other Site Conditions Remarks 2010 Five-Year Review Page 6 Former Norton AFB: SAR INSPECTION CHECKLIST Basewide au , , " ":' ",,"", ': "," VII. LANDFILL COVERS [ ] Applicable [X] N/A ~ =: A. Landfill Surface B. Benches C. Letdown Channels D. Cover Penetrations E. Gas Collection and Treatment F. Cover Drainage Layer G. Detention/Sedimentation Ponds H. Retaining Walls I. Perimeter Ditches/Off-Site Discharge VIII. VERTICAL BARRIER WALLS [] Applicable [X] NIA 1. Settlement [ ] Location shown on site map [ ] Settlement not evident Areal 2. Performance Monitoring Type ofmonitoring______[ ] Perfonnance not monitored [ ] Evidence ofbreaching Headdift~erltia]______ 2010 Five-Year Review Page 7 Former Norton AFB: SAR INSPECTION CHECKLIST Basewide au ... , IX. GROUNDWATER/SURFACE WATER REMEDIES [ ] Applicable [)fN/A A. Groundwater Extraction Wells, Pumps, and Pipelines [ ] Applicable LX] N/A 1. Pumps, Wellhead Plumbing, and Electrical [ ] Good condition [ ] All required wells properly operating [ ] Needs Maintenance D 2. Extraction System Pipelines, Valves, Valve Boxes, and Other Appurtenances [ ] Good condition [ ] Needs Maintenance Remarks 3. Spare Parts and Equipment [ ] Good condition [ ] Readily available [ ] Requires upgrade [ ] Needs to be provided Remarks B. Surface Water Collection Structures, Pumps, and Pipelines [ ] Applicable 1)(1 N/A 1. Collection Structures, Pumps, and Electrical [ ] Good condition [ ] Needs Maintenance Remarks 2. Surface Water Collection System Pipelines, Valves, Valve Boxes, and Other Appurtenances [ ] Good condition [ ] Needs Maintenance Remarks 3. Spare Parts and Equipment [ ] Good condition [ ] Readily available [ ] Requires upgrade [ ] Needs to be provided Remarks 2010 Five-Year Review PageS Former Norton AFB: SAR INSPECTION CHECKLIST Basewide au : IX. GROUNDWATER/SURFACE WATER REMEDIES (Continued) :, " C. Treatment System [ ] Applicable O 2. Electrical Enclosures and Panels (properly rated and functional) [ ] N/A [ ] Good condition [ ] Needs maintenance Remarks 3. Tanks, Vaults, Storage Vessels [ ]N/A [ ] Good condition [ ] Needs maintenance [ ] Proper secondary containment Remarks 4. Discharge Structure and Appurtenances [ ] N/A [ ] Good condition [ ] Needs maintenance Remarks 5. Treatment Building(s) [ ]N/A [ ] Good condition (especially roofand doorways) [ ] Needs repair Remarks 6. Monitoring Wells (pump and treat remedy) [ ] Properly securedllocked [ ] Functioning [ ] Routinely sampled [ ] Good condition [ ] All required wells located [ ] Needs Maintenance [ ] N/A Remarks 2010 Five-Year Review Page 9 Former Norton AFB: SAR INSPECTION CHECKLIST Basewide au ..,; ...... ," ...... ,....." "'. ;:'.:, . ,:' ..,/ .'...... ,.. ) ." .. IX. GROUNDWATER/SURFACE WATER REMEDIES (Continued) c";. D. Monitoring Results 1. Monitoring Data [ ] Is routinely submitted on time [ ] Is of acceptable quality Remarks 1. Results. Monitoring data suggests: [ ] Groundwater plume is effectively contained [ ] Contaminant concentrations are declining Remarks E. Monitored Natural Attenuation 1. Monitoring Wells (natural attenuation remedy) [ ] Properly secured/locked [ ] Functioning [ ] Routinely sampled [ ] Good condition [ ] All required wells located [ ] Needs Maintenance lX!N/A Remarks .. ' ...... ,....,...... X. OTHER REMEDIES Ifthere are remedies applied at the site that are not covered above, attach an inspection sheet describing the physical nature and condition of any facility associated with the remedy. An example would be soil vapor extraction. 2010 Five-Year Review Page 10 Former Norton AFB: SAR INSPECTION CHECKLIST Basewide au , ... ., .. .. XI. OVERALL OBSERVATIONS A. Implementation of the Remedy Describe issues and observations relating to whether the remedy is effective and functioning as designed. Begin with a brief statement ofwhat the remedy is to accomplish (Le., to contain contaminant plume, minimize infiltration and gas emission, etc.). '" t •~ If!. { e VII e VI '"i eel f<..fJ:. ~ eJ-J la ,b. e. l Vf-:J • B. Adequacy of O&M Describe issues and observations related to the implementation and scope ofO&M procedures. In particular, discuss their relationship to the current and long-term protectiveness ofthe remedy. rilA c. Early Indicators of Potential Remedy Problems Describe issues and observations such as unexpected changes in the cost or scope of O&M or a high frequency ofunscheduled repairs, that suggest that the protectiveness ofthe remedy may be compromised in the future. 11\ CHl\.t D. Opportunities for Optimization Describe possible opportunities for optimization in monitoring tasks or the operation ofthe remedy. ~o",(...r 2010 Five-Year Review Page 11 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Former Norton AFB: IRP Site 7 INSPECTION CHECKLIST Basewide au I. SITE INFORMATION ...... Site name: Date of inspection: I R. f ...s, "te 7 l /2 ~/.2()1 0 FD"""e.V ..AI• ... rcu'l AFD Location and Region: R. EPA ID: CA4570024345 cqlCU 9 v Agency, office, or company leading the five-year Weather/temperature: t."h r w~J.I c.( {JIt/,)S review: ,4 eGO IVJ Remedy Includes: (Check all that apply) [ ] Landfill cover/containment [ ] Monitored natural attenuation [ ] Access controls [ ] Groundwater containment [ ] Institutional controls [ ] Vertical barrier walls [ ] Surface water collection and treatment [ ] Groundwater pump and treatment [)(I Other ve.aM"'v",,( ~J!- c. _.., 't"., ... , :. 4/e.1 '6 ~c , ha.~ ••el1f J.",e. till. c..v"'4 1"'t,;"t:iI 'p I AI.4 L.. Co 1i:A. c. L..4/ ~ C 1(4 c. (.. os u"","e,. Attachments: ["f Inspection team roster attached [ ] Site map attached 2010 Five-Year Review Page 1 Former Norton AFB: IRP Site 7 INSPECTION CHECKLIST Basewide au ll. INTERVIEWS (Check all that apply) I> 1. O&M site manager ~/A- Name Title Date Interviewed [ ] at site [ ] at office [ ] by phone. Phone no: Problems, suggestions; _ Report attached . 2. O&M staff If/A Name Title Date Interviewed [ ] at site [ ] at office [ ] by phone. Phone no: Problems, suggestions; _ Report attached 3. Local regulatory authorities and response agencies (Le., State and Tribal offices, emergency response office, police department, office ofpublic health or environmental health, zoning office, recorder of deeds, or other city and county offices, etc.) Fill in all that apply. Agency l!f;.1IJ VIf!l..otllllft:;IIrA-' AF~PA rtO(;-.(t 4-...... Contact :rer".r~ B.IA,ha,..,.., MA!t.A.6.elL (~17(b? Name Title Date Phone no. Problems; suggestions: [vj Report attached DII~e(r() R ", F IVOA/SC3IAA Agency C::cw S,~tz;4":;:'~ Contact A{.e~ E .$lV'ttJt.L Re l>Gflr;£.(.»1,~ /1- T11.AIS I / e/i1Jl Name Title Date Phone no. Problems; suggestions: [vi Report attached Agency 1 V DA c. oll.s~J-rA-IfT Contact JI. vYl £$ 6-t)vV'le. /,tJDA ,Is-fa Name J Title Date Phone no. Problems; suggestions: [..tf Report attached 4. Other interviews (optional) [J 2010 Five-Year Review Page 2 Former Norton AFB: IRP Site 7 INSPECTION CHECKLIST Basewide au : .:... "'...... ,..... ,...... , .... ,. ' .: ,. III~6N..SITE DOCUMENTS & RECORDS VERIFIED (Check all that apply) 1. O&M Documents ( ] O&M manual [ ] Readily available [ ] Up to date .P3 N/A [ ] As-built drawings [ ] Readily available [ ] Up to date f)4N/A ( ] Maintenance logs [ ] Readily available [ ] Up to date D 2. Site-Specific Health and Safety Plan [ ] O&M manual [ ] Readily available [ ] Up to date !) 3. O&M and OSHA Training Records [ ] Readily available [ ] Up to date Dd N/A Remarks 4. Permits and Service Agreements [ ] Air discharge permit [ ] Readily available [ ] Up to date [)(f'N/A [ ] Eftluent discharge [ ] Readily available [ ] Up to date /Xl N/A [ ] Waste disposal, POTW [ ] Readily available [ ] Up to date KfN/A [ ] Other permits [ ] Readily available [ ] Up to date f,(]N/A Remarks 5. Gas Generation Records [ ] Readily available [ ] Up to date k1 N/A Remarks 6. Settlement Monument Records [ ] Readily available [ ] Up to date X1 N/A Remarks 7. Groundwater Monitoring Records [ ] Readily available [ ] Up to date [xfN/A Remarks 8. Leachate Extraction Records [ ] Readily available []Uptodate ~N/A Remarks 9. Discharge Compliance Records [ ] Air [ ] Readily available [ ] Up to date [XIN/A [ ] Water (eftluent) [ ] Readily available [ ] Up to date ~N/A Remarks 10. Daily Access/Security Logs [ ] Readily available [ ] Up to date [~N/A Remarks 2010 Five-Year Review Page 3 Former Norton AFB: IRP Site 7 INSPECTION CHECKLIST Basewide au IV. O&M COSTS 1. O&M Organization AiIA [ ] State (in-house) [ ] Contractor (for State) [ ] PRP (in-house) [ ] Contractor (for PRP) [ ] Federal Facility in-house [ ] Contractor (for Federal Facility) [ ] Other 2. O&M Cost Records tJ/;J [ ] Readily available [ ] Up to date [ ] Funding mechanism/agreement in place Original O&M cost estimate [ ] Breakdown attached Total annual cost by year for review period if available From To $ [ ] Breakdown attached Date Date Total cost From To $ [ ] Breakdown attached Date Date Total cost From To $ [ ] Breakdown attached Date Date Total cost From To $ [ ] Breakdown attached Date Date Total cost From To $ [ ] Breakdown attached Date Date Total cost 3. Unanticipated or Unusually High O&M Costs During Review Period Describe costs and reasons: 2010 Five-Year Review Page 4 Former Norton AFB: IRP Site 7 INSPECTION CHECKLIST Basewide au : ... V. ACCESS AND INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS rX1Applidlb'lef:·] N/A, ...... A. Fencing 1. Fencing damaged [ ] Location shown on site map rKJ Gates secured [ ] N/A Remark~ B. Other Access Restrictions 1. Signs and other security measures [ ] Location shown on site map ()q N/A Remarks C. Institutional Controls (ICs) 1. Implementation and enforcement Site conditions imply ICs not properly implemented [ ] Yes [ ] No [X'N/A Site conditions imply ICs not being fully enforced [ ] Yes [ ] No [>1N/A Type ofmonitoring (e.g., self-rer0rting, drive by) dl!.l V-e. -.;~ Frequency ad tlv "' Responsible party/agency 1diJt: ~l~ Contact (fJ.~€tilJVM. ~~~N e Title Date Phone no. Reporting is up-to-date [ ] Yes [ ] No ~N/A Reports are verified by the lead agency [ ] Yes [ ] No IX! N/A Specific requirements have been met [ ] Yes [ ] No IXfN/A (in deed or decision documents) Violations have been reported [ ] Yes [ ] No I!J.N/A Other problems or suggestions: [ ] Report attached 2. Adequacy [ ] I Cs are adequate [ ] ICs are inadequate IXJ'N/A Remarks D. General 1. Vandalism/trespassing [ ] Location shown on site map fXNo vandalism evident Remarks 2. Land use changes on site lXl N/A Remarks 3. Land use changes off site rxlN/A Remarks 2010 Five-Year Review PageS Former Norton AFB: IRP Site 7 INSPECTION CHECKLIST Basewide au VI. GENERAL SITE CONDITIONS A. Roads [ ] Applicable r)(N/A 1. Roads damaged [ ] Location shown on site map [ ] Roads adequate ~N/A Remarks B. Other Site Conditions Remarks 2010 Five-Year Review Page 6 Former Norton AFB: IRP Site 7 INSPECTION CHECKLIST Basewide au VII. LANDFILL COVERS [ ] Applicable [X] NIA A. Landfill Surface B. Benches \ C. Letdown Channels 'I D. Cover Penetrations E. Gas Collection and Treatment F. Cover Drainage Layer G. Detention/Sedimentation Ponds H. Retaining Walls I. Perimeter Ditches/Off-Site Discharge ; VIII. VERTICAL BARRIER WALLS [ ] Applicable [X] NIA 1. Settlement [ ] Location shown on site map [ ] Settlement not evident Areal extent Depth D""tn'.ll,.1rc< . . 2. Performance Monitoring Type [ ] Perfonnance not monitored '1""'. rl • [ ] Evidence ofbreaching "' Head ,...... 2010 Five-Year Review Page 7 Former Norton AFB: IRP Site 7 INSPECTION CHECKLIST Basewide au IX. GROUNDWATERISURF ACE WATER REMEDIES [ ] Applicable rxtN/A A. Groundwater Extraction Wells, Pumps, and Pipelines [ ] Applicable [Xl N/A 1. Pumps, Wellhead Plumbing, and Electrical [ ] Good condition [ ] All required wells properly operating [ ] Needs Maintenance L>J N/A Remarks 2. Extraction System Pipelines, Valves, Valve Boxes, and Other Appurtenances [ ] Good condition [ ] Needs Maintenance Remarks 3. Spare Parts and Equipment [ ] Good condition [ ] Readily available [ ] Requires upgrade [ ] Needs to be provided Remarks B. Surface Water Collection Structures, Pumps, and Pipelines [ ] Applicable [>iN/A 1. Collection Structures, Pumps, and Electrical [ ] Good condition [ ] Needs Maintenance Remarks 2. Surface Water Collection System Pipelines, Valves, Valve Boxes, and Other Appurtenances [ ] Good condition [ ] Needs Maintenance Remarks 3. Spare Parts and Equipment [ ] Good condition [ ] Readily available [ ] Requires upgrade [ ] Needs to be provided Remarks 2010 Five-Year Review PageS Former Norton AFB: IRP Site 7 INSPECTION CHECKLIST Basewide au I': IX. GROUNDWATER/SURFACE WATER REMEDIES (Continued) ,:,':: C. Treatment System [ ] Applicable j)(J N/A 1. Treatment Train (Check components that apply) [ ] Metals removal [ ] Oil/water separation [ ] Bioremediation [ ] Air stripping [ ] Carbon adsorbers [ ] Filters [ ] Additive (e.g., chelation agent, flocculent) [ ] Others [ ] Good condition [ ] Needs Maintenance [ ] Sampling ports properly marked and functional [ ] Equipment properly identified [ ] Sampling/maintenance log displayed and up to date Quantity treated annually: Groundwater (gallons) Surface water (gallons) Remarks 2. Electrical Enclosures and Panels (properly rated and functional) /XfN/A [ ] Good condition [ ] Needs maintenance Remarks 3. Tanks, Vaults, Storage Vessels b('] N/A [ ] Good condition [ ] Needs maintenance [ ] Proper secondary containment Remarks 4. Discharge Structure and Appurtenances [><1 N/A [ ] Good condition [ ] Needs maintenance Remarks 5. Treatment Building(s) t><1 N/A [ ] Good condition (especially roof and doorways) [ ] Needs repair Remarks 6. Monitoring Wells (pump and treat remedy) [ ] Properly securedllocked [ ] Functioning [ ] Routinely sampled [ ] Good condition [ ] All required wells located [ ] Needs Maintenance IXN/A Remarks 2010 Five-Year Review Page 9 Former Norton AFB: IRP Site 7 INSPECTION CHECKLIST Basewide au , ., , Ix. GROUN:OWATERlSURFACJt W ATERREMEDIE8 ' (Continued) D. Monitoring Results AJ/A 1. Monitoring Data [ ] Is routinely submitted on time [ ] Is of acceptable quality Remarks 1. Results. Monitoring data suggests: [ ] Groundwater plume is effectively contained [ ] Contaminant concentrations are declining Remarks E. Monitored Natural Attenuation 1. Monitoring Wells (natural attenuation remedy) [ ] Properly secured/locked [ ] Functioning [ ] Routinely sampled [ ] Good condition [ ] All required wells located [ ] Needs Maintenance ~N/A Remarks X. OTHER REMEDIES Ifthere are remedies applied at the site that are not covered above, attach an inspection sheet describing the physical nature and condition of any facility associated with the remedy. An example would be soil vapor extraction. 2010 Five-Year Review Page 10 Former Norton AFB: IRP Site 7 INSPECTION CHECKLIST Basewide au XI. OVERALL OBSERVATIONS A. Implementation of the Remedy Describe issues and observations relating to whether the remedy is effective and functioning as designed. Begin with a brief statement of what the remedy is to accomplish (Le., to contain contaminant plume, minimize infiltration and gas emission, etc.). B. Adequacy of O&M Describe issues and observations related to the implementation and scope of O&M procedures. In particular, discuss their relationship to the current and long-term protectiveness ofthe remedy. tdA c. Early Indicators of Potential Remedy Problems Describe issues and observations such as unexpected changes in the cost or scope ofO&M or a high frequency ofunscheduled repairs, that suggest that the protectiveness ofthe remedy may be compromised in the future. ;1 " va. f... D. Opportunities for Optimization Describe possible opportunities for optimization in monitoring tasl<:s or the operation ofthe remedy. k 0" c.... 2010 Five-Year Review Page 11 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Former Norton AFB: IRP Site 17 INSPECTION CHECKLIST Basewide au , 1\,. I. SITE INFORMATION Site name: Date of inspection: I A. P 'S' Irs /7 1(2..S-/1' 0 roll" II/It elf'" N cJlI~t-tJ ,'\ A-p"e Location and Region: R.... .'-l q EPA ID: CA4570024345 e. (Ollt ./ Agency, office, or company leading the five-year Weather/temperature: L.... i ~ 4t- wJ,"f,fJ ct",,1$ review: Remedy Includes: (Check all that apply) [ ] Landfill cover/containment [ ] Monitored natural attenuation [ ] Access controls [ ] Groundwater containment [ ] Institutional controls [ ] Vertical barrier walls [ ] Surface water collection and treatment [ ] Groundwater pump and treatment [>I Other '1'6 &/'/I • ".c. ( of (. t)l,"t tot ... 1111 q'fe' c; f) I C. j;,,, oS "e..e." j (Jill tI # Attachments: [xl Inspection team roster attached [ ] Site map attached 2010 Five-Year Review Page 1 Former Norton AFB: IRP Site 17 INSPECTION CHECKLIST Basewide au II. INTERVIEWS (Check all that apply) I, : 1. O&M site manager PIA Name Title Date Interviewed [ ] at site [ ] at office [ ] by phone. Phone no: Problems, suggestions; _ Report attached 2. O&M staff Name Title Date Interviewed [ ] at site [ ] at office [ ] by phone. Phone no: Problems, suggestions; _ Report attached 3. Local regulatory authorities and response agencies (i.e., State and Tribal offices, emergency response office, police department, office ofpublic health or environmental health, zoning office, recorder of deeds, or other city and county offices, etc.) Fill in all that apply. Agency AF~fA E.NV, A()Jl/II1 GlllTAL prt /)0-- It4-1"'\ Contact Je-vrv~ C3l"~~aV'1 /1A-N.4c;..S:IL 1¥71!9 Na e Title Date Phone no. Problems; suggestions: [vj Report attached P IItGC. rof!. 0 r .. Agency I V 0..4 / $ f!> I A- A RG OE-vE:i...f:Jfl.Alfc.A/r Contact A leK,. G~t-~aJ~ J../Jt> 'TIl.4NSI'1J ttT.4rc u4 l/S/IO Name Title Date Phone no. Problems; suggestions: [ 1'Report attached Agency I\/DA Contact J""~..." es (;ovv-lj c.. OIJStJLT;4.1I1;' V 0',4 t/G"pO Name Title Date Phon,e no. Problems; suggestions: [ ('Report attached 4. Other interviews (optional) [.l1' Report attached. vJ S c ,"oV' fA 0) 9/)')-382 "0 C ,/2.8fi1? H, it (JoJ ) Ne.J t,. \l.P. 'De4le {o~ wt eHrj 33 2010 Five-Year Review Page 2 Former Norton AFB: IRP Site 17 INSPECTION CHECKLIST Basewide OU m. ON-SITE DOCUMENTS & RECORDS VERIFIED (Check all that apply) 1. O&M Documents [ ] O&M manual [ ] Readily available [ ] Up to date [)fN/A [ ] As-built drawings [ ] Readily available [ ] Up to date [XN/A [ ] Maintenance logs [ ] Readily available [ ] Up to date DdN/A Remarks 2. Site-Specific Health and Safety Plan [ ] O&M manual [ ] Readily available [ ] Up to date [,.t1 N/A [ ] Emergency response plan [ ] Readily available [ ] Up to date [MN/A Remarks 3. O&M and OSHA Training Records [ ] Readily available [ ] Up to date IK.I N/A Remarks 4. Permits and Service Agreements [ ] Air discharge permit [ ] Readily available [ ] Up to date [~N/A [ ] Effluent discharge [ ] Readily available [ ] Up to date fX1 N/A [ ] Waste disposal, POTW [ ] Readily available [ ] Up to date [I(] N/A [ ] Other permits [ ] Readily available [ ] Up to date I)(] N/A Remarks 5. Gas Generation Records [ ] Readily available [ ] Up to date [XI N/A Remarks 6. Settlement Monument Records [ ] Readily available [ ] Up to date [JqN/A Remarks 7. Groundwater Monitoring Records [ ] Readily available [ ] Up to date ~N/A Remarks 8. Leachate Extraction Records [ ] Readily available [ ] Up to date ~N/A Remarks 9. Discharge Compliance Records [ ] Air [ ] Readily available [ ] Up to date [~N/A [ ] Water (effluent) [ ] Readily available [ ] Up to date I> 10. Daily Access/Security Logs [ ] Readily available [ ] Up to date b<1 N/A Remarks 2010 Five-Year Review Page 3 Former Norton AFB: IRP Site 17 INSPECTION CHECKLIST Basewide au Iv. O&M COSTS 1. O&M Organization tJ/A [ ] State (in-house) [' ] Contractor (for State) [ ] PRP (in-house) [ ] Contractor (for PRP) [ ] Federal Facility in-house [ ] Contractor (for Federal Facility) [ ] Other 2. O&M Cost Records AliA [ ] Readily available [ ] Up to date [ ] Funding mechanism/agreement in place Original O&M cost estimate [ ] Breakdown attached Total annual cost by year for review period if available From ~o $ [ ] Breakdown attached Date Date Total cost From '0 $ [ ] Breakdown attached Date Date Total cost From To $ [ ] Breakdown attached Date Date Total cost From '0 $ [ ] Breakdown attached Date Date Total cost From .'0 $ [ ] Breakdown attached Date Date Total cost 3. Unanticipated or Unusually High O&M Costs During Review Period Describe costs and reasons: 2010 Five-Year Review Page 4 Former Norton AFB: IRP Site 17 INSPECTION CHECKLIST Basewide au '. V. ACCESS AND INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS f)'f Applicable [] N/A I A. Fencing 1. Fencing damaged [ ] Location shown on site map [)d Gates secured [ ]N/A D",""",..1r", B. Other Access Restrictions 1. Signs and other security measures [ ] Location shown on site map DdN/A n .1. C. Institutional Controls (ICs) 1. Implementation and enforcement Site conditions imply lCs not properly implemented [ ] Yes [ ] No I)d'N/A Site conditions imply lCs not being fully enforced [ ] Yes [ ] No ~N/A Type ofmonitOrin&!,g" self-re7orting, drive by) d£J~-/'~ Frequency . JIIIl U ~ Responsible party/agency -;l/J~ hrC:t!:.-- Contact ...;-e/'Cline/5)A6 /"116M Title Date Phone no. Reporting is up-to-date [ ] Yes [ ]No [1fN/A Reports are verified by the lead agency [ ] Yes [ ] No ~N/A Specific requirements have been met [ ] Yes [ ] No f,{N/A (in deed or decision 'documents) Violations have been reported [ ] Yes [ ] No MN/A Other problems or suggestions: [ ] Report attached 2. Adequacy [ ] I Cs are adequate [ ] lCs are inadequate D D. General 1. Vandalism/trespassing [ ] Location shown on site map ~ No vandalism evident Remarks 2. Land use changes on site ~N/A Remarks 3. Land use changes off site [')qN/A Remarks 2010 Five-Year Review PageS Former Norton AFB: IRP Site 17 INSPECTION CHECKLIST Basewide au VI. GENERAL SITE CONDITIONS I··.· A. Roads [ ] Applicable OON/A 1. Roads damaged [ ] Location shown on site map [ ] Roads adequate ~N/A Remarks B. Other Site Conditions Remarks 2010 Five-Year Review Page 6 Former Norton AFB: IRP Site 17 INSPECTION CHECKLIST Basewide OU I' I'" VItLANDFILLCOVERS [ )'Applicable [X] N/A 1< A. Landfill Surface B. Benches C. Letdown Channels D. Cover Penetrations E. Gas Collection and Treatment F. Cover Drainage Layer G. Detention/Sedimentation Ponds H. Retaining Walls I. Perimeter Ditches/OffRSite Discharge I, VIII. VERTICAL BARRIER WALLS [ ] Applicable [X] NIA ':,>::: 1. Settlement [ ] Location shown on site map [ ] Settlement not evident Areal extent Depth Remarh 2. Performance Monitoring Type ofmonitoring [ ] Performance not monitored Frequency [ ] Evidence ofbreaching Head differential Remark~ 2010 Five-Year Review Page 7 Former Norton AFB: IRP Site 17 INSPECTION CHECKLIST Basewide OU IX. GROUNDWATERJSURFACE WATER REMEDIES [ ] Applicable [)(JN/A . A. Groundwater Extraction Wells, Pumps, and Pipelines [ ] Applicable rxfN/A 1. Pumps, Wellhead Plumbing, and Electrical [ ] Good condition [ ] All required wells properly operating [ ] Needs Maintenance [XN/A Remarks 2. Extraction System Pipelines, Valves, Valve Boxes, and Other Appurtenances [ ] Good condition [ ] Needs Maintenance Remarks 3. Spare Parts and Equipment [ ] Good condition [ ] Readily available [ ] Requires upgrade [ ] Needs to be provided Remarks B. Surface Water Collection Structures, Pumps, and Pipelines [ ] Applicable I/(N/A 1. Collection Structures, Pumps, and Electrical [ ] Good condition [ ] Needs Maintenance Remarks 2. Surface Water Collection System Pipelines, Valves, Valve Boxes, and Other Appurtenances [ ] Good condition [ ] Needs Maintenance Remarks 3. Spare Parts and Equipment [ ] Good condition [ ] Readily available [ ] Requires upgrade [ ] Needs to be provided Remarks 2010 Five-Year Review PageS Former Norton AFB: IRP Site 17 INSPECTION CHECKLIST Basewide au IX. GROUNDWATERISURFACE WATER REMEDIES (Continued) C. Treatment System [ ] Applicable ~N/A 1. Treatment Train (Check components that apply) [ ] Metals removal [ ] Oil/water separation [ ] Bioremediation [ ] Air stripping [ ] Carbon adsorbers [ ] Filters [ ] Additive (e.g., chelation agent, flocculent) [ ] Others [ ] Good condition [ ] Needs Maintenance [ ] Sampling ports properly marked and functional [ ] Equipment properly identified [ ] Sampling/maintenance log displayed and up to date Quantity treated annually: Groundwater (gallons) Surface water (gallons) Remarks 2. Electrical Enclosures and Panels (properly rated and functional) [ ]N/A [ ] Good condition [ ] Needs maintenance Remarks 3. Tanks, Vaults, Storage Vessels [ ]N/A [ ] Good condition [ ] Needs maintenance [ ] Proper secondary containment Remarks 4. Discharge Structure and Appurtenances [ ]N/A [ ] Good condition [ ] Needs maintenance Remarks 5. Treatment Building(s) [ ]N/A [ ] Good condition (especially roof and doorways) [ ] Needs repair Remarks 6. Monitoring Wells (pump and treat remedy) [ ] Properly securedllocked [ ] Functioning [ ] Routinely sampled [ ] Good condition [ ] All required wells located [ ] Needs Maintenance ~N/A Remarks 2010 Five-Year Review Page 9 Former Norton AFB: IRP Site 17 INSPECTION CHECKLIST Basewide au !'" IX•.,. GROUNDWATERISURFACE WATER REMEDIES (Continued) " D. Monitoring Results tJ/4 l. Monitoring Data [ ] Is routinely submitted on time [ ] Is ofacceptable quality Remarks l. Results. Monitoring data suggests: , [ ] Groundwater plume is effectively contained [ ] Contaminant concentrations are declining Remarks E. Monitored Natural Attenuation 1. Monitoring Wells (natural attenuation remedy) [ ] Properly secured/locked [ ] l"UDctioning [ ] Routinely sampled [ ] Good condition [ ] All required wells located [ ] Needs Maintenance DrN/A Remarks , I Ii X. OTHER REMEDIES Ifthere are remedies applied at the site that are not covered above, attach an inspection sheet describing the physical nature and condition ofany facility associated with the remedy. An example would be soil vapor extraction. 2010 Five-Year Review Page 10 Former Norton AFB: IRP Site 17 INSPECTION CHECKLIST Basewide OU XI. OVERALL OBSERVATIONS ,; .' . A. Implementation of the Remedy Describe issues and observations relating to whether the remedy is effective and functioning as designed. Begin with a brief statement of what the remedy is to accomplish (Le., to contain contaminant plume, minimize infiltration and gas emission, etc.). . f.em eJ'j (,s ofte.c.. t (J e ( A t.A/~ ~ f , .... 7 f(c:ttA c, ( 01 ~fl:.e.. B. Adequacy of O&M Describe issues and observations related to the implementation and scope of O&M procedures. In particular, discuss their relationship to the current and long-term protectiveness ofthe remedy. ~J~~f)41 e c. Early Indicators of Potential Remedy Problems Describe issues and observations such as unexpected changes in the cost or scope of O&M or a high frequency ofunscheduled repairs, that suggest that the protectiveness ofthe remedy may be compromised in the future. r\ en1 e D. Opportunities for Optimization Describe possible opportunities for optimization in monitoring tasks or the operation ofthe remedy. .. (J Vi. e.,... 2010 Five-Year Review Page 11 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Former Norton AFB: IRP Site 19 INSPECTION CHECKLIST Basewide au I. SITE INFORMATION Site name: Date of inspection: I R P IS I TG 19 J/.zS- /2-0 I 0 Fa ... e... IVa,.r ell" A F IS Location and Region: f(. <:f t5) EPA ID: CA4570024345 e.. ... '"'''' Agency, office, or company leading the five-year Weather/temperature: L..' (;11, ..,.II N /) c. .... (J (.Ip ~/ review: A S. co tv! Remedy Includes: (Check all that apply) [ ] Landfill cover/containment [ ] Monitored natural attenuation [ ] Access controls [ ] Groundwater containment [>'1 Institutional controls [ ] Vertical barrier walls [ ] Surface water collection and treatment [ ] Groundwater pump and treatment [)d'Other /(t!!!.3 1- V'. ('. i i.",.,) Sit S. 0," , ~ cst-.., ".. J.:, ( "1- IJ. c. -t." ,·t /.. ~ Attachments: [)(] Inspection team roster attached [ ] Site map attached 2010 Five-Year Review Page 1 Former Norton AFB: IRP Site 19 INSPECTION CHECKLIST Basewide OU II. INTERVIEWS (Check all that apply) ,: c. :' 1. O&M site manager AI/A. Name Title Date Interviewed [ ] at site [ ] at office [ ] by phone. Phone no: Problems, suggestions; Report attached 2. O&Mstaff Name Title Date Interviewed [ ] at site [ ] at office [ ] by phone. Phone no: Problems, suggestions; Report attached 3. Local regulatory authorities and response agencies (Le., State and Tribal offices, emergency response office, police department, office ofpublic health or environmental health, zoning office. recorder ofdeeds, or other city and county offices, etc.) Fill in all that apply, eMl '1.. fJIlN'1G;pr;f L Agency .AFR PA P Ie. G'lt:J-tlAlVi Contact \T e.. VII'" ~ 13'ff\~"a,..., M A-1II4-(;.E (l. ~'7 Name Title Date Phone no. Problems; suggestions: [vi Report attached ~,ftG.c ,Olot of Agency IV'DAfSi3fAA R61>'; v /EL..of'.MGtllr "'"D T}l", 1II!i f'l c Ia T'i'1"i Contact Ale:.1C E s -C-trCl J (it.. oJ '/S/Id Name Title Date Phone no. Problems; suggestions: [0Report attached Agency I VDA C. (!)IJ S(/L.TAI/T;, IIVA Contact ;::ra WI e 50- &0 vlI"lej 1/$"/10 Name Title Date Phone no. Problems; suggestions: [1'Report attached 4. Other interviews (optional) [ ] Report attached. 2010 Five-Year Review Page 2 Former Norton AFB: IRP Site 19 INSPECTION CHECKLIST Basewide au ;: m. ON-SITE DOCUMENTS & RECORDS VERIFIED (Check all that apply) 1. O&M Documents [ ] O&M manual [ ] Readily available [ ] Up to date ~N/A [ ] As-built drawings [ ] Readily available [ ] Up to date [)dN/A [ ] Maintenance logs [ ] Readily available [ ] Up to date I)cl N/A Remarks 2. Site-Specific Health and Safety Plan [ ] O&M manual [ ] Readily available [ ] Up to date [XfN/A [ ] Emergency response plan [ ] Readily available [ ] Up to date ~N/A Remarks 3. O&M and OSHA Training Records [ ] Readily available [ ] Up to date [A1N/A Remarks 4. Permits and Service Agreements [ ] Air discharge permit [ ] Readily available [ ] Up to date OdN/A [ ] Effluent discharge [ ] Readily available [ ] Up to date [;4 N/A [ ] Waste disposal, POTW [ ] Readily available [ ] Up to date ~N/A [ ] Other pennits [ ] Readily available [ ] Up to date p;] N/A Remarks 5. Gas Generation Records [ ] Readily available [ ] Up to date LijN/A Remarks 6. Settlement Monument Records [ ] Readily available [ ] Up to date fX1N/A Remarks 7. Groundwater Monitoring Records [ ] Readily available [ ] Up to date LflN/A Remarks 8. Leachate Extraction Records [ ] Readily available [ ] Up to date [)4"N/A Remarks 9. Discharge Compliance Records [ ] Air [ ] Readily available [ ] Up to date [~N/A [ ] Water (eftluent) [ ] Readily available [ ] Up to date ~N/A Remarks 10. Daily Access/Security Logs [ ] Readily available [ ] Up to date [)q N/A Remarks 201 0 Five-Year Review Page 3 Former Norton AFB: IRP Site 19 INSPECTION CHECKLIST Basewide au I···.· IV. O&M COSTS 1. O&M Organization rJ fA [ ] State (in-house) [ ] Contractor (for State) [ ] PRP (in-house) [ ] Contractor (for PRP) [ ] Federal Facility in-house [ ] Contractor (for Federal Facility) [ ] Other 2. O&M Cost Records [ ] Readily available [ ] Up to date [ ] Funding mechanism/agreement in place Original O&M cost estimate [ ] Breakdown attached Total annual cost by year for review period if available From To $ [ ] Breakdown attached Date Date Total cost From To $ [ ] Breakdown attached Date Date Total cost From To $ [ ] Breakdown attached Date Date Total cost From To $ [ ] Breakdown attached Date Date Total cost From To $ [ ] Breakdown attached Date Date Total cost 3. Unanticipated or Unusually High O&M Costs During Review Period Describe costs and reasons: 2010 Five-Year Review Page 4 Former Norton AFB: IRP Site 19 INSPECTION CHECKLIST Basewide au 1'-- ' v. ACCESS AND INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS [ ] Applicable [ ]N/A A. Fencing l. Fencing damaged [ ] Location shown on site map [ ] Gates secured [)(NIA Remarks B. Other Access RestrictionS l. Signs and other security measures [ ] Location shown on site map [..)fN/A Remarks c. Institutional Controls (ICs) 1. Implementation and enforcement Site conditions imply rcs not properly implemented [ ] Yes [)q No [] N/A Site conditions imply ICs not being fully enforced [ ] Yes [)4'No [ ]N/A Type ofmonitoring (e.g., self-reporting, driv.e by) d~'ve I ~jr eep ,.t.1..t~ Frequency ... J. II I- h!J @YItie.. / 4t Responsible party/agency ..s 0 (If. A Contact Ettl<'- ~Av' Name Title Date Phone no. Reporting is up-to-date [~Yes [ ] No []N/A Reports are verified by the lead agency DdYes [ ] No ~'f.ttN/A Specific requirements have been met Kl Yes [ ] No []N/A (in deed or decision documents) Violations have been reported [ ] Yes [ ]No ~N/A Other problems or suggestions: [ ] Report attached .5..ltJ!!t ; s vAl,;{ I s. t uv P ... J • Ala C Q 1.4 S fv'Vc. fl""""" o~ b Q.1S. ~ ;"-t- til. { .s.;1t ~c..It"D' ...:i •, Dr/"'" ~a'iJ"CB.lI"e c.e", of e..-,S 2. Adequacy OCI res are adequate [ ] I Cs are inadequate [ ]N/A Remarks D. General 1. Vandalism/trespassing [ ] Location shown on site map r)}No vandalism evident Remarks 2. Land use changes on site [)4N/A Remarks . 3. Land use changes off site L>\N/A Remarks 2010 Five-Year Review PageS Former Norton AFB: IRP Site 19 INSPECTION CHECKLIST Basewide au VI. GENERAL SITE CONDITIONS A. Roads [~ Applicable [ ]N/A 1. Roads damaged [ ] Location shown on site map Vq Roads adequate [ JN/A Remarks B. Other Site Conditions Remarks A- V" ~ l.s p a V'-t ().p... T kef LI j h T (,0"'1 e. .. Ttc. f!.. C t!).., 0"". f- c... ,.s. ,'"" t a. c 1 2010 Five-Year Review Page 6 Former Norton AFB: IRP Site 19 INSPECTION CHECKLIST Basewide au VII. LANDFILL COVERS [ ] Applicable [X] N/A A. Landfill Surface B. Benches c. Letdown Channels D. Cover Penetrations E. Gas Collection and Treatment F. Cover Drainage Layer G. Detention/Sedimentation Ponds H. Retaining Walls I. Perimeter Ditches/Off-Site Discharge VITI. VERTICAL BARRIER WALLS [ ] Applicable [X] N/A , 1. Settlement [ ] Location shown on site map [ ] Settlement not evident Areal extent Depth Remarks 2. Performance Monitoring Type ofmonitoring [ ] Perfonnance not monitored Frequency [ ] Evidence ofbreaching Head differential TO . no IIi1.rIl.S 2010 Five-Year Review Page 7 Former Norton AFB: IRP Site 19 INSPECTION CHECKLIST Basewide au I IX.GROlJNfiWATERlSuR.FAtE WATER REMEDIES [ ] Applicable ["tN1A I A. Groundwater Extraction Wells, Pumps, and Pipelines [ ] Applicable ~N/A 1. Pumps, Wellhead Plumbing, and Electrical [ ] Good condition [ ] All required wells properly operating [ ] Needs Maintenance [)fN/A Remarks 2. Extraction System Pipelines, Valves, Valve Boxes, and Other Appurtenances [ ] Good condition [ ] Needs Maintenance Remarks 3. Spare Parts and Equipment [ ] Good condition [ ] Readily available [ ] Requires upgrade [ ] Needs to be provided Remarks B. Surface Water Collection Structures, Pumps, and Pipelines [ ] Applicable ~N/A l. Collection Structures, Pumps, and Electrical [ ] Good condition [ ] Needs Maintenance Remarks 2. Surface Water Collection System Pipelines, Valves, Valve Boxes, and Other Appurtenances [ ] Good condition [ ] Needs Maintenance Remarks 3. Spare Parts and Equipment [ ] Good condition [ ] Readily available [ ] Requires upgrade [ ] Needs to be provided Remarks 2010 Five~Year Review PageS Former Norton AFB: IRP Site 19 INSPECTION CHECKLIST Basewide OU I: IX. GROUNDWATERfSURFACE WATER REMEDIES (Continued) I;:' C. Treatment System [ ] Applicable rAN/A l. Treatment Train (Check components that apply) [ ] Metals removal [ ] Oil/water separation [ ] Bioremediation [ ] Air stripping [ ] Carbon adsorbers [ ] Filters [ ] Additive (e.g., chelation agent, flocculent) [ ] Others [ ] Good condition [ ] Needs Maintenance [ ] Sampling ports properly marked and functional [ ] Equipment properly identified [ ] Sampling/maintenance log displayed and up to date Quantity treated annually: Groundwater (gallons) Surface water (gallons) Remarks 2. Electrical Enclosures and Panels (properly rated and functional) [k] N/A [ ] Good condition [ ] Needs maintenance Remarks 3. Tanks, Vaults, Storage Vessels [XN/A [ ] Good condition [ ] Needs maintenance [ ] Proper secondary containment Remarks 4. Discharge Structure and Appurtenances [)1N/A [ ] Good condition [ ] Needs maintenance Remarks 5. Treatment Building(s) [)dN/A [ ] Good condition (especially roof and doorways) [ ] Needs repair Remarks 6. Monitoring Wells (pump and treat remedy) [ ] Properly secured/locked [ ] Functioning [ ] Routinely sampled [ ] Good condition [ ] All required wells located [ ] Needs Maintenance [c,d N/A Remarks 2010 Five-Year Review Page 9 Former Norton AFB: IRP Site 19 INSPECTION CHECKLIST Basewide au , ::.. IX.GROUNDWATERISURFACE WATER REMEDIES (Continued) ;, . D. Monitoring Results 1. Monitoring Data [ ] Is routinely submitted on time [ .] Is of acceptable quality Remarks l. Results. Monitoring data suggests: [ ] Groundwater plume is effectively contained [ ] Contaminant concentrations are declining Remarks E. Monitored Natural Attenuation 1. Monitoring Wells (natural attenuation remedy) [ ] Properly secured/locked [ ] Functioning [ ] Routinely sampled [ ] Good condition [ ] All required wells located [ ] Needs Maintenance [)d'N/A Remarks x. OTHER REMEDIES I' Ifthere are remedies applied at the site that are not covered above, attach an inspection sheet describing the physical nature and condition of any facility associated with the remedy. An example would be soil vapor extraction. 2010 Five-Year Review Page 10 Former Norton AFB: IRP Site 19 INSPECTION CHECKLIST Basewide au I;: XI. OVERALL OBSERVATIONS " A. Implementation of the Remedy Describe issues and observations relating to whether the remedy is effective and functioning as designed. Begin with a brief statement of what the remedy is to accomplish (Le., to contain contaminant plume, minimize infiltration and gas emission, etc.). l c. s Alte.. U"\ !lit ; "., t-,.. ;VI e" B. Adequacy of O&M Describe issues and observations related to the implementation and scope ofO&M procedures. In particular, discuss their relationship to the current and long-term protectiveness ofthe remedy. c. Early Indicators of Potential Remedy Problems Describe issues and observations such as unexpected changes in the cost or scope ofO&M or a high frequency ofunscheduled repairs, that suggest that the protectiveness ofthe remedy may be compromised in the future. D. Opportunities for Optimization Describe possible opportunities for optimization in monitoring tasks or the operation ofthe remedy. 2010 Five-Year Review Page 11 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Former Norton AFB: AOe 4 INSPECTION CHECKLIST Basewide OU L SITE INFORMATION Site name: Aoc- Gf Date of inspection: I/ZS/ZOIO I • • p.fIII"tIt4t:tI' Alo".f ... AF.B LocatIOn and RegIOn: ~ ,II ., EPA ID: CA4570024345 e.. I fJ III 'W Agency, office, or company leading the five-year Weather/temperature: '-I ~lIr C ,,, CI 'D s review: AGCOM Remedy Includes: (Check all that apply) [ ] Landfill cover/containment [ ] Monitored natural attenuation [ ] Access controls [ ] Groundwater containment [ ] Institutional controls [ ] Vertical barrier walls [ ] Surface water collection and treatment. [ ] Groundwater pump and treatment K1 Other FAA 4N 12 iE- til lit, .. ,. are. 5 t"v l c.,. l f1!.1I'I.s CIIII'.4o'\ v.se , I 11\ J. () S 1- V' I a ( JJ ~p t"J ~ l ..., Attachments: [M" Inspection team roster attached [ ] Site map attached 2010 Five-Year Review Page 1 Former Norton AFB: AOe 4 INSPECTION CHECKLIST Basewide OU II. INTERVIEWS (Check all that apply) 1. O&M site manager 'Ot+/,e w.4L.c.,4Cc ~."., flllI'fI ~lf//ft!1if 't4t 115 I/ZS-/ID Name Title Date Interviewed fI 3. Local regulatory authorities and response agencies (i.e., State and Tribal offices, emergency response office, police department, office ofpublic health or environmental health, zoning office, recorder ofdeeds, or other city and county offices, etc.) Fill in all that apply. 1f5..,vv'/l4..0t/.,4fGNrAL Agency .,AFR fA (t 00. ~AAA Contact J e-rll"d BtVl,ttaWl J'IfIt N4 c;; e Il. 12/,lo<} Name Title Date Phone no. Problems; suggestions: [t1 Report attached Of REcraft, t) F ttrr Agency I V VA / t7 B I A.4 R. (H)G:c.I~(.. ()(lM€: ..AliI> rttAIIs/QIl-7''+r' (I.1f~ Contact A(e-~ t: ~t-V-ttJ ~ Name Title Date Phone no. Problems; suggestions: ["Report attached Agency tv PA Contact \ri..~ e,~ fro vV' (-e c ~HStlLrAAflII V DA IfsA~ Name U Title Date Phone no. Problems; suggestions: [Jj Report attached 4. Other interviews (optional) [ ] Report attached. 2010 Five-Year Review Page 2 Former Norton AFB: AOe 4 INSPECTION CHECKLIST Basewide OU I' III. ON-SITE DOCUMENTS & RECORDS VERIFIED (Check all that apply) I, 1. O&M Documents [XrO&M manual [X Readily available [XI Up to date [ ] N/A [>q As-built drawings M Readily available J> 3. O&M and OSHA Training Records MReadily available r;q Up to date [ ] N/A Remarks 4. Permits and Service Agreements [ ] Air discharge permit [ ] Readily available [ ] Up to date [ ]N/A [ ] Effluent discharge [ ] Readily available [ ] Up to date [ ]N/A [ ] Waste disposal, POTW [ ] Readily available [ ] Up to date [ ] N/A [)Cf Other permits [Ii Readily available [>] Up to date [ ] N/A Remarks Pi ... M~ h (e h a1", vJ flU S \111'111 oS "fe.. Il e.v"","" ( t 5. Gas Generation Records [ ] Readily available [ ] Up to date [\fN/A Remarks 6. Settlement Monument Records [ ] Readily available [ ] Up to date [,q.N/A Remarks 7. Groundwater Monitoring Records [ ] Readily available [ ] Up to date ['(N/A Remarks 8. Leachate Extraction Records [ ] Readily available [ ] Up to date [~/A Remarks 9. Discharge Compliance Records [ ] Air [ ] Readily available [ ] Up to date p.tqN/A [ ] Water (effluent) [ ] Readily available [ ] Up to date ['{'NIA Remarks 10. Daily Access/Security Logs [ ] Readily available [ ] Up to date [~N/A Remarks 2010 Five-Year Review Page 3 Former Norton AFB: AOe 4 INSPECTION CHECKLIST Basewide OU IV. O&M COSTS 1. O&M Organization [ ] State (in-house) [ ] Contractor (for State) [ ] PRP (in-house) [ ] Contractor (for PRP) [ ] Federal Facility in-house [ ] Contractor (for Federal Facility) fI(IOther CD", .. i ';J (Jr 5 .... '" iJt!!!V"1I't4'" ,(';"0 hV"t!. De.ea.".tHlf!w"t H IA. if! A .....d • v 5 .M lilt. t e v t" «. I 5 DO, "'" I· " ,. l'I'" 2. O&M Cost Records [ ] Readily available [ ] Up to date [ ] Funding mechanism/agreement in place Original O&M cost estiimalte______[ ] Breakdown attached Total annual cost by year for review period ifavailable From ____ To___ $ [ ] Breakdown attached Date Date Total cost From ____ '0 $_---- [ ] Breakdown attached Date Date Total cost From ____ To___ $_---- [ ] Breakdown attached Date Date Total cost From ____ '0 $ [ ] Breakdown attached Date Date Total cost From ____ '0 $ [ ] Breakdown attached Date Date Total cost 3. Unanticipated or Unusually High O&M Costs During Review Period Describe costs and reasons: 2010 Five-Year Review Page 4 Former Norton AFB: AOe 4 INSPECTION CHECKLIST Basewide OU V. ACCESS AND INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS 1)(1 Applicable [] N/A A. Fencing 1. Fencing damaged [ ] Location shown on site map [-,4 Gates secured [ ] N/A Remarks B. Other Access Restrictions 1. Signs and other security measures [ ] Location shown on site map [ ] N/A Remarks (:)1\1 $"'''''''' """"Id # ""'1- -r:=eVlc-e.~ c. Institutional Controls (ICs) 1. Implementation and enforcement Site conditions imply ICs not properly implemented [ ] Yes [ ] No ~N/A Site conditions imply ICs not being fully enforced [ ] Yes [ ] No p<} N/A Type ofmonitoring (e.g., self-rr0rting, drive by) @Vt!:-!:,!:{- J ~t£-{~dld("- Frequency OJ!1 J1 U ec.... Responsible party/agency SB-rAA Contact €/?IG /fAy Name Title Date Phone no. Reporting is up-to-date [ ] Yes [ ] No OfN/A Reports are verified by the lead agency [ ] Yes [ ] No I 2. Adequacy [ ] I Cs are adequate [ ] ICs are inadequate ~N/A Remarks D. General l. Vandalism/trespassing [ ] Location shown on site map ~ No vandalism evident Remarks 2. Land use changes on site pqN/A Remarks 3. Land use changes off site IXN/A Remarks 2010 Five-Year Review PageS Former Norton AFB: AOe 4 INSPECTION CHECKLIST Basewide OU :. VI. GENERAL SITE CONDITIONS A. Roads [ ] Applicable L><.l N/A 1. Roads damaged [ ] Location shown on site map [ ] Roads adequate [)(N/A Remarks. B. Other Site Conditions Remarks 2010 Five-Year Review Page 6 Former Norton AFB: AOe 4 INSPECTION CHECKLIST Basewide OU I VII. LANDFILL COVERS [ ] Applicable [X]N/A A. Landfill Surface B. Benches C. Letdown Channels D. Cover Penetrations E. Gas Collection and Treatment F. Cover Drainage Layer G. Detention/Sedimentation Ponds H. Retaining Walls I. Perimeter Ditches/Off-Site Discharge VIII. VERTICAL BARRIER WALLS [ ] Applicable [X] N/A 1. Settlement [ ] Location shown on site map [ ] Settlement not evident Areal ..... ~1 . -~~ 2. Performance Monitoring Type of .1l1J;f, [ ] Perfonnance not monitored TI_ rr' ~& [ ] Evidence ofbreaching " Head differential Remark~ 2010 Five-Year Review Page 7 Former Norton AFB: AOC 4 INSPECTION CHECKLIST Basewide OU I' IX. GROUNDWATER/SURFACE WATER REMEDIES [ ] Applicable [XN/A A. Groundwater Extraction Wells, Pumps, and Pipelines [ ] Applicable l'<1 N/A 1. Pumps, Wellhead Plumbing, and Electrical [ ] Good condition [ ] All required wells properly operating [ ] Needs Maintenance ~N/A Remarks 2. Extraction System Pipelines, Valves, Valve Boxes, and Other Appurtenances [ ] Good condition [ ] Needs Maintenance Remarks 3. Spare Parts and Equipment [ ] Good condition [ ] Readily available [ ] Requires upgrade [ ] Needs to be provided Remarks B. Surface Water Collection Structures, Pumps, and Pipelines [ ] Applicable [)4N/A 1. Collection Structures, Pumps, and Electrical [ ] Good condition [ ] Needs Maintenance Remarks 2. Surface Water Collection System Pipelines, Valves, Valve Boxes, and Other Appurtenances [ ] Good condition [ ] Needs Maintenance Remarks 3. Spare Parts and Equipment [ ] Good condition [ ] Readily available [ ] Requires upgrade [ ] Needs to be provided Remarks 2010 Five-Year Review PageS Former Norton AFB: AOe 4 INSPECTION CHECKLIST Basewide au IX~ GROUNDWATERISURFACE WATER REMEDIES (Continued) C. Treatment System [ ] Applicable I;J.N/A 1. Treatment Train (Check components that apply) [ ] Metals removal [ ] Oil/water separation [ ] Bioremediation [ ] Air stripping [ ] Carbon adsorbers [ ] Filters [ ] Additive (e.g., chelation agent, flocculent) [ ] Others [ ] Good condition [ ] Needs Maintenance [ ] Sampling ports properly marked and functional [ ] Equipment properly identified [ ] Sampling/maintenance log displayed and up to date Quantity treated annually: Groundwater (gallons) Surface water (gallons) Remarks 2. Electrical Enclosures and Panels (properly rated and functional) I)q N/A [ ] Good condition [ ] Needs maintenance Remarks 3. Tanks, Vaults, Storage Vessels ~N/A [ ] Good condition [ ] Needs maintenance [ ] Proper secondary containment Remarks 4. Discharge Structure and Appurtenances [XN/A [ ] Good condition [ ] Needs maintenance Remarks 5. Treatment Building(s) ~N/A [ ] Good condition (especially roof and doorways) [ ] Needs repair Remarks 6. Monitoring Wells (pump and treat remedy) [ ] Properly secured/locked [ ] Functioning [ ] Routinely sampled [ ] Good condition [ ] All required wells located [ ] Needs Maintenance IXN/A Remarks 2010 Five-Year Review Page 9 Former Norton AFB: AOe 4 INSPECTION CHECKLIST Basewide OU I IX. GROUNDWATER/SURFACE WATER REMEDIES (Continued) D. Monitoring Results 1. Monitoring Data [ ] Is routinely submitted on time [ ] Is of acceptable quality Remarks l. Results. Monitoring data suggests: [ ] Groundwater plume is effectively contained [ ] Contaminant concentrations are declining Remarks E. Monitored Natural Attenuation 1. Monitoring Wells (natural attenuation remedy) [ ] Properly secured/locked [ ] Functioning [ ] Routinely sampled [ ] Good condition [ ] All required wells located [ ] Needs Maintenance [)(N/A Remarks x. OTHER REMEDIES Ifthere are remedies applied at the site that are not covered above, attach an inspection sheet describing the physical nature and condition ofany facility associated with the remedy. An example would be soil vapor extraction. 2010 Five-Year Review Page 10 Former Norton AFB: AOe 4 INSPECTION CHECKLIST Basewide au ..' XI. OVERALL OBSERVATIONS A. Implementation of the Remedy Describe issues and observations relating to whether the remedy is effective and functioning as designed. Begin with a brief statement of what the remedy is to accomplish (Le., to contain contaminant plume, minimize infiltration and gas emission, etc.). NI=A irS. ~e W14S,J ~ s c::t..s FAA , . d ( 0 "'J A"'&/ Z 0 .... c.., J res:t II'" I c."" I·~ "1:: 0 fA "! S C2.... £ocr (J " (1 (....D.....,~ec.-Cl,;. ( e(.ce/ It:JJvs 'f ..... , cL LI.5e , S CN1 g;! f. A,;'eL B. Adequacy of O&M Describe issues and observations related to the implementation and scope ofO&M procedures. In particular, discuss their relationship to the current and long~term protectiveness ofthe remedy. AJeftl4.t e. c. Early Indicators of Potential Remedy Problems Describe issues and observations such as unexpected changes in the cost or scope of O&M or a high frequency ofunscheduled repairs, that suggest that the protectiveness ofthe remedy may be compromised in the future. r"\ovtJL D. Opportunities for Optimization Describe possible opportunities for optimization in monitoring tasks or the operation ofthe remedy. 11\ oil1t. 2010 Five-Year Review Page 11 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Former Norton AFB: AOe 33 INSPECTION CHECKLIST Basewide OU I. SITE INFORMATION Site name: Aoc 33 Date of inspection: 1/2.5;/2.010 FdJ vWf(!i!" Nf:J"~(I(p"" AFt5 Location and Region: EPA ID: CA4570024345 Re 4 ;' tJ '" , C {ClIvoiS Agency, office, or company leading"" the five-year Weather/temperature: 1-1," review: A E C.O/1 Remedy Includes: (Check all that apply) [ ] Landfill cover/containment [ ] Monitored natural attenuation [ ] Access controls [ ] Groundwater containment [ ] Institutional controls [ ] Vertical barrier walls [ ] Surface water collection and treatment [ ] Groundwater pump and treatment Dd Other IE. 1{ C g Il': ~ ~ i ()V1 d. '" J V"e ~ o.VI3..£ t1.F sv n1 e If.! t1i 4SS0C ,'a.'ft!!d sot'ls ~O"l t-~ 11? /;" (J. fe..l w/"'tt, DeL {3,. Attachments: [>(I Inspection team roster attached [ ] Site map attached Nf)te: 7/1.IV'/rA1 t-he. S('te (IA.Spl2.c:t-,o",..., 't-lreV't!! vV'c:t s=- A.. Hew e.)( c.;I(.v(J. f I Qt.-t -Ca.It::../ l!fj fleece, TAe p"Ir"o.se, of- rft e Vi ew e Kc.&tv~f t 0"7 VV"A.~ ro V'e m oVC'... Yl~l~ .f~.., VI J ' v V" h 0 Till ill k c " J.-'2 .::. rre:te. s€. c (.) VI ). a. V':; c.e)~?+et;V7 ~e.,~ vk /'t"s dVlJ f"ff';"'C; Fol{owed b1 Co.." f: t·.r ...... , a. -t-,. '0 VI S '0 ; ( 5) tl vrI f' { ; ..." 4 2010 Five-Year Review Page 1 Former Norton AFB: AOe 33 INSPECTION CHECKLIST Basewide OU . ':.' , .. : ...... ;...... •. :: '. ': .' ll. INTERVIEWS (Check all that apply) , 1. O&M site manager N/A Name Title Date Interviewed [ ] at site [ ] at office [ ] by phone. Phone no: Problems, suggestions; _ Report attached 2. O&M staff N/A Name Title Date Interviewed [ ] at site [ ] at office [ ] "by phone. Phone no: Problems, suggestions; _ Report attached 3. Local regulatory authorities and response agencies (Le., State and Tribal offices, emergency response office, police department, office ofpublic health or environmental health, zoning office, recorder ofdeeds, or other city and county offices, etc.) Fill in all that apply. Agency A, Po F() ~c.e. R~t,.. P~ttt/~..r;tM1~·f.iE '( Contact T e V' V" ~ [3, VI ~ ~ P (#I 'P jt~A-J/i\ M (,.,fL t z/ltLlPtj Name Title Date Phone no. Problems; suggestions: [ ~Report attached "p lit Gcrofl- IfJF Agency IVDA/SBI4A RI5:D G VGi,..ot>%1'Ii' ~J> ,I!ArJS poRTA-n~'; Contact Ai-E)( EStRA)A ,/8/10 Name Title Date Phone no. Problems; suggestions: [1'Report attached Agency IvDA C'otJ.>vLiA I/rj,vrr/t Contact J"" A 1'1 .£S t;ouAt..(;i' ,/>/10 Name Title Date Phone no. Problems; suggestions: [ \(Report attached 4. Other interviews (optional) srl'ttev /3lf"t.'S I DllifilatlI.I.f1IHJP/!..",--t [ ] Report attached. S 2010 Five-Year Review Page 2 Former Norton AFB: AOe 33 INSPECTION CHECKLIST Basewide au " '" .. , , '" " .. '': .: .. IlL ON-SITE DOCUMENTS & RECORDS VERIFIED (Check all that apply) 1. O&M Documents [ ] O&M manual [ ] Readily available [ ] Up to date MN/A [ ] As-built drawings [ ] Readily available [ ] Up to date [)lN/A [ ] Maintenance logs [ ] Readily available [ ] Up to date ~N/A Remarks 2. Site-Specific Health and Safety Plan [ ] O&M manual [ ] Readily available [ ] Up to date I) 3. O&M and OSHA Training Records [ ] Readily available [ ] Up to date MN/A Remarks 4. Permits and Service Agreements [ ] Air discharge pennit [ ] Readily available [ ] Up to date (>q N/A [ ] Effluent discharge [ ] Readily available [ ] Up to date [)4N/A [ ] Waste disposal, POTW [ ] Readily available [ ] Up to date [)dN/A [ ] Other pennits [ ] Readily available [ ] Up to date D<.1 N/A Remarks 5. Gas Generation Records [ ] Readily available [ ] Up to date IXJ N/A Remarks 6. Settlement Monument Records [ ] Readily available [ ] Up to date IX] N/A Remarks 7. Groundwater Monitoring Records [ ] Readily available [ ] Up to date !XI N/A Remarks 8. Leachate Extraction Records [ ] Readily available [ ] Up to date D(1 N/A Remarks 9. Discharge Compliance Records [ ] Air [ ] Readily available [ ] Up to date IXJN/A [ ] Water (eftluent) [ ] Readily available [ ] Up to date D 10. Daily Access/Security Logs [ ] Readily available [ ] Up to date ~N/A Remarks 2010 Five-Year Review Page 3 Former Norton AFB: AOe 33 INSPECTION CHECKLIST Basewide OU " " " " IV. O&M COSTS t 1. O&M Organization j./llt [ ] State (in-house) [ ] Contractor (for State) [ ] PRP (in-house) [ ] Contractor (for PRP) [ ] Federal Facility in-house [ ] Contractor (for Federal Facility) [ ] Other 2. O&M Cost Records [ ] Readily available [ ] Up to date [ ] Funding mechanism/agreement in place Original O&M cost estimate [ ] Breakdown attached Total annual cost by year for review period ifavailable From To $ [ ] Breakdown attached Date Date Total cost From To $ [ ] Breakdown attached Date Date Total cost From To $ [ ] Breakdown attached Date Date Total cost From To $ [ ] Breakdown attached Date Date Total cost From To $ [ ] Breakdown attached Date Date Total cost 3. Unanticipated or Unusually High O&M Costs During Review Period Describe costs and reasons: 2010 Five-Year Review Page 4 Former Norton AFB: Aoe 33 INSPECTION CHECKLIST Basewide OU , ,. ',' ;, " " V. ACCESS AND INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS ~ Applicable [] NIA '," A. Fencing 1. Fencing damaged [ ] Location shown on site map Dd Gates secured [ ]N/A Remarks TeVYl ~oV"a"'!:1 f'eV' "- , ,. fJ. t:!V'QU""J lI1ew ~t{C d v~ 1-( o/ilf B. Other Access Restrictions 1. Signs and other security measures [ ] Location shown on site map IX1 N/A Remarks c. Institutional Controls (ICs) 1. Implementation and enforcement Site conditions imply les not properly implemented [ ] Yes [ ] No IXN/A Site conditions imply ICs not being fully enforced [ ] Yes [ ] No [\(j N/A Type ofmonitorintZg., self-r1orting, drive by) d~JL~-~ Frequency Vlvt i.)h Respons~arty/agenCY Alit!.. ~[ce- Contact ~e!3.lllj, 11M. Title Date Phone no. Reporting is up-to-date [ ] Yes [ ] No ~N/A Reports are verified by the lead agency [ ] Yes [ ] No b(lN/A Specific requirements have been met [ ] Yes [ ] No Dd"N/A (in deed or decision documents) Violations have been reported [ ] Yes [ ] No ~N/A Other problems or suggestions: [ ] Report attached 2. Adequacy [ ] I Cs are adequate [ ] ICs are inadequate [fiN/A Remarks D. General 1. Vandalism/trespassing [ ] Location shown on site map [X No vandalism evident Remarks 2. Land use cbanges on site rx] N/A Remarks 3. Land use cbanges off site MN/A Remarks 2010 Five-Year Review PageS Former Norton AFB: AOe 33 INSPECTION CHECKLIST Basewide OU VI. GENERAL SITE CONDITIONS A. Roads [ ] Applicable [)fN/A 1. Roads damaged [ ] Location shown on site map [] Roads adequate D<.I N/A B. Other Site Conditions Remarks N '2. W e.x Co. va f r d '" t- tV re VI1 ove ", e ...... (f:J .(:0 V n J Tvv-bo TciVlI<. c.. Oi'7 l!. 0 II( (..'d ,...... , tAn ~ 14 i () If ( t-S a""j 1"1',,;'11. ( -.- I __ I I " J ..... - - ...... 2010 Five-Year Review Page 6 Former Norton AFB: AOe 33 INSPECTION CHECKLIST Basewide au VII. LANDFILL COVERS [ ] Applicable [X] N/A ; A. Landfill Surface B. Benches C. Letdown Channels D. Cover Penetrations E. Gas Collection and Treatment F. Cover Drainage Layer G. Detention/Sedimentation Ponds H. Retaining Walls I. Perimeter Ditches/Off·Site Discharge VIII. VERTICAL BARRIER WALLS [] Applicable [X] N/A 1. Settlement [ ] Location shown on site map [ ] Settlement not evident Areal ______ 2. Performance Monitoring T~eotnloo1ltorin~______[ ] Perfonnance not monitored [ ] Evidence ofbreaching 2010 Five-Year Review Page 7 Former Norton AFB: AOe 33 INSPECTION CHECKLIST Basewide OU .,' , , , ',', ,:' ,',' ,. ,. " ..... IX. GROUNDWATER/SURFACE WATER REMEDIES [ ] Applicable ~N/A A. Groundwater Extraction Wells, Pumps, and Pipelines [ ] Applicable rXJ N/A 1. Pumps, Wellhead Plumbing, and Electrical [ ] Good condition [ ] All required wells properly operating [ ] Needs Maintenance ~N/A Remarks 2. Extraction System Pipelines, Valves, Valve Boxes, and Other Appurtenances [ ] Good condition [ ] Needs Maintenance Remarks 3. Spare Parts and Equipment [ ] Good condition [ ] Readily available [ ] Requires upgrade [ ] Needs to be provided Remarks B. Surface Water Collection Structures, Pumps, and Pipelines [ ] Applicable L\1 N/A 1. Collection Structures, Pumps, and Electrical [ ] Good condition [ ] Needs Maintenance Remarks 2. Surface Water Collection System Pipelines, Valves, Valve Boxes, and Other Appurtenances [ ] Good condition [ ] Needs Maintenance Remarks 3. Spare Parts and Equipment [ ] Good condition [ ] Readily available [ ] Requires upgrade [ ] Needs to be provided Remarks 2010 Five-Year Review PageS Former Norton AFB: AOe ·33 INSPECTION CHECKLIST Basewide au " ... "', IX. GROUNDWATER/SURFACE WATER REMEDIES (Continued) C. Treatment System [ ] Applicable P 2. Electrical Enclosures and Panels (properly rated and functional) [ ]N/A [ ] Good condition [ ] Needs maintenance Remarks 3. Tanks, Vaults, Storage Vessels [ ] N/A [ ] Good condition [ ] Needs maintenance [ ] Proper secondary containment Remarks 4. Discharge Structure and Appurtenances [ ] N/A [ ] Good condition [ ] Needs maintenance Remarks 5. Treatment Building(s) [ ]N/A [ ] Good condition (especially roof and doorways) [ ] Needs repair Remarks 6. Monitoring Wells (pump and treat remedy) [ ] Properly securedllocked [ ] Functioning [ ] Routinely sampled [ ] Good condition [ ] All required wells located [ ] Needs Maintenance [ ] N/A Remarks 2010 Five-Year Review Page 9 Former Norton AFB: AOe 33 INSPECTION CHECKLIST Basewide OU " +',' , " , IX. GROUNDWATER/SURFACE WATER REMEDIES (Continued) D. Monitoring Results lilA 1. Monitoring Data [ ] Is routinely submitted on time [ ] Is ofacceptable quality Remarks 1. Results. Monitoring data suggests: [ ] Groundwater plume is effectively contained [ ] Contaminant concentrations are declining Remarks E. Monitored Natural Attenuation 1. Monitoring Wells (natural attenuation remedy) [ ] Properly secured/locked [ ] Functioning [ ] Routinely sampled [ ] Good condition [ ] All required wells located [ ] Needs Maintenance I)(JN/A Remarks " , X. OTHER REMEDIES Ifthere are remedies applied at the site that are not covered above; attach an inspection sheet describing the physical nature and condition of any facility associated with the remedy. An example would be soil vapor extraction. 2010 Five-Year Review Page 10 Former Norton AFB: AOe 33 INSPECTION CHECKLIST Basewide au XI. OVERALL OBSERVATIONS A. Implementation of the Remedy Describe issues and observations relating to whether the remedy is effective and functioning as designed. Begin with a brief statement ofwhat the remedy is to accomplish (i.e., to contain contaminant plume, minimize infiltration and gas emission, etc.). t>,'( 111.111) (/"." B. Adequacy of O&M Describe issues and observations related to the implementation and scope of O&M procedures. In particular, discuss their relationship to the current and long-term protectiveness ofthe remedy. )//4 c. Early Indicators of Potential Remedy Problems . Describe issues and observations such as unexpected changes in the cost or scope of O&M or a high frequency ofunscheduled repairs, that suggest that the protectiveness ofthe remedy may be compromised in the future. #() AI B D. Opportunities for Optimization Describe possible opportunities for optimization in monitoring tasks or the operation ofthe remedy. 2010 Five-Year Review Page 11 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Former Norton AFB: Bld~752 INSPECTION CHECKLIST Basewide au I I. SITE INFORMATION I _ eK"fe,.,...o ...... Site name: Date of inspection: 0 f!> l Jill - 7 S 2- trt:iloJIV'" '" it '/2.S- /201 L . dR· v F. fl"'wt If..... AI.". f • ., -4Pfj ocation an eglOn: 12.. EPA ID: CA4570024345 Gt:410",", tJ Agency, office, or company """leading the five-year Weather/tern perature: tCdH r- c:. (ovJ S review: A- Ec.o"1 7(" of Remedy Includes: (Check all that apply) [ ] Landfill cover/containment [ ] Monitored natural attenuation [ ] Access controls [ ] Groundwater containment [ ] Institutional controls [ ] Vertical barrier walls [ ] Surface water collection and treatment [ ] Groundwater pump and treatment . [M Other e. ~ c avtC, 'f I 0"" flflti J, s p.a s ..t ~••,=F!!!!l' ••• "t:!} cf. C 0.,,1- ...... 1 .. 111#1-../ S D (t.. a ( Ct4 ...q '-' c:>"t ~,J e tJ.p- I.» u " l J /,. d 7 .5-2. Attachments: [XI Inspection team roster attached [ ] Site mapattached 2010 Five·Year Review Page 1 Former Norton AFB: BLd!L752 INSPECTION CHECKLIST Basewide au Ii. INTERVIEWS: (Check al! that apply) ::,.:.. 1. O&M site manager PI.,L Kno{( J.,tI'(!c...-t-dt'" <:Jf Te:;.r OfEtt.4n()NS Name 1(8((\1 SI'"ce Title Date 1!.3.$fIO Interviewed 00 at site [ ] at office [ ] by phone. Phone no: f-a i - :3 B '2. "'2!.O~ Problems, suggestions; Report attached M"~ ~ G«II" l .s ev-t: Sf tIeH f Sl'ac::. "f- /C eil t...1... e..... 2. O&M staff Name Title Date Interviewed [ ] at site [ ] at office [ ] by phone. Phone no: Problems, suggestions; _ Report attached 3. Local regulatory authorities and response agencies (Le., State and Tribal offices, emergency response office, police department, office ofpublic health or environmental health, zoning office, recorder ofdeeds, or other city and county offices, etc.) Fill in all that apply. Agency A fit" Fovc..t::. Rea. ( PV"'ope.-f:::J A'2 e""e~ r=AlVlfto"",I"'I AlTA-I.- Contact J"eyv~ 'B I ~(j!. J..a WI pROe./l..A ~ ~ c.,.fl- la/17!tJ 9 N e Title Date Phone no. Problems; suggestions: [ ] Report attached D/t" Agency f \IDA Contact J"AMES Q..oulr"'le co~vt. rANT/ I v.pA 1/$"/lfJ Name J Title Date Phone no. Problems; suggestions: [ ] Report attached 4. Other interviews (optional) [ ] Report attached. 2010 Five-Year Review Page 2 Former Norton AFB: BldS-752 INSPECTION CHECKLIST Basewide au III. ON-SITE DOCUMENTS & RECORDS VERIFIED (Check all that apply) 1. O&M Documents [ ] O&M manual [ ] Readily available [ ] Up to date 'MN/A [ ] As-built drawings [ ] Readily available [ ] Up to date ~N/A [ ] Maintenance logs [ ] Readily available [ ] Up to date b 2. Site-Specific Health and Safety Plan [ ] O&M manual [ ] Readily available [ ] Up to date ~N/A [ ] Emergency response plan [ ] Readily available [ ] Up to date ~N/A Remarks 3. O&M and OSHA Training Records [ ] Readily available [ ] Up to date [Iq,N/A Remarks 4. Permits and Service Agreements [ ] Air discharge permit [ ] Readily available [ ] Up to date ~N/A [ ] Effluent discharge [ ] Readily available [ ] Up to date [)4N/A [ ] Waste disposal, POTW [ ] Readily available [ ] Up to date I>d N/A [ ] Other permits [ ] Readily available [ ] Up to date ['7(N/A Remarks 5. Gas Generation Records [ ] Readily available [ ] Up to date u 6. Settlement Monument Records [ ] Readily available [ ] Up to date [)dN/A Remarks 7. Groundwater Monitoring Records [ ] Readily available [ ] Up to date [)4:N/A Remarks 8. Leachate Extraction Records [ ] Readily available [ ] Up to date l)!:N/A Remarks 9. Discharge Compliance Records [ ] Air [ ] Readily available [ ] Up to date ~N/A [ ] Water (effluent) [ ] Readily available [ ] Up to date fttN/A Remarks 10. Daily Access/Security Logs [ ] Readily available [ ] Up to date [}4N/A Remarks 2010 Five-Year Review Page 3 Former Norton AFB: BLd~752 . INSPECTION CHECKLIST Basewide OU ...... IV. O&M COSTS .. . 1. O&M Organization lv'/A [ ] State (in-house) [ ] Contractor (for State) [ ] PRP (in-house) [ ] Contractor (for PRP) [ ] Federal Facility in-house [ ] Contractor (for Federal Facility) [ ] Other 2. O&M Cost Records NIA [ ] Readily available [ ] Up to date [ ] Funding mechanism/agreement in place Original O&M cost estimate [ ] Breakdown attached Total annual cost by year for review period ifavailable ; From '0 $ [ ] Breakdown attached Date Date Total cost From To $ [ ] Breakdown attached Date Date Total cost From To $ [ ] Breakdown attached Date Date Total cost From To $ [ ] Breakdown attached Date Date Total cost From To $ [ ] Breakdown attached Date Date Total cost 3. Unanticipated or Unusually High O&M Costs During Review Period Describe costs and reasons: 2010 Five-Year Review Page 4 Former Norton AFB: Bld~752 INSPECTION CHECKLIST Basewide au V. ACCESS AND INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS [X Applicable [] N/A A. Fencing 1. Fencing damaged [ ] Location shown on site map [)J' Gates secured [ ] N/A Rf'!m::irk.:: B. Other Access Restrictions 1. Signs and other security measures [ ] Location shown on site map [ ] N/A Remarks c. Institutional Controls (ICs) 1. Implementation and enforcement Site conditions imply ICs not properly implemented [ ] Yes [ ] No [XN/A Site conditions imply ICs not being fully enforced [ ] Yes [ ] No D4N/A Type of monitoring (e.g., self-rerrting, drive by) ~IN~~ Frequency 0 t1l1 uA, Responsible party/agency Il)&' 5;rc.<- Contact J¢(ftfme I8,Yl6 /dAM'{ Title Date Phone no. Reporting is up-to-date [ ] Yes [ ]No ~N/A Reports are verified by the lead agency [ ] Yes [ ] No KlN/A Specific requirements have been met [ ] Yes [ ] No fQN/A (in deed or decision documents) Violations have been reported [ ] Yes [ ]No ,M.N/A Other problems or suggestions: [ ] Report attached 2. Adequacy [ ] ICs are adequate [ ] ICs are inadequate P<)N/A Remarks D. General 1. Vandalism/trespassing [ ] Location shown on site map [~o vandalism evident Remarks 2. Land use changes on site MN/A Remarks 3. Land use changes off site lXlN/A Remarks 2010 Five-Year Review Page 5 Former Norton AFB: Bld~752 INSPECTION CHECKLIST Basewide au VI. GENERAL SITE CONDITIONS A. Roads [ ] Applicable I? 1. Roads damaged [ ] Location shown on site map [ ] Roads adequate l.>rN"/A Remarks B. Other Site Conditions Remarks 2010 Five-Year Review Page 6 Former Norton AFB: Bld~752 INSPECTION CHECKLIST Basewide OU I . VII. LANDFILL COVERS [ ] Applicable [X] N/A I", A. Landfill Surface B. Benches C. Letdown Channels D. Cover Penetrations E. Gas Collection and Treatment F. Cover Drainage Layer G. Detention/Sedimentation Ponds H. Retaining Walls I. Perimeter Ditches/Off-Site Discharge , VIll. VERTICAL BARRIER WALLS [ ] Applicable [X] N/A : 1. Settlement [ ] Location shown on site map [ ] Settlement not evident Areal extent Depth Remarks 2. Performance Monitoring Type of monitoring [ ] Perfonnance not monitored Frequency [ ] Evidence ofbreaching Head differential Rf'!ml'lrk~ 2010 Five-Year Review Page 7 Former Norton AFB: BldS-752 INSPECTION CHECKLIST Basewide au IX. GROUNDWATERISURF ACE WATER REMEDIES [ ] Applicable ,C>4N/A A. Groundwater Extraction Wells, Pumps, and Pipelines [ ] Applicable P4.N/A 1. Pumps, Wellhead Plumbing, and Electrical [ ] Good condition [ ] All required wells properly operating [ ] Needs Maintenance ~N/A Remarks 2. Extraction System Pipelines, Valves, Valve Boxes, and Other Appurtenances [ ] Good condition [ ] Needs Maintenance Remarks 3. Spare Parts and Equipment [ ] Good condition [ ] Readily available [ ] Requires upgrade [ ] Needs to be provided Remarks B. Surface Water Collection Structures, Pumps, and Pipelines [ ] Applicable [~/A 1. Collection Structures, Pumps, and Electrical [ ] Good condition [ ] Needs Maintenance Remarks 2. Surface Water Collection System Pipelines, Valves, Valve Boxes, and Other Appurtenances [ ] Good condition [ ] Needs Maintenance Remarks 3. Spare Parts and Equipment [ ] Good condition [ ] Readily available [ ] Requires upgrade [ ] Needs to be provided Remarks 2010 Five-Year Review Page 8 Former Norton AFB: Bld~752 INSPECTION CHECKLIST Basewide au I IX. GROUNDWATERISURF ACE WATER REMEDIES (Continued) C. Treatment System [ ] Applicable ~N/A 1. Treatment Train (Check components that apply) [ ] Metals removal [ ] Oil/water separation [ ] Bioremediation [ ] Air stripping [ ] Carbon adsorbers [ ] Filters [ ] Additive (e.g., chelation agent, flocculent) [ ] Others [ ] Good condition [ ] Needs Maintenance [ ] Sampling ports properly marked and functional [ ] Equipment properly identified [ ] Sampling/maintenance log displayed and up to date Quantity treated annually: Groundwater (gallons) Surface water (gallons) Remarks 2. Electrical Enclosures and Panels (properly rated and functional) [)(N/A [ ] Good condition [ ] Needs maintenance Remarks 3. Tanks, Vaults, Storage Vessels NN/A [ ] Good condition [ ] Needs maintenance [ ] Proper secondary containment Remarks 4. Discharge Structure and Appurtenances [)fN/A [ ] Good condition [ ] Needs maintenance Remarks 5. Treatment Building(s) MN/A [ ] Good condition (especially roof and doorways) [ ] Needs repair Remarks 6. Monitoring Wells (pump and treat remedy) [ ] Properly secured/locked [ ] Functioning [ ] Routinely sampled [ ] Good condition [ ] All required wells located [ ] Needs Maintenance ~N/A Remarks 2010 Five-Year Review Page 9 Former Norton AFB: Bld!L752 INSPECTION CHECKLIST Basewide OU " IX. GROUNDWATERISURFACE WATER REMEDIES (Continued) , ',; D. Monitoring Results N/A 1. Monitoring Data [ ] Is routinely submitted on time [ ] Is ofacceptable quality Remarks 1. Results. Monitoring data suggests: [ ] Groundwater plume is effectively contained [ ] Contaminant concentrations are declining Remarks E. Monitored Natural Attenuation tJ/A 1. Monitoring Wells (natural attenuation remedy) [ ] Properly secured/locked [ ] Functioning [ ] Routinely sampled [ ] Good condition [ ] All required wells located [ ] Needs Maintenance [ ]N/A Remarks X. OTHER REMEDIES Ifthere are remedies applied at the site that are not covered above, attach an inspection sheet describing the physical nature and condition of any facility associated with the remedy. An example would be soil vapor extraction. .A vi CIl.; 1:,"",;J I ,"" a ( C (0 S " V"e F Y"'t!) IN1 DiSC-ffSr 2010 Five~Year Review Page 10 Former Norton AFB: BldR-752 INSPECTION CHECKLIST Basewide au XI. OVERALL OBSERVATIONS A. Implementation of the Remedy Describe issues and observations relating to whether the remedy is effective and functioning as designed. Begin with a brief statement of what the remedy is to accomplish (Le., to contain contaminant plume, minimize infiltration and gas emission, etc.). S Cit I , 'II. g .J: 1I.e.tZ.ft1 &!:Q ~ d!£!L/ B. Adequacy of O&M Describe issues and observations related to the implementation and scope of O&M procedures. In particular, discuss their relationship to the current and long-term protectiveness ofthe remedy. A~e.4ua.-1-t. " c. Early Indicators of Potential Remedy Problems Describe issues and observations such as unexpected changes in the cost or scope ofO&M or a high frequency ofunscheduled repairs, that suggest that the protectiveness ofthe remedy may be compromised in the future. 81D".e, D. Opportunities for Optimization Describe possible opportunities for optimization in monitoring tasks or the operation ofthe remedy. ~f)V1 t/ 2010 Five-Year Review Page 11 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK APPENDIX B INTERVIEW RECORDS THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Former Norton AFB APPENDIX B 2010 Five-Year Review Interview Records RECORD OF CONVERSATION Site Name: Norton AFB EPA ID No.: CA4570024345 Subject: Central Base Area au and Basewide au Time: 9:DOA fill Date: 12/17/0 -9 Type: ~ Telephone [ ] Visit [ ] Other [ ] Incoming [Xi Outgoing Location of Visit: Contact Made By: Daniel Palacios Title: Senior Professional Organization: ABCOM Individual Contacted: Jerry Bingham. Title: Environmental Program Organization: Air Force Center for Engineering Manager and the EnvironmentlEXC Telephone No: 1-210-536-5978 Street Address: 3300 Sidney Brooks Fax No: (210) 536-6442 City, State, Zip: Brooks City-Base, TX 78234 E-Mail Address: [email protected] Summary of Conversation 1. What effect have remedial actions had on the surrounding community? Tfle vc: L--7"1' S ht2-€?Vl 1110 IvYlflit.c{ 01'11 -t Ir e. .Sur.'-V Cl-\/VlJ t ~) CatrVI WluV/t'f'j ~ 5: F<1lV A:f:. I aVf.1 c:L ...... ,:t.. ve . 2. Are you aware of any community concerns over the remedial actions in the Norton AFB CBA OU or BW au? If so, please provide details. I t1 I{ v c2. /11 D C OVI ('(2//'"/.-'1 S 3. Are you aware ofany incidents of vandalism and trespassing, or emergency response by local authorities at the Norton APB CBA OU or BW aU? If so, please provide details. (tV vc:( V1 ) t! ( ( $ v-t J r ve s r ~ $. !;I" j / I aWl Y1 c-t A w<'<.vE? of 4"':; i :!>5ve S Q I.~e S jJ (I VI $ e e Vl1 C V , e r1 ('-:; Ov (2h'1C'v-J "'C(j 4. Do you feel well informed about the cleanup activities and progress at the Norton AFB CBA au andBWaU? a .. ) of -t he c..(<2a. WV It:J ~cf:;t (j'<:}S tj.a 5 i -!:: t. e VIi!.f'ovi:-s j pv-o.;ve s.s ..:t1- I tlv1- o vt Gr)·-Y/e to (/l1e ("" c;.z.... -f ''''>'Ie(1 ljoh1aV1",ev--. worklafcee/8597/reportlfive_yr Page 2 Former Norton AFB APPENDIX B 2010 Five-Year Review Interview Records Individual Contacted: Jerry Bingham Title: Environmental Program Organization: Air Force Center for Engineering Manager and the EnvironmentlEXC 5. How would you characterize the perronnance ofthe remedial action(s) implemented at these 'locations (i.e. successful, failed, or other)? . . +he re..v-~~v"""tIC",ee or -the.. ,yrevYIej, 7. What are your recommendations for completing the groundwater plume cleanup or outstanding site cleanups, and how would you establish criteria to demonstrate completion? l?""ec. cJ fyY1W/-€VI)T-ite. (f!:.o"" t-f. V! u47/'0--V1 tJ.f 1r~VV! e."i(a. ( t!.tc.i(~7hs + h t:t- f ""'- vee (.) V'v e V7 t t.;; 2t'l P ( ace ~ AI f:) n e !,..,.J "T-ech.oto:;,'es .p.v- s:f-e e(e",~vl' ~V'e vefvlV';z). "'(1 ev-; C( -rov c (ea.v' Uf' e;(ve ct(r;-f2acfy VI/] ;0 Ia.. c-€. 8. Has anything changed with the status ofthe cleanup ofdeep soils relating to the CBA au groundwater component or at any ofthe BW au cleanup sites during the past five years? iV tJ c- ~ a V1 J c:.. e)( c e tp t r/, <"l 1 Tv':( 11 $. v D';: b a. < ~ r' vu('<2v1:J Lv a S C O...vl P (v.2 -r~.J t VI 2-0 07.. Tv-tX I/t S I'e t,/' ..J ~ S -r- a S f3 (AA) ..L ..J- i 1- 4 <.:> vic 5 c-< <1 Ift!l",\.Ie( ) V ])AI I ~11 ) SO""e. IVI ~-:Jl)"'CEI7lp,.,e"(4.\'. pVll('tEV J V- '1 I """jUt"! 1R..f!!.;;er/vaffO'"! 10. Do you have any comments, suggestions, or recommendations regarding the management or operation ofthe CBA OU groundwater component or at any ofthe BW au cleanup sites. A/!JVle d.1- "f-h,s ftJ('.n-r worklafcee/8597/reportlfive-yr Page 3 Former Norton AFB APPENDIX B 2010 Five-Year Review Interview Records RECORD OF CONVERSATION .. " Site Name: Former Norton AFB EPA ID No.: CA4570024345 Subject: Central Base Area au and Basewide au Time: 8: 30 I Date: 1/5110 Type: [ ] Telephone ~' Contact Made By: Daniel Palacios Title: Senior Professional Organization: AECaM Individual Contacted: James Gourley Title: Consultant Organization: Inland Valley Development Agency Telephone No: 425~656-2145 Street Address: 294 South Leland Norton Way Fax No: City, State, Zip: San Bernardino, CA 92408 E-Mail Address: [email protected] Summary of Conversation 1. What effect have rem~dial B:ctions h~d on the surrounding community? 1/"1 (' f CJ3),-Oc.J ' tJo~sl'f}f'1(.l(C'~1"'( IWf('61CI (Iv. t-ke sr...".rV"'"<'I,.IIH/"'"J ,,-owl47 '1 . 1-1~"V1,d-~tr'"1 L..v'(2.{( 5 .5 1, (( travt!. ~.be VYldftrl-{-(f((VI<2. ./.,.., .""Ot;'rtCV-ec/ I.3L.J-OU-Ntl 11 i'"" f {e "'" € "" i I VI, I c:t .$ / ~ Lt:/ <-1 juse V' e ::;; T (,.-' f C f r t '~s. f Vt c. I.o'e 0 5 ~ S !NIdV>"",eW1~\-11- ("<:-'61-5./ a:)"""fHIS;fv4t(Je (' 0 sf s../ C ZI n 51: v v C( ; oi.1 h Co cJ s:fs 2. Are you aware ofany community concerns over the remedial actions in the Norton AFB CBA OU or BW aU? If so, please provide details. , I., 't- c, e.. L. 4":5 ( j;:J-e?:i. v- 5 ()Ie 1--<2- CI ve t/lC ~ ~-WC/l C!. <0 vnl""l'<"'-'H( i 1 c.~o.?c.ev""" s 4h~u-r"'the v-e""",e,.Jr'ct( a c. f (om S A 1: ;V 0 crt ov) A F D. 3. Are you aware ofany incidents ofvandalism and trespassing, or emergency response by local authorities at the Norton AFB CBA OU or BW OU? If so, please provideJetails. ovf Reto v1- ::, .? f Vr..."f VI) IA {, S t->-1 t":';' I' ~ e 'f- f'j I.. {VI1 ( t ~ , J./ 0 y e f 5 I IA '( k E2. L :; 'jea v $. " 4. Do you feel well informed about the cleanup activities and progress at the Norton AFB CBA OU and BWOU? ,,{{ v., Wi -f it e a.>e C l c-.,::v ve tea "'17 Lje- S .. f IVlVl:'(vej th It{!LP 0 V' tJf.V1J t'J(hev ~'"" FtJY'.,....,a:-f;"", (13 C ) a ~"I cf ve c ,."pJ..(2 1-.5 . A ( IJ nv- i oV/ c.:>V1ce v l'>'o'lj c..lea. VI v I'" worklafcee/8597/reportlfive-yr Page 8 Former Norton AFB APPENDIX B 2010 Five~Year Review Interview Records Individual Contacted: James Gourley Title: Consultant I Organization: Inland Valley Development Agency 5. How would you characterize the perfonnance ofthe remedial action(s) implemented at these locations (i.e. successful, failed, or other)? t Ic VevtJ :5Jcess{v( .. i3cT; Alv~Fo~ce ov<2d o '.(>"7j <£.yce((f?v, ...,Jt:r-V-(. Dr.l-r fc:. D «(CR.A Iss:ue<; s(OvJdOWVl lh~ c(o::;uve f{/'fxe<;;,s" 6. What were the primary difficulties in implementing remedial actions at these sites? -r-h ~ p 1"'1 vVI t{ V':J J.'; f. f ; c t./ ( t J. ' ,.. + f1 e (a VI) U $ eve s:; i:: {/' lei I t:r'h'S" 81/1 S; Y:-e s l.V (Th {c. 1'" C t, a1 ::5' t 0 c.J cJ. OWM Con stv-v'CT-, ~ VI aII'd I'vtCV~O<;.;te cost~ 7. What are your recommendations for completing the groundwater plume cleanup or outstanding site cleanups, and how would you establish c:r:iteria to demonstrate completion? d P l v V'1 e c. (C) 5:' v v e ! .s r-> (r 0 c e @',j t ""'J' jJ C' -( .,.... U t:'_h V>1 (J ~~ e 7: ., 0 , ;:-<:> V :s I f-c= t;;. LA./ { ," 1- /, R c:L_ i~ A c, 0 vY1 P 0 neVi t (( W. t/I !.VI ~ S ), (e. j 17J A- Cl::::. "33) V'e c 0 YVH'Y1 e. VI ~ /J.&C 0/"'1 A Ife ;= ot2 I V DA f () 0 ( I vi -Co r I/VI (/i( if () VI i..." I 6l. v-efoG~'"t .t(Vlj v-eqve<;.7 .-f:-t7....-, D (s.Vtt:.i/) A.. /.:::!..VYl1ln"l.t,C!~ 0 C.,v-vt'!ct(Ve o(c71"'''' ((TCA) /rCl.Tht:'-v- Yh "VI alP( ':f 1.,.,.1 ;: o&-, e::L j=losL C(~5LJV'~ PCLvVvjIY: ...t.PP{ICC' "t-IO".,.,. 8. Has anything changed with the status ofthe cleanup ofdeep soils relating to the CBA au groundwater component or at any ofthe BW au cleanup sites during the past five lears? r I, G2- C { e a V] '-' P () f Th eel) 4 0 () fO { W' ....., 9. Has anything changed with the status ofthe clean-up of shallow soils relating to the CBA au groundwater component or at any ofthe BW au cleanup sites during the past five years? tJ 0 ch (/-'1:J€- V' c /3A- OU shq I( t'Jr:-v S til ( /'~ 5U&5;, 3(;"(/ 0 u- .5; 1:1:'" 2.. IS /, .... VfVl.J <1-'1 ,&..~!' h CI. (r Co p I (I"f S 'tif (( 1<;. s <.) e 50 j ~ eve/'1 e../ .~_" v7 e s. A p P I I f ",'-./I/' ,+ L- v..J 0 v I< {;> 0 /.'7 £ ' 10. Do you have any comments, suggestions, or recommendations regarding the management or operation ofthe CBA au groundwater component or at any ofthe BW au cleanup sites? 1<. e c. CJ VM (M Q 1/1) t (, IX- t .F OJ f uve Cl. Los u{/' e b F s ,: t e s: g h '" (./ (/ p V' e {- e VQ VI -f: ,. (J.. ( (:J VVI ( VI ! ..., ~ ~e c- C) In -t- ~l tn'"l {' If ri t t'tre? Lz::: l-t (VI to (1ft C fP " , , worklafcee/8597/reportlfive-yr Page 9 " .., •••C RECORD OF CONVERSATION Site Name: Former Norton AFB EPA ID No.: CA4570024345 Subject: Central Base Area OU and Basewide OU Time:2:00PM I Date:Ol108110 Type: [X] Telephone [ ] Visit [ ] Other [ ] Incoming [ ] Outgoing Location of Visit: Not applicable Contact Made By: Daniel Palacios Title: Senior Professional Organization: AECOM Individual Contacted: Alex Estrada Title: 'P I £C- CTC' fL or:: !2G.e&v'C-\-C¥1~ rgaDlza IOn: Inland Valley Development Agency ..,- .,It tV'S fJrJlCI4l1 rt91 . f I ~ Telephone No: 909-382-4100, ext. 231 Street Address: Fax No: City, State, Zip: San Bernardino, CA 92408 E-Mail Address: [email protected] Summary of Conversation 1. What effect have remedial actions had on the surrounding community?, (/1 -(fE{( /fl v r::J y;..f! V' if;-'5 (--( e! (f> t/LJ - c...cz tLCreV/(s 2. Are you aware ofany community concerns over the remedial actions in the Norton AFB CBA au or BW au? If so, please provide details. b ~ l'V\. r7 'i -, ~5 ~ ~~ ~ '-r~~~.., ;t;0~~(~~ ~ ~ ~ (~~~ ~ 3. Are you aware ofany incidents ofvandalism and trespassing, or emergency response by local authorities at the Norton AFB CBA au or BW aU? If so, please provide details. ~ 4. Do you feel well infonned about the cleanup activities and progress at the Norton AFB CBA au andBWOU? ~ Individual Contacted: Alex Estrada Title: Organization: Inland Valley Development Agency 5. How would you characterize the perfonnance ofthe remedial action(s) implemented at these locations... (i.e. successful, failed, or other)? "7r j -1.... ./.. /J k~ /f~ -<;"-.A ~ (f0'.-1 6. What were the Pri~at}'. difficulties in i~E!ementi,ng remedial action~ at these ....~~? p;~re~ J~r~· ?;>lSC ~ 13PA;st~W~ ~ d-e:£t---e/ ~ aP~ oh"- ~~ 7. What are your recommendations for completing the groundwater plume cleanup or outstanding site cleanups, and how would you es:ablish criteria to de~onstrate completi~~ '~;'~~~~~#J4,/ .;;J ~ 7~ 8. Has anything changed with the status ofthe cleanup ofdeep soils relating to the CBA OU groundwater compo.nent or at any ofthe BW OU cleanup sit? during the past five years? n~~c~ 9. Has anything changed with the status ofthe clean-up of shallow soils relating to the CBA au groundwater component or at any ofthe BW au cleanup sites during the past five years? 10. General Comment: ~. Former Norton AFB APPENDIX B 2010 Five-Year Review Interview Records :: RECORD OF CONVERSATION ... Site Name: Former Norton AFB EPA ID No.: CA4570024345 Subject: Central Base Area OU and Basewide OU Time:3 :-30 I Date: rhgjlo Type: txJ Telephone [ ] Visit [ ] ather [ ] Incoming [.>4 Outgoing Location of Visit: Not applicable Contact Made By: Daniel Palacios Title: Senior Professional Organization: AECOM Individual Contacted: Scott D. Limbacher Title: Vice President - Construction I Organization: Stater Bros. Development, Inc. Maintenance Telephone No: 1-909-733-5277 Street Address: 301 S. Tippecanoe Ave. Fax No: City, State, Zip: San Bernardino, CA 92408 E-Mail Add: [email protected] Summary of Conversation 1. Are you aware of any community concerns over the remedial actions in the Norton AFB CBA OU? If so, please provide details. NO 2. Are you aware of any community concerns over the remedial actions in the Norton AFB CBA au or BW OU? If so, please provide details. rJO 3. Are you aware of any incidents ofvandalism and trespassing, or emergency response by local authorities at the Norton AFB CBA au or BW aU? If so, please provide details. tJ 0 4. Do you feel well infonned about the cleanup activities and progress at the Norton AFB CBA OU and BW OU? .- ( I,JJ& C f (jl/ (-;: c> (( ;t1 6;; rV'JT ~ G LG A (rff{) 0 " 11/(--::- 0 ,r{ .A1 C; 0 A:-- {3 0Ii T It cJC ~ .3 /JoT o FHe R. s: 11(-S ~ le I- BctOS LJA- I<'}; {-f 0 6 e worklafcee/8597/reportlfivejlr Page 12 Former Norton AFB APPENDIX B 2010 Five-Year Review Interview Records Individual Contacted: Scott D. Limbacher Title: Vice President - Construction I Organization: Stater Bros. Development, Inc. Maintenance 5. How would you characterize the perfonnance ofthe remedial action(s) implemented at these locations (i.e. successful, failed, or other)? . . ,'?-(+@0 .4 S 6-00 D A-S vvE--/I- / j' W { t.- l t4- L-;:'fs~ rVe- -?- 13~ eK. r:::r L l \ Wc: 6. What were the primary difficulties in implementing remedial actions at these sites? W b,A- rifE- I\.. ,A- A-- (J C ~ ~ 7. What are your recommendations for completing the groundwater plume cleanup or outstanding site cleanups, and how would you establish criteria to demonstrate completion? C{ 7 - 'J':.> 6-J t? r' L{/ 0 (( / c: P '-.-4 rt~ 4 tv D )--'5 ( Cr /f,1 C cJ -1/T~/{-Ccv~ ~ 8. Has anything changed with the status ofthe cleanup ofdeep soils relating to the CBA au groundwater component or at any ofthe BW au cleanup sites during the past five years? '-'-'0 f?- e- V P ? A- J G M 9. Has anything changed with the status ofthe clean-up of shallow soils relating to the CBA au groundwater component or at any ofthe BW au cleanup sites during the past five years? A'PD (T'( tJ N4L 10. Do you have any comments, suggestions, or recommendations regarding the management or operation ofthe CBA au groundwater component or at any ofthe BW OU cleanup sites? AI 0 t( e C 0 /Vl r11 t:-N ~A- r( ~ # c:.:, General Comment: uv' ELL c a 0 rt /) (/'V/I- TC.... /S> 4- ;1/7) J (? c. L C' 6 (!/l M (j /l/ L 1tc)C- ) worklafcee/8597/reportlfive-yr Page 13 Former Norton AFB APPENDIX B 2010 Five-Year Review Interview Records ,.'.:. RECORD OF CONVERSATION !.::,.:.::!.'.:.: .•. '.,:.' ~ Site Name: Former Norton AFB EPA ID No.: CA4570024345 Subject: Central Base Area OU and Basewide OU Time: 9,' () 0 I Date: J/2'6)1 (} Type: [ ] Telephone [ ] Visit [ ] Other [ ] Incoming [ ] Outgoing Location of Visit: Not applicable Contact Made By: Daniel Palacios Title: Senior Professional Organization: AECOM Individual Contacted: John Magness rJ e). S c. ( '0 v- "+ ~ VI () vI' ~ DG vt:-c.....OPM./:,1V t Title: ..$eniQr-¥iGe Pfesidellt Organization: Hillwood Telephone No: ~99 382 2~ 54 Street Address: 105 North Leland Norton Way 9 o$>- 38;2 - (}tJ3 "?,. Fax No: ~Q 382 Q(ff9-ri1 h City, State, Zip: San Bernardino, CA 92408 Y1 7, SClaV' t-, ~ 0 ({( E-Mail Add: :iOJ:[email protected] Summary of Conversation 1. What effect have remedial actions had on the surrounding community? J./{);.J & TArA-'f I ! 2. Are you aware of any community concerns over the remedial actions in the Norton AFB CBA au or BW aU? If so, please provide details. rJo C () M ,/1-1 6- jJIc;' ,AN.,l) CoNe 8Y1...NS 3. Are you aware ofany incidents of vandalism and trespassing, or emergency response by local ~uthorities at the Norton AFB CBA au or BW aU? If so, please provide details. ( ,N? w',4 I't G Q.-,)rs tJ-O It! G . / /1 4 ( I 1<1 c-r=: ;....,./ G,:. IZ. G s;;oME V.-1 (1/ .D A- L .s 7/1c:'~6 ,.-- C ow (L.s~, 7vR (6.0 G7'""'G4 L tt, '7-;-r E: CJ L D GaL F ',0 1"1.1 rt/t;;" ( ,eMS OUT5'17>6OF ;I1G't/f-'-- (,,vTE-!LI1f 0"- DG>- ~ ~J' 4. Do you feel well informed about the cleanup activities and progress at the Norton AFB CBA au 4f'~ rtl ,.( C f( andBWaU? G D ~ t..6Y llillD r; 4>(.)41'< T8r<. L Y p'rto \I , oE (.) (1(/ F () /l..N{ ,4- f ( ON .- s"(-./.4.1< ? A f// (,) !)N fJ !2..b G-fl f-<; S ('VI u r R.. ( /1/ Fo WSLL- S / 7 ; 17 worklafcee/8597/reportlfivej'r Page 10 Former Norton AFB APPENDIX B 2010 Five~Year Review Interview Records Individual Contacted: .Job.n...MaQReSS N 'f' , D 5 c;ov ' ~ Title: ..senior-V~ I Organization: Hillwood 5. How would you characterize the performance ofthe remedial action( s) implemented at these locations (Le. successful, failed, or other)? 6. What were the primary difficulties in implementing remedial actions at these sites? 1 "M 6:- F (t0 L- f= S S 'T 0 0 r:: TOO r1 rJ ( 1-1 I. .- f!.. r:f111:.- DrA L t.- &- rJ c.::'" r (-{ 'tj F " f ,.,v1 E '0 r- T (+-' G= /t=-C, ( d I'll P{lttJ CcE- s 5 7. What are your recommendations for completing the groundwater plume cleanup or outstanding site cleanups, and how would you establish criteria to demonstrate completion? Ai v " 4l J 4 L ( r- (C.:.. 1) TO A!IlC UJ 8- ~ T ("{Ar Q<..C-t;; r; .;Ill!" 8. Has anything changed with the status ofthe cleanup ofdeep soils relating to the CBA OU groundwater component or at any ofthe BW OU cleanup sites during the past five years? JV tl , d( J ft: L.. 1 F {If 0 TO 11.-,111 S WElt 'S' 1# 11 6 L II G D (AI G I TG ? -+ (? s: I ;- c.::.... S. \3 {j -, A-i? it{ ,t5-Ct-( (.4 t.-4 /-.41 £, JlAa) :tn/() K Ti'-f.C l- G- 1-1 D 0 tV tAl 19(;1 t::.:.-.. 9. Has anything changed with the status ofthe clean-up of shallow soils relating to the CBA OU groundwater component or at any ofthe BW OU cleanup sites during the past five years? 5' ~ ;t'f t: rtE (14. 6 D (A- L A:-c '( i () rtf s: 6- 0 I III G- 0 td fi!!" - .;J C) 'Tf-( r .AI G- /-' 4- ~ C /--/ A,A/G6 () L-f? rtJ 6- 77f (9' r- n ,tt1 C-~ II c) Itf (?W ttE-J I tJ<2A1 C (; tC F fl"v'r' cwA!1/c;..i;, 10. Do you have any comments, suggestions, or recommendations regarding the management or operation ofthe CBA au groundwater component or at any ofthe BW au cleanup sites? Tr.11Il (.Ai&- '" ;low vgNo- , T ',.-1 t::€ S ., y11 L (;,. L y IQ c;: /VT 0 v 6.'-, p (W L 1-1 II 5 15e~rV General Comment: () 1:::: .!7\I....L ;vl v I r.t A L-t4 tV <;Hfi:R-P M rzTI-f i.-JetLE VE-fJ....( S (/fJl' e ({'r r ve ,t-f E-- L I;) FJ L \.... worklafcee/8597/reportlfiveJr Page 11 APPENDIX C ARARS TABLES FROM CBA OU AND BW OU RODs THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK TABlE 7-1 COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF COMPlIANCE WITH ARARS GROUNDWATER TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES ARAR Alternative 1 B' Alternative 1 C' Air Stripping Carbon Adlorption Chemical-Specific Maximum Contaminant level. IMCl., Air .trlpping can remove groundwater contaminant. to meet Activated carbon cm remove groundwater contaminantl to meet MClI: TCE 15 JIII/lI; benzene (1 JIII/lI; 1.2-DCA (0.5 JIII/l,; Total MCl.: TCE 15 JIII/l,; benzene 11 JIII/l'; 1.2-DCA 10.5 pg/l); Total 1.2-DCE 16 pg/ll; PeE 15 JIII/lI; 1.1.1.-TCA (200 JIII/l,; end vinyl 1.2-DCE 16 JIII/l,; PeE 15 JIII/lI; 1.1.1.-TCA 1200 pg/l); and vinyl chloride 10.5 JIII/l,. MCll are relevant and appropriate for chloride 10.5 JIII/lI. MCl. are relevant and appropriate for groundwater that I. a potential drinking water .ource. groundwater that II a potential drinking water louree. low-level Radloectlve W.. te Policy Amendment Act If activated carbon I. required. It will be telted frequently for Activated carbon will be teated frequently for radioectlvlty level 142 USC U20211b, - 2021 (ill radioactivity level to en.ure compliance with thll relative and to enlure compliance with thll relevant and appropriate Act. appropriate Act. Thl. requirement I. relevant and appropriate; It Thll requirement II relative and appropriate; It II not appllclble I, not applicable becau.e .pent carbon would not meet the becaule .pent carbon would not meet the definition of • low definition of a low-level radioactive waite. The definition applie. level radioactive wa.te. The definition appllel to .ource to 'ouree material •• not naturally occurring radiation. material •• not naturally occurring radiation. National Emiliion Standard. for Hazardoul Air Air Itripping will comply with thil relevant and appropriate ARAR. NA; no eml ••lonl. Pollutant. - NESHAP. 140 CFR .61.63••61.92. Due to low radionuclide concentrations In groundwater• • 61.102. and .61.348, radionuclide emillion. will not relult In any member of the public receiving an effective dOle of 10 millirems/year due to exposure to emi..ion.. Due to low concentrations of vinyl chloride in groundwater. vlnyf chloride emi.sion. will not exceed 10 ppm 13 hour average'. Due to low concentration. of benzene. air stripping emiuion. will not contain more than 10 megagram. benzene per year. NESHAPI are not applicable becaule groundwater il not "at Ie..t 10" volatIle hazardoul air pollutantl by weight". However. the lubltantive requirementl will be complied with. location-Specific RCRA location Standardl Irltle 22 CCR Chapter 14 Facility will not be conatructed within 200 ft of an earthquake Facility will not be con.tructed within 200 ft of an earthquake !i66264.181 fault and. if Ilted within the l00-year floodplain. will be de.lgned. fault and. If .lted within the l00-year floodplain. will be deligned. conltructed. operated and maintained to prevent walhout of con.tructed. operated and maintained to prevent w ..haut of waste. This ARAR I. relevant and appropriate. wlllte. Thi. ARAR I. relevant and appropriate. Alternatlvel 18 and IC include wellhead treatment by mobile GAC unitl for affected off-ba.e weill. al outlined In the Norton AFB Water Supply Contingency Policy. Therefore. ARAR. pertaining to carbon adlorptlon IAlternatlve 1 C) are alia ARARI for mobile GAC unltl under Alternativa 1 B. NA - Not an ARAR CBAouROD.7-1 plofs 11118/93 TABlE 7-1 Icontlnuedl COMPARATIVE ANAL VSIS OF COMPLIANCE WITH ARARS GROUNDWATER TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES ARAR AIt.matiw 1 B' AIt.m8tiw 1C' Air Stripping Carbon Ad.orptlon R.levlnt Ind Ipproprllt••ubatlntlve requirement. will be Relevent and approprl8ta aub8tantlw requirement. will be Actlon-8!I!Clflc Tlnk Sy.tlm. ITitIe 22 CCR 1166264.I 90 Incorpor8t.d into d••ign end oper8tion of the tlnks u.ed to atore incorporat.d Into daaign end operation of clllbon tre8tment unlta 66264.1991 groundw8t.r. end aSlOCleted tanka ueed to ItOr8 groundw8t.r. Mi.c.llln.ou. Unit. Irille 22 CCR 1166264.600 Th. air stripping tow.r will be Ioc8ted, d.algn.d, con.tructed, NA; cerbon unlta end ..1OC18tecl tanka _ raoui8ted und4M' RCRA 66264.6031 op.rlt.d, maintlined, .nd cloud in I mlnner thlt .nsure. tank regulations. prot.ction of humin hellth Ind the .nvlronment I•.g., prevention of rele....1Ind will thereby comply with the relevlnt Ind approprlat••ub.tlntiw requirement. for mlsc.llaneous treatment unit•. G.narator Standlrd. Irili. 22 CCR 166262.341 Will comply with applicable g.ner8tor .tandards for accumulltion Will comply with epplicable g.ner8tor .tlndard. for accumulation Ind .torag. of lpent carbon. end .toreg. of .pent clllbon. StlndlrdS for Prot.ction Aglinat Radiltion 110 CFR NA; no radioectiw wa.t. i. g.nerat.d. Spent carbon will not .xc.ed permi.aible lewl. of radiltion in Plrt 201 unre8tricted eree. Idue to absorption of naturally occurring radionuclid.sl, including: whole body dose of 0.5 rem/y••, 0.002 rem/hour, or 0.1 rem In 7 conucutiw deya. Thi. ARAR Ie ..levent end appropri8t.; It I. not eppliclble beceus••pent cIIIbon i. not a Nuclear Regulatory Commi..lon-lic.n.ed wast•. Und.rground Injection Control 140 CFR 11441 Th. groundwat.r reinjection w.lI. are regulat.d und.r the UIC The groundwlt.r reinjection w.lla Ire regullted und.r the UIC program. R.injection of treat.d wat.r u.ing reinjection wella will program. Reinjection of t..at.d wlt.r uaing ..injection _II. wHI comply with the applicabl••ub.tantive requirement. of the UIC comply with the epplicable .ub.tantiw requirement. of the UIC permit program, including general progrlm requir.menta, for p.rmit program, Including g.neral program requirements, for Cia.. V well •. CIa.. V well •. Trlnaportabl. Treltment Unit ITitle 22 CCR 167450) Th. air .trlpping tower i. consid.red a fixed treatm.nt unit. A carbon treatment ayatem is con.id.red a fixad traatment unit; Op.ration of the lir atripping tow.r will comply with applicabl. the mobile carbon unit. for w.llhead treatment _ con.id.red .ubatantive requir.ments for fixed treatment unit., Including tran.portable treetment units. Operation of the carbon units win dilcharg. of treat.d .ffluent and treltm.nt at .it. of wI.ta comply with applicable .ub.tantlve requirement. for fillad end g.n.ration. tren.porteble treatment unit., including diacherg. of t..8ted .ffluent end treatment at .it. of weate generation. Altemative. I B and 1 C include w.llh.ad treatment by mobil. GAC unit. for affect.d off-b..e w.II., aa outlined in the Norton AFB Water Supply Conting.ncy Policy. Therefore, ARAR. pertaining to cerbon adaorption IAIt.mative 1CI are alao ARAR. for mobil. GAC unit. und.r AIt.matiw 1B. NA - Not an ARAR CBAouROD.7·1 p20f5 11/18/93 .. TABlE 7-' Icontlnuedl COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF COMPLIANCE WITH ARARS OROUNDWATER TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES ARAR Altemative 1 B' Altemative 1 C' Air Stripping Cerbon Ad.orption SCAQMD Rulae • Rule 401 - Vi.ible Emlnion. Air stripping will comply with applicable Rule 401 beceu.e It will NA; no emi.slons. not produce viaible emi.. ion. of any air contaminant for a period(al aggregating more than three minutea In en hour which la: (e' aa dark or darker than the dealgneted No.1 on the Ringelmann Chart, or Ib, of such opacity a. to ob.cure an observer'. view to a degree equal to or greater than doe••moke as de.cribed In lal above. • Rule 403 - Fugitive Du.t Applicable to particulate metter due to con.truction/excavatlon. Applicable to particulate matter due to con.tructlon/excavation. In.tan.tlon of groundwater wen. will comply with fugitive du.t Instanation of groundweter wells will comply with fugitive dust regul.tlon.; pertlculete matter will not exceed 50 pg/m'. regulations; pertlculate metter will not ellceed 50 pg/m'. e Rule 404 - Particulate Matter Air .tripplng will comply with appllceble Rule 404 due to iow NA; no eml ..ions. particulate matter eml..ion. expected Ithe concentration. of contaminant. that would be con.idered particulate matter, e.g.. radionuclide., are Iowl. Air .tripplng will not dl.charge pertlculate matter In exce.. of the dlecharge particulate matter .tandard that corresponds to the volume of emlnlon. discharged (determined .. dry gasl or In exce.. of 450 milligrams per cubic meter In eml..ions (ee dry g..'. The volume of eml..lons will be determined during daelgn. Altematives 1B and lC include wellhead treatment by mobile OAC unit. for effected off-be.. well., e. outlined In the Norton AFB Water Supply Contingency Policy. Therefore, ARARs pertaining to cerbon adsorption (Altemative 1 C, are elso ARAR. for mobile GAC unit. under Altematlve 1 B. NA - Not an ARAR CBAouROD.7-1 plof5 11/18/93 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Former Norton AFB THIRD FIVE-YEAR REVIEW Appendix C Table 3-1 Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements for Excavation Sites Page 1 of 2 Requirement Citation Scope Comment Applicable Site Federal ARARs Endangered Species Act 16 USC §§1531 Requires action to conserve endangered Applicable to any action IRP Site 10 40 CFR §6.302(H) species within critical habitat affecting welfare of the San 50 CFR Part 12 Bernardino Merriam’s kangaroo rat and the Santa Ana River woolly star. State of California ARARs California Endangered California Fish and Game Provides for the conservation and Applicable to the protection IRP Site 10 Species Act Code #2050-2098 protection of endangered species and of the Santa Ana River woolly their habitats star, a state listed species. Criteria for Identifying CCR Title 22, Div. 4.5, Provides criteria and tests for identifying Applicable to the IRP Sites 7, 10, Hazardous Chapter 11, §66261, hazardous waste. If a chemical is either characterization of 17, AOCs 33, Waste/Persistent and et. seq. listed or tested and found hazardous, then contaminated soils for off-site Building 752 Bioaccumulative Toxic disposal must comply with Title 22 disposal in a permitted facility. Substances hazardous waste requirements regarding how the chemical is to be handled, treated, and disposed. Standards Applicable to CCR Title 22, Div. 4.5, Establishes requirements for generators of Applicable to excavated soil IRP Sites 7, 10, Generators of Hazardous Chapter 12, §§66262, hazardous waste, includes regulations for that meets state hazardous 17, AOCs 33, Waste et. seq. accumulation of waste and manifests and waste criteria. Building 752 reporting requirements. Relates to the requirements for maintaining documented records of generation and disposal of hazardous substances. Standards Applicable to CCR Title 22, Div. 4.5, Ch. Establishes standards for transporters of Applicable for off-site IRP Sites 7, 10, Transporters of Hazardous 11, §§66263.10-66263.17 hazardous waste including compliance transportation of hazardous 17, AOCs 33, Waste with manifest systems and record keeping. waste. Building 752 Land Disposal Restrictions CCR Title 22, Div. 4.5, Provides regulations that establish Applicable to excavated IRP Sites 7, 10, Chapter 18, §66268 concentration limits and treatment criteria soil exceeding threshold 17, AOCs 33, et. seq. for the land disposal of hazardous waste. levels requiring treatment Building 752 prior to disposal at a permitted facility. WP/2-Sep-10/044-10 Page 1 Former Norton AFB THIRD FIVE-YEAR REVIEW Appendix C Table 3-1 Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements for Excavation Sites Page 2 of 2 Requirement Citation Scope Comment Applicable Site South Coast Air Quality Rule 403 Fugitive Dust. Limits on-site activities so Applicable to excavation of IRP Sites 7, 10, Management District Rules that the concentration of fugitive dust at contaminated soils 17, AOCs 33, the property line will not be visible and the Building 752 downwind particulate concentration will not be more than 100 micrograms per cubic meter, averaged over 5 hours, above the upwind particulate concentration. South Coast Air Quality Rule 404 Particulate Matter (Concentration). Rule Applicable to excavation of IRP Sites 7, 10, Management District Rules 404 (1) limits particulate emission to a contaminated soils. 17, AOCs 33, range of 0.010 to 0.196 grain per standard Building 752 cubic foot averaged over 1 hour for a volumetric gas flow rate of 7,000 cubic meters per hour to 23 cubic meters per hour, respectively. AOC = Area of Concern CCR = California Code of Regulations CFR = Code of Federal Regulations IRP = Installation Restoration Program USC = United States Code WP/2-Sep-10/044-10 Page 2 Former Norton AFB THIRD FIVE_YEAR REVIEW Appendix C Table 3-2 Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements for Institutional Control Sites Requirement Citation Scope Comment Applicable Site State of California ARARs Land Use Covenant CCR, title 22 section Requires imposition of appropriate Relevant and IRP Sites 2, 5, 19 67391.1(a) limitation on land use by recorded land Appropriate and SAR use covenant when hazardous substances remain on the property at levels that are not suitable for unrestricted use of the land. Land Use Covenant CCR, title 22 section Requires that the cleanup decision Relevant and IRP Sites 2, 5, 19 67391.1(b) document contain an implementation and Appropriate and SAR enforcement plan of land use limitations. Land Use Covenant CCR, title 22 section Requires that the land use covenant be Relevant and IRP Sites 2, 5, 19 67391.1(d) recorded in the county where the land is Appropriate and SAR located Land Use Covenant CCR, title 22 section Definitions Relevant and IRP Sites 2, 5, 19 67391.1(i) Appropriate and SAR Land Use Covenant CA Civil Code Section Specifies requirements for land use Relevant and IRP Sites 2, 5, 19 1471(a) & (b) covenants to apply to successors in title to Appropriate and SAR the land. CCR = California Code of Regulations IRP = Installation Restoration Program WP/2-Sep-10/044-10 Page 3 Former Norton AFB THIRD FIVE-YEAR REVIEW Appendix C Table 3-3 Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements to the Site 2 O&M Work Plan Page 1 of 2 Requirement Citation Scope Comment Applicable Site Chemical Specific National Primary Drinking 40 CFR Part 141.61 Requires meeting national primary drinking Relevant and Appropriate IRP Site 2 Water Standards water standards. California Maximum CCR, title 22, section Provides numerical contaminant limits for Relevant and Appropriate IRP Site 2 Contaminant Levels – 64444 – Primary Standards certain organic chemicals in drinking (if more stringent than the Organic Chemicals water. 40 CFR Part 141.61 standard) Action Specific Monitoring Requirements CCR, title 27, section Release monitoring requirements for solid Applicable IRP Site 2 20385 waste management units. General Closure and Post- CCR, title 27, section General closure and post-closure Applicable IRP Site 2 Closure Maintenance 20950(a), (e) maintenance standards for solid waste landfills. General Post-Closure CCR, title 27, section Closure and post-closure maintenance Applicable IRP Site 2 Maintenance 21090(b)(1), (c), (e)(2) requirements for solid waste landfills. Gas Monitoring and CCR, title 27, section Methane must not exceed 5% at the Applicable IRP Site 2 Control During Closure and 20921 property boundary or other approved Post-closure monitoring point Gas Monitoring CCR, title 27, section Gas monitoring program required. Applicable IRP Site 2 20923 Perimeter Monitoring CCR, title 27, section Perimeter subsurface monitoring wells Applicable IRP Site 2 Network 20925 required. Structure Monitoring CCR, title 27; section If there are structures, gas monitoring Applicable IRP Site 2 20931 required Monitored Parameters CCR, title 27; section Methane and any specific trace gases Applicable IRP Site 2 20932 must be sampled Monitoring Frequency CCR, title 27; section Quarterly monitoring required, at a Applicable IRP Site 2 20933 minimum Reporting CCR, title 27; section Results of monitoring to be submitted Applicable IRP Site 2 20934 Gas Control CCR, title 27; section Requires gas control system if methane Applicable IRP Site 2 20937 concentrations exceed compliance levels WP/2-Sep-10/044-10 Page 4 Former Norton AFB THIRD FIVE-YEAR REVIEW Appendix C Table 3-3 Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements to the Site 2 O&M Work Plan Page 2 of 2 Requirement Citation Scope Comment Applicable Site Post-closure Maintenance CCR, title 27; section The landfill’s final cover and operating Applicable IRP Site 2 21180 systems must be maintained and monitored for no less than 30 years following closure. Post-closure Land Use CCR, title 27; section Specific restrictions and considerations in Applicable IRP Site 2 21190 future land use Gas Control SCAQMD Rule 1150.1 Requires controlling gaseous emissions Applicable IRP Site 2 CCR = California Code of Regulations CFR = Code of Federal Regulations SCAQMD = South Coast Air Quality Management District (California) WP/2-Sep-10/044-10 Page 5 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK APPENDIX D REGULATORY COMMENTS AND RESPONSES THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Document Title: DRAFT THIRD FIVE YEAR REVIEW REPORT, FOR FORMER NORTON AIR FORCE BASE SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY CALIFORNIA Document Date: May 2010 Document Author: AECOM Technical Services, Colton California Comments By: United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) (July 19, 2010 letter) Responses By: AECOM Technical Services Comment No. Section Comment Response 1a Five Year The “Issues” and “Recommendations and Follow-up The Issues and Recommendations sections will be revised to Review Actions” sections are typically meant to document document identified protectiveness issues and the Summary Form protectiveness issues and recommendations for recommendations for addressing identified issues, including (p.xxiv). addressing such issues. Only those specific projected dates for completion. Accordingly, only the issues and protectiveness issues that EPA tracks in its internal recommendations associated with IRP Site 17 and AOC33, CERCLIS data system should be identified here along including assessment of potential vapor intrusion risk, will be with projected dates for completion. It is not necessary identified. Issues specified in other site specific sections will be to list “no issues” for each IRP/AOC site and include deleted accordingly. recommendations for follow-up actions that consist of merely continuing remedy implementation. Aside from issues that arise when responding to agency comments, it appears that of the current list of issues identified in the Summary Form, only those associated with assessing closure (including the vapor intrusion issue) of IRP Site 17 and AOC 33 should be identified here 1b In addition, while it is important to assess and The individual site protectiveness statements will be removed. document the protectiveness of the individual site The Summary Form will present the two OU-wide protectiveness remedies on the base (as done in Section 5 of the draft statements for the CBA OU and the Basewide OU. FYR), the FYR Summary Form typically would present only the two summary OU-wide protectiveness statements for the CBA and BW OUs. The report should provide one protectiveness statement for CBA OU and one for the BW OU. L:\group\COLWP\2010\048-10 (Final Norton 5-Year Review)\(4) Appendices\Appendix D-RTC_Draft Five Year Review_rev (2).doc Page 1 Comment No. Section Comment Response 2 Data Review The document indicates that the FYR “included a The remedial action objectives specified in the CBA and BW OU review of all ARARs, federal drinking water standards, RODs will be provided in the Remedy Selection section for each (p. 37). toxicity standards (IRIS, OEHHA, EPA Region IX site included in the FYR. For example, the CBA – Component 1, PRGs, RSLs) to identify and evaluate any potential Groundwater selected remedy is presented in Section 4.1.1 of the changes to exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup FYR. A table of the remedy cleanup goals (federal or state levels or RAOs.” The ARAR analysis that typically MCLs) specified in the CBA ROD will be included in Section includes a tabular presentation of remedy goals and 4.1.1 along with any applicable updates. Similarly, for each BW current ARARs should be included in the document OU site in the FYR, the RAOs specified in the BW OU ROD will either as part of the main text or in the appendix. In be specified for each site in the Remedy Selection section. The this way, a quantitative comparison can be made Remedy Selection sections will also include complete between the ARARs chosen as part of the various presentation of the remedy specified in the respective ROD. A remedies can be compared to current ARARs. copy of the ARAR tables from the CBA OU and Basewide OU RODS will be included as an Appendix and this new appendix will also be referenced in each Remedy Selection section. A reference to the ARAR table Appendix will be included in the technical assessment section Question B for each site. No changes in ARARs have been identified that affect the remedies. 3 CBA OU As documented in Figures 4-1a thru 4-1c, the Figure 4-1 will be introduced in Section 4.1.2, Remedy Component 1 – groundwater plume has shrunk dramatically over the Implementation, and discussed in regard to reduction in plume Progress Since years. However, the report also indicates that “In July size over time and dropping water levels. Additional discussion the Last Five- 2009 groundwater elevations were at a 10-year low, all of the figures, also in regard to reduction in plume size over time Year Review A-level wells were dry and have been decommissioned, and dropping water levels, will be provided in Section 4.1.4, (p.40). and numerous B-level wells were dry. The general Progress Since Last Review. (See response to Comment 4 decline in groundwater elevation was attributed to an regarding change in Figure 4-1 numbering). extended period of drought and continued production of groundwater for municipal uses.” The FYR should The following text will be added after the second paragraph of present an analysis of the extent to which the dropping Section 4.1.2 (text in quotes will be inserted): water levels explain the apparent plume shrinkage. The document should briefly discuss the regional water “Figure 4-1 shows the diminishing size of groundwater management policy to keep the aquifer dewatered contaminant plumes associated with the former Norton AFB from permanently. The main purpose of the dam built up April 1994 through July 2009 as depicted in the Seventeenth river of the base was to prevent liquefaction to the Annual Groundwater Data Trends Report (GDTR) (ATS, 2009). nearby I-10 and I-215 freeway intersection. That is As seen in Figure 4-1a thru 4-1e for the period 1994 through being achieved by keeping the water table very low 2002, which includes the period that the BB and CBA PAT year round which also prevents surface flooding and systems were operating, the size of the plumes were significantly any groundwater table recharge from winter rains. reduced through groundwater extraction and contaminant mass removal. In 2002, due to the portion of Norton AFB groundwater contaminant plumes that remained in the off-base area south of the base, the Air Force established the Water Supply Contingency Policy to monitor and mitigate potential adverse affects on off base municipal well production. L:\group\COLWP\2010\048-10 (Final Norton 5-Year Review)\(4) Appendices\Appendix D-RTC_Draft Five Year Review_rev (2).doc Page 2 Comment No. Section Comment Response Monitoring of the on- and off-base plume areas has continued through the present and Figure 4-1 shows the continued reduction, or elimination, of remaining plume areas. Concurrent with the last decade shown in the Figure 4-1 panels (2000-2009), there has been a continuing regional decline in groundwater levels in the area of Norton AFB. As noted in the GDTR, groundwater elevations in the area of Norton AFB exhibited a relatively stable pattern of seasonal fluctuations through 1999 but have declined steadily since that time while still exhibiting the seasonal fluctuations. The declining water levels during this period are attributed to groundwater extraction to support water uses throughout the San Bernardino Valley and drought conditions. As can be seen in Figures 4-1a thru 4-1c, the operating BB and CBA PAT systems had significantly reduced plume size before the decline in water levels started after 1999, and had further reduced plume size by the time the systems were completely shut off in 2002. Monitoring results depicted on Figure 4-1d for 2004, after which the last (Second) Five Year review was conducted, indicate only very small areas of remaining groundwater contaminant plume areas on-base. Due to the regionally declining water levels that have occurred since 1999, it is possible that some portion of contaminant mass associated with these reduced groundwater contaminant plume areas were isolated in the deep (>100 ft bgs) vadose zone. This potential phenomenon is further discussed for more recent years in Section 4.1.4. It is important to note that the source remedies completed in the CBA pursuant to the CBA OU ROD (CBA OU Components 2 and 3, see Table 3-3) addressed removal of TCE from shallow and deep subsurface soils near Buildings 658, 673, and 763. The off-base portions of the groundwater contaminant plumes had been drawn deeper into the groundwater aquifer by the pumping influence of the off-base municipal wells so declining groundwater levels has not resulted in a similar situation for the off-base plume areas.” The second, third and fourth paragraphs of Section 4.1.4 will be replaced with the following: L:\group\COLWP\2010\048-10 (Final Norton 5-Year Review)\(4) Appendices\Appendix D-RTC_Draft Five Year Review_rev (2).doc Page 3 Comment No. Section Comment Response “The CBA and BB PAT systems treated approximately 6.9 billion gallons of water and removed nearly 467 pounds of TCE from the local groundwater (Earth Tech, 2006). Both PAT systems are decommissioned and the Air Force continues to routinely sample the groundwater monitoring wells under the BW GWMP. The focus of the GWMP has changed from defining the plumes to evaluating the effect of the treatment systems on groundwater contamination, to monitoring post-treatment water quality, contaminant levels, extents, and rate of migration in order to determine the long-term effectiveness of the remedies. Sampling frequencies have changed over the five-year review period according to changes in plume geometry and are addressed in the semiannual and annual GWMP reports. As noted earlier, groundwater elevations are declining and were at a 10-year low in July 2009. As a result, all A-level wells were dry and have been decommissioned, and numerous B-level wells are dry. Figures 4-1f through 4-1h show the changes in the extent of Norton AFB groundwater contaminant plumes since the last Five Year Review, completed in 2005, through July 2009. As seen on Figure 4-1h, there are no longer any groundwater contaminant plume areas that exceed the MCL located on the former Norton AFB. As of July 2009, there was only one off-base well location (MLW-7) where the MCL for TCE was exceeded. The groundwater monitoring result for November 2009 at MLW-7 (0.94 µg/L) was below the MCL for TCE, as reported in the 2009 Basewide Groundwater Monitoring Report (CH2MHill, 2010). The Figure 4-1 sequence of panels show that the last areas of diminishing groundwater contaminant plumes were located in the CBA near the identified source areas. Groundwater monitoring has shown that the TCE plume with concentrations above the MCL has been limited to the shallower zones of the aquifer, closest to the water table (CH2MHill, 2010). As regional groundwater levels continue to decline, the zone of the aquifer in which TCE has been detected falls with it. This phenomenon, discussed in the 2009 Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report, has resulted in the detection of TCE in successively deeper wells near the historical source areas north of the flightline, such as in B-zone wells MW-191, MW-215 and MW-263. The phenomenon is being monitored under the Basewide GWMP and L:\group\COLWP\2010\048-10 (Final Norton 5-Year Review)\(4) Appendices\Appendix D-RTC_Draft Five Year Review_rev (2).doc Page 4 Comment No. Section Comment Response is expected to continue as the water table declines. C-zone monitoring wells that may be affected include MW-261 (co located with MW-191), MW-184 (co-located with MW-215) and MW-410 (located directly downgradient of MW-263). If the TCE concentrations in these wells do increase, the concentrations are expected to be less than the most recent results from the nearby and co-located B-level wells that are now dry. The falling water table is likely to decrease the TCE concentrations in groundwater by processes such as: • Sorption onto soil particles which are left behind in the vadose zone • Volatilization at the water table and into the vadose zone • Confinement in vadose zone pore water • Chemical and biological degradation processes within the groundwater” Based on the above revisions which address the same information, the last paragraph of Section 4.1.4 will be deleted. The main purpose of the Seven Oaks Dam that was completed in 1999 in the upstream area of the Santa Ana River by the Army Corps of Engineers was for flood control so it isn’t necessary to specifically address the dam in the FYR. In recent years, there have been large-scale improvement projects for the highway network in the San Bernardino Valley, including I-10, I-215, I 210 and associated interchanges, state highways and local roadways. Several of the large interchanges, including the I-10/I 215 and I-210/Route 215 interchanges, were affected by design changes over seismic and liquefaction concerns at the sites. One of these concerns is the presence of a fault near the I-10/I-215 interchange that could potentially have the affect of acting as a weir behind which groundwater could collect and rise to higher levels than the general basin groundwater levels. However, given the significantly lower current groundwater levels in comparison to historic levels, this is not a currently relevant issue for Norton AFB. L:\group\COLWP\2010\048-10 (Final Norton 5-Year Review)\(4) Appendices\Appendix D-RTC_Draft Five Year Review_rev (2).doc Page 5 Comment No. Section Comment Response The San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District (SBVMWD) (basin watermaster) participates in the Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (IRWM) for which the objective is to improve water reliability during drought periods and reduce the potential for liquefaction. The SBVMWD utilizes groundwater monitoring and modeling and has facilities in place to effect these elements of their plan. Additionally, the water purveyors utilizing water from the basin have all predicted increases in water demand to meet future needs. All indications are that water levels in the basin will remain low for the foreseeable future. Accordingly, no changes to the FYR are proposed to address management of groundwater levels for liquefaction. [Reference: Excerpts from “THE WATER QUALITY CONTROL PLAN (BASIN PLAN) FOR THE SANTA ANA RIVER BASIN” (The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB or State Board) - January 24, 1995 Updated February 2008)] [References: Excerpts from the Integrated Regional Water Management Plan. Downloaded from the San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District website at: http://www.sbvmwd.com/integrated_regional_groundwater_mana gement_plan/] L:\group\COLWP\2010\048-10 (Final Norton 5-Year Review)\(4) Appendices\Appendix D-RTC_Draft Five Year Review_rev (2).doc Page 6 Comment No. Section Comment Response 4 CBA OU Beginning in the April 1999 panel of Figure 4-1a, a In order to improve resolution of the labels, Figures 4-1a to 4-1c Component 1 – new plume to the south of Norton AFB is identified, have been revised to Figures 4-1a to 4-1h so that there are two Figures 4-1a however, the resolution of the figure is not adequate to panels per page instead of the current six panels per page. thru 4-1c (p.41). read the figure label for this plume and the document The following text will be added to Section 4.1.4 of the FYR to does not address whether this plume is associated with rd contamination from Norton. The FYR should identify address the Crafton-Redlands plume after the current 3 this plume and include a brief discussion of the relation paragraph: of this plume to the Norton site. “Beginning in April 1999 (Figure 4-1c), the Crafton-Redlands plume is depicted on Figure 4-1. The Crafton-Redlands Plume is south of the Former Norton Air Force Base and generally flows from the former Lockheed Propulsion Company site in Mentone, toward the Colton narrows (geological fault barrier near the intersection of Interstates 10 and 215). Lockheed Martin, as the responsible party under Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board Cleanup and Abatement Orders 94-37 and 97-58, monitors for TCE and perchlorate in accordance with the approved Water Supply Monitoring Plan. Lockheed Martin also provides for mitigation and treatment of impacts to the municipal water supplies affected by the Crafton-Redlands plume. The leading edge of the Crafton-Redlands Plume is depicted in Figure 4-1 beginning in April 1999 through present day. Over time, definition of the plume area has improved as the monitoring network was increased.” 5 BW OU IRP The FYR should include a current figure that A figure presenting the footprint of modification to the landfill Site 2 Landfill – documents the footprint of the modifications to the has been included as Figure 4-2a (attached). cap landfill cap to accommodate the parking lot that was modifications constructed over a portion of this site. (p.51). 6 BW OU IRP The document indicates that dioxin was detected The discussion on page 55 in Section 4.3 addresses the screening Site 5 (p.55). “above the residential PRGs but below the industrial of potential contaminants of concern by using EPA PRGs. As PRGs.” However, the actual ARAR used in the noted in Section 4.3.1, Site 5 did not pose an unacceptable cancer analysis is not identified (see related ARAR comment risk and no remedial action objective was identified for dioxins. above). Please note that EPA has proposed an interim Accordingly, no ARARs for dioxin were necessary for the Site 5 dioxin PRG that is currently undergoing review. Hence remedy. It is not necessary to add the specified text to the FYR EPA HQ has asked that every FYR with identified since a review of changes in toxicity or other contaminant dioxin contamination include the following text: characteristics is a standard part of the FYR that would be conducted. L:\group\COLWP\2010\048-10 (Final Norton 5-Year Review)\(4) Appendices\Appendix D-RTC_Draft Five Year Review_rev (2).doc Page 7 Comment No. Section Comment Response “EPA's dioxin reassessment has been developed and undergone review over many years with the participation of scientific experts in EPA and other federal agencies, as well as scientific experts in the private sector and academia. The Agency followed current cancer guidelines and incorporated the latest data and physiological/biochemical research into the assessment. The results of the assessment have currently not been finalized and have not been adopted into state or federal standards. EPA anticipates that a final revision to the dioxin toxicity numbers may be released by the end of 2010. In addition, EPA/OSWER has proposed to revise the interim preliminary remediation goals (PRGs) for dioxin and dioxin-like compounds, based on technical assessment of scientific and environmental data. However, EPA has not made any final decisions on interim PRGs at this time. Therefore, the dioxin toxicity reassessments for this Site will be updated during the next Five Year Review.” In addition, EPA has proposed revising the PRGs for TCE and PCE and AF should also consider toxicity reassessment for these two compounds at the next Review as well. 7 BW OU IRP The document indicates that institutional controls will The following will be added to the beginning of Section 4.6.6 to Site 17 – be implemented only “until the site is closed” as part of address site characterization and vapor intrusion issues: Recommendatio RCRA corrective actions. Since an analysis of the ns and Follow potential for vapor intrusion at this site has not been “Additional characterization of VOCs in soil gas and additional up Actions completed to date, the potential for vapor intrusion soil sampling to address data gaps is required. Based on (p. 71). should be identified as an issue for this site in addition completed site characterization, updated soil and vapor intrusion to the recommendation for soil and soil gas sampling risk assessments are necessary to provide site risk already identified and included in the report. characterization.” Section 4.6.7 will be revised as follows: L:\group\COLWP\2010\048-10 (Final Norton 5-Year Review)\(4) Appendices\Appendix D-RTC_Draft Five Year Review_rev (2).doc Page 8 Comment No. Section Comment Response “Conduct the soil and soil gas sampling investigation to address data gaps in site characterization, utilize the data to complete updated soil and vapor intrusion risk assessments for the site, and, as appropriate based on the updated site characterization and risk assessment results, revise the Closure Certification Report. Deed restrictions will remain in place until the site is closed and the restrictions are formally removed.” 8 BW OU AOC The document indicates that sub-slab soil gas sampling The text included as the last bullet of Section 4.9.4 includes much 33 Building 747 of Building 747 “significantly exceeded risk based soil of the information requested on the building’s current status. The – Progress gas screening levels (RBSLs) for the industrial scenario text will be revised to normal format. The sentence will be added Since Signature for 1,4-dichlorobenzene (DCB), 1,2-dichloroethane to this existing text: of BW OU (DCA), and vinyl chloride (VC).” The document ROD (p. 82). should describe the building's current status such as “The adjacent western portion of Building 747 has been being partially demolished, a portion is being renovated and is occupied for light industrial/office uses.” reconfigured and is currently unoccupied. Because of the on-going confirmation sampling efforts for vapor The following will be added to the beginning of Section 4.9.6 to intrusion concerns, the document should state vapor address site characterization and vapor intrusion issues: intrusion as an issue. “Post-excavation soil gas confirmation sampling and soil gas sampling to address VOC site characterization data gaps is required. Based on completed site characterization, updated soil and vapor intrusion risk assessments are necessary to provide site risk characterization.” Section 4.9.7 will be revised as follows: “Conduct a soil gas sampling investigation to address post excavation site characterization, utilize soil and soil gas confirmation and characterization data to complete updated soil and vapor intrusion risk assessments for the site, and, as appropriate based on the updated site characterization and risk assessment results, revise the Closure Certification Report. Deed restrictions will remain in place until the site is closed and the restrictions are formally removed.” L:\group\COLWP\2010\048-10 (Final Norton 5-Year Review)\(4) Appendices\Appendix D-RTC_Draft Five Year Review_rev (2).doc Page 9 Comment No. Section Comment Response 9 BW OU The document states that an annual radiation dose of The referenced sentence will be deleted from Section 4.10.2 since Building 752 – 15 mrem/yr is "considered to be protective of human the selected remedy of excavation and disposal of soil containing Remedy health and the environment." However, EPA currently radium-226 in excess of 2 pCi/g is presented in the next sentence Implementation associates 15 mrem/yr with a risk of 3 x 10-4 of the same paragraph. The referenced sentence was a (p.87). (residential scenario). EPA associates a typical misstatement adapted from a more extensive explanation for the operational cleanup endpoint of 5 mrem/yr with a risk 2 pCi/g cleanup goal presented in the Final Work Plan for of 10-4. For the industrial scenario the risks associated Remedial Action at Building 752 Ra-226 Spill Site (Weston, with those dose rates are slightly lower. Please correct 2004, AR #3988). The last two sentences of the first paragraph the discussion in the text. of Section 4.10.2 will also be deleted since they refer in future tense to activities that are discussed as completed in the following paragraph. The next to last sentence of Section 4.10.2 (p. 88) will be revised to: “The net TEDE estimate is below the 5 mrem/yr value considered to be protective of human health and the environment by the EPA. 10 Section 6.0 – The language in this section of the document implies The paragraph will be rewritten to: Next Five-Year that a subsequent FYR may not be required. This is Review (p.97). incorrect. Since there are a number of sites where the “The final remedy for the BW ROD leaves contamination in final remedy leaves contamination in place at levels place at levels that exceed unlimited use and unrestricted that exceed unlimited use and unrestricted exposure exposure (Site 2, Site 5, Site 19, AOC4 and the SAR). Therefore, (Site 2, Site 5, Site 19, AOC 4, and the SAR), subsequent five-year reviews will be necessary as required by subsequent FYRs will be necessary as required by CERCLA. The next five-year review will be due by September CERCLA. Accordingly, the text should state the next 2015.” FYR is due September 2015. 11 To demonstrate that a remedy which relies on ICs is The following information will be incorporated for each of the protective, Air Force should do a title search to confirm applicable sites: that selected restrictions and associated ICs are still in place and have not been superseded by a subsequent Site 5 and the SAR continue to be owned by the Inland Valley document. The Air Force could either contract with a Development Authority (IVDA) which was the original title company to perform a title search which would transferee from the Air Force. Deed recorded with San show the ICs that a potential purchaser would discover Bernardino County on September 17, 2007, Document #2007 before acquiring the property; or they can review the 0532871. ICs specified as part of the selected remedy in the filings at the recorder's office themselves to ensure the Basewide ROD are included in the deed as environmental deed restrictions and LUCs have been recorded. restrictive covenants that run with the land. L:\group\COLWP\2010\048-10 (Final Norton 5-Year Review)\(4) Appendices\Appendix D-RTC_Draft Five Year Review_rev (2).doc Page 10 Comment No. Section Comment Response Site 19 continues to be owned by the San Bernardino International Airport Authority (SBIAA) which was the original transferee from the Air Force. Deed recorded with San Bernardino County on August 31, 2007, Document #2007 0505542. ICs specified as part of the selected remedy in the Basewide ROD are included in the deed as environmental restrictive covenants that run with the land. Site 2 continues to be owned by the SBIAA which was the original transferee from the Air Force. Deed recorded with San Bernardino County on September 20, 2007, Document #2007 0540619. ICs specified as part of the selected remedy in the Basewide ROD are included in the deed as environmental restrictive covenants that run with the land. In addition, a deed covenant modification was recorded to address changes resultant from paving of the landfill cap as specified in the Technical Memorandum, IRP Site 2 Landfill, July 2009 (signed September 1, 2009; recorded on September X, 2009, Document # 2009 xxxx). AOC4 continues to be owned by the SBIAA which was the original transferee from the Air Force. Deed recorded with San Bernardino County on December 17, 1999, Document #1999 0517892. ICs were not specified as part of the selected remedy in the Basewide ROD but use of the property is restricted based on FAA deed restrictions which limit use of the property to airport related uses. The restrictions are included in the deed as covenants that run with the land. Site 17 continues to be owned by the IVDA which was the original transferee from the Air Force. Deed recorded with San Bernardino County on July 25, 2007, Document #2007-0435180. Restrictive use covenants are included in the deed to comply with RCRA permit requirements. The property is restricted from use for residential purposes, hospitals for human care, public or private schools for persons under 18 years of age, or day care centers for children. Subsurface disturbance activities may not occur without regulatory approval. The restrictive covenants run with the land. L:\group\COLWP\2010\048-10 (Final Norton 5-Year Review)\(4) Appendices\Appendix D-RTC_Draft Five Year Review_rev (2).doc Page 11 Comment No. Section Comment Response AOC33 continues to be owned by the SBIAA which was the original transferee from the Air Force. Deed recorded with San Bernardino County on August 31, 2007, Document #2007 0505542. Restrictive use covenants are included in the deed to comply with RCRA permit requirements. The property is restricted from use for residential purposes, hospitals for human care, public or private schools for persons under 18 years of age, or day care centers for children. Subsurface disturbance activities may not occur without regulatory approval. The restrictive covenants run with the land. 12 There is no table of issues and recommendations in the Tables of issues and recommendations have been prepared based report although they were mentioned. Exhibits 4-3 and on the guidance examples and will be added to Section 4.0 4-4 in the 2001 Five-Year Comprehensive Guidance is (attached). an example of the tables that should be used for issues/recommendations in the report. 13 The FYR should contain a summary of the Regulatory It is assumed that regulatory findings refers to the prior findings from the previous FYR either in the executive recommendations and follow-up actions specified in the previous summary or introduction section of the document. FYR, which were as follows: CBA OU: Continue to monitor groundwater in accordance with the Water supply contingency Policy, and maintain effective implementation of institutional controls. BW OU: Obtain approval for the Basewide ROD and continue to implement the remedies outlined in that document, with the ultimate objective of closure of all sites in the OU. These prior FYR recommendations will be included in the Introduction. 14a Table 3-3. For “RCRA-CERCLA” sites that are currently involved For AOC 33, the following will be inserted at the end of the with removals or confirmation sampling for eventual Selected Remedy entry in Table 3-3: site closure, text should differentiate if they are for RCRA, CERCLA, or both requirements. For Building “The selected remedy addresses the CERCLA and RCRA 752 on p.36, AF should clarify it is only for the non- requirements for AOC33. AOC33 is considered part of the CERCLA internal cleanup that is at issue with total site former Norton AFB RCRA Interim Status Facility, so, as closure. specified in the Basewide ROD, RCRA corrective action termination will be required once the AOC 33 closure report is completed.” For Site 17, the following will be inserted at the end of the Selected Remedy entry in Table 3-3 L:\group\COLWP\2010\048-10 (Final Norton 5-Year Review)\(4) Appendices\Appendix D-RTC_Draft Five Year Review_rev (2).doc Page 12 Comment No. Section Comment Response “The selected remedy addresses the CERCLA and RCRA requirements for Site 17. Site 17 is considered part of the former Norton AFB RCRA Interim Status Facility, so, as specified in the Basewide ROD, RCRA corrective action termination will be required once the Site 17 closure report is completed.” For Building 752, the text after the first sentence will be revised as follows: “Site cleanup was completed in 2005 and the Final Status Survey Report was completed in 2006. EPA provided concurrence with no further action for the exterior spill in December 2008 followed by CDPH concurrence in January 2009. Based on EPA/CDPH concurrence, the CERCLA remedy is complete. However, the Building 752 interior, which is being addressed as a non- CERCLA issue, has not yet been released for unrestricted use by CDPH.” 14b Table 3-3. Component 1- CBA Groundwater current status shows In Table 3-3, the complete selected remedy, including deed “IC” as the selected remedy. A brief discussion should restrictions, is listed under the Selected Remedy column and IC is be provided on how and when ICs were selected as a listed under the Status column. The Status column will be component of the remedy. revised to Monitoring and IC as these are the continuing elements of the selected remedy established in the CBA ROD. Discussion of the selected remedy is provided in Section 4.1. 15 As part of the technical assessment in the report, the In regard to the technical assessment of the protectiveness of actual cost of system operations/O&M for each site remedies, unexpectedly high costs of system operations/O&M should be presented. It is understood that many of the costs can be an early indicator of potential remedy problems. sites have remedies such as monitoring or ICs, but However, there are no identified or perceived problems with the actual costs associated with these remedies should be IRP Site 2 system operations (blower)/O&M activities or with the presented along with a discussion of any monitoring or IC elements of the other remedies nor are costs for unanticipated/unusually high costs. these aspects considered to be unexpectedly high by the Air Force. Therefore, actual costs for system operations/O&M, monitoring or ICs are not provided as part of the technical assessment. L:\group\COLWP\2010\048-10 (Final Norton 5-Year Review)\(4) Appendices\Appendix D-RTC_Draft Five Year Review_rev (2).doc Page 13 Comment No. Section Comment Response 16 The Preliminary Close-Out Report (PCOR) for the The Preliminary Close-Out Report (PCOR) May 2006 has been Former Norton Air Force Base, dated May 2006, is added to the site chronology presented in Table 3-3 and to the missing from the site chronology and in reference reference list. In addition, a sentence has been added to the end sections of the FYR. The PCOR is a significant of Section 4.1.3 which states;” The Preliminary Close-Out Report document that represents construction complete status (PCOR)(Techlaw, 2006) documents the completion of remedial and should be referenced in the Report along with a action construction and signifies the construction complete status brief discussion. for the CBA OU and BW OU remedies.” 17 There are recurring statements that there have been no The FYR statements will be revised to confirm that RSLs were changes in Preliminary Remediation Goals (PRGs), but reviewed and that there are no changes that affect the remedies. PRGs have been referred to as regional screening levels The RSL reference will be included in the reference section. (RSLs) since 2009. AF should confirm that cleanup criterion meet the RSLs published in 2010. Please also add the source of RSLs in the reference section of the FYR; http://www.epa.gov/region9/superfund/prg/. 18 Executive Summary (p.xi). All acronyms should be All acronyms will be defined when first used in the executive defined when first used within the Executive Summary. summary and in the body of the document. For example OU, CBA and BW are acronyms that are used but not defined. L:\group\COLWP\2010\048-10 (Final Norton 5-Year Review)\(4) Appendices\Appendix D-RTC_Draft Five Year Review_rev (2).doc Page 14