VERSION 2

Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) / Cleanup Plan

Fort Ord Monterey, California

Prepared for:

U.S. ARMY ENVIRONMENTAL CENTER ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND, MARYLAND 21010

Prepared by:

EARTH TECH 1420 KING STREET, SUITE 600 ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA 22314

Requestsfor this documentmustbe referredto: CommanderDLIFLCand POM Attm ATZP-EP(GailYoungblood) Presidioof Monterey Monterey,California 93944-5006 (408)242-7924

DECEMBER 1995

W5.TOC

AEC Form 45, 1 Feb 93 repl aces THAMA Form 45 which is obsolete. ,,/. -

VERSION 2

Base Realignment and Closure Q3RAC) Cleanup Plan

Fort Ord Monterey, California

Prepared for:

Us. ARMY ENVIRONMENTAL CENTER ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND, MARYLAND 21010

Prepared by:

EARTH TECH 1420 KING STREET, SUITE 600 ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA 22314

Requestsfor this documentmustbe referredto: CommanderDLIFLCand POM Attn: ATZP-EP(GailYoungblood) Presidioof Monterey Monterey,California 93944-5006 (408)242-7924

DECEMBER 1995

M45.TOC “

.-

,J- This page intentionally left blank.

0445.RF’T Fort Oni, Cal~omia - December 1995 I TABLE OF CONTENTS I

Section Page No.

Executive Summary...... -. -.. .ES-1

Chapter 1: Introduction andhnrnary...... --...... -----1-1 1.1 Environmental Response Objectives . - ...... 1-2 1.2 BCP Purpose, Updates, and Distribution ...... 1-3 1.3 BCT/Project Team ...... ---...... 1-4 1.4 Installation Description and History ...... - ...... 1-4 1.4.1 General Property Description . . . . ., ...... --...... 1-4 1.4.2 History of Installation ...... 1-6 1.5 EnvironmentalSetting ...... ------1-11 1.5.1 Climate ...... 1-11 1.5.2 Topography ...... --- . ...1-11 1.5.3 Geology ...... - . . ...1-14 l.5.4Hydrogeology ...... 1-14 1.5.5 Surface Water Hydrogeology ...... 1-15 1.6 Hazardous Substances and Waste Management Practices ...... 1-15 1.7 Off-Post Property/Tenants ...... 1-35

Chapter 2: Property Disposal and Reuse Plan...... 2-1 2.1 Status of Disposal Planning Process ...... 2-1 2.1.1 NEPA and Endangered Species Act Disposal and Reuse Documentation ...... 2-1 2.1.2 Reuse Plan ...... 2-2 2.1.3 Disposal Plan ...... 2-3 2.2 Relationship to Environmental Programs ...... 2-7 2.3 Property Transfer Methods ...,...... 2-9 2.3.1 Federal to Federal Transfer of Prope~ ...... 2-9 2.3.2 Public Benefit Conveyance ...... 2-10 2.3.3 Economic Development Conveyance ...... 2-10 2:3.4 Negotiated Sale ...... 2-10 2.3.5 Competitive Public Sale...... 2-15 2.3.6 Widening of Public Highways ...... 2-15 2.3.7 Donated Property ...... 2-15 2.3.81nterim Leases ...... 2-15

Chapter 3: Installation-Wide Environmental program Status ...... 3-1 3.1 Environmental Restoration Program Status ...... 3-1 3.1.1 Preliminary Assessments and Site Investigations ...... 3-1 3.1.2 Remedial Investigation and Site Restoration Activities ...... 3-2 3.1.3 Installation-Wide Source Discovery and Assessment Status . . . . . 3-16

C445 RFT Fort Oral, Cal~omia - December 1995 i TABLE OF CONTENTS Continued

Section Page No.

3.2 Compliance Program Status . . . ..- . . . ..- . . ..+-’ .””” ---’’3-17 3.2. i Storage Tanks ...... - ...... -. .’ 3-22 3.2.1 .lUSTS ...... - ...... - . . ...3-22 3.2.1 .lASTS ...... -.....-...... ---3-24 3.2.2 Hazardous Substances Management ...... 3-25 3.2.3 Hazardous Waste Management ...... --- . ...3-26 3.2.4 Solid Waste Management ...... 3-27 3.2.5 Polychlorinated Biphenyls ...... -- . . . . --- ...... 3-27 3.2.6 Asbestos ...... -- ...... -- ...... 3-29 3.2.7 Radon ...... - ...... - ...... 3-29 3.2.8 RCW4 Facilities ...... -3-30 3.2.9 Wastewater Discharges ...... -...... -...... -3-31 3.2.100 il/waterS eparators ...... 3-32 3.2.11pohtionP retention ...... - ...... 3-32 3.2.12 Nuclear Regulato~ Commission (NRC) Licensing ...... 3-32 3.2.13 Mixed Waste ...... 3-33 3.2.14 Radiation ...... 3-33 3.2.15 NEPA ...... - ...... ----- . . ...3-34 3.2.16 Lead-Based Paint ...... ---3-34 3.2.17 Medical Waste ...... - ...... 3-35 3.2.18 UXO ...... - . . .--..3-36 3.2.19 Air Quality ...... 3-38 3.3 Status of Natural and Cultural Resources Programs ...... 3-38 3.3.1 Vegetation ...... ~ ...... 3-39 3.3.2 Wildlife ...... 3-40 3.3.3 Wetlands ...... 3-41 3.3.4 Designated Preservation Areas ...... 3-41 3.3.5 Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species ...... 3-42 3.3.6 Cultural Resources ...... 3-43 3.4 Environmental Condition of Property ...... 3-43 3.4.1 CERFA Parcels ...... 3-44 3.4.2 CERFA Parcels with Qualifiers ...... 3-44 3.4.3 CERFA Disqualified Parcels ...... 3-65 3.4.4 CERFA Excluded Parcels ...... 3-65 3.4.5 Suitability of Installation Property for Transfer by Deed ...... 3-65 3.5 Status of Community Involvement ...... 3-66

W5.R17 Fort Oral, Califomiu - December 1995 ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Continued

Section Page No.

Chapter 4: Installation-wide Strategy for Environmental Restoration ...... 4-1 4.1 Zone/OU Designation and Site Characterization Strategy ...... 4-2 4.1.1 Zone Designations ...... -...... 4-2 4.1.20U Designations ...... 4-2 4.1.3 Categorization of Sites for Basewide RI/FS ...... 4-2 4.1.4 Remedy Selection Strategy ...... -...... 4-3 4.1.5 Sequence of OUs/Sites ...... -4-8 4.2 . Compliance Strategy ...... --- ...... 4-13 4.2.1 Storage Tanks ...... 4-13 4.2.1 .lUSTS ...... 4-16 4.2.1 .2 ASTS ...... -- . . ...4-16 4.2,2 Hazardous Substances Management ...... 4-16 4.2.3 Hazardous Waste Management ...... 4-16 4.2.4 Solid Waste Management ...... 4-17 4.2.5 Polychlorinated Biphenyls ...... 4-17 4.2.6 Asbestos ...... 4-17 4.2.7 Radon ...... 4-17 4,2.8 RCRA Facilities ...... 4-17 4.2.9 Wastewater Discharges ...... 4-18 4.2.10 Oil/Water Separators ...... 4-18 4.2.11 Pollution Prevention ...... 4-18 4.2.12 NRC Licensing ...... 4-18 4.2.13 Mixed Waste ...... 4-19 4.2.14 Radiation ...... 4-19 4.2.15 NEPA ...... 4-19 4.2.16 Lead-Based Paint ...... 4-19 4.2.17 Medical Waste ...... 4-20 4.2.18 Uxo ...... 4-20 4.2.19 Air Quality ...... 4-21 4.3 Natural and Cultural Resources Strategy (ies) ...... 4-21 4.3.1 Vegetation ...... 4-21 4.3.2 Wildlife ...... 4-21 4.3.3 Wetlands ...... 4-21 4.3.4 Designated Preservation Areas ...... , ...... 4-22 4.3.5 Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species ...... 4-22 4.3.6 Cultural Resources ...... 4-22 4.4 Community Involvement./Strategy ...... 4-22

... W5.R~ Fort Oral, Cal@mia -December 1995 111 -., I TABLE OF CONTENTS I I Continued

Section Page No.

Chapter 5: Environmental Program Master Schedules . . . , ...... 5-1 5.1 Environmental Restoration Program ...... 5-1 5.1.1 Respome Schedules ...... 5-1 5.1.2 Requirements by Fiscal Yem ...... -...... 5-1 5.2 Compliance Programs ...... --...... +..’”..””””” “--5-1 5.2.1 Master Compliance Schedules ...... 5-1 5.2.2 Requirements by Fiscal Year...... 5-9 5.3 Natural and Cultural Resources ...... ” .5-9 5.3.1 Natural and Cultural Resources Schedule(s) ...... ---....5-9 5.3.2 Requirements by Fiscal Yeu ...... --...... 5-9 5.4 Meeting Schedule ...... --5-9

Chapter 6: Technical and Other Issues to be Resolved ...... 6-1 6.1 Information Management ...... --- .-. .”” .6-1 6.1.1 BCT Action Items ...... 6-1 6.1.2 Rationale ...... ---- ...... ”” ””. ”6-1 6.1.3 Status/Strategy ...... 6-1 6.2 Data Usability ...... 6-2 6.2.1 BCT Action Items ...... -6-2 6.2.2 Rationale ...... 6-2 6.2.3 StatuslStrategy ...... 6-2 6.3 Data Gaps ...... 6-2 6.3.1 BCT Action Items ...... 6-3 6.3.2 Rationale ...... -..-.--...--.-...... 6-3 6.3.3 Status/Strategy ...... 6-3 6.4 Background Levels ...... 6-3 6.4.1 BCT Action Items ...... -.6-3 6.4.2 Rationale ...... --6-3 6.4.3 Status/Strategy ...... --..----...... 6-3 6.5 Risk Assessments ...... --6-4 6.5.1 BCT Action Items ...... 6-4 6.5.2 Rationale ...... -..-.6-4 6.5.3 Status/Strategy ...... 6-4 6.6 Installation-wide Remedial Action Strategy ...... - . - . . . .6-4 6.6.1 BCT Action Items ...... -....6-4 6.6.2 Rationale ...... 6-4 6.6.3 Status/Strategy ...... 6-6 . .

0445.R17 Fort Oral, Cal#omia - December 1995 iv ,- TABLE OF CONTENTS Continued

Section Page No.

6.7 Interim Monitoring of Groundwater and Surface Water ...... 6-6 6.7.1 BCT Action Items ...... 6-6 6.7.2 Rationale ...... 6-6 6.7.3 Status/Strategy ...... 6-6 6.8 Excavation of Contaminated Materials ...... 6-6 6.8.1 BCT Action Items ...... 6-6 6.8.2 Rationale ...... 1 ...... 6-6 6.8.3 Status/Strategy ...... 6-7 6,9 Protocols for Remedial Design Reviews ...... 6-7 6.9.1 BCT Action Items 6.9.2 Ratiomle ...... 6-7 6.9.3 Status/Strategy ...... 6-7 6.10 Conceptual Models ...... 6-7 6.10.1 BCT Action Items ...... 6-7 6.10.2 Rationale ...... 6-8 6.10.3 Status/Strategy ...... 6-8 6.11 Cleanup Standards ...... 6-8 6.11.1 BCT Action Items ...... 6-8 6.11.2 Rationale ...... 6-8 6.11.3 Status/Strategy ...... -6-8 6.12 Initiatives for Accelerating Cleanup ...... 6-8 6.12.1 BCT Action Items ...... 6-10 6.12.2 Rationale ...... 6-11 6.12.3 Status/Strategy ...... 6-11 6.13 Remedial Actions ...... 6-12 6.13.1 BCT Action Items ...... 6-12 6.13.2 Rationale ...... 6-12 6.13.3 Status/Strategy ...... 6-12 6.14 Review of Selected Technologies for Application of Expedited Solutions . 6-13 6.14.1 BCT Action Items ...... 6-13 6.14.2 Rationale ...... 6-13 6.14.3 Status/Strategy ...... 6-13 6.15 Hot Spot Removals ...... 6-13 6.15.1 BCT Action Items ...... 6-13 6.15.2 Rationale ...... 6-13 6.15.3 Status/Strategy ...... 6-13

0445.RPT Fort Oral, California - December 1995 v t TABLE OF CONTENTS I Continued

Section Page No.

6.16 Identification of Clean Propetiies ...... ---- 6-l4 6.16.1 BCT Action Items ...... - ...... 6-14 6.16.2 Rationale ...... -----6-14 6.16.3 Status/Strategy ...... 6-14 6.17 Overlapping Phases of the Cleanup Process ...... - . . 6-15 6.17.1 BCT Action Items ...... 6-15 6.17.2 Rationale ...... 6-15 6.17.3 Status/Strategy ...... 6-15 6.18 Improved Contracting Procedures ...... 6-15 6.18.1 BCT Action Teams ...... 6-16 6.18.2 Rationale ...... 6-16 6.18.3 Status/Strategy ...... 6-16 6.19 Interfacing with the Community Reuse Plan ...... 6-16 6.19.1 BCT Action Items ...... 6-16 6.19.2 Rationale ...... 6-16 6.19.3 Status/Strategy ...... 6-17 6.20 Bias for Cleanup Instead of Studies ...... 6-17 6.20.1 BCT Action Items ...... 6-17 6.20.2 Rationale ...... 6-17 6.20.3 Status/Strategy ...... 6-17 6.21 Experi [nput on Contamination and Potential Remedial Actions ...... 6-17 6.21.1 BCT Action Items ...... 6-17 6.21.2 Rationale ...... 6-17 6.21.3 Status/Strategy ...... 6-18 6.22 Generic Remedies ...... 6-18 6.22.1 BCT Action Items ...... 6-18 6.22.2 Rationale ...... 6-18 6.22.3 Status/Strategy ...... 6-18 6.23 Partnering (Using Innovative Management, Coordimtion, and Communication Techniques) ...... 6-18 6.23.1 BCT Action Items ...... 6-18 6.23.2 Rationale ...... 6-18 6.23.3 Status/Strategy ...... 6-19 6.24 Updating the CERFA Report and Natural/Cultural Resources Documentation...... 6-19 6.24.1 BCT Action Items ...... 6-19 6.24.2 Rationale ...... 6-19 6.24.3 Status/Strategy ...... 6-19

0445.RFT Fott Oral, Cal#omia - December 1995 vi /- TABLE OF CONTENTS Continued

Section Page No.

6.25 Implementing the Policy for On-Site Decision Making ...... 6-20 6.25.1 BCT Action Teams ...... - . . . . . - . . . --’ .””---’” 6-20 6.25.2 Rationale ...... - . . ...-...... -’.”--’”””- 6-20 6.25.3 StatuslStrategy ...... - . . - . . . -- . . --- ...6-20 6.26 Structural and Infrastructural Constraints to Reuse ...... - . . . 6-20 6.26.1 BCT Action Items ...... --.....-....---...... 6-20 6.26.2 Rationale ...... -.””””” 6-20 6.26.3 Status/Strategy ...... -...... -- ...... -- . . ...-6-20 6.27 Other Technical Reuse Issues to be Resolved ...... 6-21

Chapter 7: Primary References ...... -. .7-1

Appendix A: Fiscal Year Funding Requirements/Costs Appendix B: Installation Environmental Restoration Documents Summary Tables Appendix C: Decision Document/ROD Summaries Appendix D: No Further Summaries Appendix E: Conceptual Site Model Data Summaries Appendix F: Ancillary BCP Materials

0445,RFr Fort Oral, Califonzia - December 1995 vii TABLE OF CONTXNTS Continued

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page No.

Figure 1-1 General Location of Fort Odd...... -..-...1-7 Figure 1-2 Surrounding Off-Post Land Use ...... - -. 1-9 Figure 1-3A Location of Past Hazardous Substance Activities ...... 1-17 Figure 1-3B Location of Past Hazardous Substance Activities ...... - . 1-19 Figure 1-3C Imcation of Past Hazardous Substance Activities ...... 1-21 Figure 1-3D Location of Past Hazardous Substance Activities ...... 1-23 Figure 1-3E Location of Past Hazardous Substance Activities ...... 1-25 Figure 1-3F Location of Past Hazardous Substance Activities ...... 1-27 Figure 1-3G Location of Past Hazardous Substance Activities ...... 1-29 Figure 1-3H Location of Past Hazardous Substance Activities ...... 1-31 Figure 1-31 Location of Past Hazardous Substance Activities ...... 1-33 Figure 2-1 Disposal and Reuse Parcels ...... 2-5 Figure 3-1 Sites, Zones, and OUS Currently Under Investigation ...... 3-11 Figure 3-2A Environmental Condition of Prope~ ...... 3-45 Figure 3-2B Environmental Condition of Property ...... 3-47 Figure 3-2C Environmental Condition of Property ...... 3-49 Figure 3-2D Environmental Condition of Properiy ...... 3-51 Figure 3-2E Environmental Condition of Property ...... 3-53 Figure 3-2F Environmental Condition of Property ...... 3-55 Figure 3-2G Environmental Condition of Property ...... 3-57 Figure 3-2H Environmental Condition of Property ...... 3-59 Figure 3-21 Environmental Condition of Property ...... 3-61 Figure 3-2J Environmental Condition of Properiy ...... 3-63 Figure 3-3 Property Suitable for Transfer Map ...... F-31 Figure 4-1 Fort Ord CERCLA Process ...... 4-11 Figure 5-1 Projected Master Restoration Schedule ...... 5-3 Figure 5-2 Projected Master Schedule for Closure-Related Compliance Programs . . 5-11 Figure 5-3 Projected Schedule for Natural and Cultural Resources Activities . . . . . 5-15

... M45.RFT Fott Oni, California - December 1995 Vlll TABLE OF CONTENTS Continued LIST OF TABLES Table Page No.

Table ES-1 BCT/Project Team Action Items ...... ES-3 Table 1-1 Current BCT/Project Team Members ...... -...1-5 Table 1-2 Property Acquisition Summary ...... 1-12 Table 1-3 Histo~of Imbllation Operations ...... l-l3 Table 1-4 Current and/or Historical Hazardous Substances Activities at Fort Ord . . 1-16 Table 1-5 Past Hazardous Waste Generating Activities ...... 1-36 Table 1-6 On-Post Tenant Units ...... -..1-39 Table 2-1 Reuse Parcel Data Summ~ ...... ---2-11 Table 2-2 Existing Legal Agreements/Interim Leases ...... 2-16 Table 3-1 Preliminary Location Summary...... 3-3 Table. 3-2 Environmental Restoration Early Action Status ...... 3-9 Table 3-3 Environmental Restoration Site/Study Area Surmnary ...... 3-13 Table 3-4 Mission/Operational-Related Compliance Projects ...... 3-19 Table 3-5 Closure-Related Compliance Projects ...... 3-20 Table 3-6 Compliance Early Action Status ...... 3-21 Table 3-7 Environmental Compliance Permits, Licenses, Notifications, and Registrations ...... 3-23 Table 4-1 Relationship Between Sites, OUS, and Reuse Parcels ...... 4-4 Table 4-2 Environmental Restoration Plamed Early Actions ...... 4-9 Table 4-3 Cleanup Sequence ...... 4-14 Table 5-1 No Action Schedule ...... 5-7 Table 5-2 Interim Action Schedule ...... , ...... 5-8 Table 5-3 BCT Meeting Schedule ...... 5-17 Table 6-1 Future hind Use Risk Assessment for Development of Remedy Selections ...... 6-5 Table 6-2 Preliminary Remediation Goals...... 6-9 Table A-1 Total Environmental Program Summary ...... A-1 Table A-2 Historical Environmental Program Expenditures Summary ...... A-1 Table B-1 Project Deliverables ...... B-1 Table B-2 Site Deliverables ...... B-4 Table B-3 Technical Documents/Data Loading Status Summary ...... B-6 Table D-1 No Action Site Summaries ...... D-l Table E-1 Conceptual Site Model Data Summary and Chemical Standards Summary...... E-1 Table E-2 Summary of Background Concentrations ...... E-3 Table E-3 Total Metal Results of Background Groundwater Locations ...... E-4 Table F-1 BCP Distribution List ...... F-3 Table F-2 UST Inventory ...... F-7 Table F-3 AST Inventory ...... F-15 Table F-4 SWMU Summary ...... F-19

W5.RW Fort Oni, California - December 1995 ix LIST OF ACRONYMS

ACM Asbestos-Containing Material AOC Area of Concern Army Regulation AlL4R Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirement AREE Area Requiring Environmental Evaluation AST Aboveground Storage Tank BCP BlU4C Cleanup Plan BCT BRAC Cleanup Team BEC BlL4C Environmental Coordinator BLM Bureau of Land Management BRAC Base Realignment and Closure BRP Base Reuse Plan CAA Clean Air Act CAIS Chemical Agent Inventory Sets Cal EPA California Environmental Protection Agency CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act CERFA Community Environmental Response Facilitation Act CFR Code of Federal Regulation CRP Community Relations Plan Csu California State University CWA Clean Water Act DA Department of the Army DD Decision Document DHS Department of Health Services DLI Defense Language Institute DERP Defense Environmental Restoration Program DOD Department of Defense DOT Department of Transportation DRMO Defense Reutilization and Marketing Office DTSC Department of Toxic Substances Control ECAS Environmental Compliance Assessment System EBS Environmental Baseline Survey EEICA Engineering Evaluation/Cost Assessment EIS Environmental Impact Statement EnPA Enhanced Preliminary Assessment ESD Explamtion of Significant Difference FAAF Fritzsche Army Atileld FFA Federal Facility Agreement FORA Fort Ord Reuse Authority FORG Fort Ord Reuse Group FOSL Finding of Suitability to Lease FOST Finding of Suitability to Transfer FOSTA Fort Ord Soil Treatment Area

M45.RFT Fort O&, Cal~ornia - December 1995 x —. LIST OF ACRONYMS

GIS Geographic Information System HMP Habitat Management Plan IRP Installation Restoration Program ISCP Installation Spill Contingency Plan LRA Local Redevelopment AuthoriV LTM Long-Texm Monitoring MOU Memorandum of Understanding NCP National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan NEPA Natioml Environmental Policy Act NFA No Further Action NFRAP No Further Response Action Planned NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NPL Natioml Priorities List NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission OEW Ordnance and Explosive Waste OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration Ou Operable Unit PA/SI Preliminary Assessment/Site Investigation PCB Polychlorinated Biphenyl pCi/L Picocuries per liter POL Petroleum, Oil, and Lubricant POM Presidio of Monterey ppm Parts per Million Remedial Action MB Restoration Advisory Board RCIL4 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act RD Remedial Design RI/FS Remedial Investigation/ Feasibility Study RMIS Restoration Management Information System ROD Record of Decision RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board SARA Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer SPCC Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure SWMU Solid Waste Management Unit TPH Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons TRC Technical Review Committee TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act Ucsc UniversiV of California at Santa Cruz USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USAEC U.S. Army Environmental Center USAEHA U.S. Army Environmental Hygiene Agency

M45.RFT Fofl Oni, California - December 1995 xi I LIST OF ACRONYMS I

USEPA U.S. EnvironmentalProtectionAgency USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service UST Underground Storage Tank Uxo Unexploded Ordnance

0445.RFT Fort Oral, Cal~omia - December 1995 Xii .> BCP GLOSSARY OF TERMS

Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirement (AR@. AIL4Rs are cleanup standards, standards of control, and other environmental protection requirements, criteria, or limitations promulgated in federal or state regulations that define remedial action requirements at CERCLA sites.

Area Requiring Environmental Evaluation (AREE). An AREE is an individual site, multiple sites or program area identified through an environmental assessment or site investigation as a potential threat to human health or the environment which requires further investigation. An AREE is roughly synonymous with an Area of Concern (AOC).

BIWC Cleanup Team (BCT). The BCT is formed to manage environmental programs for BRAC installations consisting of a U.S. Army installation representative, USEPA region representative, and state environmental agency representative.

BRAC Environmental Coordinator (BEC). The BEC is the U.S. Army representative of the BCT appointed by the U.S. Army component responsible for the BRAC installation. The BEC is responsible for the overall coordination and implementation of environmental cleanup programs related to the transfer of the BWC installation.

Base Closure and Realignment Act (BRAC Act). The Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1988 (P.L. 100-526, 102 Stat. 2623) (BRAC 88 or BRAC I) and the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-0510, 104 Stat. 1808) (BRAC 91, 93, 95) legislated the closure or realignment of military bases.

Base Transition Coordinator (BTC). The BTC is the DOD representative who serves as the primary point of contact for the public at a BlL4C installation and assists in disposal and reuse planning and coordination for the property.

Corrective Action Plan (CAP). Plan for the investigation and restoration of sites contarnimted by petroleum products developed following California State Water Quality Control Board guidance/Article 11, Corrective Action Requirements, Amendment to Chapter 16, Underground Storage Tank Regulations (1994).

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) (1980). This Act is otherwise known as Superfund; it provides for liability, compensation, cleanup and emergency response for hazardous substances released to the environment. It was amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA). Section 120 of CERCLA specifically addresses procedures to be followed for federal facilities investigation and cleanup including BlL4C installations. Section 120(h) was amended by the Community Environmental Response Facilitation Act of 1992 (CERFA).

... 0145.R~ Fort Oral, California - December 1995 Xlll I BCP GLOSSARY OF TERMS I I Continued

Community Environmental Response Facilitation Act (CERFA). This Act is an amendment to CERCLA which established new procedures or contamination assessment, remediation (cleanup), and regulatory agency notification and concurrence for federal facility closures. CERFA requires the U.S. Army to identify uncontaminated property; its primary goal is to accelerate the transfer of property that can be immediately reused and redeveloped. The USAEC prepared CERI?A reports for all U.S. Army BFL4C installations. Included in the report is an environmental condition of property map which classifies property in four categories, CERFA clean, excluded, qualified and disqualified.

Community Relations Plan (CRP). The CRP is a formal plan for community relations activities at an NPL site (see Public Involvement and Response Plan).

Corrective Measures Study (CMS). The CMS is the third phase of the RCRA corrective action program for a facility consisting of the identification of corrective action requirements and the evaluation and selection of appropriate remedies for these problems identified in the RFI. The CMA roughly equates to the FS and PP prepared for sites being investigated under CERCLA.

Decision Document (DD). The DD which formalizes the selection of remedial actions which are to be implemented at the installation. DDs are prepared for installations not on the National Priorities List. The DD corresponds roughly to a Record of Decision (ROD) for an NPL site.

Defense Environmental Restoration Account (DERA). The DERA is the Defense Appropriations Act funding mechanism for the DERP IRP (except the BRAC IllP).

Defense Environmental Restoration program (DERP). The DERP is the program established in 1984 to promote and coordinate efforts for the evaluation and cleanup of contamination at Department of Defense (DOD) installations. The program currently includes: the Installation Restoration Program (IRP), under which DOD installation investigations and site cleanups are conducted; and Other Hazardous Waste (OWH) Operations, through which research, development and demonstration programs airned at improving remediation technology and reducing DOD waste generation rates are conducted. DERP is managed centrally by the Office of the Secretary of Defense. SARA provides continuing authority for the Secretary of Defense to carry out this program in consultation with the USEPA and in compliance with CERCLA and SAR4 guidelines.

Early Action. Also called removal actions, early actions are interim remedial actions taken to respond to an immediate site threat or take advantage of an opportunity to significantly reduce risk quickly. These actions may be limited in scope and require further remedial actions that complete site restoration for the long-term. Examples of early or interim actions are construction of a temporary landfill cap, and removal of contaminated soil to prohibit contamination of groundwater.

0445.RH Fort Oral, Cal~omia - December 1995 xiv F-- BCP GLOSSARY OF TERMS 1 I Continued

Environmental Assessment (EA). ArIEA is a document prepared to evaluate the environmental impacts of a federal action in compliance with NEPA when an EIS may not be necessary. If the EA indicates that there may be negative impacts to the environment from the proposed action, an EIS is required. If no significant impact is identified in the EA, a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) is documented and no further evaluation under NEPA is required.

Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis (EE/CA). Phase of the IRP for CERCLA-process sites, the goal of which is to identify the objectives of early actions and analyze the various alternatives that may be used to satisfy these objectives for cost, effectiveness, and implernentability. Though an EE/CA is similar to an RI/FS, it is less comprehensive.

,~Ihergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 (EPCRA). This Act is Title III of SAIU which requires certain facilities to coordinate emergency planning with local and regional authorities and prepare hazardous material inventory and release data (Tier I and II and Toxic Release Inventory Reports). Executive Order 12856, signed August 3, 1993, requires that federal facilities comply with EPCRA.

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). An EIS is required by the NEPA which examines major federal actions to determine their impact on the environment. Installation disposal and reuse actions require the preparation of NEPA documentation.

Environmental Investigation/Alternatives Analysis (EI/&l). The EI/AA describes RI/FS studies conducted at U.S. Army installations which are not on the NPL.

Explanation of Significant Difference (ESD). An ESD is a document which identifies significant changes that are being made to a component of the remedial action remedy in a ROD or DD. If fundamental changes are made to the overall remedy they are documented in a ROD or DD amendment and not an ESD.

Feasibility Study (FS). An FS is a CERCLA environmental restoration study undertaken to develop and evaluate options for remedial action. Generally performed concurrently with and using data gathered during the RI. The FS evaluates remedial action alternatives based on technical feasibility and cost effectiveness, regulatory requirements, public health effects, and environmental impact.

Federal Facility Agreement (FFA). The FFA is a binding agreement between the party responsible for cleanup of an NPL site and the USEPA which formalizes the CERCLA procedures and schedules to be followed for the site.

W5.RFT Forc Oral, Culifomia - December 1995 xv I BCP GLOSSARY OF TERMS I

Federal Facility Site Restoration Agreement (FFSRA). This is a binding agreement between the party responsible for cleanup of a non-NPL site and the lead state environmental agency which formalizes the CERCLA procedures and schedules to be followed for the site. The FFSW equates to a FFA for an NPL site.

Hazard Ranking System (HRS). This is a system established by the USEPA for evaluating contaminated sites based on the potential hazard posed to public health and the environment. The system uses PA/SI data to generate a score ranging from O to 100 for each installation or individual site evaluated. Installations with a score above 28.5 may be included on the NPL.

Installation Restoration Data Management Information System (IRDMIS). IRDMIS is a database developed by the U.S. Army and maintained by the USAEC to manage sampling and analysis data generated at U.S. Army installations undergoing environmental investigation and restoration.

Installation Restoration Program (IRP). This is a program implemented under the DERP to investigate and remediate DOD installations. The IRP conforms with the NCP and CERCLA and applies guidelines promulgated by the USEPA. The IRP for active installations is funded by the DEW, the IRP for BIWC installations is funded through the Military Construction Act.

National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). This plan provides the organizational structure and procedures for preparing for and responding to discharges of oil and releases of hazardous substances in accordance with CERCLA and the Clean Water Act (CWA). These procedures include the completion of a Preliminary Assessment, Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study, Proposed Plan, Remedial Design and Remedial Action.

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). This Act was passed in 1970 to encourage the assessment of environmental impact in federal decision making processes. The Act requires the preparation of an EIS/EA for significant federal actions.

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). USEPA administered program authorized by the Clean Water Act (CWA) to monitor wastewater discharges to surface and groundwater. NPDES elements include industrial and sanitary wastewater discharge permitting programs and storm water permitting programs.

National Priorities List (NPL). The NPL is a listing of CERCLA hazardous substance release sites scoring 28.5 or higher under the USEPA Hazard Ranking System. Such sites are first proposed for NPL listing. Following a public comment period, proposed NPL sites may be listed on the NPL or may be deleted from consideration for placement on the list. Regulatory oversight for CERCLA site restoration actions at NPL installations is provided by the USEPA. Such installations are required to enter into an FFA.

CM45.RFT Fort Oral, California - December 1995 xvi /--- BCP GLOSSARY OF TERMS

No Further Response Action Planned (NFlU4P). NFRAP is the designation given to an AREE or IRP site when investigation (S1or RI/FS) results indicate site does not require remedial action or, after adequate remedial actions have been completed. NFRAP is synonymous with no further action (NFA).

Operable Unit (OU). An OU is an environmental restoration unit identified as part of the CERCLA environmental restoration process to aid in the development of a remedial action strategy for the installation. Operable units may address geographical portions of an installation, specific installation problems, initial phases of an action, sets of actions performed over time or concurrent actions located in different portions of the installation.

Preliminary Assessment (PA). The PA is the fwst phase of investigation in the CERCLA environmental restoration process. The PA consists of a review of existing information and site reconnaissance if appropriate, to determine AREEs. Some PAs are “enhanced” to include non- CERCLA issues, such as asbestos, lead-based paint, radon, asbestos, and unexploded ordnance.

Proposed Plan (PP). The PP is a document which identifies the preferred remedial action alternative for a site and which provides a brief summary of all of the alternatives studied in the detailed amlysis phase of the RI/FS.

Public Involvement and Response Plan (PIRl?). The PIRP is a U.S. Army document which outlines the program established to inform the community of the IRP at an installation and provides for community involvement in the cleanup process. The PIRP is synonymous with the Community Relations Plan (CRP). A PIRP or CRP is required for NPL sites and may also be prepared for U.S. Army installations which are not on the NPL but are undergoing investigation under the active installation or BRAC IRP.

Removal Action. Interim remedial actions taken to respond to an immediate site threat to take advantage of an opportunity to significantly reduce risk quickly (see Early Action).

RCRA Facility Assessment (RFA). An RFA is the first phase of the RCRA corrective action program for a facility consisting of a records review and site inspection to gather information on releases at the facility. The RFA process includes an evaluation of SWMUS as well as preliminary determinations regarding the need for fi.wther investigation. The RFA roughly equates to the PA conducted under the CERCLA environmental program.

RCRA Facility Investigation (WI). An RFI is the second phase of the RCRA corrective action program for a facility conducted at installations where the RFA identified the need for further evaluation. The RFI consists of multimedia investigations conducted to characterize the extent of releases at the RCW facility. The RFI roughly equates to the RI conducted under the CERCLA environmental restoration process.

c445.RF7 Foti Oral, California - December 1995 xvii BCP GLOSSARY OF TERMS I Continued

Record of Decision (ROD). This document formalizes the selection of remedial actions which are to be implemented at an NPL site. The ROD certifies that the remedy selection process was carried out in accordance with CERCLA and with the NCP. It describes the treatment, engineering, and institutional components of the remedial action and remediation goals. The ROD roughly equates to a DD for a non-NPL site.

Remedial Action (W). RA is the final phase of the CERCLA environmental restoration process during which the actual construction of the remedy or implementation phase of site cleanup occurs. When all phases of the remedial activity at the site have been completed in compliance with the terms of the ROD or DD the site can be designated NFRAP.

Remedial Design (RD). RD is the engineering phase of the CERCLA environmental restoration process during which technical drawings and specifications are developed for the subsequent Remedial Action. These specifications are based upon the detailed description of the remedy and the cleanup criteria provided in the ROD or DD.

Remedial Investigation (RI). The RI is the CERCLA environmental restoration process phase undertaken to determine the nature and extent of the problem represented by a release of CERCLA hazardous substances. The RI includes multimedia sampling, field studies, monitoring, data analysis and completion of a baseline risk assessment and ecological evaluation to determine the nature, extent, and impacts to the human health and environment from contaminants present at the site if no remedial action is taken.

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). This Act is federal law introduced in 1976 as an amendment to the Solid Waste Disposal Act. RCRA consists of 9 subtitles including subtitles C, D, and I which outline management requirements for hazardous waste, solid waste and underground storage tanks containing petroleum products, respectively.

Restoration Advisory Board (RAll). The RAE acts as a forum for discussion and exchange of cleanup information between the DOD installation representatives and the public at BRAC installations where prope~ will be available for transfer. The RAB consists of a DOD component, USEPA, state environmental agency, and local community representatives, and is jointly chaired by the BEC and a local community member.

Site Investigation (H). The S1 is a CERCLA investigation conducted if a Preliminary Assessment indicates the need for further investigation. S1sroutinely involve visual inspections and the collection and analysis of multimedia sarnpIes to evaluate the extent of the problem and to determine whether a more detailed study such as an RI/FS is necessary.

... W5.RPT Fort Oral, California - December 1995 Xvlll BCP GLOSSARY OF TERMS

Solid Waste Management Unit (SWMU). A SWMU is a solid waste management unit at a RCRA facility from which hazardous constituents might migrate. SWMUS may include containers, tanks, surface impoundments, waste piles, land treatment units, landfdls, incinerators and recycling units, and wastewater treatment units.

Spill Prevention Control and Counterrneasures (SPCC). These are actions taken by an installation to address potential releases of hazardous substances or petroleum products. An SPCC Plan which documents procedures established by an installation to effect these response actions may be required for an installation pursuant to the Clean Water Act, RCRA, or SAlL4.

Superfund Amendments and Reauthori.zation Act (SARA). SAIU4 is the law and amendments to CERCLA which address liability, compensation, cleanup and emergency response for hazardous substance releases. Title III of SARA established the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 (EPCFL4).

Zone. A zone is a geographically contiguous area amenable to investigation in an S1 or RI as a single unit identified to organize installation field efforts, group data from multiple investigations, facilitate the development of conceptual site models, prepare detailed maps and , otherwise manage investigation activities. Zones are different than OU response actions.

0445.R~ Fort Oral, CalifoWa - December 1995 xix This page intentionally left blank.

/

IM4S.RFT Fort Oti, Cal~onzia - December 1995 xx

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Introduction

This Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Cleanup Plan (BCP) summarizes the current status of Fort Oral’songoing environmental restoration and associated compliance programs. The BCP also presents a comprehensive strategy for implementing response actions necessag to meet the requirements for property disposal and reuse associated with the closure of the installation. The BCP provides a strategy for integrating these programs with disposal and reuse planning at the installation.’ The scope of the BCP considers the following regulatory mechanisms: the 13RAC ,; .“\ Act; National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA); Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) as amended by the Communi& Environmental Response Facilitation Act; Resource Conservation and Recovery Act; and other applicable laws.

The BCP is a dynamic planning document that will be updated regularly to reflect the current status and strategies of remedial actions. This document is the latest in a series of updates/modifications and represents conditions and strategies as of December 1995.

Status of Disposal, Reuse, and Interim Lease Process

A total of 27,287 acres of Fort Ord were identified for excess as a result of BRAC 1991. Additional property (approximately 700 acres) was added as part of BRAC 1993. Fort Ord officially closed on 1 October 1994. The U.S. Army retained approximately 5 percent of the property for a Presidio of Monterey (POM) Annex and Reserve Center. The remaining property was available for disposal and reuse.

The disposal of Fort Ord involves three interrelated activities: the NEPA Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) process, development of a disposal plan, and development of a community reuse plan. The first two items are the responsibility of the U.S. Army. The third is the responsibility of the Fort Ord Reuse Authority (FORA), an agency created by the California State Legislature for the purpose of developing a plan for reuse and redevelopment of the installation.

The Disposal and Reuse EIS process has been completed for Fort Ord excluding nine areas of reuse; these nine areas will be evaluated when fwl reuse plans are developed. The EIS was signed on 1 July 1993. The EIS Record of Decision (ROD) was signed on 23 December 1993. In preparing the EIS, the U.S. Army considered the socioeconomic and environmental impacts of the disposal and reuse of Fort Oral, consistent with the requirements of NEPA.

A Supplemental EIS is being prepared by the U.S. Army to address the impacts of reuse alternatives that were unavailable for some parcels at the time the original EIS was prepared.

(Md5,1zPT Fort Oni, Califomiu - December 1995 Page ES-1 The Supplemental EIS will also evaluate the disposal of additional excess property identified as a result of BRAC 93. The Supplemental EIS and EIS ROD are anticipated to be completed in February 1996.

Local community reuse planning for the BWC installation began in late 1992. The Fort Ord Reuse Group (FORG) was established in October 1992. FORG submitted an Initial Base Reuse Plan to the Army on 24 March 1993. In April 1994, the FORA was created. FORA continued the reuse planning begun through the FORG and issued the Fort Ord Base Reuse Plan (BRP) on 12 December 1994, The BRP includes land use planning assumptions and population projections, an acquisition strategy, infrastructure study, fiscal impact analysis and biological resource management program. As the baseline document, the BRP is sufficient for the purposes of the Office of Economic Adjustment of the Department of Defense (DOD), NEPA analysis, and federal land conveyances. The BRP is designed to implement the Monterey Regional Community’s reuse goals and meet three strategic objectives for Fort Ord .,.-..’- environmental protection, education, and economic development. :. ..

A plan for the disposal of Fort Ord is being implemented by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineer (USACE), Sacramento District under the direction of the U.S. Army in accordance with BRAC closure/disposal requirements and schedules, U.S. Army disposal goals, and the reuse and redevelopment planning goals of the local community. The plan incorporates U.S. Army BlL4C disposal hierarchy requirements established by Public Law 100-526 and the Federal Property and Administration Services Act of 1949, the Surplus Property Act, the Federal Property Management Regulations, and the 1994 Defense Authorization Act.

Property transfer has already been completed for two portions of Fort Ord excess property. Six hundred thirty acres were transferred to California State Universi& Monterey Bay in August 1994, and 962 acres were transferred to the University of California at Santa Cruz in September 1994.

Status of Environmental Restoration Program

On 21 February 1990, Fort Ord was listed on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) National Priorities List (NPL), which brought it under the Federal Facilities provisions of Section 120 of CERCLA. On 19 November 1990, the U.S. Army, USEPA Region IX, Califorrda Department of Health Services, (Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC)), and California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) signed a Federal Facility Agreement (FFA). In the FFA, two operable units (OUS), OU 1, Fritzsche Army Airfield Fire Drill Area (FDA), and OU 2, Fort Ord Landfills, were identified. Additionally, the FFA specified that the U.S. Army was to prepare a Basewide Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) for sites identified in an installation-wide work plan.

OU 1 has been investigated. RI/FS activities for the OU began in November 1985 and were completed in 1987. Remedial actions consisting of excavation and biotreatrnent of soils and groundwater extraction and treatment were chosen for the OU. Biotreatment of contaminated soil was completed in August 1991. Groundwater treatment is ongoing.

13445.RFT Fort Oral, Cal@WU - December 1995 Page ES-2 -. A Remediation Confirmation Study was performed for the OU from October to November 1993. The results of the study indicate that the soil treatment was adequate and that the groundwater treatment for the OU is effective. A ROD which consists of no further action for soils and continued groundwater treatment is currently undergoing review.

The IU/FS for OU 2 was finalized in 1993. The U.S. Army preferred cleanup for the OU is groundwater treatment for two contaminated aquifers under the OU and landfill capping. A ROD for OU 2 was signed in August 1994. An Explanation of Significant Difference (ESD) has also been prepared. The ESD was signed in September 1994. Remedial actions for the OU were initiated in early December 1995 when a contaminated groundwater extraction and treatment system began operation. The landfills will be capped in 1996.

The Basewide RI/FS began in 1991. After completion of the frostphase of the RI/FS, sites were categorized as follows:

F RI Sites - Sites that have a sufficient contamination to warrant a full RI, baseline human health risk assessment, ecological risk assessment, and feasibility study.

F Interim Action Sites - Sites that have a limited volume and extent of contaminated soil and can be easily excavated.

F No Action Sites - Sites that do not warrant remediation under CERCLA.

Eighteen no action and 16 interim action sites were identified. The remainder of the sites underwent a full RI/FS. This Basewide RI/FS was finalized in November 1995.

To accelerate the cleanup process, interim action and no action “plug-in” RODS have been prepared. This process provides for the accelerated cleanup at interim action sites and the transfer of no actions sites without waiting until a basewide ROD for Fort Ord is signed. The interim action ROD was signed in February 1994. The no action ROD was signed in April 1995.

Sixteen of the 18 no action sites which have been identified require no further action because there is no evidence of contamination or contaminants are below action levels. Two of the no action sites are being addressed under non-CERCLA programs (i.e., underground storage tank (UST) sites). Of the 16 CERCLA no action sites have undergone public and regulatory agency review; final notice is pending for these sites. Final agency comments have not been received for one no action site and the site characterization report is in progress for 7 of the sites.

Interim removal actions began in September 1994 in accordance with the interim action ROD. Currently, removal actions have been completed at 10 of the 16 interim action sites. Verification samples collected at these sites indicate that 12 sites have been fidly rernediated and two sites require further action. Several other interim actions have been conducted. These -. include the operation of a “groundwater extraction and treatment system for RI Sites 7 and 12.

0445.R~ Fort Oral, Cal~onzia - December 1995 Page ES-3 A number of environmental restoration related compliance projects have been conducted or are underway at Fort Oral. One hundred thirty three USTS have been removed and an additional 77 tank removals are scheduled. All polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) transformers with PCB levels above 50 parts per million have been removed. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) closure plans have been prepared for 4 solid waste management units (SWMUS). Unexploded ordnance (UXO) surveys have been completed and some removals have been conducted.

Key Restoration and Transferability Strategies and Schedules

Fort Ord has shifted its focus from completing the mission of an active installation to compliance and restoration for disposal and reuse of the property. The overall environmental restoration and compliance strategy for the Fort Ord is currently the responsibility of the Directorate of Environmental and Natural Resources of the POM. The USACE is providing support in areas including RI/FS, remedial design (RD), remedial action (RA), compliance program mamgement, and natural and cultural resource management. Fort Oral’s BFL4Cstrategy is designed to ensure that all regulatory requirements are met, and that adequate and cost-effective restoration activities are implemented as quickly as possible to provide for the expedited disposal and reuse of the Fort Ord in compliance with U.S. Army and community goals. The IIW is being conducted in accordance with the FFA. The FFA outlines the CERCLA environmental restoration methodology, review and oversight responsibilities by regulato~ agencies, and investigation and restoration schedules required for the installation.

The FFA schedule for Fort Ord was modified when the installation was placed on the BRAC ~ list in 1991 in accordance with Public Law 102-190, commonly known as the Panetta Legislation. This legislation required that RI/FSs at closing military facilities that are on the NPL be completed within 36 months of passage of the legislation. As a result, an accelerated approach to the CERCLA process was developed for Fort Oral. This accelerated approach was originally outlined in an Acceleration Action Plan for Fort Ord dated 12 March 1993. The acceleration was incorporated into the approach to the basewide RI/FS and other IRP planning documents for Fort Oral.

The strategy developed for Fort Ord provides for the execution of individual CERCLA tracks for the two OUS and an innovative approach consisting of “plug-in” no action and interim action RODS and a basewide ROD to accelerate the restoration process for basewide RUFS sites. The execution of time critical removal actions is also incorporated into this strategy. The Fort Ord BCT involves the RWQCB, DTSC, USEPA, other state and federal agencies, and members of the public in the IRP through the BCT process, Project Team meetings, and the RAB. The U.S. Army BEC holds Project Team meetings to discuss progress of Decision Documents (DDs), RDs and RAs to ensure appropriateness of selected remedies with respect to reuse.

Environmental compliance strategies are also being developed and executed with an outlook towards disposal and reuse at Fort Oral. These environmental compliance strategies have been developed to ensure that Fort Ord is compliant with federal and state regulatory programs, DOD, U.S. Army regulations, BRAC, and other directives and throughout the BRAC process. Elements of this strategy include removal of USTS and above-ground storage tanks (ASTS) excess ..4

C445.RPT Fort Oni, California - December 1995 Page ES-4 ,,... to the U.S. Army, tenants or new owners of Fort Ord property; abatement of friable asbestos; abatement of lead-based paint in “target” buildings where reuse will involve occupancy by children; further UXO investigations and removals; and execution of RCRA closure plans for several solid waste management units.

Summary of Current BRAC Cleanup Action Items

Table ES-1 provides a listing of recommendations and issues associated with environmental restoration, compliance, and technical/management action items that require further evaluation and implementation by the BIUC Cleanup Team (BCT)/Project Team. Bottom-up review program numbers specified in the Department of Defense BCP Guidebook which relate to each action itern are identified in the table.

IM45.RPT Fort Oni, Cal~omia - December 1995 Page ES-5 TABLE. ES4. “BCTLPROmCTT’EAN@CTION ITEMS :

status Actionhem Program In ToBe ReviewItem+ Progress Performed Completed ~NVIRONMENMLRESTORATIONA-- RVFS Issues DefinegroundwatersamplingprogramforSite2/12 7 d Resolveissuesrelatedto riskassessment 24,33 d FinalizeEnPAforMontereyBay 7 d Finalizethe RUFS 21 d ProposedF’lan/RODIssues CompleteInterim Action ROD 13, 15 d CompleteNo Action ROD 15 4 Finalize OU 1 ROD 13,15 J CompleteOU 2 ROD 13, 15 / CompleteBasewideProposedPlan 13, 15 d CompleteBasewideROD 13, 15 d RD/RA Issues CompleteInterim Actions 13, 15, 17 J CompleteApprovaland DocumentationProcess for 15, 17 d No Action Sites ConductGroundwaterTreabnent at OU 1 17 J ConductGroundwaterTreatmentat OU 2 17 J Cap OU 2 Landfills d ConductGroundwaterTreatmentat Sites 2 and 12 13 d Prepare RDs for RI Sites 17 d CompleteRAs for RI Sites 17 d UXO Issues Determineif UXO is to be includedin IWFS 33 d DevelopMemorandumof Understandingto transfer 33 J property to BLM; reuse plans neededto define extentof UXO clearance Completeconstructionof FOSTA 13 COm%WCE Acrrvrrrm Instituteremovalactivitiesfor designatedunderground 7, 21 d storagetanks Completeasbestoshousingsurvey 7 J Completeradon survey 7 J Completelead-basedpaint survey 7 d Conductremainingradiologicalsurveysas appropriate 7 d MA5mzRSCHEDULEl%ofxm Refinerestorationscheduleto accuratelyreflect IRP 17 d activities I I Comdmrm RELATIONSAmrvrrm Continuewith CommunityRelationPlan activities I 14 d I I NEPAINATURALm Cuururw RESOURCEACTIVITIES CompleteSection 106Consultation I 7 I I / ComnlPte NFPA FTQ fnr nine r~maink. nr-,c -77 al J I .,

W5.RIT Fort Oni, Cal~omia - December 1995 Page ES-6 /... TABLE Es-1. 13CT/PROJECT TEAM ACTION ITEMS Continued Smms ActionItem Pragratn In ToBe ReviewItem* ““Progress Performed Completed DKPOS&PYMWNGANDCERCLA120(H)(3)ACTIVITIES I

MANAGEMENTAWADMINISTRM’IVESUPFKIRTAcrrvrrrEs EstablishDefenseEnvironmentalNetwork Information 21 d Exchangefor informationmanagementand transfer

*Theprogram review items are designatedto correspondwith Table 3-1 of the U.S. Army’s BCP Guidebook; these items are providedfor U.S. Army reviewers.

M45.RF7 Fort Oral, Califonaia - December 1995 Page ES-7 This page intentionally left blank.

,

CW45.RFT Fort Oni, CalifoWa - December 1995 Page ES-8

/ CHAPTER 1

➤ INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY +

The purpose of this Base Realignment and Closure (BIL%C)Cleanup Plan (BCP) is to sununarize the current status of the Fort Ord environmental restoration and associated environmental compliance programs, and present a comprehensive strategy for implementing response actions necessary to protect human health and the environment. This strategy integrates activities being performed under both the Fort Ord Installation Restoration Program (IRP) and environmental compliance programs to support full restoration of the installation. The BCP also presents the strategy for integrating reuse and disposal goals for the installation into the environmental restoration and compliance programs to expedite the process.

This BCP is a dynamic planning document. It was necessary to make certain assumptions and interpretations to develop the schedules and cost estimates. As additioml data become available, implementation programs and cost estimates could be dramatically altered. Such changes would then be reflected in future updates to the BCP. This BCP was prepared with information available as of December 1995.

Chapter 1 describes the objectives of the environmental restoration program, explains the purpose of the BCP, introduces the Project Team formed to review the program, and provides a brief history of the installation.

Chapter 2 summarizes the current status of the Fort Ord property disposal planning process and describes the relationship of the disposal process with other environmental programs.

Chapter 3 summarizes the current status and past history of the Fort Ord IRP and associated environmental compliance programs, community relations activities that have occurred to date, and the environmental condition of the installation property.

Chapter 4 describes the installation-wide strategy for environmental restoration, including the strategies for dealing with each operable unit (OU) on Fort Oral, and summarizes plans for managing responses under other compliance programs.

Chapter 5 provides master schedules of planned and anticipated activities to be performed throughout the duration of the environmental restoration program, including associated compliance activities.

Chapter 6 describes specific technical and/or administrative issues to be resolved and .t)resents a strategy for resolving these issues.

Chapter 7 provides a list of primary references used in the preparation of the BCP.

0445.s1 Fort ONI, Cal~omia - December 1995 Page 1-1 The following appendices are included in this document:

F Appendix A - summary table of past, current, and projected costs for the environmental restoration program

F Appendix B - technical documents and data loading summary, listings of previous environmental restoration program deliverables by program and by site

F Appendix C - summaries of Decision Documents (DDs) for which a remedial action (M) was selected

➤ Appendix D - summaries of each DD for each site or OU for which a no further action (NFA) decision has been made

E Appendix E - working conceptual models for sites, zones, or OUS

F Appendix F - ancillary materials relevant to the BCP including a BCP distribution list, a solid waste management unit (SWMU) summary table, environmental justice information, and a property suitable for transfer map.

1.1 Environmental Response Objectives

Prior to closure in September 1994, the Fort Ord Directorate of Engineering and Housing was responsible for the management and overall implementation of environmental programs at Fort Oral. Presently, Fort Ord is considered an annex of the Presidio of Monterey (POM). Environmental programs are managed by the Directorate of Environmental and Natural Resources of the POM, Monterey, California. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Sacramento District has conducted the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) investigations at the installation. Other environmental investigations and compliance program support has been provided by the USACE Omaha District. Other USACE districts and divisions provide support in particular areas of expertise. The U.S. Army Environmental Center (USAEC) provides oversight for Fort Ord environmental programs.

The BRAC Cleanup Team (BCT), installation project team, USACE, USAEC, and other supporting U.S. Army agencies combined objectives for the environmental restoration and compliance program at Fort Ord are as follows:

F Protect human health and the environment

F Strive to meet reuse goals established by the U.S. Army and the community

F Comply with existing statutes and regulations

F Conduct all restoration activities in a manner consistent with Section 120 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act

0445.s1 Fort Oral, Cal@onzia - December 1995 Page 1-2 (CERCLA), as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA)

Meet Federal Facility Agreement (FFA) deadlines as detailed in Chapter 5 of this BCP

Continue efforts to identify all potentially contaminated areas

Incorporate any new sites into the FFA as appropriate

Reestablish priorities for environmental restoration and restoration-related compliance activities so that property disposal and reuse goals can be met

Initiate selected removal actions to control, eliminate, or reduce risks to manageable levels

Continue to identify and map the environmental condition of the Fort Ord property, concurrent with RI and RA efforts

Continue to identifi and map areas suitable for transfer by deed and areas unsuitable for transfer by deed

Complete RIs as soon as practicable for each source area, site, or OU, in an order of priority that takes into account both environmental concerns and redevelopment plans

Consider future land use when characterizing risks associated with releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, contaminants, or hazardous wastes

Develop, screen, and select RAs that reduce risks in a manner consistent with statutory requirements

Commence IL% for (1) environmental and (2) property disposal and reuse priority areas as soon as practicable

Conduct long-term RAs for groundwater and any necessary 5-year reviews for wastes left on site

Establish interim and Long-Term Monitoring (LTM) plans for IL% as appropriate.

1.2 BCP Purpose, Updates, and Distribution

This BCP summarizes the status of Fort Oral’s environmental restoration and compliance programs and the comprehensive strategy for environmental restoration and restoration-related ,- compliance activities. It describes the response action approach being implemented at the

0445.s1 Foti Oral, CizZ~omia - December 1995 Page 1-3 installation to support installation closure. In addition, it defines the status of efforts to resolve technical issues so that continued progress and implementation of scheduled activities can occur. The Fort Ord BCP strategy and schedule is designed to streamline and expedite the necessary response actions associated with the properties within Fort Ord in order to facilitate the earliest possible disposal and reuse activities.

The Fort Ord BCP will be updated at least annually or as needed (if substantial changes occur prior to the annual update). Updates of the BCP will be distributed to each member of the Fort Ord Project Team, as well as to additional individuals identified in the distribution list provided in Appendix F as Table F-1.

1.3 BCT/Project Team

The Fort Ord BCT is led by the BRAC Environmental Coordinator (BEC) (Ms. Gail Youngblood). The BCT also includes representatives of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), Region IX (Mr. John Chesnutt) and the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal EPA), Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) (Mr. William Kilegore).

The Fort Ord Project Team consists of the BCT and other individuals who assist in the environmental restoration process at the installation. In accordance with the Fort Ord FFA, a representative of the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), Central Coast Region, provides day-to-day oversight of the Fort Ord IRP. The representative of the RWQCB is Mr. David Eisen. Mr. Dan McMindes is the Fort Ord Technical Project Manager for the USACE, Sacramento District. Mr. Alan Freed is the USAEC Project Manager. Other Project Team participants include additional representatives of the USACE, Sacramento District, the POM Annex, Fort Ord Directorate of BRAC, federal, state, and local representatives, members of the community, and technical consultants. Project Team meetings are held regularly to conduct program and project reviews and reach consensus on decisions with the U.S. Army, USEPA, and Cal EPA. For the purposes of establishing better communications and coordination among the BCT, Fort Ord intends to prepare and formalize a Partnering Agreement outlining the Team’s main goals, as discussed in Chapter 6.

Table 1-1 lists the current BCT and principal Project Team members and specifies their roles and responsibilities.

1.4 Installation Description and History

The following sections include a general property description and history of the installation.

1.4.1 General Prope@ Description

Fort Ord is located adjacent to Monterey Bay in northwestern Monterey County, California, approximately 80 miles south of San Francisco. The installation comprises approximately 28,039 acres adjacent to the cities of Seaside, Sand City, Monterey, and Del Rey Oaks to the south and Marina to the north. The Southern Pacific Railroad and Highway 1 pass through the

(445.s1 Fort Oral, Cai~omia - December 1995 Page 1-4 ....

I TABLE 1-1. Cwwmrr BCT/l%tOJECT ~AM MEMBERS I

I Narm Title Phone Role/Responsibility BCT . . GailYoungblood BEC (408)242-7924 U.S. ArmyProgram Manager JohnChesrrutt BCTRepresentative (415)744-2387 USEPAProjectManager WilliamKilegore BCTRepresentative (916)255-3738 Cal EPAProjectManager PRWECTTEAM 1 DanMcMindes TechnicalProjectManager- (916)557-7174 ContractManagementand USACE,SacramentoDistrict Oversight GrantHimebaugh CalEPA- RWQCB (805)542-4636 RWQCBProjectManager LindaTemple EnvironmentalEngineer (408)899-7372 UnexplodedOrdnance (UXO)/CERFA/BRAC MarkReese EnvironmentalProtection (408)242-7925 Air/Asbestos/Radon/ Specialist Lead-basedPaint r MikeKelly CulturalResourceCoordinator (408)242-7922 Cultural/HistoricalResource Coordinator KathyClack BaseTransitionCoordinator (408)394-3984 BRACLiaison BillCollins WildlifeBiologist (408)242-7920 NaturalResource Coordinator BarbaraSchmitt UndergroundStorageTank (408)242-7919 USTCoordinator (UST)Coordinator MelissaHlebasko EnvironmentalProtection (408) 393-1284 EnvironmentalProtection Specialist I Specialist I ClaireMurdo HazardousWasteDivision (408)242-7929 HazardousWasteDivision Chief Chief BobGuidi NEPACoordinator (408)242-7928 NEPACoordinator AlanFreed USAECProjectManager (410)671-1626 EnvironmentalRestoration ProgramOversight CONTRACTORS“. Bill Wilkinson International Technology (408) 883-0103 Teclmicrd Support (TERC) Corporation Don Stnallbeck Harding Lawson Associates (415) 884-0112 Technical Support (RI/FS)

Key: BCT = BRACCleanupTeam RWQCB = RegionalWater Quality Control Board BEC = BRACEnvironmentalCoordinator BRAC = BaseRealignmentand Closure USEPA = U.S. EnvironmentalProtectionAgency NEPA = NationalEnvironmentalPolicy Act USACE = U.S. Army Corps of Engineers BCP = BRAC CleanupPlan CERFA = CommunityEnvironmentalResponseFacilitationAct

0445.s1 Foti Oral, California - December 1995 Page 1-5 western part of Fort Oral, separating the beach-front portion from the rest of the installation. Figure 1-1 shows the general location of the installation.

Fort Ord consists of both developed and undeveloped land. The three major developed areas within Fort Ord are the East Garrison, Fritzsche Army Airfield (FAAF), and the Main Garrison; these areas collectively comprise approximately 8,000 acres. The East Garrison is on tie northeast side of the base, adjacent to undeveloped training areas. Militarylindustrial SUppOrt areas at the East Garrison include tactical vehicle storage facilities, defense recycling and disposal areas, a sewage treatment plant, and a small arms range. Also at the East Garrison is recreational open space, including primitive camping facilities, baseball diamonds, a skeet range, and tennis courts. Recreational open space comprises 25 of the approximately 350 acres of the East Garrison.

The FA4F is in the northern portion of Fort Oral, on the north side of Reservation Road and adjacent to the city limits of Marina. The primary land use is for military/industrial support operations; facilities include air strips, a motor park, aircraft fuel facilities, a sewage treatment plant, aircraft maintenance facilities, an air trafilc control tower, a fue and rescue station, and aircraft hangars,

The Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way and Highway 1 separate Fort Oral’s Main Garrison from the coastal zone. The Main Garrison consists of a complex combination of schools; a hospital; housing; commercial facilities, including a dry cleaner and a gasoline service station; and industrial operations, including motor pools and machine shops.

There are approximately 20,000 acres of undeveloped property at Fort Ord which have been used for training activities. The Beach Trainfire Ranges, Stilwell Hall (a recreation center), ammunition storage facilities, and two inactive sewage treatment plants are located in the coastal zone between Highway 1 and the Monterey Bay shoreline. Undeveloped land in the inland portions of Fort Ord includes infantry training areas and open areas used for livestock grazing and recreatioml activities such as hunting, fishing, and camping. A large portion of this undeveloped land is occupied by the Inland Trainfire Ranges; this area was used for advanced military training operations.

The area immediately around Fort Ord is not heavily developed. The installation is bounded by Monterey Bay to the west. ILyyna Seca Recreation Area and Toro Regional Park border Fort Ord to the south and southeast, respectively. Land use east of Fort Ord is primarily agricultural, as was land use at Fort Ord before the U.S. Army acquired the property. Figure 1-2 shows the land use in the area immediately surrounding Fort Oral.

1.4.2 Histoq of Instalihtion

The U.S. Army bought the present day East Garrison and nearby lands on the east side of Fort Ord in 1917 to use as a maneuver and training ground for field artillery and cavalry troops stationed at the POM. No permanent improvements were made until the late 1930s, when administrative buildings, barracks, mess halls, tent pads, and a sewage treatment plant were constructed. .-,’

0445.s1 Foti O@ Cal~omia - December 1995 Page 1-6 ! -N- 1 0- SCALE INMILES Figure 1-1

— — Fort Oral,Cal~ornia - December 1995 Page 1-7 This page intentionally left blank.

..

0445.s1 Fort Oti, Cal~oWu - December 1995 Page 1-8 I SALINAS

Fort Ord

Reaional Park

I@---hw—— I Lagunk Se= Recreation Area

EXPLANATION Surrounding off-Pod ■ ~ InstallationBoundary ✎✎✎✎✎✎✎ Land Use POS - Public Open Spare and ...... :.”.:.:.” IND - lndus~ial ❑ Recreation 121 R - Residential N ..... CG - Commeraal General ...... N 13-----. INS- Institutional CO - Commeraal Oftice N

NOTE: Land Use is general (i.e. residential includes all densities) and are provided only for lands immediately adjacent to Fort Oral. 0- Figure— 1-2 %urce: Harding Lawson Assoaates, 1991.

Fort Oral,California - December 1995 Page 1-9 This page intentionally left blank.

CM45.S1 Foti Oni, California - December 1995 Page 1-10 In 1938, additioml agricultural property was purchased for the development of the Main Garrison. At the same time, the beachfront property was donated to the Army. The Main Garrison was constructed between 1940 and the 1960s, starting in the northwest corner of the base and expanding southward and eastward. During the 1940s and 1950s, a small airfield within the Main Garrison was present in what is now the South Parade Ground. In the early 1960s FAAF was completed. The Main Garrison aitileld was then decommissioned and its facilities were redeveloped as a motor pools and other facilities. Significant constmction activities at Fort Ord have not occurred since that time.

Since its opening in 1917, Fort Ord has primarily served as a training and staging facility for infantry troops. From 1947 to 1975, Fort Ord was a basic training center. After 1975, the 7th Infantry Division (Light) occupied Fort Oral. The BFL4C91 Commission recommended that Fort Ord be closed and that troops stationed at the installation be relocated to Fort Lewis, Washington. Troop relocation was completed in 1993 and the installation was closed in September 1994. Although closed, the Army has retained approximately 5 percent of the Fort Ord property for a POM annex and U.S. Army Reserve Center. The POM annex is on a 1,500- ?: . acre parcel near Gigling and North-South Roads. The Army Reserve Center is on a 12-acre parcel near Imjin Gate at Reservation Road. U.S. Army personnel still operate the installation, al@ough no active U.S. Army divisions are currently stationed at Fort Oral. The Defense Language Institute (DLI), Naval Post Graduate School, and U.S. Coast Guard use facilities at the POM Annex. Property has also been transferred to the University of California at Santa

/.. Cruz (UCSC) and California State University (CSU) at Monterey. A property acquisition summary is provided in Table 1-2. Historical activities conducted at the installation are outlined in Table 1-3.

1.5 Environmental Setting

1.5.1 Climate

The Fort Ord climate is characterized by warm dry summers and cool rainy winters. The Pacific Ocean causes fog and on-shore winds that moderate temperature extremes. The average annual temperature ranges from a low of 45.9 to a high of 67.1 “F. Nearly 90 percent of the 21.7 inches of normal annual precipitation in the area occurs between November and March.

1.5.2 Topography

Elevations at Fort Ord range from approximately 900 feet near Impossible Ridge to sea level at the beach. The topography of the western and northern portions of the installation, comprising most of the installation area, reflects a morphology typical of the sand dune deposits that underlie these areas. In these areas, the ground surface slopes gently west and northwest, draining toward Monterey Bay. Runoff is minimal due to high rates of surface water infiltration into the permeable older dune sand which covers much of the installation area; consequently, well-developed natural drainages are absent throughout much of this area. Typical of dune topography, closed drainage depressions are common.

0445.s1 Fort Oral, Califonzia - December 1995 Page 1-11 ,., . . . ,:...,, Acriajge ““”““ ‘rraet F= .“ .:. ,-mt Ntttrtber“. “:Prewiousbad ~wner Acq&iiion.Date“. “;.. . , Land “&G”: kid LIcetLse p~~t : 123 MargaretA. Jacks,eraL 0.96 4 Februaty 1943 136 Wdms S. Merrill 24.95 7 July1977 139-1 County of Monterey 20.805 10August1982 139-2 County ofMonterey 14.48 10August 1982 114-E TborswsM. Merrill, et al. 0.70 27June 1962 .... 115 Joel D. Warrington, er m. 0.14 14 November1%3 “y. 115-E JoelD. Warrington,et UX. 0.15 14November1%3 116 CorneliaP. Thomas,et af. 0.27 17January 1964 116-E Cornelia P. Thomas, et al. 0.44 17January19M 116-E-2 ComeliaP. Thomas,et al. 0.03 17January 19@ 117-L CountyofMonterey 0.03 1962 A LeeL. Jacks,et al. 3,777.38 Undocumemed B County of Monterey 276.90 Undocumented c T.A. Work and 2,054.62 Undocumented Maud E. Work D T. A. Work and 2.48 Undocumented Maud E. Work E Southern Pacific R.R. Co. and 0.30 8October 1943 Southern Pacific Company I I I G I Southern Pacific R.R. Co. and I I 0.07 I 29 November 1944 Sourhem Pacific Company o Southern Pacific R.R.Co,and 0.09 30 September 1942 Southern Pacific Company T Southern Pacific Company 0.04 20 Aprd 1967 1 James T. Panziera, er aL 241.49 Undocumented 2 Wtiliam M. Black, Jr., et al. 402.57 Undocumented 3 Charles Waker Bardin 405.63 Undocumented 4 William L, RobeKs 257.37 Undocumented 5 Jesse L. Payne and 78.61 Undocumented Arms M. Payne 6 Oliver P. Bardin and 3380.60 I I I I I IJrtdncumenmd I Ada May Bardin 7 Benj- Rush Bingamm 1.687.74 Undocumented 8 Margaret A. Jacks, et al. 602.08 Undocumented 9 Luisa Guidotti, et al, 2,036.39 Undocumented 10 Maria Antonia Field 563.19 Undocumented 11 Stephen Joseph Field 1,018.02 1 April 1944

0445.s1 Fort Oti, California - December 1995 Page, 1-12 ,“..-.

...... ““ [email protected]:.~HI~TbRY .OF:@ST&LAfiO~’OPEW~ONS :::““””: I

Weqxms ;..5 Map Reference .:gn&: , .; ; ~&Qf:ti;&on. Sykems : ‘“ : ~:Hs&r&ussSssbr4asseeAdiYW#~”~”:~:.:!:~‘““-“?(= Flgu”tiI-3)

1917-1933 G@ingFieldAtlifleryRange, NA NA NA maneuver arm, field artillery farget range

1933-1940 Camp Oral, maneuverarea, field NA NA NA artillery target range, administration,barracks

1940-1947 Fort Oral, maneuver area, field NA NA NA artillery target range, administration,barracks

t 947-1974 Fort Oral, training post for NA NA NA infantry soldiers, administration, barracks

1974-1993 FortOral,Headquarters for 7rh NA MaintenanceShop/’MotorPool Operation 1 Infantry Division including MiscellaneousShop Operation 2 varioussupportoperations GraphicsShopIPhotographlcLaboratosyOperation 3 Spray Painting 4 Fuel Storageand Dispensing 5 MiscellaneousLaboratory Operation 6 Medical Facilities Operation 7 Dry Cleaning 8 Water Treatment 9 AmmunitionStorage 10 PesticideMixing, Storage, and Application 11 Fire Training 12 ElectricalTransformer Operation 13 Sanitary WastewaterTreatment 14 Landftlling 15 Waste Storage(Hazardous,PCB-containing, 16 Radioactive) Incineration 17 OpenDetomtion 18 Firing RangeOperation 19 ImpactAreas 20 OrherHazardousSubstanceStorageand Handling 21 EnvironmentalInvestigationand Restoration 22

1993-1995 Us. Army POM Annex, NA MaintenarrmShop/MotorPool Operation 1 Defense Language fnstirute, MiscellaneousShop Operation 2 Naval Post Graduate School, Fuel Storageand Dispensing 5 U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Army MiscellaneousLaboratory Operation 6 Reserve, Universityof California Water Treamreru 9 at Sarna Cmz and California PesticideMixing. Storage, and Application 11 State Universityat Monterey Elecrriml Transformer Operation 13 SanitaryWasrewaterTreatment 14 HazardousWaste Storage 16 OtlrerHazardousSubstanceStorage and Handling 21 EnvironmentalInvestigationand Restoration 22

Key: NA = Not Available

O)Historicalhazardoussubsmnceactivitiesidentifiedin EfiA (1990).

045.s1 Fort Oral, Calwonzia - December 1995 Page 1-13 The topography in the southeastern third of the installation is notably different from the rest of Fort Oral. This area has relatively well-defined, eastward-flowing drainages within mrrow, moderate to steeply sloping canyons. Runoff is into tie Salinas Valley.

1.5.3 Geology

Fort Ord is located within a geologically complex area in the central California Coast Ranges. The region is underlain, starting with the deepest known formations and moving up to the ground surface, by one or more of the following units: Mesozoic granodiorite; Miocene marine siltstone and shale of the Monterey Formation; upper Miocene to lower Pliocene sandstone of the Santa Margarita Formation; upper Pliocene to Pleistocene alluvial fan, lake, and flood deposits of the Paso Robles Formation; and the Aromas Sand, a Pleistocene sand and gravel unit. Above these units, unconsolidated gravel, sand, silt, and clay (including the Salinas Valley Aquiclude) are present. Overlying these sediments are dune sand deposits.

Soils present at Fort Ord are generally derived from alluvium and are excessively drained, moderately erosive, and extremely low in nutrients. Fort Ord contains at least 17 soil types that support a mosaic of plant communities. The four most prevalent soil types are the Arnold soils (east-central area, fining ranges) and Baywood soils (southeast area near Seaside), both of which support chaparral; Oceano soils (Main Garrison, FAAF), which support dune scrub and oak woodland; and Santa Ynez soils (southeast area), which support extensive grasslands. Soils also associated with grasslands include Antioch soils (mounded grasslands south of the East Garrison) and Aquic Xerofluvents soils (grasslands near Mudhen Lake). Dune Land soils (beach ftig ranges) are either barren or support vegetation specially adapted to the shifting substrate. Xerothents soils (southeast) support chaparral and oak woodland communities. Metx soils on river terraces (Salinas River) support riparian woodland vegetation. Clear Lake and Mocho soils (Pilarcitos Canyon) are used for agricultural purposes. Minor inclusions of several other soil types occur along the southeastern boundary of the installation including Chamise, Diablo, Hanford, Linne, Psamments, and San Benito soils that support a mix of grassland, scrub, and woodland vegetation.

1.5.4 Hydrogeology

The Salinas Basin and the Seaside Basin are the two main hydrogeologic structures underlying Fort Oral. The Salinas Basin underlies approximately the northern one-third of Fort Oral; the Seaside Basin underlies approximately the southern two-thirds of the installation. The location and characteristics of the boundary between these two basins are uncertain.

Groundwater flow directions in the 180- and 400-foot aquifers vary across the installation. Historical data suggest that flow was originally to the northwest in both aquifers. However, recent data indicate that groundwater flow in these aquifers is to the east as a result of pumping from Salinas Valley and Fort Ord supply wells. Current and historical pumping has resulted in salt water intrusion into the 180- and 400-foot aquifers in the vicinity of the City of Marina and the Fort Ord Main Garrison.

CM45.S1 Foti Oral, Cal#omia - December 1995 Page 1-14 In the area of Fort Oral, four relatively well-defined aquifers are within the Salinas Basin: the unconfined A-aquifer and the confined 180-, 400-, and 900-foot aquifers. The latter three aquifers were originally named to reflect their average depths in the Salinas Valley; however, these aquifers are generally deeper at Fort Ord than in the Salinas Valley.

The A-aquifer is separated from the 180-foot aquifer throughout much of Fort Ord by the Salinas Valley Aquiclude. This aquiclude becomes thinner and apparently disappears (“pinches out”) in some areas west of the Main Garrison and near the southern $alinas Basin boundary, resulting in pathways for water movement between the A- and 180-foot aquifers. Groundwater flow in the A-aquifer is significantly influenced by the configuration of the top of the Salinas Valley Aquiclude. Where the aquiclude pinches out beneath the Main Garrison area, groundwater appears to flow from the upper A-aquifer into the 180-foot aquifer.

1.5.5 Swface Whter Hydrogeology

In the northern portions of the installation, the ground surface slopes gently west and northwest, draining toward Monterey Bay. Runoff is minimal due to the high rate of surface water infiltration into the permeable dune sand; consequently, well-developed natural drainages are absent throughout much of this area. Closed drainage depressions typical of dune topography are common. The southeastern third of the installation has relatively well-defined, eastward- flowing drainage channels within narrow, moderately to steeply sloping canyons. Runoff is into the $alinas Valley.

1.6 Hazardous Substances and Waste Management Practices

A variety of activities involving the handling of hazardous substances and generation of listed hazardous wastes, petroleum, oil, and lubricant (POL) wastes and other waste materials have occurred at the installation throughout its history. Somd of these activities include vehicle and aircraft fueling, vehicle maintenance and motor pool operation, facilities maintenance and other shop operations, dry cleaning, medical treatment, weed/pest control, photographic and other laboratory operations, water treatment, ammunition storage, firing range and training area operations. These activities are listed in Table 14. Hazardous substance activities are also listed by historical time period in Table 1-3. A composite map illustrating the various locations where these activities occurred is provided as Figure 1-3.

Presently, hazardous substances such as pesticides, brake fluid, acetylene, paint and paint strippers, batteries, transmission and motor oils, acids, solvents, gasoline, and adhesives continue to be utilized at Fort Oral, although since the installation has closed, the quantities are diminishing. These materials are used at currently active heavy equipment maintenance and facilities maintenance shops on the installation. The Hazardous Waste Division of the Environmental and Natural Resources Directorate of POM oversees use of hazardous substances and maintains inventories of these materials.

0445.s1 Fort Oral, California - December 1995 Page 1-15 T“k&3K1-4. “CUkRENT i%I@?R ~STOwc~ =-US SnSTMCES AciMTiis” AT ~OR~@?D ‘‘ ““““““;’”. ~~ ““

,, .,. :,:;: “m@@@@lhskulcMkiMty ,“, :. : “.::+’ MapRgfgiEm~j~~..””(Se@m&U@@ :

MaintenanceShop/MotorPoolOperation 1 MiscellaneousShopOperation 2 Graph~csShop/PhotographicLaboratoryOperation 3 SprayPainting 4 FuelStorageandDispensing s MiscellaneousLaboratoryOperation 6 MedicalFacilitiesOperation 7 DryCleaning 8 WaterTreatment 9 AmmunitionStorage 10 PesticideMixing,Storage,andApplication 11 Fire Trainiig 12 ElectricalTransformerOperation 13 SauitaryWastewaterTreatment 14 Landfilling 15 WasteStorage(Hazardous,PCB-comaining,Radioactive) 16 Incineration 17 OpenDetonation 18 FiringRangeOperation 19 impactAreas 20 OtherHarardousSubstanceStorageandHandling 21 EnvironmentalInvestigationandRestoration 22

Source: EnPA, 1990.

iws.sl FOHOral, Caf~omia - December 1995 Page 1-16 ,

., .T ,... -. ““ 19 .“”.--...... —. & ““ ,“: 4~~~ /..

,.

~ ~.SOrn% Hazardous Substance Activities @ k!.+ at Fort Ord are ongoing. These includ ,@+r operation of various maintenance and miscellaneous shops, motorpools, fuel storage and dispensing facilities, medical facilities, water treatment facilities, pesticide mixing, storage, am application, sanitary wostewater treat– ment, waste storage and environment{ investigation and restoration.

Location of Pmst ,,, Installation Boundary Hazardous Substance

1 Maintenance Shop/Motor Pool Operations Activities \ 10 Ammunition Storage .*’ 11 Pesticide Mixing, Storage and Application \ \ 14 Sanitary Wastewater Treatment

19 Firing Range Operations Fr Co’ti + ad o 650 1300 - Figure 1 –3A. E51Locus McIp Section A ihtUC.9: AWMWXd FTS~ A~, 1994 .*n— Fort Oral, Califonria – Decenaber j 995 Page 1-17 .... ,:;.,

This page intentionally left blank.

044s.s1 Forf Oni, Cal~ontia - December 1995 Page 1-18 Y.

-.. ..

‘... / ‘+. ‘.,

“:...... ‘.\, ., ,. ,., . . . .. k.. \\ “x ....--<... .“....---- .. 20

-. \., .,-.. -.=:. “ ‘.\+, \ -. -. 19 !’ .,.:+- \ ,-..

EXPLANATION NOTE: Some Hazardous Substance Activities at Fort Ord are ongoing. These include Location of Past -- = Installation Boundaty operation of various maintenance and miscellaneous shops, motorpools, fuel Hazardous Substance storage and dispensing facilities, 19 Firing Range Operations medical facilities, water treatment \ Activities facilities. pesticide mixing, storage and 20 Impact Areas application, sanita~ wastewater treat– ment, waste storage and environmental .*” investigation and restoration. \ E/- &r + ./ o 650 1300 - Figure 1 –.3B 1?31Laeus Man Section ‘i Smwce: Snknced Re ~ A~, 1994 S9 Fort Oral, Califomzia – December 1995 Page 1-19 This page intentionally left blank.

W.S1 Fort Oral, Cal#oWa - December 1995 Page 1-20 2\ 3,4\

~+------.-. ..--” -- -“ .,. ~ . . T “““’‘“l9’““h .. w A’\ - ,%..,.., ?’... ‘Qa .-’.: ,Y I ...-..+ ----~ & e

-J EXPLANATION NOTE Some Hazardous Substance Activities - = ==s Installation Bounday at Fart Ord are ongoing. These include Location of Past 1 Maintenance Shop/Motor Pool operation of various- maintenance and Operations miscellaneous shops, motorpools, fuel !iazardous Substance 2 Miscelianious Shop Operation storoge and dispensing facilities, Activities medical facilities, water treatment 3 Graphics Shop/Photographic facilities, pesticide mixing, storage and Laboratory Operations application, sanitary wastewater treat- \ 4 Spray Painting ment, waste storage and environmental --*” 6 Miscellaneous Laboratoy Operations investigation” and restoration. 7 Medical Facilities Operation \ 8 Dry Cleaning E#. 10 Ammunition Storage ~te } 4e ~ o 650 1300 11 Pesticide Mixing, Storage and Application - 19 firing Range Operations m Figure 1–3C Locus MOD 21 Other Hazardous Sudstance Storage Section d and Handling Source: h%hmuxd Pm ~ A=a$wwnt, 1994 Fort Oral, Cal-ifomviu – December 1995 Page 1-21 This page intentionally left blank.

0445.s1 Fort Oni, Cal#omti - December 1995 Page 1-22 1,4,2, 4.11

& ~7 NOTE: So ‘“Hazardous Substance Activities ‘- ~ rt Ord are ongoing. These include ration of various maintenance ond \ 1 iscellaneous shops, motorpools, fuel storage and dispensing facilities, medical facilities, water treatment ::5&/:’ facilities, pesticide mixing, storoge ond application, sanitary wastewater treat– ment, waste storage and environmental “.:\— \ investigation and restoration.

EXPLANATION bcaticn of past ?...-....-,..... Installation Boundary Hazardous Substance 1 Maintenance Shop/Motor Pool Operations 2 Miscellonious Shop Operation Activities 4 Spray Pointing \ 5 Fuel Storage and Dispensing .+’ 6 Miscellaneous Loboratoty Operations 7 Medicol Facilities Operotion \ 8 Dry Cleaning

11 Pesticide Mixing, Storage and Application c#- 17 Incineration c I* + A& ~ 19 firing Range Operations o 650 1300 21 Other Hazardous Sudstance Storage - Fi’gurE 1 —313 and Handling B us Ma Section 8 %7UCiS:Em?bmbced Pre~ ASSe~, 195J4 nuM—.,— .,-m-z. Fort Oral, California – December 1995 Page 1-23 This page intentionally left blank.

CM45.S1 Fort Oral, California - December 1995 Page 1-24 ------16

/7

1

1 Maintenance Shop/Motor Pool Operations !-lazardous Substance 2 Miscellaneous Shop Operation A~ti~jti~~ 3 Graphics Shop/Photographic Laboratory Operations \ 4 Spray Painting /+0 6 Miscellaneous Laboratory Operations 7 Medical Facilities Operation \ 11 Pesticide Mixing, Storage and Application co + 14 Sanitary Wastewater Treatment A& PI*~ o 650 1300 16 Waste Storage (Hazardous, - PCB – Conjoining, Radioactive) Figure 1 –3E 1.5.:t~onMa 19 Firing Range Operations -m z Sowce: Ehhmuxd - ~ Aeses71uHli, 1994 Fort (h-d, Calif omia - December 1995 Page 1-25 This page intentionally left blank.

..

0415.SI Fort Oral, Cal~ornia - December 1995 Page 1-26 ,_

( I 1

EXPLANATION NOTE Some Hazardous Substonce Activities - *I - Installation Boundo~ at Fort Ord are ongoing. These include Locatiorl of Past 1 Maintenance Shop/Motor Pool operation of various maintenance and Hazardous Substance Operations miscellaneous shops, motorpools, fuel storage and dispensing facilities, 4 Spray Painting Activities medical facilities, water treatment 7 Medical Facilities Operation facilities, pesticide mixing, starage and application, sanitary wastewater treat— 9 Water Treatment ment, waste storage and environmental \ investigation cmd restoration. .~’ 13 Electrical Transformer Operation 11 Pesticide Mixing, Storage and Application \ 40C6D‘~ 4+ 15 Landfilling o 650 1300 - 16 Waste Storage (Hazardous, Figure 1 –3F 1?3’1Locus Ma PCB – Containing, Radioactive) Section ? .%uce: S7ilbwwed Pre~ ~ fggd

Fort (hi, California – December 1995 Page 1-27 ‘“ This page intentionally left blank.

C!445.S1 Fort Oni, Culifomia - December J995 Page 1-28 NOTE: iSome Hazardous Substance Activities at Fort Orcl ore ongoing. These include ‘. operation of various maintenance and miscellaneous shops, motorpools, fuel fl - storage ond dispensing facilities, medical facilities, woter treatment facilities, pesticide mixing, storage and application, sanitafy wastewater treat– ment, waste storage and environmental

. ,.

:C L &

t, x L ~i, ;

w...< --...J JF=%J’”.. .“””’”/’

EXPMNATION Location of Past * .: W-J Installation Boundary Hazardous Substance 1 Maintenance Shop/Motar Pool Operations Activities 4 Spray Painting ) 5 Fuel Storage and Dispensing .+”

14 Sanita~ Wastewater Treatment \

CEDF‘ * + 4& ~ o 65o 1300 - Figure 1 –3G mLocus Ma Section t SOWCe: ~*d ~1~ A~, 19$4 Fort Oral, Califom-ia - December 1995 Page 1-29 ./:;,; ,,

This page intentionally left blank.

CU4S.S1 Fort Oral, Cahfomia - December 1995 Page 1-30 NOTE: Some Hazardous $ubstonce Activities at Fort Ord are ongoing. These include operation of various maintenance and miscellaneous shops, motorpaols, fuel storage and dispensing facilities, medical facilities, water treatment >. facilities, pesticide mixing, storage and application, sonitafy wastewater treat– ment, waste starage and environmental investigation and restoration.

r

,> .. ]1

EXPLANATION Locution of Past m.-* ...-.* Installation Boundary HnzordGus Substance 1 Maintenance Shop/Motor Pool Operations Activities 14 Sanitoty Wastewater Treatment

15 Londfilling

17 Incineration

19 Firing Range Operations .+”

21 Other Hazardous Sudstance Storage \ ond Handling Cr, co + 4& ~ o 65o 1300 - Figure 1 –5H Rz51Locus Map Section H SUUTCCJ: Em.%unmdRQ tunwuzw Ass~, 1994 Fort Oral, Califomzia – December i 995 Page 1-31 This page intentionally left blank.

Cw45.sl FOHOral, Califomiu - December 1995 Page 1-32 EXPLANATION NOTE Some Hazardous Substance Activities Location of Past at Fort Ord are ongoing. These include -W - —- Installation Boundary operation of various maintenance and Hazardous Substance miscellaneous shops, motorpools, fuel 1 Maintenance Shop/Motor Activities Pool Operations storage and dispensing facilities, medical facilities, water treatment 5 Fuel Storage and Dispensing facilities, pesticide mixing, storage and application, sanita~ wastewater treat– ment, waste storage and environmental \ investigation and restoration. .*’

Ep CD * t \ 4e ~ o 650 1300 - Figure ‘1–31 R?51Locus Map Section A Source: EnhInw*d pretii# A~, 1994 Fort Oral, California – December 1995 Page 1-33 This page intentionally left blank.

0445.s1 Foti Orti, Cal~omiu - December 1995 Page 1-34 ---19...

20

/[/

EXPLANATION NOTE Some Hazardous Substance Activities of at Fort Ord are onaoina. These include Location Past == -= - Installation Boundary operation of variou~ m~ntenance and Hazardous Substance miscellaneous shops, motorpools, fuel storage and dispensing facilities, Activities 5 Fuel Storage cmd Dispensing medical facilities. water treatment facilities, pesticide mixing, storage and 10 Open Detonation application, sanitary wastewater treot– ment. waste storage and environmental } 19 Rring Range Operations investigation and restoration. -M- 20 Impact Area C/ 0 1“ t I Rd 0 3250 6500 R?51 - Figure 1 –3J Locus Map %ction J s-e: J3mhmumd Rst~q Asmw?mt, l&W4 Fort Oral, Cahfomuia – December 1995 Page 1-35 ,“,,., .,.>.:. v.

This page intentionally left blank.

W5.S1 Foti W, Ctdifomia - December 1995 Page 1-36 Activities conducted at Fort Ord have resulted in the generation of hazardous and nonhazardous wastes including waste oil, pesticides, herbicides, medical waste, radioactive waste, trash, construction debris, and sanitary wastewater. Table 1-5 identifies historical hazardous waste generating activities by SWMU name and location. As with hazardous substance usage, hazardous waste generation has diminished since installation closure. The Hazardous Waste Division of the Environmental and, Natural Resources Directorate of POM is currently responsible for the management, temporary storage (less than 90 days), and off-site disposal of hazardous wastes derived from U.S. Army activities at Fort Oral.

Past solid waste disposal practices at Fort Ord occurred at two landfills located on the installation. The landfills were used for 30 to 35 years for residential and commercial waste disposal. The north Iandfdl was used from 1956 to 1966 and was closed to waste disposal when the main landfill began operating. The main landfill was operated from 1960 until 1987 and may have received a small amount of chemical waste along with household and commercial refuse. The main landfdl facility stopped accepting waste for disposal in May 1987 because of the initiation of interim closure of the facility. Several incinerators, burn pits, and an open detomtion area for explosive waste were also operated at For&Ord in the past.

1.7 Off-Post Property/Tenants

Off-Post Propeti”es. Fort Ord formerly maintained three off-post properties. Two of the properties were located in Monterey, California. The other larger property was located in Santa -. Barbara County, California. These off-post properties have been transferred to other Army entities and are no longer part of Fort Oral.

Tenunt Units. Table 1-6 lists the remaining non-U.S. Army organizations located on Fort Oral. Most of the tenants that once operated on the installation have been transferred or were located on property that has been transferred. Some tenants are located on property-that is now part of the POM Annex. These properties are identified in Table 1-6.

W45.S1 Fort M, California - December 1995 Page 1-37 I TABLE 1-5. ~NT HAZARDOUSWASTEGENERATING ACTIVITIES(l)

Name ofWaste No. SWMUNamell.mcation Unit Activity Material Fro-ool FAA - AbandonedFire Training Fire training Fuels, waste oils, Pit solvents, MEK. TCE Fro-oo2 FordOrd SanitaryIatdfill Landfill TCE Fro”oo3 Fritzsche Army Airfield Sewage Sewagetreatment. Solvents, he~y Treatment metals, fuels FTom 707th MaintenanceBattalion 707th Maintemnce Fuels, oils, solvents, grease

Ffo405 13thEngineer BattalionMotor 13tb Engineers Motor maintenance Fuels, oils, solvents Pool FTO-006 HHC Cavalry RegimentMotor 307tb Aviation Motormaintenance Aircraft fuels, Pool,Building527 solvents Ffo-oo7 CannibalizationArea Solvents, fuel oils, I I I battery acids FT0408 DRMOHazardousWasteStorage” DRMO Haardous waste storage PCBS Yard Fro-oo9 DWO PCBStorageBuildingT- DRMO PCB storage PCBS 111 Ffo-olo A4FES Service Station Auto maintemnce Fuels, oils, heavy metals Fro411 East Garrison SewageTreatment Sanitary sewage Sewage Plant treatment 1=1-0412 Main GarrisonSewageTreatment Sewagetreatment PCE, TCE, DCE, ] Plant heavy metals, I I pesticides FT0413 Building1442Autoclave Autoclave Fuels, oils, solvents FT0414 Fire Trainiig Area Bum pit Fuels, oils, solvents, grease FTO-015 PCB Storage Area PCB storage PCBS,pesticides FI’04316 Open DetonationArea Open detonation Explosiveresidues, , RDx, mm Fro-o17 I TASC Plastic ShoD I Plastics rnanufacturine–- Fuels, oils, solvents FT0418 PesticideMixing Area Pesticidemixing Pesticides.PCB Fro-o19 AAFES-EconomyCleanser UST Dry cleaner Solvents for Product Solvent FTO-020 InfectiousWaste Incinerator- Incinerator Infectiouswaste Building4385 Fro-021 Silver RecoveryUnit Silver recovery Silver FTO-022 AbandonedDRMO Site DRMO Hazardous waste storage”- PCBS,pesticides FT0423 TASC GraphicsShop Photographiclaboratories Fuels, solvents, oils FTO-024 519th MaintenanceCompany 519th Maintenance,landfiIl Fuels, oils, solvents Motor Pool Maintenance

—

0445.s1 FOHOti, Califonaia - ficenaber 1995 Page 1-38 — TABLE1-5. PAST ILMMRDOUSWASTEGENERATING ACTMTIES(]) I r Continued SWMU NameofWaste No. SWMU‘Name/beadion unit Activity Material

FT0425 14dt EngineerBattalionMotor 14th Engineer I Maintenance Fuel, oils, solvents Pool FT04)26 127th Signal Comuany Motor Pool 127thSignal I Maintenance Fuel. oils. solverm 219ReconBattalionMotor Pool I IMaintenance Fuel, oils, solvents 9thRegimentWCHU Motor 9thRegiment Maintenance ~ Fuel, oils, solvents Pool I lTO-029 9thRegimentHHCMotorPool Fuel. oils, solvems ITO-030 HHC/Air Force Detachment Fuel, oils, solvents Motor Pool FTO-C1318thEvacuationHospitalMotor Fuel, oils, solverm Pool Ff04132 HHC AviationBrigadeMotor I-IHCAviation Maintenance Fuel, oils, solvents Pool Brig. Ffo-033 1/23 AviationRegimentMotor Maintenance Fuel, oils, solvents Pool FTO-034 2nd BrigadeConsolidatedMotor 2nd Brigade Maintenance Fuel, oils, solvents Pool I FTO-035 3rd Brigade ConsolidatedMotor 3rd Brigade Maintenance Fuel, oils, solvents .-. Pool I ITO-036 DOL Heavy Equipment Maintenance Fuel, oils, solvents, MaintemnceMotor Pool UXO, pesticides, PCBS mo437 DOL Main AutomotiveYard Maintenance Solvents,fuels, Motor Pool oils, battery acids Ffo-038 DOL GeneralEquipment Maintenance Fuel, oils, solvents MaintenanceMotor Pool I I FT04)39 DOL Aircrafi MaintenanceMotor Maintenance Aircrahfuels, Pool solvents Fro-wo DOL TemporaryMotor Pool Maintenance Fuel, oils, solvents ITO-041 590th SS CompanyMotor Pool 590th Ss Maintenance Fuel, oils, solvents 1 Fro-042 HHC CombatAviationBrigade 1 HHC Combat I Maintenance Aircraft fuels, Motor Pool solvents Fro-a43 l-123rd AVN RegimentMotor Aircrafr fuels, Pool solvents lTo4M4 123rdAVN Battalion,E Company 123rd AVN Maintenance Fuel, oils, solvents Motor Pool I mows 237thMedicalDetachmentMotor 237th Medid Maintenance Aircraft fuels, Pool Detachment solvents lTO-046 219thCavalryReconnaissance 219thCavalryI Maintenance Aircraft fuels, FlightMotor-Pool solvents Fro4147 3rd Battalion 123rdAVN Brigade 3rd Batlalion Maintenance Aircraft fuels, Motor Pool solvents

W5.S1 Fotl M, California - kcember 1995 Page 1-39 TABLE 1-5.pNT HAZARDOUS.WASTEGENERATING AcTmm3s(1) I Continued SWMU Name of Waste No. SWMU Name/bcation unit Activity Material Fro-048 6th/8th Field Artillew Battalion 6th/8th Airfield Maixttemnce Fuel, oils, solvents Motor Pool mo-049 7tb/15th Field Artillery Battalion 7th/15th Field Maintemnce Fuel, oils, solvents Motor Pool ArtilleV Fro450 2nd Battalion, 62nd Air Defense 2nd Bartalion Maintenance Fuel, oils. solvents Artillety Motor Pool Fro451 5/15thField Artillery Battalion 5/15th Field Maintenance Fuel, oils, solvents Motor Pool FT04152 7th Military Police Company 7th Military Maintemnce Fuel, oils, solvents Motor Pool Police mo-053 123RegimentAVN Regiment,E 123rd Maintenance Fuel, oils, solvents CompanyMotor Pool Regiment l=ro4J54 107tbMedicalBattalionMotor 107thMedical Maintenance Fuel,oils,solvents Pool Fro-055 U.S. Army Reserve Center Motor m Sm Maintenance Fuel, oils Pool FKM)56 707th SPT Battalion Maintenance Fuel, oils, solvents OrganizationalMotor Pool F-I-0457 571st MP CompanyMotor Pool 571st MP Maintenance Fuel, oils, solvents and 536th THMC Motor Pool ITO-058 761st ChemicalCompanyMotor 761st Chemical Maintenance Fuel, oils, solvents Pool Company Auto Crafts and DPCA Autocrats Fuels, oils, solvents HCC 7tb ID Motor Pool HCC 7tb ID Maintenance Fuels, oils, solvents . 74th AttackHelicopter, 206tb 74th Attack Fueling facility Aircraft fuels, Flight Maintenance Helicopter solvents DEH Yard Storage Pesticides, PCBS Auto Craft Shop Maintenance Fuels, oils, solvents Golf Course Pesticideapplications Pesticides, fungicides WastewaterDistributionSystem Storm and sanitary water Sewage distribution 8tb Street Fueling Station, POL Fueling, storage Fuel, POL, paint and Paint Storage BeachRange Complex Training Heavy metals Inland Range Complex Training UXO , explosive residue Indust OP PCE East Garrison Range Complex Training Unknown All Pro Street Unknown Unknown Transfer Station Solid waste transfer Unknown

‘l)Source: BasewideRIfFS, Draft, August 1994. \

C445.S1 Foti O@ Cafifomti - December 1995 Page 140 ,- .-.

...;:.,,,:.:,:,,::,.,.,.... ,,...... :.... :;;:;;;; ;.’::...::.::..::;;;;::...... ,*”;. “?;’’;;;::;;’-‘“‘:””.’+:;:‘.::&‘:” : :::.. ‘B@&@d* ““ FortOrdReuseAuthority Presidioof MontereyAnnex,Building4220 # MarinaEquestrian Presidioof MontereyAnnex,Building4220 ServieeStationsMainNorth- SouthRoad Presidioof MontereyAnnex,Building4220 AutoAccessStore Presidioof Montereyhnex, Building4220 OpticalExpress Presidioof MontereyAnnex,Building4235 GladysStoneSchoolfor MentalRetarded 351RendovaRoad , A&GAppliances AirlinesTicketOffIce Buildim3877 BurgerKing Presidioof Montereyktnex CreditUnionsFortOrd Presidioof MontereyAmex, Building4242 ~

0445.s1 Foti Onl, California - December 1995 Page 141 ●

This page intentionally left blank.

0445.s1 Foti Oni, California - December 1995 Page 142

--- I CHAPTER 2

F PROPERTY DISPOSAL AND REUSE PLAN ●

This chapter describes the status of the disposal planning process at Fort Ord and the relationship between the disposal process and environmental programs at the installation. It also identifies property transfer methods being utilized or considered in the disposal process.

2.1 Status of Disposal Planning Process

The 1991 Defense BWC Commission recommended that Fort Ord be closed and troops of the 7th Infantry Division (Light) be relocated to Fort Lewis. A total of 27,287 acres of Fort Ord were identified for excess. The U.S. Army retained approximately 5 percent of the Fort Ord property (1,5 12 acres) for a POM Annex and U.S. &my Reserve Center. Approximately 750 additioml acres were added to the excess property at Fort Ord as a result of BRAC 93.

The disposal and reuse of Fort Ord involves three interrelated activities: the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documentation process, development of a community reuse plan, and development of a disposal plan. The disposal plan and the NEPA environrnental ,- -,. impact statement (EIS) process are the responsibility of the U.S. Army. The reuse plan is the responsibility of the Fort Ord Reuse Authority (FORA). This three-part process is designed to integrate goals of both the U.S. Army and the local community to provide for efficient transfer of property and to minimize the impact of closure on the community.

2.1.1 NEPA and Endangered Species Act Disposal and Reuse Documentah”on

The 1990 Base Closure Act specifies that NEPA is applicable to base closures during the process of property disposal. To comply with the requirements of NEPA, the U.S. Army has prepared a Disposal and Reuse EIS. The EIS process was initiated in late 1991. A Notice of Intent for conducting the EIS was fded on 13 February 1992. The EIS was completed in 1 July 1993 and on 23 December 1993, the U.S. Army signed the EIS Record of Decision (ROD). In preparing the EIS, the U. S. Army considered the socioeconomic and environmental impacts of the disposal and reuse associated with the closure of Fort Oral, consistent with requirements of NEPA.

The EIS was prepared by the Army in cooperation with local planning entities. A wide range of reuse alternatives were evaluated in the EIS including (1) high-, medium-, and low-density mixed-use alternatives, (2) an alternative composed of primarily institutional uses (educational, government, and public/quasi-public), (3) an open-space alternative, and (4) an anticipated reuse alternative (the Army’s preferred alternative). In the preferred alternative, the property disposal process would result in the transfer of approximately 23,500 acres to federal, state, and local agencies that have applied for lands through the real estate screening process and the sale of ,- approximately 3,000 acres. The remaining 1,500 acres at Fort Ord were identified to be retained as the POM Annex and U.S. Army Reserve Center.

0445.S2 Fort Oral, California - December 1995 Page 2-1 A Supplemental EIS is being conducted by the U.S. Army to address the impacts of reuse alternatives that were unavailable for some parcels at the time the original EIS was prepared. Additionally, the POM Annex was downsized in October 1994 in response to BRAC 93, releasing approximately 750 more acres for reuse. The NEPA analysis currently underway will also include the new property available. The Supplemental EIS and EIS ROD are anticipated to be completed in February 1996. h early 1994, the USACE prepared an Installation Wide Multispecies Habitat Management Plan (HMP) to comply the requirements of the Endangered Species Act. The HMP establishes the guidelines for the conservation and mamgement of wildlife and plant species and habitats that largely depend on Fort Ord land for survival. The HMP was used to identify additional limitations on future land use that were not previously documented in the EIS. The HMP was developed with input from federal, state, local, and private agencies and organizations concerned with the natural resources and the reuse of Fort Oral. The overall goals of the HMP are (1) to ,.:,. avoid any net loss of populations or important habitat for any of the subject species of the HMP ~, and (2) to promote preservation, enhancement, and restoration of habitat and populations of HMP species while allowing implementation of the community-based reuse plan.

2.1.2 Reuse Plan

Local community reuse planning began in late 1992. The Fort Ord Reuse Group (FORG) was established in October 1992 by Monterey County and the cities of Marina, Seaside, Del Rey Oaks, Monterey, and Sand City as a cooperative planning committee. FORG submitted an Initial Base Reuse Plan to the Army on 24 March 1993.

In April 1994, the FORA was created by the passage of State Senate Bill SB-899. FORA, a 13- mernber board representing Monterey County and the cities of Marina, Seaside, Carmel, Del Rey Oaks, Sand City, Monterey, Pacific Grove, and Salinas, has been given the responsibility for implementing the local community’s reuse planning. FOIL4 continued the reuse planning begun through the FORG and issued the Fort Ord Base Reuse Plan (BRP) on 12 December 1994. The BRP includes land use planning assumptions and population projections, an acquisition strategy, infrastructure study, fiscal impact analysis and biological resource management program. The BRP is designed to implement the Monterey Regional Community’s reuse goals and meet three strategic objectives for Fort Oral: environmental protection, education, and economic development. As the baseline document, the BRP is sufficient for the purposes of the Office of Economic Adjustment of the Department of Defense (DOD), NEPA analysis, and federal land conveyances.

The BRP proposes large areas for environmental protection: more than 16,000 acres dedicated to habitat management by Monterey County, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), University of California Natural Reserve System and California State Parks. The cities of Marim, Seaside, Sand City, Del Rey Oaks and Monterey anticipate that cooperative arrangements may be developed to provide habitat conservation measures benefiting habitat both on Fort Ord and in the respective cities.

C4d5.S2 Fort Oral, California - December 1995 Page 2-2 ,—... The BRPfocuses on educational anirnportant reuse vehicle forthecreation ofquality jobs. The following educational institutions are proposed in the 13RPto be located on surplus Fort Ord property:

1. California State University (CSU) Monterey Bay 2. University of California Santa Cruz (UCSC) 3. Monterey Peninsula Unified School District 4. Monterey Peninsula College 5. Monterey Institute of International Studies 6. Monterey College of Law 7. Monterey Institute for Research in Astronomy 8. Golden Gate University.

Collaborative planning outlined in the BRP includes other regional institutions such as the Naval Postgraduate School, the DLI, and other marine science institutions. The BRP also outlines means to reuse property for industrial, commercial, and residential purposes to encourage economic development.

A key element to the BRP is a phased implementation strategy based largely upon infrastructure availability and market absorption rates. There are three projected development phases. The first phase is from 1995 to 2015; the second phase is from 2015 to 2025; and the third phase is from 2025 to 2045. Projecting over a 50-year period is beyond usual land use planning horizons; however, by presenting a plan for full buildout, the BRP strategy is intended to ensure long-term environmental protection and avoid long-term unmanaged development.

The reuse plan presented in the BRP is graphically shown in Figure 2-1. Boundaries for the first three parcels for transfer have been established through land surveys, all others will remain approximate until date of transfer. The Army will continue to dispose of property in the prioritized order established by the FORA. The number of parcels on the priority list continues to expand.

2.1.3 Disposal Plan

A plan for the disposal of Fort Ord is being implemented by the USACE, Sacramento District under the direction of the U.S. Army in accordance with BRAC closure/disposal requirements and schedules, U.S. Army disposal goals, and the reuse and redevelopment planning goals of the local community. The plan incorporates U.S. Army BRAC disposal hierarchy requirements established by Public Law 100-526 and the Federal Property and Administration Services Act of 1949, the Surplus Property Act, the Federal Property Management Regulations, and the 1994 Defense Authorization Act.

This hierarchy includes the following sequence: (1) offer facility to DOD agencies; (2) offer facility to other federal agencies; (3) offer facility under Section 501 of the Stewart B. McKinney Act and subsequent legislation (i.e., the Pryor Act), (excluding property taken by DOD agencies) to sponsoring organizations for the homeless; (4) offer facility to State and local government agencies through public benefit discount conveyance; (5) offer facility to a

Cki45.S2 Fort Oral, California - December 1995 Page 2-3 .,

This page intentionally left blank.

0445S2 Fort Oral, California - December 1995 Page 2-4

.— h

,.

,.,

25 .... -

25

,.-

EXPLANATION Disposal 29 Reuse Parcel Designation and

— Reuse Parcel Boundary Reuse J Parcels - -I*, -L Installation Boundary -k

I

o 3500 7000 ~ Figure 2–1

Scuhw Base R6wse PkwL 12 Deo~ 1995 mw’ Fort Oral, Califomvia – December 1995 page 2-5 This page intentionally left blank.

,,

0445.S2 Fort Oral, California - December 1995 Page 2-6 ,-. / redevelopment agency at or below fair market value through an economic development conveyance (i.e., Pryor Act); and (6) offer the property through negotiated or competitive bid sale to the private sector.

This process is being used by the USACE to identify future users of the excess property at Fort Ord in a manner consistent with the results of the EIS, HMP, and the BRP. The USACE plan also incorporates U.S. Army continued activity at Fort Ord (i.e., POM Annex and U.S. Army Reserves). The amex supports the DLI, the Naval Postgraduate School, and the U.S. Coast Guard. The reuse parcel boundaries developed to date are principally the result of the real estate screening process and information contained in the BRP.

The U.S. Atmy has committed to continue to work closely with representatives and citizens from the local communities to resolve issues related to differences between the U.S. Army’s selected disposal alternative and the local community’s reuse plan. Also, the U.S. Army has committed to develop, if necessary, additional environmental analysis following the EIS ROD to address the impacts of other reuse alternatives.

2.2 Relationship to Environmental Programs

Disposal and reuse activities at Fort Ord are intimately linked to environmental investigations, restoration, and compliance activities for two basic reasons:

/- F Federal property transfers to nonfederal parties are governed by CERCLA Section lo.

F Residual contamimtion may remain on certain properties after remedial actions have been completed or put into place, thereby restricting the future use of those properties.

CERCLA Section lo requires deeds for federal transfer of previously contaminated property to contain a covemnt that all remedial actions necessary to protect human health and the environment have been taken. CERCLA also requires that deeds for prope~ on which a hazardous substance was stored, for more than 1 year, released or disposed, include information on the type, quantity, and the time at which the storage or release occurred. CERCLA provided clarification to the phrase “has been taken. ” This clarification states that all remedial action has been taken if the construction and installation of an approved remedial design has been completed, and the remedy has been demonstrated to the Administrator to be operating properly and successfully. It further states that the carrying out of long-temn pumping and treating, or operation and maintenance, after the remedy has been demonstrated to the Administrator to be operating properly and successfully, does not preclude the transfer of the property. Thus, any required remedial and/or removal response actions must be selected and implemented for such contaminated properties before transfers to private parties can occur.

,,.... The requirement for complying with CERCLA 120(h) and the possibility of residual ,, contamination are factored into the property disposal and reuse process at Fort Oral. This is accomplished in the following manner:

Cki45.S2 Fott Oral, California - December 1995 Page 2-7 F Fort Ord has experienced releases of CERCLA hazardous materials and is subsequently subject to CERCLA transfer restrictions as described above.

F The BRAC IRP at Fort Ord uses the CERCLA investigative and restoration process for National Priorities List (NPL) sites. This process includes conducting RI/FSs which include risk assessments based on future land use. The future land uses at Fort Ord were identified by using information from various sources and programs, including the U.S. Army’s final EIS, HMP, and the BRP.

b Fort Ord is well along in the IRP. The installation RIs and associated risk assessments evaluated human health and ecological impacts at each site based on reuse scenarios that are consistent with those presented in the BRP. The risk assessments considered human health and ecological impacts of current and potential on-site and off-site receptors. FSS conducted for specific sites have evaluated the effectiveness of remedial actions in mitigating risk based on the proposed reuses of the installation.

F To date, the procedures for property disposal have included preparation of site- specific Environmental Baseline Surveys (EBSS), Findings of Suitability to Lease (FOSLS) and Findings of Suitability to Transfer (FOSTS) as property becomes available for lease or transfer to document the environmental condition of property. ,.

F The presence of residual contamination at Fort Ord after closure will be considered in the development of real estate transfer documentation. The U.S. Army will not sell land until remediation is complete, or will sell the land with a Statement of Condition, specifying that remediation activities are underway, the expected timeframe of completion, and limits on reuse of part of the land. Restrictions on development will be specified based on future land use. Easements will be established to ensure that the U.S. Army and regulatory agencies have access for remedial action equipment operation and maintenance and LTM.

F The U.S. Army has and will continue to solicit input from the community on proposed reuse scenarios and reuse plan implementation through communication with the FORA and participation in the Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) process (see Section 3.5).

The Fort Ord strategy and schedule is designed not only to remediate sites in a matter consistent with reuse goals but also to streamline and expedite the necessary documentation and approval process associated with the reuse parcels in order to facilitate the earliest possible disposal. Because of the need to delineate between areas suitable for transfer and those which are not, the 13CT has developed an environmental condition of property map and property suitable for transfer map for Fort Ord (see text and figures in Chapter 3.4) using, in part, data from the Community Environmental Response Facilitation Act (CERFA) Investigation and IU/FS reports. The environmental condition of property map allows the visualization of potentially contaminated

(Md5.s2 Fort Oral, California - December 1995 Page 2-8 ,.--- areas and areas of no suspected contamination, and the relationship of these areas to disposal and reuse parcels. The properiy suitable for transfer map further defines those properties that have had no hazardous substance releases or that have had releases that have been rernediated or have a remedy in place and are therefore available for transfer under CERCLA.

The Army established stringent requirements to designate a parcel as a CERFA “clean” parcel. At Fort Oral, a number of acres, while not classified as CERFA “clean,” present no threat to human health and the environment, and will be available for transfer. The BCT will continue to update and refine the environmental condition of property and property suitable for transfer maps for Fort Ord as data become available and as site restorations are completed. Prior to property transfer, an EBS and FOST are prepared to document the environmental condition of the property and it’s suitability for transfer.

2.3 Property Transfer Methods

The disposal of federal property typically proceeds according to the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949.

The process begins by a declaration of excess prope~ by the militmy service. The prope~ described as excess is offered first to the DOD, then to all other federal agencies. The remaining property is then advertised k the Federal Register, from which agencies qualified under the McKinney Homeless Assistance Act may select property. The balance of property is ,-, .. then screened by state and local public agencies. If any property remains, it will become available for sale by the military service.

A new criteria for disposal of federal property under base closure is economic recovery through job creation. Because military downsizing significantly affects the economies of surrounding communities, Congress has enabled a base closure local redevelopment authority (LRA) to acquire property under an economic development conveyance. The LRA may apply for the maximum available property under the economic development conveyance mechanism if the transfer can be associated with job creation for economic recovery.

The various property transfer methods being utilized or considered in the disposal process at Fort Ord are described in this section. Transfer methods that may not be currently applicable but may be considered in future disposal planning actions at the installation are identified below.

2.3.1 Federal to Federal Transfer of l?rope~

A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for transferring Fort Ord property to the BLM was recently finalized. The transfer will include the S,000-acre inland impact area and 7,000 acres outside this area. A Site Use Management Plan which addresses reuse activities that can be conducted in these areas has been prepared by the U.S. Army.

It is likely that a federal transfer of property at Fort Ord via the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act will occur in 1996. According to the BRP, 11 members of the Coalition of ./ Homeless Service Providers submitted their McKinney applications to the Department of Health

W45.S2 Fort Oti, California - December 1995 Page 2-9 and Human Services. All 11 applications have been approved. The Reuse Plan identifies 76 buildings for transitional housing and 6 buildings for emergency housing.

2.3.2 Public Benejit Conveyance

Public agencies may apply for property through the federal screening process imder the Administrative Services Act. Such agencies may receive excess property at a discount, up to less than 100 percent, if the purpose for which that property will be used meets public use criteria such as airports, parks and recreation, roads, etc.

There are a number of properties identified in the BRP as eligible for transfer actions using public benefit conveyance. Requests for land transfers in this category are shown on Table 2-1.

In February 1995, the Monterey Peninsula Unified School District real property public benefit conveyance request was transferred to the U.S. Department of Education. It remains for the department to deed the property to the school district.

2.3.3 Economic Development Conveyance

Title XXIX of the National Defense Authorization Act of 1994 @yor Amendment) provides for the conveyance of property to an LRA at or below fair market value using flexible payment terms for recoupment up-front or over time. Economic development conveyance is intended to promote economic development and job creation in the local community. To qualifY for this conveyance, an LRA must submit a request to the Department of the Army (DA) describing its proposed economic development and job creation program.

Several properties at Fort Ord have already been transferred via economic development conveyance. Through congressional act, both the UCSC and CSU were identified as LRAs. Applications were submitted by these LWS and approved. The transfer of 630.1 acres to CSU (reuse parcels 10 and 16) and 962.8 acres to UCSC (parts of reuse parcels 5, 6, 7, 9, 5a, and 6b) occurred in July 1994. These are the fwst phases of their respective property transfer requests.

FOlL4 has also been recognized by the DOD as an LRA for Fort Ord and is in the process of preparing an economic development conveyance application package for those portions of the installation which will not be transferred via federal to federal transfer, public benefit conveyance, or other economic development conveyance. In order for the property to be transfemed via this mechanism, FORA must show that the transfer will lead to permanent job creation. Upon transfer of property to FORA via the economic development conveyance, the LRA will implement reuse plans for this property including light industrial, retail, and residential useldeveloprnent.

2.3.4 Negotiated Sale

Properties that will be used for commercial purposes and are unrelated to job creation are offered at public or negotiated sale to a designated buyer. No properties have been identified

&i45.S2 Fort Oni, California - December 1995 Page 2-10 ..- 1 I TABLE2-1. REUSEPARCEL I)ATA SUMMARY

Reuse I ~~I Transfer TrIsnsfer Polygon Acres Prioriiy ProposedReuse KIsDwnsites Date Mechanism Recipient I 1 Airport OU 1 and Sites 11/97 PBC Municipal 34,40 Alroort

Habitat Preservation 11/97 PBC T.Jcsc

Ic 255 P Business Park 11/97 PBC Retail I I I I Developers Habitat Preserve 11/97 PBC TBD I I I -+--+= Habitat Presewe Site 36 11/97 PBC TBD

Business Park 11197 PBC TBD

Retail 11/97 PBC Retail I +--k I I Developers HighDensityResidential/CentralBusiness Sites12, 13, 19, 11/97 PBC Retain District 26,28 Residential DevelorJers

Business Park 11/97 PBC Retail * I I Developers

2d 82 Retail/High Density Residential Site 25 11/97 PBC Retail/ I I Residential Developers

2e 40 Corporation Yard Site 18 11/97 PBC City of Marina, Monterey County

Zf 7 Bus Transfer Center Site 15 11/97 PBC TBD

Zg 36 P Equestrian Center 11/97 PBC TBD

3 30 P2 Community College 11/97 PBC Corrumrniry Colle~e

4 665 P1/P2/ Low Density Residential 11/97 PBC TBD P3 1 1 1 4a 16 School 11/97 PBC TBD

5a 59 P Retail 11/97 PBC Retail I I Developers 5b 5 P Retail 11/97 PBC Retail I I Developers 5C 11 P University Research Area 11/97 PBC University

6a 12 P Retail Commercial (if center is closed) Site 27 11/97 TBD U.S. Arrnv

6b 39 P Habitat Preservation 11/97 PEic Monterey County

7a 284 P Universi~ Science Office 8131/94 1 I Pryor Wcsc

0445.s2 Fort Oral, California - December 1995 Page 2-11 TAWE 2~1. REUSEP&RCEL llATA SUMMARY I Continued Reuse I Transfer Transfer roIygon Acres I “Prirlritv ProposedReuse 1 Krmwnsite5 Date Mechanism” Recipient

7b 345 P University Research Area, Habitat Site 35 8/31/94 Pryol Ucsc I Presentation I -i

139 I P Universi~ Offices 8/31/94 Pryor 7C 1 I I =--l 8a 352 I.andftil Research Area Ou 2 11/97 PBC County 8b 37 P University Ot%cesand Habitat Preserwe Site 14/OU 2 11/97 PBC dUcsc 8C 20 BUSTransfer Center Parking Ou 2 11/97 PBC ‘ml) I

8d 7.2 Golden Gate Universi~ Campus Ou 2 11/97 TBD % I 9a 161 I P 11197 TBD =--l 9b 46 P 11/97 TBD Ucsc

10 410 P 7194 PBC CSUMonterey -t 5Bay 10a 7 11/97 PBC Monterey Peninsula Unified School District I 174 Habitat Preservation 11/97 TBD TBD lla I1 I I I llb 734 P3 Agri-13usinessCenter/Public Safety Sites 29, 30, 31, 11/97 TBD Ucsc I Training/Open Space I 32, 41 I 12a 404 Coastal Dune Zone I Site 1 11/97 PBC w Total 12b 5110 Parks and Recreation I Sites 3,4 11/97 PBC State Parks I

13 50 Parks and Recreation Site 2 11/97 PBC I ==E--l 14a =4=57 Parks and Recreation I 11/97 PBC State Parks I 14b 11 I Parks and Recreation I 11197 PBC 4 14C 4 Parks and Recreation 11/97 PBC I ==-4 15 147 Commercial Business 11/97 TBD +- I 16 Motor pools/open space Sites 16, 17, 20, Phase 1: Pryor CSU Monterey 22,23.24, 38 8/94 --lBay 17a +-k Parks and Recreation I 11/97 PBC TBD I 17b Parks and Recreation 11/97 PBC TBD I I 18 R-t-- Or%cePark I TBD 19a 778 I Light Industrial 11/97 TBD Developers I I 19b 91 Army Motor Pool I Site 22 11197 TBD POM

W5S2 Fort Oral, California - December 1995 Page 2-12 ,,--

I TMM 2-1. REUSE PARCEL DATA S~Y Continued Reuse Transfer Transfer Prdygon Acres I”Priority ProuosedReuse I Knownsites Date Mectsartism Recipient

20a 194 P2 Medium Densi~ Residential 11/97 TBD Retail I I Developers 20b 97 Medium Density Residential TBD Retail * Developers

20C 313 Medium Densi~ Residential 11/97 TBD Retail -t- I Developers I 2od 35 School 11/97 I 20e 85 OffIce Park I 11/97 2of 50 P School 11/97 PBC Monterey Peninsula Unifred School Distict 2og T96 High Density Residential

20h 779 Army Enclave I Site11 11/97 *

Zoi 16 P School Site 37 PBC Momerey Peninsula Unified School Disuict

20j 8 P School 11/97 PBC Monterey Peninsula Unified School Disrnct 20k 27 P School 1U97 PBC ---1Monterey Peninsula Unified School District

21a 133 Mediu@igh Density Residential TBD --lResidential I Developers I I 21b 362 Light Industrial T13D Indusay

21C 14 Habitat Preseme 11/97 PBC Monterey Peninsula 7 College 22 Golf Course I Site 33 11/97 TBD

Golf Course - Resort Hotels 32 23 +t- 11/97 TBD City of Seaside I 24 Golf Course - Office Park 11197 TBD Cityof Seaside 1 25 1179 P Natural Resources Management Area Sites 5, 6, 7, 8, 11197 PBC BLM 9,39 I =

C445.S2 Foti O-d, Cal~ornia - December 1995 Page 2-13 ““ Y TABLE 2-1. “REUSE.l%RCEL DATA S~ I Continued

Rewae :Transfer Transfer Polygon. Acres ~ .Priotity : ProposedReuse : KnrwslSites :Date Medmrimtr Recipient

26 38 P Military Operations Urban Terrain Facility - 11/97 PBC BLM Law Enforcement Training

29a 270 Office Park 11/97 TBD Commercial Developers

29b 92 OffIce Park 11/97 TBD Commercial Developers

29c 30 OfllcePark 11197 PBC Commercial Developers 29d 25 Ot%cePark 11/97 PBC Commercial Developers

29e 20 Parksand Recreation 11/97 PBC County/ Monterey

30 635 P ParksandRecreation 11/97 PBC Coumy

31a 15 Natural Area Expansion 11/97 PBC Monterey Peninsula Regional Park

31b 18 Office Park 11/97 PBC Commercial Developers

32 87 F’ School Expansion 11/97 PBC York School

Note: Reuse “polygons” (as developed by rhe FORA) do not necessarily equate with reuse “parcels” rhat the U.S. Army defines for disposal.

Key BLM = Bureau of Land Management MHS = Monterey Institute of International Srudies PBC = Public Benefit Conveyance TBD = To Be Determined

Priority:P = polygon (i.e., reuse parcel or some subset thereof) on FORA priori~ lis~ Pl, P2, P3 - McI&ney Coalition Parcels

Source: Base Reuse Plan (December 1994),

0445.S2 Fort Oral, California - December 1995 Page 2-14 ~— for transfer actions through a negotiated sale. In the event that a negotiated sale property transfer mechanism is identified in the future, the U.S. Army will consider such a transfer.

2.3.5 Competitive Public Sale

Sale to the public can occur through initiations to bid or auctions. No properties at Fort Ord have been identified for transfer actions through competitive public sales. In the event that a competitive public sale property transfer mechanism is identified in the future, the U.S. Army will consider such a transfer.

2.3.6 Widening of Public Highways

There are no plans for transfer actions through widening of public highways. In the event that a public highway easement need is identified in the future, the U.S. Army will consider such a transfer. The BRP includes a map showing proposed transportation corridor rights-of-way.

2.3.7 Donated prope~

There are no plans for transfer actions through donation of property. In the event that a donated property transfer mechanism is identified in the fiture, the U.S. Army will consider such a transfer.

2.3.8 Interim Leases

Predisposal use of facilities by a non-Army entity can be accomplished through the execution of leases, licenses, or permits. The Military Leasing Act of 1956 (10 U. S.C. $2667), as amended, permits the U.S. Army to implement interim leasing of excess facilities if it is in the public interest. Under this provision, the lease cannot exceed 1 year but may be annually renewed by the U.S. Army for up to 5 years. A long-term lease may be instituted if it would promote national defense or be in the public’s interest. Prior to any leasing or permitting, the U.S. Army must complete a FOSL, documenting that the property/facilities to be leased are clean and safe to use. Leased properties may be transferred by deed to future owners when the property is disposed.

Currently, several DOD, federal, state, local, and private entities maintain leases for Fort Ord buildings and/or land. These leases are identified in Table 2-2. As additional leases at Fort Ord are negotiated, Table 2-2 will be updated.

Cbi45.S2 Fort Oral, California - December 1995 Page 2-15 I I

TitleInterin””Lwe/LWaI I “1”““’~~~““””’””:““““’”“1 Agreement “ 1 Area LJse Date of Agreement Reuse Parcel FederalAviationAdministration- Useof 5 foot x 5 23 November1973 la Permit footplotof ground to 7 August1995 for targetindicator

U.S. Department of Commerce, To install, operate, 1 July 1981 to 30 12a National Oceanographic and and maintain a June 1996 AtmosphericAdministration- geodeticstation Permit

Roeder RINC - Lease Mobile Home Park 15 April 1985 to 14 2og (200) April 2010 ,-, Pacific Gas and Electric - Right-of-Way for gas 8 November 1985 to Various Easement pipe-line 7 November 1995

Department of Transportation, Radm Facility 26 May 1989 to 25 lC Federal Aviation Administration - May 1994- extended Permit until transfer

Department of the Navy, Naval Doppler Radar 7 September 1989 to lC Post Graduate School- Permit Facility 6 September1994- extendeduntil transfer Stateof California TemporaryDetour 1 April 1993to 31 TED Road March1997 PacificBell- Install,Operate,and various 1 November1950- Various MaintainPublicPhones Indeftite WesternUnionTelegraph Various 25 August1956- Various Company Indeftite

Key: TBD = To Be Determined

0445.S2 Fort Oral, Cal~omia - December 1995 Page 2-16

CHAPTER 3

➤ INSTALLATION-WIJ3E ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAM STATUS ●

This section provides a summary of the history and current status of environmental restoration projects and compliance activities at Fort Oral. It also summarizes the status of the natural and cultural resources program, community involvement to date, and describes the current environmental condition and suitability for transfer of the installation property.

3.1 Environmental Restoration Program Status

The U.S. Army is responsible for the restoration of historical releases of CERCLA hazardous substa&esland non-CERCLA substances (i.e., petroleum products) at Fort Oral. The Directorate of Environmental and Natural Resources of the POM is currently responsible for establishing a~d maintaining these efforts. Several U.S. Army components assist in these efforts. Principal among these is the USACE, which has conducted RI/FS investigations and provided other environmental restoration and compliance support for the installation.

._.. Environmental restoration programs at Fort Ord are conducted under the Defense Environmental Restoration Program (DERP) in compliance with applicable, DA, DOD, state and federal statutes and regulations, particularly CERCLA. Fort Ord was placed on the NPL on 21 Februa~ 1990. As a result, the installation entered into an FFA to facilitate cleanup of environmental contamination. The FFA was signed on 19 November 1990. The FFA is a legal agreement that is binding between USEPA (Region IX), the California Department of Health Services (DHS), California RWQCB, and the U.S. Army. The agreement requires that the U.S. Army investigate and remediate Fort Ord according to CERCLA guidance. These activities have resulted in many investigations and reports documenting potential and confirmed areas of environmental contamination.

A summary of the pre-NPL and post-NPL investigation and site restoration activities at Fort Ord are provided in the following sections.

3.1.1 Prelirnina~ Assessments and Site Investigations

The investigation and restoration effort at Fort Ord was initiated in the early 1980s under the U.S. Army IRP. Investigation began with an Installation Assessment completed by the U.S. Army, Chemical Systems Laboratory, Environmental Technology Division, Installation Restoration Branch in February 1983. A number of other reviews of chemical use, storage and disposal at Fort Ord were conducted prior to Fort Ord being placed on the NPL. These included an evaluation of SWMUS completed in September 1988 as well as comprehensive investigation ,’ efforts initiated at the FAA Fire Drill Area (FDA) (now called Operable Unit [OU] 1) in 1984 -- and the Fort Ord Landfills (now called OU 2) in 1986.

(!45.s3 Fort Oral, California - December 1995 Page 3-1 After Fort Ord was added to the NPL in February 1990, the Army conducted several additional assessments and initial investigations. In 1990, the Army conducted a preliminary assessment/site investigation (PA/SI) at 14 potential hazardous waste sites: 10 at Fort Ord and 4 at Fort Hunter Liggett. The field investigations were conducted from February through June 1990 and focused on the assessment of significant contamination and an initial evaluation of the nature and extent of contamination. On the basis of PA/SI analytical results, conl%matory soil sampling and additional groundwater sampling was recommended at a number of sites.

An Enhanced Preliminary Assessment (EnPA) report was prepared at the request of the U.S. Army Toxic and Hazardous Materials Agency (now USAEC). The purpose of this EnPA report was to document the existing environmental conditions at Fort Ord and to provide recommendations for further action. The EnPA, conducted in June 1990, revealed 61 areas requiring environmental evaluation (AREEs).

The Army conducted a Literature Review and Site Inventory at Fort Ord from August to October 1990. The purpose of this study was to develop a comprehensive list of areas of concern (AOCS) to be addressed in a Basewide RI. The list included sites where the storage and disposal of hazardous materials or hazardous waste might have contaminated the environment. Ecological, cultural, and hydrogeological settings for these hazardous materials/hazardous waste sites and surrounding areas were also examined.

To conduct the literature review and site inventory in a systematic and comprehensive manner, the base was divided into 20 study zones based on land use (past and present) and location. The original study zones were subsequently divided into 41 sites to be addressed through the RI/FS process.

In summary, the results of the various studies, assessments, and S1s at Fort Ord resulted in two OUS and 41 sites requiring further investigation and restoration under the CERCLA process and 18 AREEs to be addressed via non-CERCLA, compliance, or other programs. Table 3-1 identifies the 61 AREEs identified in the Fort Ord EnPA and provides information environmental investigation report results and findings. CERCLA OU and site numbers related to these AREEs are also identified.

3.1.2 Remedial Investigation and Site Restoration Activities

This section provides a summary of IRP activities conducted to date related to the two OUS and 41 CERCLA sites identified through the PA/SI process at Fort Oral.

OU 1- FDA. Environmental investigations began at OU 1 in 1984 under RWQCB Cleanup and/or Abatement Orders 84-92, 86-86, and 86-315. The RWQCB also issued Waste Discharge Requirements No. 87-189 for operation of the groundwater and soil treatment system and discharge of treated water. RIs were performed after closure of the FDA to document the nature and extent of contamination in soil and groundwater. RI/FS activities began in November 1985 and were completed in 1987.

M45.S3 Fort Oral, California - December 1995 Page 3-2 I TABJJZ3-1. PREL-ARY LOCATION SUMMARY

.,-- . hwimmnmhl tiutbti Rewrt Radtsmindinm .. . . - Anna!. Oulskte Find Ikta-minadon No. AWE -rfpth sr RI Fs FiIldimrs

Ou 1 FAAF FDA initialprc-NPLROD prcpsrcd m 1987. Renmliition Cm-dlnnation Smdy Sccmd ROD prepared ad urdergotig Mcaud Owl soil rtmcdiation cffons review. Soil trcamlem using wcrt succcssfd Grmuxiwaur RA is biortmdimion completi. RA for adequate aml effectie. Grtiwa.tcr contamimted gmmrxlwater - gramdar rcmcdiation cqcti m conlimx after activatd cmkm ongoing. Clomre

Ou2 Main Garrison LandtW Mb mow k bdfills art rclativtly OU 2 ROD signrd m 1994. RA free of COIMMbEItim. However, TCE conskdng of laraifdl ca@ng d was dctcmcd m Ihc higk$l .mmznuatim -wawr mcmmcm al two aquifers (W ppb) in the uppn aquifer (5&lMJ ft to k comlucted pursuant to ROD. bgs). In the lfWt aquifer (lCW3~ ft Grmmlwater treatment began in early bgs), TCE was dctcctcd at 50 ppb. Other Dcccmbm 1995. VOCS have also ken detected.

36 Smiuuy Waswaur Chemical cmmmination not detecwd. NO tir action planned. Trtalmcnt (F.&AF SfP)

4 14 Maintenance Shop (707th Grcwmlwatcr is typically greater h WI Vcriiicationsamplingimhcatcssireis Maint. BN) ft bgs. Contaminated soil is of limited cltau nofurtheractionplanned, extent (<500 cubic yards), c omwninatd soil to k cxcavatml is lCSS than 25 ft bgs. Chmmcals in mntamimtd sOikarc typicalfy pstiolcum hydrcxarlms, SOkllt?., Oik.,met+?, ad p4cii. hncrim mctim canplctd 22 Mimenance Shop (13th Grcmdwatcrisq’pidlygruur than 60 Vttification samplingimlicatcs site is ENGR EN) ft bgs. Comaminatmi d is of liiited clean; no further action planned. extent (<500 cubic yards). Conmfiti ad m k excavated is less than 25 ft bgs. chemicals in contaminated sail arc typically pmolcum hydrmahns, solvents, oils, mcwks, and psticides. Interim action cornpletd 34 OillWaux Separmr Grmndwater is typically greater dun M Verification .mpling irxlicatcs siti is (Building 5 16) ft bgs. Cmuamimmd soil is of hmicd clew no further action pkumec. extent (<5oo cubic yards). c~kd d to k Cxcmwed is less than 25 II bgs. chemicals in contaminated soil me typically pctioleum hydr.xart.ms, solvents, oils, metafs, ad pesticides. Interim action completed,

12 Maintenanm Mea Grcmrdwatcr greater than 1(NI ft bgs. SiIC included in basewide RUFS m RI Grunmiwaur analyzed conkind PCE, site; RA to & dttermtid. TCE, ad 1,2-DCE abe CkSllUp Sladards Limiwdwil testingumlcr PhaseI Rf. Leaddewcwdabvt cleanup stirds. Soilqualitybmeati20f[tm not been evaluated. Sourct of grmmlwater comaminmion no[ identified 8 29 DRMO Hazardcw WasE Wd affcmcd by metals and hydrccarkom No funhcr acdm planned, Smragc Area hl[ minimal risk prewnted, No PCBS dctcctcd. 9 29 Pcwcclmining Wzstc No PCBS dcLcCld in sail. No further action plamd Arc. (Buildrng 1I1) 10 11 UST$(AAFES) Cbmnical ccmtaminmicmdms not present No further CE.RCLA acth plmncd; an tmaczcptablc health risk. Usrs teiig lsstsscd. 11 32 Sani13ryWastcwater Utrletmtablc organic cmramiuatior. No furdur action planned rreammt (EastGarrism Inorganic Cmumimlim MOW cmablished STP) risk-bl!d 1.,.1s. 12 2 Smiwy Wamwatcr he 1 RI tits reg-am prcviau site includedin bucwide RUFS x W I_rcmntm (Main Garri.wn investigations tit h PCE ad TCE site; RA m kc dctmmined. m) cul(a.rnination in W grauuiwater is atitamd m WI activides at hU Imatiom

13 17 Medical Facilides fnfecticu medical waste managed in No CERCLA actions rkmned :Autmlave Arm, Building aumlavt. rcgardiig mrdical facilities. m.Sik 17 1442) included in basewidt RI/FS as w sitq RA la k detmnined,

M45T.3-1 Fort Oral, California - December 1995 Page 3-3 TABLE 3-1. PRELIMINARY LOCATION SUMMARY —. Continued

- AREE FlmafWtwntbtion Nmrmfw AREE IkwriwIn H RI m

14 10 Bum I% (Fir. Training Groumlwaur is gpically grcaur than W Verification wnpling imhcatcs site is Arm) ft bgs. Conrmnimti smil is of Iimkd cltan; no fm-dmr action planmd. extent (<500 cubic yards). Cmmmimcd d w k excavated is less thm2sftbgs. chemicals in contaminated soil we typically ~troleum hydrmarbom,YJkIMS, OifS,lIlttiS, d p3icides. fnkrim action complckd.

15 15 PCB-Comain@ Wamc PCB-wrItam&md sail of limited extent Verification sampling iwiicaws site is Storagt Arm identified. fmerim action completed. clean: no further actiov planned. 16 5 Opn Demnmiort /wea Soil wmplts comairkd low concenuation .SircinhIdcd m bmewidt Rf/FS M R] of explosive comds ad varims site; RA to be determined, metals,

17 18 TASC Plastics$iflOP Chemical contamination does not prewnt No further action planned. an unacceptable hcallh risk.

18 15/33 Pesticide Mixing and brim acti.i ci+ietcd it Sk 15. Vcrk%atim wnpli at Site 15 Sroragc Area Pesticide q@icmion using sti irdiutcssitek clcaqm furtkr aclimt opm%ng prack cumluctcd at golf -. -y, mfwtkr MtiM Culrse pqE6Uf f. site 33, htwvm, fmlk actimtmt notkcktcrmkwfumil tbrc w is det%d. 19 Dry Cleaning Shop -d cumminatkm m detected. No furtbm action phllld umfer CERCLAprognmxU= at shcto & ~ddrcwdu!xlcrUSTmomam.

20 .. Incinerator (Building 4385) kiiritd pathological wa.we A nm- No further action phmxf infcctim wc waste. AsfI was mken tn cGirlmcrcidIalxlfll.

21 Medical Facilities (Siiver ~mut~[ from du silver recoveiy systim No further CERCLA action planned. Recove~UnitBuifding exceeds esrabkkd guidelines for RCRA closure plan prepared for 4385) cadmium md lead. Spills of undiluud AREE. acetic acid have stained the concre~ tlcmr nex[ m the syswm, 22 25 FormerDRMOSmag. # Chemical ccmtaminwion d=s nor prcwnt No furdmr CERCLA acdon planned. Area an unacccptiblc health risk. RCRA closure plan prcparrd for AREE.

23 TASC Graphics Shop chemicalcontamination dces not present No furdwr action plmmd, m unacceptabkkatth risk. 24 Includes 17, Main-cc Shops / (Site ForSite17- .Miigw surveysat vari.ms Site 17 hchdcd in basewide R1/FSas 20, 21, 23 (Lmmcd fhrcughcu[ I7) areashave not yet irdkmed chemical RI siw, RA rn k determind faciliw) conumh-mien PCE ~ CCL were Verification smnpling at Sites 20 and detected in tk 3/92 mpk from w IWO 21 indicate Ihey are clew no furdmr site grmrdwaur mmiroring wclk. For action phmml Imwim action planned Sit 20- Sail gas wples from the areas m Siw 23. of geophysical anm-mlies mmaincd Proltum hydrmarbom ad various organic COMFWUMIS. PCE and high boiling pint hydrcuartms havt btcn dewmd in groumfwattr samples. For SiE 21 - Tmal psuoleum hyckmartmns (TPH) in SOfldctccud at Wriclls areas, coDcemratioII bs40w TPH CIMUp Stird. Carol discharge area soil ccmtakd Pb, Sb. ad Cr at conccnmadon of concern, For Sk Z . %ii amfYSCS imiicatcd low levels of TWi * mctak that do not presentanumcccpmbltWth risk. No organiccmmrninationof grUnKlwalcr,ad inorganic present cmccnmti.m< MCL. lnurim actim cc.mplctcd at Sites 20 ad Z1. .. 25 USTS(lmad dlroughcut ApproximafrIy 252 USTS identified UST managcmem d sitt rc3toratio”— facili~) thrulgh Varial$ invmtmics. he have will ix addmstccl umjcr Fort Ord f.lw cxpmimhxd rclq. Program. 26 Afls (ltiti thrcughm[ ThirtHine ASTS arc idcnrir%d in UXTMt AST managcmcm d siterestoration facility) Fort Ord mvcmmy. willlx addressedumlerFort0~ AW

27 12 Baucry Rcpair Shop S-seAREE 7. (Building 2722) --

CM4ST.3-1 Fort Oral, California - December 1995 Page 3-4 TABLE 3-1. PRELIMINARY LOCATION SUMMARY I Continued .....-

AREE owsii.? Find lktu-mimdon Number No. ME133k+dic.n PA m Fs

28 lndu(ks 19, Photographic Laboratories No cMmicaI contamination dccu!nentd No funher action planned. 28 (Iwated thmugfmt faciliy)

29 .. Boiler Blowdovm Arms ‘fhme hurxirti Imilcr r.mm$ at Fon Oral. No action plmmd. (kxated tfucugfmn Blowdovm discharged w storm drati or facifiy) m.

30 Inchldes 17, Wash Racks ad Grew Grcuodwater istypicallypaw dim 60 Se.! AREf324 for Sites 17, 20, ami Z. 18, 20, 23, Racks (Imatcd tbrcmghmt ft bgs. Comaminatcd soil is of limited No further action planned for Site 18. 34 facili[y) txttnt ( <500 cubic yards). VcrifIcmiOn sampling for Siw 34 Cmdwninatd soil to ix excavated is less tiIcatM site requires further action. than 25 ft bgs. chemicals in cmuamimtcd soil arc typically pmolcum hydrmarimns, solvcms, oils, mcmls, and F&ides. fmcrim action completed at Site 34.

31 -- Smv Paintim Facilities

32 16 Heavy Equipment S= ARI?E 16. Iwludcd in RIfFS: RA to lx N4aiomtanctArea demudnw. (Building4903

33 .. Mcdicafl%cifitics No chemical conumimmiondcmrmntcd. Notir acti PI-. 34 LahatOry OpmttiOm No cknkd Cmumiuatian dccumentaf. Nofurtkr acdmpfand. (Buildings 3723, 4423, ad 2076)

35 Sites3,5-9, FiMgRanges SIks3. 5. 7. ti 9 arereodiil SitCs 3,5, ad 39 included in basewkie Outer iWWi@jUl (RI) sites. site 5 soil fU/FS as RI sitts; MS 10 IX Pm’dons of Cmuined low —ion of explosive dctcnnincd, Verification sampling at Sim 39 cmnpuxls ad varicms nmlals. Sib 7 Sk 6 ad 8 indicates sites are CIeu dces ncx Qppw m have ken inqmctcd by no funhcr action pbxmcd. Interim sim activities. Site 9 soil contained action planned at Site 39A. No further lUlkl’10Wlhydrm.artmm. Site 6 soil action planned for Site 7. analyses idemifiai amimtmy as diesel, and unknown hydrocarbons. Concenmakns do not present an unacceptable heafth risk ( < PRGs). Contaminationis confimd. Site 8 soil sampling idmtifml UXO activi~. InterimactionscomplcudforSits 6d 8. 36 -. OtiKr Training Sites No CflCtiCdcomamimaticmdwumented. No fUllhCridhl @llllL@, 37 Other Hazardous Mahial No chemicaf COIUSUIlilIWiOIYdwumnkd. No further action plmncd. Smragc and Hamlling Areas (Iocared tbmughcmt facility) 38 Radioactive wagtc StOraEC Addresti in C]me-cut diathl SUWty$ No further acticm planned. 39 Smimry Wastcwatcr Chcmiral contamination dces not pre$zm No further action planned Trcaumnt (Oral Village an unacceptahlc heahh risk. m) 441 31 Former Dump .% W gas suweys d soil bring kst IKIIJM h kwide RI/Fsasp,fsitt; results have indicated metals RA m k dctcrmim%l. cauarnimti mtic westernslqx of Iht site. 41 39 ImpactArea No prcvims invcstigatiti. hdudtd in bascwidc RI/FS as RI sires; RA to k detenninet. 42 -- Tramformcrs (Immcd PCB wnpling comluctd installation. Transformers addmsstd mwlcr Fro-I throughout facility) wide. PCB tramformcrs Lmwcm 50 WEI CardPCB management prognm.

43 .. Ammnitim Smragc No furlhcr action planned. 44 .. OtherHmardcua Material No further action plamwc. StorageandHandingArea (BuiIdti~ 91)

45 Former Lamlfdl Buikfiig W samples from UeXfEs Cxcavatcd at Inclutfcd in basewidc fU/FS m RI si~; 1474 Arm k qclml lsuxlFdldid mt suggest past RA to ix detcrminuj. &ml Or$lcLics.

W5T.3-1 Fort Oral, Culiftwnia - December 1995 Page 3-5 TABLE 3-1. I?mmmimw LOCATION S~Y Continued

AREE Ou/silt Number No. AREE Dmriptkm Fhmf JMcrmimlion

46 -. Former Hospital Mm ~ mdlCd Waste imineratd in Buildiog No iiwker acdan planmd, 1442 hospitaf is closed, No chemical contamination dccumcniu.

47 2, 32, 36 *PUC Turksd Tilt Possible chemical conmmination. Sik 2 included in basewide RI/FS as Fields (lm?miontmlmmvm) RI siws; RA to k demmined. Si[es 32 and 36 require no further action,

48 24 Former DEH Yard sail cOmmimtiwl of limiud Cxun[ lnkrim *ctiOn planned. identified.

49 fncludes 17, spill Areas (Icx?mcd Groumhvatcr istypically greater than 60 Site 17 included in RI/FS; RA LOlx 38 throughout facili~) ft bgs. Contaminated soil is of limim$ deurminti. No action planned for Sim extent (<500 cubic yards). 38 urdcr CERCLA program; site Comaminatd soil to bc cxcavatcd is 1.ss includd in LIST program than 25 ft bgs. chemicals in cmmminated soil are typically pxroleum hydrccartms, solvems, oils, metals, d vxicides,

50 31 Former fncintrarm at East Former incirmmtor identikl on imse No further action plmned (kit’ri.son map. No dmumentml releases.

51 . . Lea@ us-f hahg UST dc.mnmmcd. No further CERCLA actions pi- site wifl & addresd umicr Fort Ord UST program 52 finking ASI kking USTdwmmned. No further CERCLA acticms plmuwf; site will & addrcwed tier ForI Chd Am progmm. 53 Includes 17, Fueling Stations (Imated Soil gzs survey resuh provided elevated Vcriticwion samphng at Sitt 21 21 thrcugfmut facility) level! of tmd recoverable pmolttun indicates site is clew, no further action hy~-ti ad volatie organic planned, compumk Interim acrion completed at Site 21. 54 .. Building 3625 Spill Ares UW releasedommtnti. No futier CERCLA actions plmned; site will k adckcssd under FortOrd —. USTprogmm. 55 -- Former LeakingUSI Area Leaking LIST dcmunenkd. No funher CERCLA aCtiOm phllllltd; (Building 511) site will Ewaddresstd under Fort Ord UST ororrwm 56 -- Wmer Trcwmcnt Plant No chemical comnmimnion docmncntcc, No further action planned (Building 4974)

57 Includes 16, unauthorized DiqMd For Sik 16 - Organic contamination of %~S id.dcd in basewidc RI/FS as RI 17 Areas (Imati IbWghcut soil identificl Highest concenuations snq RA m lx dctcrmincd. facili~) were diesel fuel compontms. Grmmtwatcr commnimtion Icvels Ixlow MCL. For Site 17 Observations from cxploratmy Uenching sugges[ Ihc diqm!al of mtiical wastrs. 58 Former UST Are$s (erect .%ptctcd U~ bxationsidentifiti No further CERCLA actions ulmmed:., locations unknown) siu will k addressed under FOI-I@d Us’fprom, 59 Shoreline Erosion (1.xakd Shoreline erosion idtntificd as No furdtcrCERCLA action planned thtcughc!n shorclti) mvimnmemal cticm, Askstos (Immed Friable ad non-friabk askstos idendtiaj AREE will k addressd umlcr DA thrqhout facility) thrcugh varims surveys. policy guidame and POM asbestos program. hmludcs 15, Pesticide Lhge(Imakd Grauxlwmr is[ypically greater b &3 Verification sanmlim.= al Site 15 33 Oumghcutfacili~) ft bgs. Contaminated d is of limited indicmcs site is clean: m furdkr a~ti~ extent (<500 cubic yards). plamtcd, No further action prqmwd Cmdaminatcd soil to k excavsscd k less for Site 33, however. further actic+Is than 25 ft bgs. Chemicals in can not k determined until future use cOmamiIMtcdsoil am ~icafly prolcurn is defi. hydrmarbms, solvcms, oifs, mctis. d *tis. fntmim action compktul for Site 15.

Not= AREE can sIKcify morethanont $k (dcsignwcs qkcific kation). ‘ffmrc is IM a corrqxdrng rcladomhip kwmn AREEs ad si~. ~ No. 41 cotrcsp-ds to the ccmml ~rtjon of SIU 39. . .,,

0445T.3-1 Fort Oral, California - December 1995 Page 3-6 ~.. To address total petroleum hydrocarbon (TPH) and solvent contamination identified during the RI in soil and groundwater, the remedial alternative selected in the FDA RI/FS was constructed. This remedial alternative consisted of(1) excavation and biotreatment of TPH-contaminated soils and (2) installation of a groundwater extraction and treatment system, which began operation in August 1988.

Biotreatrnent of contaminated soil was completed in August 1981. To evaluate the effectiveness and completeness of soil treatment and to demonstrate that the lateral and vertical extent of groundwater contamimtion has been characterized and that operation of the groundwater extraction system was adequate and effective, a Remediation Confirmation Study was performed from October through November 1993. The results of the study indicate that soil treatment has been adequate at the OU and that groundwater capture from the groundwater extraction and treatment system at the FDA is adequate to capture and treat the contaminated groundwater from the OU. Groundwater treatment for the OU is ongoing. An initial ROD for the OU was signed in 1987, prior to NPL listing of the installation. Completion of the remedial documentation process under the FFA is currently ongoing. A Proposed Plan for the OU, which consists of .,-no further action for soils and continued groundwater treatment, was submitted in November 1994. The Proposed Plan has undergone regulatory review and public comment and a ROD for the OU has been prepared and is undergoing review.

OU 2- Fort Ord Landfills. The Fort Ord landfills were used for over 30 years for residential and commercial waste disposal. The landfills cover approximately 150 acres and include the inactive main landfill and north landfills. As a result of detections of volatile organic compounds in Fort Ord and Marina County Water District water supply wells, the RWQCB issued Cleanup and Abatement Order 86-87 that required Fort Ord to initiate studies of soil and groundwater. The RWQCB also issued Cleanup and Abatement Order Nos. 86-317 and 88-139 for the investigation and cleanup of groundwater contamination caused by the landfills and Waste Discharge Requirements No. 87-153 requiring landfill closure by 1989.

The Army initiated studies to evaluate whether chemicals from the landfills had affected either soil beneath the landfills or the quality of groundwater beneath the sites, or both. The RI/FS for the landfills was finaliked in 1993. The U.S. Army’s preferred cleanup for OU 2 is groundwater treatment for two contaminated aquifers under the OU and landfill capping. A ROD for OU 2 was signed in August 1994. An Explanation of Significant Difference (ESD) has also been prepared. The ESD was signed in September 1994. Remedial actions were initiated in early December 1995 when a contaminated groundwater extraction and treatment system began operation. The landfills will be capped in 1996.

Basewide Restoration Sites. Initial planning documents to complete a Basewide RI/FS to address the 41 additional sites at Fort Ord were prepared in 1990 and 1991. The RI was initiated in October 1991 and consisted of two primary components: basewide studies and site investigations.

CM45.S3 Fort Oral, California - December 1995 Page 3-7 After completion of the first phase of the RI/FS, sites were categorized as follows:

➤ RI Sites - Sites that have a sufficient contamination to warrant a full RI, baseline human health risk assessment, ecological risk assessment, and feasibility study.

F Interim Action Sites - Sites that have a limited volume and extent of contaminated soil and can be easily excavated.

b No Action Sites - Sites that do not warrant remediation under CERCLA.

To accelerate the cleanup process, interim action and no action sites are supported by “plug-in” RODS. This process provides for the accelerated cleanup at interim action sites and the transfer of no actions sites without waiting until an installation-wide ROD for Fort Ord is signed. The interim action ROD was signed in February 1994. The no action ROD was signed in April 1995. The plug-in ROD process is described in more detail in Section 4.1 of this BCP.

The 13asewide RUFS was fwlized in November 1995. To date, 18 no action sites have been identified, 16 which require no further action because there is no evidence of contamination or contaminants are below action levels and 2 which are being addressed under non-CERC “.,.;. programs (i.e., UST sites). Of the 16 CERCLA, no action sites, 6 have undergone public and regulato~ agency review; final notice is pending for these sites. Final agency comments have not been received for one no action site and the site characterization report is in progress for 7 of the sites.

Site 33, the Golf Course is one of the 18 sites proposed for no action in the Basewide RI/FS. However, final characterization of the site for no further action or interim action can not be determined until the site’s future use is determined.

Sixteen interim action sites are identified in the Basewide ~/FS, where the character, degree, and extent of contamination is such that interim removal actions are appropriate. Interim removal actions began in September 1994. Currently, removal actions have been completed at 10 of the 16 sites. Verification samples collected at these sites indicate that 12 sites have been fully remediated and two sites require further action.

The Fort Ord accelerated environmental restoration program includes not only planned interim removal actions but also time-critical removal and other actions for sites to mitigate or eliminate a threat to human health and the environment. Several such actions have been conducted at Fort Oral. A list of all environmental restoration early actions initiated at Fort Ord including those for OUS 1 and 2, interim action sites, and time-critical removals for RI sites is provided in Table 3-2.

Table 3-3 identifies the 41 sites and two OUS that have been investigated as part of the environmental restoration program at Fort Oral. The DOD Restoration Management Information System (RMIS) site numbers are provided in the table for sites where the data are available. The RMIS data base tracks the status of IRP activities initially funded under the Defense Environmental Restoration Account from the identification stage to completion of RAs aad development of no further response action planned (NFRAP) documentation. The restoration sites located at Fort Ord are shown in Figure 3-1.

WS.S3 Fort Oral, Cal~omia - December 1995 Page 3-8 TABLE 3-2. ENVIRONMENTALRESTORATION EAIUY ACTION STATUS

OU/Site No.. Action Purpose status

Ou 1 Soil excavationand Contaminantcontainment ROD in progress, treatment; groundwater groundwatertreahnent extractionsystemand ongoing treatment Ou 2 Interim groundwaterpump Contaminantcontainment ROD completedin August and treat 1994

Sites 2/12 Interim groundwater pump Contaminantremoval Systemturned on in and treat February 1995 Sites 8, 10, 14, 15, 20, 21, Interim removal actions Contaminantremoval Verificationsampling 30 completedpursuant to indicatessites are clean Plug-In Interim Action ROD Sites 22, 34 Interim removalactions Contaminantremoval Verificationsampling completedpursuantto indicatessites require Plug-h Interim Action further remediation ROD Sites 6, 23, 24, 39A, 40, Ioterim removalactions Contaminantremoval Removalactionshave not 41 proposedpursuantto P1ug- been initiated In interim action ROD Site 24 Excavationof soil and Contaminantremoval Complete approximately40 crushed drums found in trench Sire 39B Soil and wastecan Contaminantremoval Complete excavation

0445.$3 Fort Oral, Cal~omia - December 1995 Page 3-9 This page intentionally left blank.

0445.s3 Foti Oral, Cal~omia - December 1995 Page 3-10 .. —

+2 — This page intentionally left blank.

0145s3 Fort Oti, California - December 1995 Page 3-12 TABLE 3-3. ENVIRONMENTAL RESTOItATION &T@&& AREA SH~Y

,, .,,.,..,..:. ,, ,:,:;., $.;:.::. :,:!y$l’$to Mmran ., ,1’b ,- ItMIS Site Da!eof ““:jl:: “:;’“:“: :“:~~tiltfr andthe Regulatory Further CEllllA Di3D i’ ReuseParcel SiteNo. No. Site Claw De.wription Matmid DisposedOf Operaliosr ““:W* : : ““.”tiiiromrrent{uMerIra@smAction CategoryenCategorj[3

8a Ou1 Fro-w1 NPL Former Fire Drill Area FueIs, wasse oils, Unknown RA TBD FFA D 5 solverms, TCE, MEK

la Ou2 Fro453 NPL Forr Ord Land rdlr. TCE 1950s-1987 ROD TBD FFA D 6 signed, RD

12a Sile 1 FTO-001 NPL Ord Village Sewage Waste oils, solvents, I950s-1964 NA I FFA J D 3 Treatrnen~Plam fuek., heavy rrrcmk

13 Silt 2 FTo-tM2 NPL Main Garrison Sewage PCE, TCE, DCE, 1930s- 1990 Fti/Fs 3 FFA D 6 Treatment Plan[ HBPHC, heavy metals, cmopkb, pesticidcs RD

12b Site 3 FTO-003 NPL BeachFiring Ranges Heavy metals fU/Fs 6 FFA D 6 complete, RD

12b Sile 4 Fro-w NPL Beach Stomrwa[er Wasle oils, sOIvenls Present NA 1 FFA / D Outfalls

25 Sile 5 Fro-m5 NPL Range 36A (Explosive Explosive residue, As early as RI/FS 4, 5 FFA D 6 Ordnance Demo) RDX, HMX 1917-1985 completed, RD

25 Site 6 FTO-C436 NPL Range 39 (Abandmrcd Gasoline, oils As early as IA to be 2 FFA D 6 Car Dump) 1917- 1970s eomplctcd

25 Site 7 l=fo41Q7 NPL Range40 and 41 (Fire Gasoline As esrly as NA 1 FFA / D 3 Demo Area) 1917- 1970s

~(b) 25 Site 8 FTCM308 NPL Range 49 (Moio[ov Gasoline, oils As early as IA 2 FFA #41 D Cockhil Range) 1917-1988 complete

25 Sile 9 Fro-Do9 NPL Range 39 (FFE Gasoline As early as RVFS 4, 5 FFA D 6 Training Area) 1917-prewnt complete, RD

J(41 ~{,] 16 Sile 10 Wo-olo NPL Fire Drill Burn Pit Fuels, waste oiIs, heavy Unknown IA 2 FFA D mcmls, solvenls complcts

20h Site 11 no4 {1 NPL AAFES Fueling StaLion Fuels, oils, heavy 1962-presen! NA 1 FFA J D 7 metals

2b Site 12 Fr-o-o12 NPL Direclorafe 0[ Logistics Solvents, tlels, oils, Approximately Rf/Fs 3, 4 FFA D 6 Automotive Yard, battery acid 1960 comp Iete, Camibalization Yard, RD Lower Meadow Area

2b Sife 13 FTO-013 NPL Railroad Righ~-of-Way Unknown Prcscnl NA 1 FFA d c 3

~lo tlb Sile 14 Fro-o 14 NPL 7071h Maintenance Fuels, oils, solvents, 1950-present 1A 2 FFA #) D Facility grease complck

/[4) 414) 2f Siie 15 FI-O-015 NPL Directorate of Pes~icidcs, PCBS 1967-present IA 2 FFA D Engineering and complete Housing Yard

rM45T.3-3 Page 3-13 TABLE 3-3. ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION SITWTUDY AREA SI.JMMARY

Riik to Human f% I RMJs Sit, Date of-...... ’. Heitlthand the Reguktory Further CERFA DOD 7 Retie Parcel Site Class Drsmiption Material Disposed Of Operation ~k~:, 32rsviropment(1} Mecbahiani Adion Catemr+a Cat egory{~~ I I I I I 16 NPL Dircctoratc of Logistics Fuels, oils, solvents, 1950s-present RI/f% 4, 5 WA D 6 Maintenance Yard. Uxo I I complete, I Pete’s Pond Area RD

17 NPL 141XI Block Motorpool Fuels, Oh, so[vents I 977-presenr R31FS 4, 5 D 6 complete, RD

2C Site 18 I FTO-018 NPL IWO Block Mo[orpool Fuels, oils, smlvcnk 1940s-present NA 1 FFA 1/ D 3

2b NPL 22(11 Block Facilim Fuels, oils, solvenfs Presenl NA 1 WA 1/ D 3 1 /(4] ~(,, 16 NFL Souih Parade Ground, Fuels, oils, solvents, 1950s-presenl [A 2 FFA D 38CKlB[ock Mo[omoo!.,- landfill I comp Iele I T 519dI M(mrpool I I J(,) 16 Siic 21 FTO-021 NPL 44 CW4500 Blocks Fuels, oils. solvems I Prewnt IA 2 FFA D 4{*1 I I 5(5) 16 Fuels, oils, solven[s 1977 -prcsenl D *

16 Site 23 FTO-023 Fuels, oils, solvems I WOs-prcscm FFA D 6 I I 16 Si[e 24 FTO-024 =$===’NPL Old Dircctoram of Pcs[icidcs, fuels 1942-1980 FFA D 6 Engineering and Housing Yard I I !

2d Sile 25 ITO-025 NPL Former Defense PCBS, pesdcidcs Unknown PJA 1 FFA J D 3 Reutilization and h!arke~ing Office Si~e + 2b Si[c 26 FTO-C)26 NPL Sewage Pump Sta~i0n5- None Present NA 1 FFA ? c 3 I Buildings587 1/6 143 I 9b N PL Army Reserve Fuels, oils Unknown NA I D 3 Mo[orpooI

2b ?4PL Barracl& and Main PCE Prcaent FfA I FFA J D 3 Garrison Area 1 I

Ilb Si[e 29 ~0-029 NPL Defense Reuiilimtion PCBS Preserd NA 1 D 3 and Markc[ing Office

@ 1 lb Site 30 FTO-030 NPL Driver Training Area Fue[s, oils, wlvents Unknown IA 2 D

llb Siie31 ITO-031 NPL Former Dump S im Unknown 1930s- 1950s RIIFS 3, 6 FFA D 6

compkle,

+ RD

1lb Sire 32 ~0-032 NPL East Garrison Sewage Sewage Prescni NA 1 c 3 I[ Treatment Plard 22 Site 33 FTO-033 NPL Golf Course Pesticides, fungicides 1950s-prescn~ NA 1 D 3

0$45T.3-3 page 3-14 I TABLE 3-3. ENvrRowmT& RESTORATION SITEWTUDY -A S-ARY Continued R@toliumao .,, I I Date of I I HeaIthand the Rqmkkty Desdption ] Makrid Diaposed Of I Oper&r I St& I F.uvirn.srrent[ti I iieiiim SGizLEi FAAF Fueling Facility AlrcraR [uels, solvents Present IA 2 FFA D 5(3) I I I complete I I

Aircraft Camtibaliza[ion Aircrafi [UCIS, sohems Unknown NA 1 FFA Yard I I I I I

FAAF Sewage Solvents, heavy mttals, 1950a-present NA 1 FFA Treatment Plant fuels

Trailer Park Grease, fuels, oils 1959-preserit NA I FFA I=T=El=Maintenance Shop I 16 I Sile38 I FTO-038 I NPL AAFES Dry Cleaners 1Wwm I 1994 I?4A]1 ] FFA

25 Sire 39 FTO-039 NPL In[and Ranges/[mpac~ UXO, explosive residue 1917-1994 R[/FS 4, 5 FFA Area complete, Rn

la Sile 40 f=I-o-040 NFL FAAF Defueling Arms Aircrafl krela Unknown 1A to be 2 FFA compIetcd

. . --l-+ llb Sire 41 N PL Crescenl Bluffs Hydrocarbons Unknown IA to be 2 FFA D 6 Training Area compIctcd I I

Key: AAFES = Amry and Alr Force ExchangeSr!rvicc PCB = PoIychlorinatcd Wlphenyl DCE = Dichlorocthylene PCE = Tetrachloroethylene FFA = Federal Facility Agretmenl RA = Remedial Ac(ion HBPHC = High Boiling Petroleum Hydrocarbons RUFS = Remedial [nvestigation/Feasibility Siudy HMX = High Melt Explosive TBD = To Be Detcs-mined 1A = Interim Action TCE = Trichloroclhylene MEK = Methyl Etiyl Kc[one Uxo = Unexploded Ordnance NPL = National Priorities List Ou = Operable Uni~

‘~}Risk: 1 = Risk was nol calculaid; she nol considerd a current or potential Wreal 10 human healti, 2 = Risk was not calculakd; in[erim action is planned, 3 = cancer risk estimate is wifhin or below the US EPA fhreshoId risk range of 10* to 104, 4 = Estimated blood -Icad levels are below the USEPA threshold blood-lead level, 5 = Cancer risk estimam exceeds or is within the US EPA tireshold risk range of 10< to 10“, 6 = Esiimam4 blood-lead levels exceed We US EPA tlrreahoId blood-lead levels.

WCERFA EnvironmenMl ~atCgOriCS c — CERFA Clean E . CERFA Excluded Q= CERFA Qualified D — CERFA Disqualified Sce Section3.4 for definitions. msce sm(~~n 3,4.5 for defmitiom. WIA raOVaI acdon COrnpIc~ed,verification samplesindieatc site ia clean. O~[Aremoval a~do~ complckd, verification sampling indicates site no[ clean. mpropos,4no actionai(c;si[emay require interim action depending uPOn fu~ureu=.

M45T.3-3 Page 3-15 3.1.3 Installation- Wide Source Discovery and Assessment Stalus

There have beena number of installation-wide studies ofchemical use, storage, and disposalat Fort Oral. $evenof these reviews cover chemical use and hazardous waste operations. These include:

k Drafi Ven~cation of Solid Waste Management Units, Fen! Oral, Cal~ornia. Prepared for the USACE, Sacramento District, 1993;

F Basewide Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study, Fort Oral, Calfomia, Volume I, Literature Review and Base Inventory Repofl. Prepared for the USACE, Omaha District and Fort Ord Directorate of Engineering and Housing, 1991;

F Enhanced Preliminaq Assessment, Fort Oral, Cali$onzia. Prepared for the U.S. Army Toxic and Hazardous Materials Agency, Aberdeen Proving Grounds, . Maryland, 1990;

b Interim Final Repoti, Hazardous Waste Consultation No. 37-26-0176-89, Evaluation of Solid Waste Management Units, Fort Oral, California, 1988;

F Hazardous Waste Management Survey, Fort Oral, Monterq, California, 1988;

F Update of the Initial Installation Assessment of Fort Ord and Subinstallation, Prepared for the U.S. Army, 1987; and

b Installation Assessment of Fort Oral, Cal@ornia, 1983.

Two of the nine reviews are studies of the underground storage tanks (USTS) on the installation:

F Underground Storage Tank Management Plan, Fort Ord Complex, Monterq County, Call~ornia. Prepared for USACE, Sacramento District, 1991; and

➤ Characterization Study for Underground Storage Tanks, Foti Hunter-Liggett and Fort Oral. Prepared for Directorate of Contracting, Fort Oral, California, 1988.

In addition to these nine reviews, there have been reports on the following six site-specific investigatiordremediation projects:

F Preliminary Assessment/Site Investigation for Fourteen Sites, Final Site Investigation Repon, Fort Ord and Fort Hunter Liggett, Monterq County, California. Prepared for USACE, Omaha District, 1991;

F Report of Investigation, A.AFES Service Station, Fort Oral, Cal~ornia. Prepared for USACE, Omaha District, 1990;

0445,s3 Fort Oral, California - December 1995 Page 3-16 F Site Investigations, Fort Ord and Fort Hunter Liggett. Prepared for USACE, Omaha District, 1990;

F Preliminq Hydrogeologic Investigation, Volume I, II, III, Fort Ord Land’lls, Fort Oral, Calijomia. Prepared for the USACE, Sacramento District, 1989;

F Investigation of Building 511 Underground Storage Tanks, Fritzsche Army Ai&zeld, Fort Oral. Prepared for USACE, Sacramento District, 1988; and

F Addendum, Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study for Soil Contamination, Fritzsche Army Airjt7eld Fire Drill Area, Fort Oral, California. Prepared for USACE, Sacramento District, 1987.

In addition to these reports, a Well Management Plan for the Fo~ Ord Complex for the Sacramento District USACE (1990) was prepared to identify and evaluate all existing wells as potential contaminant conduits and to propose an installation-wide well management approach.

Most recently, the Basewide RI/FS (1995) was prepared that included 41 sites. Additional installation-wide surveys have included asbestos, radon, and lead-based paint. An air emissions inventory has also been completed.

During July and August 1993, a CERFA Investigation was conducted. The CERFA process identifies clean portions of Fort Oral. The final report was issued in March 1994. In addition to the 61 AREEs identified in the EnPA, the CERFA report identified four new areas that may require additional evaluation as described below.

b A metal box containing unidentified, potentially hazardous materials. F A cleared area with debris F Several partially exposed, buried drums with unknown contents ➤ An abandoned pipeline for transporting crude oil.

Each of these sites has been investigated. The box has been removed and properly disposed. The debris, consisting of trash improperly dumped has been disposed. The buried drums were actually empty drums placed to provide soil retainment at the site. The abandoned pipeline is being addressed through the Fort Ord UST program.

Bottom-up reviews conducted by the BCT as part of the BCP preparation process have not revealed any additional sites. Should any new sites be identified prior to the transfer of the property, they will be addressed according to the strategy described in Chapter 4.

3.2 Compliance Program Status

Compliance activities at Fort Ord are being conducted in coordination with environmental restoration activities being implemented under the BRAC IRP. General compliance activities address the management of USTS, hazardous materials, asbestos, radon, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBS), and water discharges. Compliance-related RAs at Fort Ord include removal

M45.S3 Fort Oral, Califonsiu - December 1995 Page 3-17 of USTS, and associated site restoration, removal of PCB transformers, asbestos abatement, and lead-based paint abatement, and unexploded ordnance (UXO) clearance.

The statutory basis for IRP activities at Fort Ord is CERCLA. Compliance-related management and restoration activities are differentiated from CERCLA actions because they are regulated primarily under other statutes. These statutes include Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCFL4) Subtitles C, D, and I, the Clean Water Act (CWA), Clean Air Act (CAA), Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), and NEPA.

An Environmental Compliance Assessment System (ECAS) Audit of Fort Ord was prepared in January 1993. The ECAS is a computerized system for Fort Ord that summarizes all regulatory and management findings observed during the environmental compliance assessment at Fort Oral. The environmental compliance assessment program is conducted by the USACE Sacramento District as required by the DA. The regulatory summaries noted where there was noncompliance with an existing federal, state, or local regulato~ requirement; noncompliance with future federal, state, or local regulatory requirements; and regulatory health and safety findings (noncompliance with an existing Occupatioml Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Department of Transportation (DOT), National Fire Protection Agency, or federal, state, or local health and safety regulatory requirement related to environmental issues). Actions have been taken by the Directorate of Environmental and Natural Resources of the POM to address any noncompliance issues identified during the audit.

Compliance actions at Fort Ord can be divided into two categories: current mission- and operational-related compliance projects and closure-related compliance projects. Mission- and operational-related projects are those that have been or would be conducted for the normal operation of the installation and are unrelated to activities necessitated by installation closure under BRAC. No significant missiotioperational-related compliance projects are planned at Fort Ord because the post no longer has an active mission. However, the U.S. Army does continue to maintain a number of environmental compliance programs to support the POM Annex and U.S. Army Reserve enclave at Fort Oral.

These include the management of fuel storage and dispensing facilities (USTS and ASTS), hazardous substances and waste handling, solid waste collection and disposal, water and wastewater treatment, asbestos management, and air emission source management. Projects related to these activities identified in Table 3-4.

Closure-related compliance projects are those conducted specifically as a result of environmental compliance and restoration activities related to BIL4C closure and property disposal. Closure- related projects at Fort Ord include UST removals, PCB transformer removals, asbestos and lead-based paint surveying, radon testing, landfill and RCRA facility closures, UXO surveys and clearance, medical facility closure and radiological decommissioning. The various closure- related environmental compliance projects at Fort Ord are identified by closure-related catego~ in Table 3-5.

A number of compliance-related activities at Fort Ord have been completed as early actions. These actions are related to UST site restoration and are identified in Table 3-6.

M45S3 Fort OI@ California - December 1995 Page 3-18 ,.’,..., ““””: “Pitkiid ““““‘: stills .ikqgulatoryfiogram

Storage Tanks USTS precision tank tested as required. USTS at UST ManagementProgram (RCRA AAFES gas stationare being replaced. support r)

Asbestos Friable asbestosabatementin POM Amex to OCCUr in TSCA 1996. WastewaterDischarges Pollution Prevention Plan submitted. Storm Water I CWA/Stateof California/ Management and Storm Water Monitoring Plan Departmentof the Army completed. Regulations

Key: CWA = Clean Water Act POM = Presidio of Monterey RCRA = ResourceConservationand RecoveryAct TSCA = Toxic SubstancesControlAct UST = UndergroundStorage Tank

rM45.s3 Fort Oral, California - December 1995 Page 3-19 I TABLE 3-5. CLOSUREJIELA~D COMPLIANCE PROJECTS I

Project status RegtdatrmyProgram

Storage Tanks 133 USTSremoved; 119 USTSin place; 77 additional UST ManagementProgram (RCRA USTSidentifiedfor removaldue to installationclosure. Subpart 1)

PCB StorageRemoval All transformers with PCB levels above 50 parts per PCB ManagementProgram million (pprn)have been removed. (TSCA)

Asbestos Nonhousing structures surveyed from 1989-1993. Departmentof the Army Asbestos Surveyof housingcompletedin 1994. ManagementProgram (TSCA) RadonTesting I All buildings tested for radon were below levels that I Departmentof the Army Radon I wouldrequireremediation. I ReductionProgram

Solid Waste Closureof Fort Ord landfillsbeing accomplishedunder RCM Subpart DICERCLA Fort Ord CERCLARZP. , RCIL4Facilities 58 SWMUSidentified. Most SWMUSbeing addressed RCRA Subpart C/CERCLA through Fort Ord CERCLA RI IRP. RCRA Closure plans for 4 SWMU5.

MedicalWaste Medical waste was handled and disposed of in State of California/Monterey Management accordance with applicable regulations; all medical County (RCIL4Subpart J) facilitieshave been closed. Lead-BasedPaint Survey of pre-1979 housing and barracks completed. 24 CFR Part 35 Abatementwill occur for targethousesto be reused for residentialproposes.

LJxo Archive search completed, Phase I and U sampling Departmentof the Army performed. Land disposalsiteplan for OEWprepared. Regulations OEW removals initiated for Phase II CSU Monterey Bay Parcel.

Radiological Survey conducted in 1994 for buildings located in NRC Decommissioning BRAC priorities 1, 2, 3, and 5; results indicate no hazards.

Key: BR4c = Base Realignmentand Closure CERCLA . ComprehensiveEnvironmentalResponse,Compensation,and Liability Act CFR . Coder of Federal Regulation NRC . Nuclear Regulato~ Commission OEW . Ordnanceand Unit ExplosiveWaste PCB . PolychlorinatedBiphenyl RCR4 . ResourceConservationand RecoveryAct RI . RemedialInvestigation SWMU . Solid Waste Management Unit TSCA . Toxic SubstancesControl Act UST . UndergroundStorage Tank Uxo . UnexplodedOrdnance

CW5.S3 Forz Oral, Cal$onsiu - December 1995 Page 3-20

— ,/--

~.....TiiBLE 3-6, COtiLI~CE’lL@LY ‘ilcTION STAfiS

site“:.: “:. Action . ““ :@rpoSe ;.”.” ; ‘: .SMw’

6 Removehydrocarbon-contaminatedsoil Sourceremoval Pendingfinal approval related to UST removal site 8 Removehydrocarbon-contaminatedsoil Source removal Pending final approval related to UST removal site

10 Removehydrocarbon-contaminatedsoil Source removal Pending final approval related to UST removal site 12 Removeundergroundmuffler related to Source removal Completed UST removal site Source removal Pendingfttal approval ... 14 Removehydrocarbon-contaminatedsoil related to UST removal site 15 Removepesticide-contaminatedsoil related Source removal Pending final approval to UST removal site 20 Removehydrocarbon-contaminatedsoil Source removal Pending final approval related to UST removal site 21 Removemetals-contaminatedsoil related to Source removal Pendingfinal approval UST removalsite I 22 Removehydrocarbon-contaminatedsoil Source removal Pendingfinal approval related to UST removal site 23 Removehydrocarbon-contaminatedsoil Source removal Pending final approval related to UST removal site

30 Removehydrocarbomcontamirtatedsoil Source removal Pendingfinal approval related to UST removal site

34 Removehydrocarbon-contaminatedsoil Source removal Pending final approval related to lJST removal site

Key: IJST = UndergroundStorage Tank

cM-i5.s3 Fort Oral, California - December 1995 Page 3-21 Fort Ord maintains several notifications with federal, state, and local agencies under various installation environmental compliance programs. These include registrations for USTS and ASTS, a notification for hazardous waste generator activities, a pending RCIL4 Part B permit, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) wastewater discharge permit, radiation source license, and air emission source registrations. The various registrations, notifications, and permits held or applied for by Fort Ord are summarized by environmental compliance program in Table 3-7. A more detailed description of the various environmental compliance programs at Fort Ord is provided in the subsections below.

3.2.1 Storage Tanks

The following subsections describe the UST and aboveground storage tank (AST) statutes and management programs at Fort Oral.

3.2.1.1 USTS. The USEPA has delegated the management of the RCRA Subpart I UST program to the State of California. The State of California has delegated the authority for general UST management at Fort Ord to Monterey County Department of Health. The DTSC and RWQCB retain authority related to UST site restoration.

The U.S. Army UST program requires compliance with federal, state, and local UST requirements as outlined in Army Regulation (AR) 200-1. Army UST standards state that USTS permanently taken out of service or abandoned will be removed from the ground. USTS determined to be leaking, inactive, or abandoned are emptied, taken out of service, and removed from the ground. Appropriate regulatory officials must be notified.

Several studies related to USTS at Fort Ord have been conducted. In 1988, a characterization study was conducted for USTS at Fort Ord and Fort Hunter-Liggett. An investigation of USTS at Building 511 at FAAF was also conducted in 1988. USTS were also evaluated as an AREE in the EnPA completed in 1990.

An UST Management Plan for Fort Ord was prepared in 1991. The management plan reported the number and regulatory status of existing USTS at Fort Oral. During development of the UST Management Plan, UST information and location data were compiled, and a basewide listing of existing USTS was prepared. This Management Plan List documented various elements of the status of the identified USTS including location, age, materials stored in the tanks, tank size, and whether the tank was in use. Based on information available at the time, the identified USTS were placed in one of the three following categories:

F Removal: USTS designated for removal.

k Phase II Vapor Recovery: USTS designated for piping system upgrades with Phase II vapor recovery systems to reduce emissions into the atmosphere from gasoline-dispensing facilities.

F Environmental Assessment: USTS for which additional documentation or environmental assessments are necessary prior to closure.

M45.S3 Fort Oni, California - December 1995 Page 3-22

..—.— TABLE 3-7. ENVIRONME~AL COMPLIANCE PERMrrs, LICENSES, NOTIFTCA~IONS, ~ REGISTRATIONS

Permit/Licemse/IWiilcatiort/ Complianceprogram RegistrationNo, Description IssuingAgency issueDate Expiration““ Date W=eqk ,,

Storage Tanks Various Underground Storage Monterey County Health .. NA All records maintained in POM Annex Facility Department Directorate of Environmental and Natural Notification/Pemrits for Resources USTS

.. 210,000-gallon AST Cal EPA RWQCB 25 August 1993 -- -- registration

Hazardous CA721OO2U676 Notification of USEPA .- NA Subsequent notification required by new Materials/Waste Hazardous Waste owner using existing site-specific USEPA ID Management Activity No.

RCRA -- RCRA Part B Permit Cal EPA RWQCB Not yet approved -- Identifies two TSDFS: (1) DRMO hazardous waste area (closed)and (2) Building 111, PCB storage (closed), Also identified: the silver recovery unit at Hays Hospital (closed) and the OB/OD unit,

Wastewater Discharge CAO11OOOI NPDES Wastewater Cal EPA RWQCB 1 August 1974 -- Discharge limits and discharge monitoring Management Discharge Permit report requirements specified by RWQCB 8 September 1978.

Air Quality Various (45) Air Emission Source Monterey Bay Unified Air Various .. Permits for boilers, gas storage, emergency Permits Quality Management generators, paint spraying, and incinerator. District

Radiation 04-12727-02 GaOium-67, Iodine-123, DA .- -. Hospital has been closed; sources are no Cobalr-57, Thallium-201 longer present; decommissioning surveys have Use Authorization been completed.

Key: Cal EPA = California EtrvirorrmentalProtection Agency PCB = Polychlorinated Biphenyl DA = DepartmentofAmry POM = Presidio of Monterey DRMO = Defense Reutilization and Marketing Office RCRA = Resource Conservation and Recovery Act NA = Not Applicable RWQCB = Regional Water Quality Control Board NPDES = National Polhmnt Discharge Elimination System TSDF = Treatment, Storage, or Disposal Facility NRC = Nuclear Regulatory Commission USEPA = U.S. Environmental Protection Agency OFNOD = Open Burning/Open Detonation UST = Underground S~orageTank

Page 3-23 The results of the field work, site plan development, and a regulatory review were evaluated to formulate recommendations to abandon, replace, or upgrade each UST. The following summarizes UST related actions which have been taken based on the UST Management Plan and resultant UST strategies:

F 133 USTS were removed from Fort Oral, primarily between 1991 to 1993.

➤ Of the sites where those 133 USTS were removed, approximately 20 sites were found to be contaminated.

➤ Site characterization studies have been completed at the 20 contaminated sites to evaluate the vertical and horizontal extent of contamination.

F Remediation at the 20 sites is anticipated to include excavation, removal, and treatment of contaminated soil.

F Approximately 119 USTS remain in place for storage of heating fuel, vehicle and aircraft fuel, waste oil, or Stoddard solvent or as emergency storage reservoirs; approximately 98 percent of these tanks have been tested annually between 1990 and 1992.

F An additional 77 of these 119 USTS are planned for removal because they have not been identified as necessary for reuse activities following property transfer.

➤ USTS containing CERCLA hazardous substances have been evaluated. With the exception of USTS 4495 and 4512, which could not be tested, all identified USTS have been removed or have passed leak tests. USTS 4495 and 4512 have been scheduled for removal in 1995.

An inventory of USTS at Fort Ord which identifies tank location, age, capacity, and substance stored, status, and future actions for each tank is provided as Table F-2 in Appendix F of this BCP.

3.2.1.1 ASTS. AST compliance programs at Fort Ord are conducted under AR 200-1 and the federal and state requirements including 40 Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) Parts 110, 112, and 116 and California oil pollution prevention regulations. A Fort Ord AST inventory is provided as Table F-3 in Appendix F of this BCP.

A total of 39 ASTS are present at the installation, many of these are mobile storage tanks. Thirty-two of these ASTS contain petroleum products, and seven contain propane gas. Regulations require registration of tanks over 660 gallons containing liquid POL products. Only one AST (Building 4441, capacity 210,000 gallons) exceeds the liquid storage quantity threshold and therefore requires registration. The tank was reportedly registered to the RWQCB on 25 August 1993.

0445.s3 Fort Oral, California - December 1995 Page 3-24 .. Fort Ord has a Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures (SPCC) Plan. Fort Ord also has a Draft Installation Spill Contingency Plan (ISCP) dated September 1993. This plan identifies spill response actions, policies, notification procedures, and spill mitigation and cleanup procedures. The ISCP references the Fort Ord SPCC Plan and specifically addresses response procedures for above and below ground oil spills.

3.2.2 Hazardous Substances Management

Hazardous materials present at Fort Ord are managed in compliance with federal requirements outlined in the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act, Executive Order 12385, the SPCC requirements in 40 CFR Parts 110 and 112, DTSC regulations, AR 200-1 and other applicable federal, state, and local regulations.

Hazardous materials surveys of the installation were completed during the investigations described in Section 3.1.2. According to the ISCP as summarized in the Basewide IU/FS, hazardous materials historically used at Fort Ord include brake fluid, acetylene, paint and paint ‘“ strippem, batteries, transmission and motor oils, acids, solvents, and adhesives. Those materials were stored at motor pools, maintenance shops, equipment sheds, and the DRMO yard. Specific areas of historical hazardous substance use are summarized from the 1990 EnPA and are briefly described below:

F Motor pool/gas stations (may use or store fuels, oil, grease, batteries, engine fluids, asbestos, brake pads, solvents).

F Shops including batte~ repair, paint shops, small arms repair, furniture repair, graphics shop, plastics shop, and other maintenance shops (may use or store solvents, paints, thinners, acids, oils, fuels, plasticizers, various polymers, batteries, chromic acid, phosphates).

➤ Dry cleaning at Building 1434 (solvents).

F Pesticide mixing storage/use at Buildings 2076,4109,4897,4913, 142, and 2992 (fungicides, herbicides, rodenticides, pesticides).

F FAAF (aviation fuels, oils, batteries, solvents, brake fluid).

F Photographic laboratories at Buildings 2850,2241, and 2434 (developing solution and fixer, silver).

b Laboratories at Buildings 3723, 2076 (solvents, various chemicals).

There were some extremely hazardous materials used and stored at Fort Oral: mercury, cyanide, and arsenic compounds, calcium hypochloride, chlorine, and some pesticides.

Use and storage of hazardous materials decreased prior to and since installation closure. Currently, hazardous substances are used during heavy equipment maintenance and facilities

cd45..33 Fort Oral, California - December 1995 Page 3-25 maintemnce operations conducted at 5 active shops on the installation. Inventories of hazardous substances for Fort Ord are presently maintained by the POM Annex Directorate of Environmental and Natural Resources, Hazmdous Waste Division. Material safety data sheets are also maintained by this office. Fort Ord does not currently maintain or use sufficient quantities of hazardous or extremely hazardous chemicals to require reporting under SAR4 Title III, Section 312 (Tier reporting), or SARA Title III, Section313 (Toxic Chemical Release Form R reporting).

Hazardous materials spill response procedures and spill control and cleanup equipment for Fort Ord are identified in the ISCP (draft, 1993). Spill response services are provided by several entities depending on the size of the spill. The Hazardous Waste Division for the Directorate of Environmental and Natural Resources may respond to small spills or oversee responses to large spills. Other spill response groups may include the Naval Post Graduate School Fire Department or the Monterey County Hazardous Material Team. Spill control supplies are kept at each RCIU4 less-than-90-day storage area as well as in Building 4880 (Motor Pool).

The Non-Stockpile Chemical Material Program Survey and Analysis Report for Fort Oral, completed in 1993, notes that chemical agent identilcation sets (CAIS) were used at Fort Ord prior to 1974 for field training of troops in an area described as being off 10th Street Gate Road past the landfill area off Imjin Road. In 1974, four CAIS were removed from the installation for destruction. There are no records of burial or discovery of CAIS at Fort Oral. The U.S. Army report concludes that there is no known need for chemical agent remediation at Fort Oral, and the installation is not believed to present any immediate threat to human health or safety due to chemical agents.

3.2.3 Hazardous Waste Management

Hazardous waste compliance programs at Fort Ord are conducted under AR 200-1 and the federal requirements found in 40 CFR 260 through 269,40 CFR 117,49 CFR 171 et seq., DOT regulations, and the California hazardous waste management regulations. Hazardous waste management decreased prior to and since installation closure. Hazardous wastes currently generated on site during equipment and facilities maintenance operations are managed in accordance with all applicable state and federal regulations.

Hazardous wastes have been generated at several locations at RCW facilities and SWMUS (identified in Section 3.2.8). The DRMO storage yard was recently closed and hazardous waste is no longer stored there. Hazardous wastes are stored in the following less-than-90-day storage areas:

● Building 701 ● Building 4420 ● Building 4891 ● Building 1672 ● Building 4492 ● Building 4899 ● Building 4110 ● Building 4885 ● Building 4900

Investigation-derived wastes are stored at the Fort Ord Soil Treatment Area (FOSTA) Motor Pool. There is also a storage area in the Hazardous Waste Division of the Environmental and Natural Resources Directorate’s storage yard. Records of hazardous waste activities and

lM45.s3 Fort Oniy California - December 1995 Page 3-26 inventories are maintained in the Hazardous Waste Division of the Directorate of Environmental and Natural Resources. All hazardous wastes are transported off site by licensed hazardous waste haulers for treatment and/or disposal at a licensed facility in compliance with federal and state regulations.

3.2.4 Solid Waste Management

Solid waste management compliance programs at Fort Ord are conducted under AR 200-1 and 420-47, the federal requirements found in 40 CFR 240-246 and 40 CFR 257-258, DOT regulations, and the California solid waste management regulations. Solid wastes currently generated at Fort Ord are managed in accordance with all applicable state and federal regulations. The waste is transported off post for disposal at a local landfill.

There are two formerly active landfills at Fort Oral. These landfills are currently closed and are being addressed as part of the Fort Ord IRP. The landfills, designated OU 2, are located north and south of Imjin Road in the north central portion of the installation. The north landfill covers approximately 30 acres. A playing field and roads are located on the landfill and residences are located nearby. The landfill south of Imjin Road (the main landfill) encompasses approximately 120 acres. The area is undeveloped and covered by uneven sand dunes with grass, shrubs, and bushes.

The landfills were used for 30 to 35 years for residential and commercial waste disposal. The north landfill was used from 1956 to 1966 and was closed to waste disposal when the main landfill began operating. The main landfill was operated from 1960 until 1987 and may have received a small amount of chemical waste along with household and commercial refuse. The main landfill facility stopped accepting waste for disposal in May 1987 when initiation of interim closure of the facility began.

Waste received at the main landfill facility was placed in trenches approximately 30 feet wide, 10 to 12 feet below ground surface, and 10 to 15 feet apart. Waste was normally placed in these trenches to a height of approximately 10 feet above the trench bottom and covered with about 2 feet of native dune sand deposits excavated during trenching operations; however, thicker refuse sections exist within the landfill. The disposal methods at the north landfill are unknown but are believed to be similar to practices used in the main landfill.

Detailed records on the amounts or types of waste disposed of at the landfills are not available; however, information collected during field activities and from other sources indicate that household and commercial refuse, dried sewage sludge, construction debris, and a small amount of chemical waste (such as paint oil, pesticides, electrical equipment, ink, and epoxy adhesive) were placed in the landfill.

3.2.5 Polychlotinated Biphenyls

PCB management compliance programs at Fort Ord are conducted under AR 200-1 and the federal requirements found in 40 CFR 761, and DOT regulations. The purposes of the PCB management program at Fort Ord are to conduct PCB transformer and electromagnetic

W5.S3 Fott Oral, Cal#oinia - December 1995 Page 3-27 inspections and maintenance; conduct PCB and PCB-containing transformer change out programs; investigate and take corrective actions for PCB transformer storage, leak/spill, and burial sites.

In accordance with a U.S. Army memorandum dated 25 August 1982, all PCB transformers and PCB-filled electromagnets at Fort Ord are inspected on a weekly, quarterly, and annual basis as required by USEPA Rule on PCBS 40 CFR Parts 761, 761.120, and 268.

Several sampling episodes for PCBS in transformer oils have been conducted at Fort Oral. According to the Fort Ord EnPA, all transformers at Fort Ord were tested for PCBS in 1987. Additional sampling was reportedly conducted between 1985 and 1987. The sampling programs encompassed approximately 1,000 transformers throughout Fmt Oral, ranging in size from 1.5 kVA to 750 kVA. Most of the sampled transformers were pole-mounted, although pad- or ground-mounted transformers were also included in the sampling program. PCB test results indicated that dielectric fluids from three transformers located in Building 3702 had PCB concentrations ranging from 360,000 to 860,000 pprn. In addition, oil from a transformer located near Building 2066 (Main Garrison Sewage Treatment Plant) had a PCB concentration of 100 ppm. No other transformer oils showed PCB levels exceeding the USEPA TSCA limit of 50 ppm. Approximately 16S transformers had PCB levels between 5 and 50 ppm and were considered PCB contaminated based on State of California guidelines. The remaining transformers at Fort Ord had PCB levels under 5 ppm.

The dielectric fluid from the three transformers at Building 3702 was removed and disposed, and the transformer oil was replaced with non-PCB-containing dielectric fluid. All transfomners with PCB levels between 50 and 500 ppm were replaced by the end of 1992. There is no installation- wide program to replace transformers with PCB levels between 5 and 50 ppm; they are replaced with non-PCB transformers as necessary. Many transformers have been removed and disposed, and the dielectric fluid from the transformers has been tested for PCBS, changed out, and properly disposed as necessary.

The only documented release of transformer oil occurred in the late 1970s on Seventh Avenue. The contaminated soil was removed by roads and grounds personnel and taken off post. No information was available as to the exact location of the release and whether any confirmatory soil sampling was performed.

According to a Cal EPA Department of Health Services document dated 14 January 1983, 25 transformers containing dielectric fluid with less than 7 ppm PCBS were buried in the Fort Ord landfill adjacent to the CSU Monterey Bay parcel. In the document, the Cal EPA requested that the transformers be uncovered and the fluid pumped out and disposed. Actions for this site are being conducted under the Fort Ord IRP in accordance with the ROD and Explanation of Significant Difference for OU 2.

According to U.S. Army documents and a U.S. Army Environmental Hygiene Agency (USAEHA) Interim Final Report, dielectric fluid removed from transformers at Fort Ord was stored temporarily in drums at the East Garrison DRMO (Site 29, SWMU FTO-015). Reportedly, transformers were also stored at this location and leaked PCB-containing dielectric

0445.s3 Fort Oni, California - December 1995 Page 3-28 ... fluid to the soil. An investigation was completed at this location; however, no PCBS were found in soil and no further action was required.

3.2.6 Asbestos

Asbestos-containing material (ACM) is regulated by USEPA, OSHA, and the State of California. Asbestos at Fort Ord is managed in compliance with DA guidance “Asbestos, Lead Paint, and Radon Policies at BRAC Properties, ” 310ctober 1994, and AR 200-1, Environmental Protection and Enhancement. The U.S. Army’s policy for on-going management in controlling ACM in structures requires that all buildings be inspected to identify the type, quantity, condition, and identify potential health risks associated with asbestos. BRAC guidance essentially reflects the requirements of AR 200-1 in regards to the identification process and mitigation of damaged friable ACM.

In 1989 and 1990, an asbestos survey of approximately 350 non-housing buildings (i.e., retail stores, office buildings, lavatories, dining halls, barracks, general purpose buildings, vehicle maintenance and storage, oil storage, bus/taxi stations, and ammunition bunkers) found the presence of both ftiable and nonfriable ACM contained in tank and pipe insulation, HVAC vibration joint cloths, exhaust flues, acoustic ceiling treatment, floor tile, linoleum and associated mastics, and debris in the buildings. From October 1991 to April 1993, an installation-wide asbestos survey of the remaining 2,689 non-housing and barracks structures was performed and also found the presence of both friable and nonfriable ACM.

The identification of ACM in excess family housing units began in 1993 and was completed in 1994. Final asbestos survey summary reports for these family housing units were completed in February 1995. Typical ACM identified included duct tape on furnaces, floor covering treatments and mastics, wallpaper, roofing mastic, and transite pipe.

U.S. Army policy guidance dictates that friable/damaged ACM will be removed, repaired, or encapsulated at BRAC properties and that the location of friable/nonfriable ACM will be disclosed prior to property transfer. Fort Ord will continue to maintain and take necessary corrective actions according to U.S. Army regulations and requirements. A friable asbestos abatement project will be conducted for facilities in the POM Annex in 1996.

3.2.7 Radon

The radon reduction program at Fort Ord is conducted under DA guidance “Asbestos, Lead Paint, and Radon Policies at BWC Properties, ” 31 October 1994, and AR 200-1, Chapter 11, U.S. Army Radon Reduction Program.

The objectives of the radon reduction program at Fort Ord are to assess indoor levels of radon and mitigate elevated levels of radon. U.S. Army policy dictates that buildings with radon levels above 4 picocuries per liter (pCi/L) be retested for 12 months. Those buildings with levels above 8 pCi/L must undergo complete remediation within 1 to 4 years.

W5.S3 Fort Oral, Cal#omia - December 1995 Page 3-29 Radon testing using American Society for Testing and Materials procedures was originally performed in 1989 to 1990 for all Priority 1 targeted structures (residences, child care centers, schools, and hospitals). The surveys encompassed approximately 2,900 housing and office buildings installation-wide.

Initial test results showed levels above USEPA and Army recommended action levels in four family housing units and three barracks buildings. Retesting of buildings with elevated levels of radon gas was completed in 1994. Retest results confirmed that initial test results were skewed by outside influences and radon gas was not present, as all structures tested were below the USEPA and Army action levels. No further action is required to test Priority 2 and 3 structures as a result of the negative test results.

3.2.8 RCRA Facilities

In 1988, the USAEHA performed an assessment to identify, describe, and evaluate SWMUS at Fort Oral. The purpose of the USAEHA study was to assist Fort Ord in bringing the SWMUS into compliance with state and federal regulations and to identify SWMUS requiring environmental sampling and/or W.

USAEHA issued an Interim Final Report entitled Evaluation@ Solid Waste Management Units, Foti Oral, Callfomzia, September 18-22, 1988, which identified 58 SWMUS at Fort Oral. A list of these SWMUS is provided in Table F-4 in Appendix F of this BCP. Recommendations to ensure environmental compliance at Fort Ord were presented in the Interim Fiml Report and included:

➤ Inclusion of the Interim Final Report with the Part B permit renewal application for review by state and USEPA Region IX regulatory authorities

● Coordimtion with the state and USEPA Region IX for visual inspections of the identified sites

k Completion of environmental sampling and/or investigations at seven SWMUS: FTO-001, FTO-002, FTO-O1O, FTO-014, FTO-025, FTO-026, and FTO-041

b Completion of the closure process for abandoned landfills in accordance with state and federal regulations

F Consolidation of all hazardous waste at the numerous motor pools in temporary storage buildings.

The status of the original 58 SWMUS identified in the Interim Final Report was summarized in the 1993 Drafi Verl@cation of SWMUS update as follows:

* Nine SWMUS were closed or no longer in existence

E Nine SWMUS had different associated military units

0445.s3 Fort Oral, California - December 1995 Page 3-30

.—.. r- F Two SWMUS were used differently than as described

F One SWMU was still inoperation but its waste was stored elsewhere

F Thirty-seven SWMUS were essentially unchanged since the Interim Final Report was prepared.

On the basis of the information documented in the Draft RI/FS, all but 2 of the 58 SWMUS and all but 7 of the AOCS fall within RI or OU site boundaries and were included in either PA/SI or RI planning. If the potential for release was identified, the SWMU or AOC was specifically investigated. The two SWMUS that were not within site boundaries were FTO-020 and FTO- 021. Both SWMUS were included in the EnPA and the Environmental Assessment Literature Review; no evidence of release was identified at either SWMU. The seven AOCS identified in the ECAS were not located within an RI site and were not included in the RI because no evidence of ‘a release was identified during initial RI planning activities.

In 1986, Fort Ord submitted its RClL4 Part B Permit application to the State of California and USEPA. The application identified two RCIL4 treatment, storage and disposal units: (1) the DRMO Hazardous Waste Storage Yard and (2) Building T-111, PCB storage. No Part B was submitted for Range 36A - Explosive Ordnance Range (RI/FS Site 5). The DRMO Hazardous Waste Storage Yard and Building 111 were granted interim status and have operated under interim status pending approval of the Part B Permit. This permit has not been approved to ,- date.

Closure plans have been prepared for four SWMUS: the DRMO Yard, a Silver Recovery Unit, PCB Storage Building T-111, and Range 39A. Closure plans were originally prepared in the early 1990s. The plans for the first three sites were updated in 1995.

3.2.9 Wastewater DischaWes

There are four sewage treatment plants at Fort Ord and one sewage pump station at Buildings 5871/6143. The closed treatment plants include the Ord Village Sewage Treatment Plant (Site 1), the Main Garrison Sewage Treatment Plant (Site 2), and the FAAF Sewage Treatment Plant (Site 36). When these plants closed, wastewater was sent to the Monterey Regioml Treatment Plant in Marina for treatment. The fourth plant is the East Garrison Sewage Treatment Plant (Site 32); it is active.

The installation was issued a NPDES permit for the treatment plant sanitary wastewater discharges on 1 August 1974. Permit specified discharge limits and discharge monitoring report requirements for the NPDES discharge were promulgated by the RWQCB in September 1978. The currently active sewage treatment plant is operated in accordance with permit requirements and regulations including the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, CWA, and the NPDES Permit Program (40 CFR Parts 122, 125, and 136), National Pretreatment Standards (40 CFR Part 403), the State of California wastewater regulations, and AR 200-1, Chapters 3 and 8.

0445.s3 Fort Oral, California - December 1995 Page 3-31 In accordance with USEPA and RWQCB storrnwater regulations, a Stmrnwater Management Plan and Stormwater Monitoring Plan have been prepared and are being implemented at Fort Oral. APollution Prevention Plan hasalso been submitted totie Stite for approval.

All treatment plants and the pump station were investigated as sites in the basewide RI/FS. The Main Garrison Sewage Treatment Plant (Site 2) was included in further RI/FS investigations. The Old Village, East Garrison, and FAAF Sewage Treatment Plants, and the sewage pump stations (Site 26) were identified as no action sites.

3.2.10 Oil/Water Separators

Eighty-four oillwater or oil/sand separators are located on Fort Oral. These oil/water separators are managed under the installation’s SPCC program, in accordance with applicable federal regulations including Section 313(a) of the CWA and regulations 40 CFR Parts 110, 112, and 122, State of California oil pollution prevention regulations, DOD directives, and AR 200-1.

An inspection of 82 of the oil/water or oil/sand separators was completed during routine cleaning in March and May 1993. Separator vaults were generally found to be in good condition with very few cracks or holes. Only one vault (No. 4517) was found to have a small crack.

3.2.11 Pollution Prevention

Pollution prevention at Fort Ord is managed through the installation hazardous waste management program in accordance with AR 200-1, Chapter 6, and applicable federal and state regulatory requirements. A Pollution Prevention Plan has been prepared for Fort Ord and has been submitted to the state for approval.

The Pollution Prevention Plan outlines operating procedures for pollution prevention and waste minimization. Elements of the plan include source reduction through product changes, and source control through good operating practices, technology and input material changes. The plan also outlines goals for recycling through off-site recycling/reclamation.

Materials currently recycled at Fort Ord include white paper and newspapers. Waste oil, antifreeze, and used batteries are also collected and disposed off-site for recycling/reclamation. Pollution prevention is considered during environmental investigation and restoration activities. Procedures to manage and minimize investigation-derived wastes (i.e., soil boring cuttings and groundwater sampling well purge water) are described in applicable site investigation and restoration work plans.

3.2.12 Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Licensing

Licensed radiation sources at Fort Ord have been closed. The Nuclear Medical Services at Fort Ord (Hays Hospital, Building 4385) handled radioactive isotopes for medical uses.’ The Nuclear Medical Services held a DA authorization for the use of gallium-67, iodine-123, cobalt-57, and , thallium-201. Hays Hospital has closed. Close-out radiological surveying activities for the sources are described in Section 3.2.14.

CM45.S3 Fort Oni, California - December 1995 Page 3-32 ..... thallium-201. Hays Hospital has closed. Close-out radiological surveying activities for the sources are described in Section 3.2.14.

3.2.13 Mixed Waste

There is no mixed waste generated at Fort Oral.

3.2.14 Radiation

Buildings and areas at Fort Ord identified as potential storage and maintenance areas for licensed radioactive materials or equipment were identified in a memorandum titled “Revised List of Buildings at Fort Ord Recommended for Radiological Decommissioning, ” dated 8 December 1993. In addition, several buildings in which radioactive sources were used were identified in the EnPA (1990). According to the EnPA, radioactive sources were used in Hays Hospital (Building 4385). Also, radioactive waste was stored in shelters adjacent to Building 2430.

The radiological survey program currently being performed at Fort Ord is outlined in a memorandum entitled “Base Closure Actions - Radiological Surveys” dated 20 September 1993. The major points included in the memorandum are:

b Closeout radiological surveys will be required at Fort Oral.

F The survey procedures will follow the requirements set forth in NRC Guide CR 5489.

F USAEHA was retained by USACE to serve as one of its radiological installation closure consultants.

F The schedule for conducting radiological surveys must consider the need to initiate transferring certain parcels in April 1994.

F If any contamination is found, remediation will be required. Minor remediation/decontamination will be performed by the survey teams. Major remediatiotidecontarnination will be handled through the U.S. Army Materiel Command, Low-Level Radioactive Waste Office.

The radiological survey activities began in January 1994 and were completed in April 1994 for buildings located in BRAC Priorities 1, 2, 3, and 5. The results indicate that there are no radiological health hazards identified as a result of the past use and storage of radioactive commodities in those buildings. The USAEHA reports do not cover the 138 buildings from the group that were not surveyed because U.S. Army material was still being stored in them. These buildings will be surveyed when the materials are relocated and a report will be prepared.

M45.S3 Fort Oral, G@omia - December 1995 Page 3-33 3.2.15 NEPA

NEPA documentation is required to evaluate the environmental impacts of significant federal actions such as the disposal and reuse of excess property. The 1990 Base Closure Act specifies that the NEPA does not apply to the Base Closure and Realignment Commission’s decision to close Fort Ord or to the closure action itself, but does apply to the disposal and reuse of the property.

The Disposal and Reuse EIS for Fort Ord was fmlized in June 1993. The U.S. Army initiated the EIS in late 1991 and filed a Notice of Intent for conducting the EIS on 13 February 1992. The document was prepared in accordance with AR 200-2, “Environmental Effects of Army Actions” and requirements under NEPA. The EIS analyzed five different levels of development intensity for reuse. These land uses included open space, mixed use residential/commercial, and light industrial.

The EIS concluded that the environmentally preferable land use alternatives are open space, recreation, educatiordresearch, and low-density residential. Medium- and high-density mixed use alternatives were eliminated from further consideration because of the potentially significant environmental impacts.

On 23 December 1993, the U.S. Army signed the EIS ROD. This ROD is based solely upon the disposal of U. S. Army real property and the reuse of former military lands. Nine areas of reuse were removed from the fiml EIS; these areas will be analyzed after reuse plans are finalized.

Since the EIS was prepared, the size of the POM Amex was reduced. The downsizing has made more property available for reuse, thus requiring a Supplemental EIS, which is in progress. The Supplemental EIS and EIS ROD are anticipated to be completed in February 1996.

3.2.16 Lea&Based Paint

Lead-based paint at BFL4C installations is managed in accordance with PL 102-550 (after 1 January 1995). These provisions, codified in 42 USC 4822, 4851-4856, and 15 USC 2688, are applicable to target housing, which is housing constructed prior to 1978 that will continue to be used as housing:

● Target housing constructed after 1960 and before 1979 must be inspected for lead-based paint and lead-based paint hazards. The inspection results must be provided to prospective purchasers of the prope~.

● Target housing constructed before 1960 must be inspected for lead-based paint and lead-based paint hazards, and such hazards must be abated. The inspection results must be provided to the prospective purchasers of the property with a description of the abatement measures taken.

cM45.s3 Fort Oral, California - December 1995 Page 3-34 ... ● The allowable lead concentration in residential paint established by the Consumer Products Safety Commission in 1978 is 0.06 percent.

Specific Army policy for lead-based paint mitigation has been established for dealing with defective (chipping, peeling, etc.) painted surfaces containing lead-based paint and the level of remediation required to transfer real property with the intended reuse of residential inhabitation. The DA guidance is called “Asbestos, Lead Paint, and Radon Policies at BlU4C Properties, ” 31 October 1994.

In accordance with the DA BR4C and Forces Command policy for lead-based paint, a program was implemented to survey all family housing units at Fort Ord constructed prior to 1979 to identify interior and exterior components painted with lead-based paint and the condition of the painted surface. In 1994, the services of the USAEHA were contracted by Fort Ord to complete these inspections. The survey was completed in accordance with U.S. Army policy guidance and 24 CFR Part 35. Testing protocol was consistent with the 1990 Housing and Urban Development Lead-Based Paint Interim Guidelines.

Surveys were conducted at 2,028 pre.-l979-constructed family housing units scheduled for disposal, Inspection of Fort Ord units revealed that lead-based paint was present in pre- 1978 structures; however, no lead-based paint was identified in units constructed in 1978. If buildings will be used for residential purposes, Iead-based paint remediation will be conducted. The final reuse plan is needed to make this deterrnimtion.

3.2.17 Medical Waste

The medical facilities at Fort Ord have consisted of 27 buildings including Red Cross, Hays Hospital, veterinary facilities, dental clinics, drug abuse centers, a medical supply warehouse, a pharmacy, and others.

The first hospital at Fort Ord was constructed in the 1940s. The hospital served the installation until 1969 when the Hays Hospital was constructed. Waste generated from the old hospital was incinerated in Building 1442 and ash or unburnable material was deposited in an on-post landfill. The old hospital building is now used for administrative purposes.

The Hays Hospital (Building 4385), which is closed, was a general medical and surgical facility. In addition to the hospital, there were 12 other medical clinics that were operated on an outpatient basis. Medical facilities stored and handled small amounts of hazardous materials and chemicals. Medical waste generated from Hays Hospital and the medical clinics continued to be incinerated in Building 1442 until 1978 when a new incinerator was constructed in the basement of Hays Hospital. From that point on, medical waste generated at Fort ord was incinerated either in Hays Hospital or in the old incinerator/burner (in Building 1442). After incineration, ash from the incinerators was taken to the on-site Iandfill; later, the ash was taken to a commercial landfill.

0443.s3 Fort Oni, California - December 1995 Page 3-35 From 1984 to 1994, infectious medical waste was separated out and taken to the autoclave located in Building 1442. The infectious waste was appropriately sterilized and disposed off post. A silver recovery unit was also located in the basement of Hays Hospital.

Wastes generated from Nuclear Medical Services included (1)-125, contaminated swabs and absorbents, and contaminated test tubes. The waste absorbents were monitored and then incinerated with the pathological waste. The incinerator stack was not monitored during the process. (1)125 was stored for 1 week in the nuclear waste section of the hospital and then 1 month in a radiological waste connex located near the hospital. This allowed (1)-125 to go through approximately 10 half-lives. The waste was monitored and disposed into the sanitary sewer. The monthly maximum disposal was reported to be 300 microcuries with a normal annual disposal of 0,5 curie. Disposal of up to 1 curie per year by this method is allowed.

Available records and documentation indicate that major spills or other incidents did not occur at the Hays Hospital, Building 1442, the incinerator, or other medical facilities. The operating practices for handling and disposal of medical wastes were reported to be well maintained and efficient. Effluent from the silver recovery system was found to exceed guidelines for cadmium and lead. Previous releases of undiluted acetic acid have stained the concrete floor in the vicinity of the silver recovery unit. No further action has been recommended for the system. A RCIL4 closure plan for the system has been prepared.

3.2.18 UXO

Ordnance and Explosive Waste (OEW) is anything related to munitions designed to cause damage to personnel or material through explosive force, incendiary action, or toxic effects. OEW includes bombs and warheads; guided and unguided ballistic missiles; artillery, mortar and rocket ammunition; small arms ammunition; mines; demolition charges; pyrotechnics; grenades; torpedoes and depth charges; containerized and uncontainerized explosives and propellants; and all similar and related items or components, explosive in mture or otherwise designed to cause damage to personnel or material. Soils with explosive constituents are considered to be OEW if the concentration of chemicals is sufficient to be reactive and present an imminent safety hazard. UXO, a subset of OEW, consists of unexploded bombs, warheads, artillery shells, mortar rounds, and chemical weapons.

The investigation and removal of OEW is being managed by the USACE, Huntsville Division, Mandatory Center of Expertise for OEW at Army installations. The main objective of this program is to evaluate and address physical hazards due to the presence of OEW that may exist. The program includes an archive search to identify the types of ordnance and locations of ordnance training areas at Fort Oral; a random grid sampling program to evaluate the presence of OEW; and a clearance program to remove and dispose of OEW if it is detected during the sampling program. The sampling program consists of visual and magnetometer sweeps conducted in a representative number of randomly selected grid areas within a parcel. If OEW is found, the mture and extent of contamination is evaluated; based on that evaluation, a “clearance” (i.e., removal and disposal action) may be performed over the entire parcel. The areas identified for OEW investigation and the technical procedures are described in work plans for each phase of the investigation. -..

0445.s3 Fort Oral, Cal#omia - December 1995 Page 3-36 ,,.-... Areas on Fort Ord potentially containing OEW have been identified through archives searches, map searches, and interviews. Many of these areas have undergone a field investigation and sampling to verify the presence of OEW. Those areas found to contain OEW will undergo a removal action and destruction of the OEW. The OEW will be destroyed either at an on-site open demolition area or where it is discovered.

In December 1993, an Ordnance and Explosive Waste Archives Search Report for Fort Ord was produced by the USACE, St. Louis District on behalf of the USACE, Huntsville Division. The purpose of the archival investigation was to identify areas on Fort Ord potentially containing OEW. The search report presented information compiled through historical research at various archives and records-holding facilities, interviews with individuals associated with the Fort Ord or its operations, and personal visits to the site.

Phase I sampling was performed under the direction of the USACE, Huntsville Division. The purpose of the initial sampling effort was to confirm the presence or absence of OEW in many of the areas identified near high-priority reuse parcels.

Phase II sampling WS also performed under the direction of USACE, Huntsville Division. The purpose of that sampling effort was to cordkm the presence or absence of OEW in six of the areas identified by the Archives Search Report.

A Land Disposal Site Plan for OEW clearance was prepared by the Army as a cooperative effort of the Army Technical Center for Explosive Safety, Forces Command Safety Office, and Fort Oral. The purpose of this plan is to gain DOD Explosives Safety Board approval to proceed with removal actions for OEW sites outside the inland ranges.

OEW removals began with the area presently known as the Phase II CSU Monterey Bay parcel. This area includes Phase I and Phase II sampling areas and is approximately 315 acres. OEW is being cleared to a depth of 3 feet, although in some areas, the clearance depth is greater where significant amounts of OEW or metallic debris have been detected. The clearance of that area began in March 1994 and was completed in 1994.

The National Historic Preservation Act requires federal agencies to consult with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and Advisory Council prior to initiating any undertaking that may affect properties included in or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. For the OEW removal, Fort Ord satisfied this requirement by executing a Memorandum of Agreement with the SHPO and Adviso~ Council in March 1994. That agreement allows the ground disturbing activities of the OEW project to proceed with minimal architectural and archaeological monitoring when the activity poses a risk to human safety. The Army is required to provide interim documentation and a final report to the SHPO and Advisory Council, which identifies any new sites found and the condition of those sites.

The Army has since prepared a Programmatic Agreement, which satisfies the Army’s consultation requirements as Fort Ord property proceeds through other phases of environmental cleanup, including the OEW project.

0445.s3 Fort Oral, Califonsia - Decenzber 1995 Page 3-37 3.2.19 Air Quality

An additional compliance program issue at Fort Ord is the air quality program. Three major air quality studies have been conducted at the installation. Each study and its results are summarized below.

Solid Waste Air Quality Assessment Test at the Fort Ord Lundfills (OU 2). In 1987, the Solid Waste Air Quality Assessment Test was performed to evaluate the presence and distribution of landfill gas and the ambient air quality in the vicinity of the landfill. The landfill gas contained methane, carbon dioxide, and nitrogen in ratios consistent with those found in landfills of similar age. Methane was found to have migrated outside the landfill into the soil of bordering recreational areas north of Imjin Road. No bare areas or dead vegetation were found, however, that might indicate that methane was migrating to the surface and presenting a health or explosive hazard. Sampling in the air space immediately above the landfill detected 6 ppm total organic compounds.

Toxic Air Emissions Invento~, Headquatiers 7tli Infantry ~“vision and Fort Oral. The Toxic Air Emissions Inventory, dated 23 August 1993, included emission rates from various sources around the installation for 1993 based on 1991 and 1992 rates. This summary quantified emissions from natural gas-fired boilers, paint booths, and gasoline storage and transfer stations.

The emission levels from 1994 were significantly lower than those reported in 1990. The use of chemicals has essentially been eliminated as a result of base closure. Only a limited number of facilities remain operational within the POM Annex boundaries. The 1995 emission rates are also anticipated to be low.

Site 3- Beach Firing Ranges. During the summer of 1993, high-volume ambient air monitoring for particulate was conducted in three locations in the eastern (downwind) side of Site 3. The monitoring was conducted to address the concern for the possible presence of heavy metals related to expended munitions (bullets) in the target area. The samples with the greatest mass of particulate were analyzed for lead, copper, zinc, and antimony. Analytical results were issued in 1994.

The POM Annex currently has 45 permitted air emission sources. Sources include boilers and heaters, fuel dispensing facilities, generators, painting operations, and an incinerator. Not all of these sources are currently operated. Active sources are operated in accordance with Monterey Bay Unified Air Quality Control District, state, federal, and U.S. Army requirements.

3.3 Status of Natural and Cultural Resources Programs

This section describes the current status of the natural and cultural resource program established at Fort Ord including identification and management of vegetation, wildlife, wetlands, and other preservation areas; rare, threatened and endangered species; and cultural resources.

CW45.S3 Fort Oral, California - December 1995 Page 3-38 /... 3.2.19 Air Quality

An additional compliance program issue at Fort Ord is the air quality program. Three major air quality studies have been conducted at the installation. Each study and its results are summarized below.

Solid Waste Air Quality Assessment Test at the Fort Ord Landfills (OU 2). In 1987, the Solid Waste Air Quality Assessment Test was performed to evaluate the presence and distribution of landfill gas and the ambient air quality in the vicinity of the landfill. The landfill gas contained methane, carbon dioxide, and nitrogen in ratios consistent with those found in landfills of similar age. Methane was found to have migrated outside the landfill into the soil of bordering recreational areas north of Imjin Road. No bare areas or dead vegetation were found, however, that might indicate that methane was migrating to the surface and presenting a health or explosive hazard. Sampling in the air space immediately above the landfill detected 6 ppm total organic compounds.

Toxic Air Emissions Inventory, Headquatiers 7th Infan~ Division and Foti Oral. The Toxic Air Emissions Invento~, dated 23 August 1993, included emission rates from various sources around the installation for 1993 based on 1991 and 1992 rates. This summary quantified emissions from natural gas-fired boilers, paint booths, and gasoline storage and transfer stations.

The emission levels from 1994 were significantly lower than those reported in 1990. The use of chemicals has essentially been eliminated as a result of base closure. Only a limited number of facilities remain operational within the POM Annex boundaries. The 1995 emission rates are also anticipated to be low.

Site 3- Beach Z%ing Ranges. During the summer of 1993, high-volume ambient air monitoring for particulate was conducted in three locations in the eastern (downwind) side of Site 3. The monitoring was conducted to address the concern for the possible presence of heavy metals related to expended munitions (bullets) in the target area. The samples with the greatest mass of particulate were analyzed for lead, copper, zinc, and antimony. Analytical results were issued in 1994.

The POM Annex currently has 45 permitted air emission sources. Sources include boilers and heaters, fuel dispensing facilities, generators, painting operations, and an incinerator. Not all of these sources are currently operated. Active sources are operated in accordance with Monterey Bay Unified Air Quality Control District, state, federal, and U.S. Army requirements.

3.3 Status of Natural and Cultural Resources Programs

This section describes the current status of the natural and cultural resource program established at Fort Ord including identification and management of vegetation, wildlife, wetlands, and other preservation areas; rare, threatened and endangered species; and cultural resources.

W5.S3 Fort Oral, California - Decenzber 1995 Page 3-38 Natural and cultqral resources at Fort Ord are managed in accordance with AR 420-74 and 420- 40, DOD Directive 4700.4 and 4710.1, and applicable federal and state regulations and statutes. Fort Ord has complied with all applicable natural and cultural resources requirements. Fort Ord has a natural/cultural resources management plan, which is administered by the Cultural and Natural Resources Division of the Environmental and Natural Resources Directorate of POM Annex. The Directorate provides an overall approach for the ensuring that the regulations and statutes are met.

3.3.1 Veget&”on

There have been approximately 450 plant taxa identified at Fort Oral. A Basewide Biological Inventory completed in 1992 to support the Basewide RI/FS identified the following vegetation communities: vegetatively stabilized dune, coastal strand, dune scrub, central maritime chapamal, central coastal scrub, coast live oak woodlands, live oak savama, northern foredune grassland, landscaped valley needlegrass grassland, vernal pool, upland ruderal, and wet ruderal communities.

The dune communities occur adjacent to Monterey Bay, west of Pacific Coast Highway 1. The vegetation that characterizes dune habitats is adapted to the harsh environmental conditions resulting from salt spray, strong winds, shifting sands, and low soil moisture. Special status flora found in the dune community include: Monterey sand gilia (Gilia tenuif!ora arenaria), Monterey spineflower (Chorizanthe pungens pungens), coast wallflower (EVsimu~ ammophilum), and Eastwood’s ericameria (Ericameria fasciculata).

Coastal strand occurs where small patches of dune vegetation are dominated by native plants. Areas of stabilized dunes are also dominated by native plants. This native coastal strand habitat supports coast buckwheat (Eriogonum latifolium) and seacliff buckwheat (~. parvifolium) which is the host plant for the Smith’s blue butterfly. Non-native African ice plant (Meseinbyanthemum edule L., M. chilense) frequently occurs in thk community, degrading its biological value and threatening its existence.

Central maritime chaparral is the most extensive natural community at Fort Ord occupying approximately 12,500 acres in the south-central portion of the installation. Chaparral communities are characterized by moderate to low-growing evergreen and drought-deciduous shrubs with scattered trees and patch herbaceous cover. Chaparral is dominated by species that are adapted to fire and may require fire for successful regeneration.

Maritime chaparral supports several special status plant species. These include: Toro manzanita (Arctostaphylos monterqensis), sandmat manzanita (Arctostaphylospumila), Monterey ceanothus (Ceanothus rigidus), Monterey spineflower, Seaside bird’s beak (Cordylanthus rigidus littorals), Eastwood’s ericameria, coast wallflower, Monterey sand gilia, common wedge-leaf horkelia (Horkelia cuneata sericea) and Yadon’s piperia (Piperia yadoni).

Oak woodlands are widespread at Fort Ord and occupy about 500 acres. The coastal live oak woodland community is dominated by an open to nearly closed canopy of coast live oak with occasional Monterey pine and Monterey cypress. The shrub layer in these woodlands includes

W5.S3 Fort Oral, Cal#omia - December 1995 Page 3-39 / .- Califomia sage, black sage, poison-oak, and coyote brush. The inland coast live oak woodland occurs beyond the influence of strong coastal winds and salt spray on better soils. The oak trees grow tall and stately rather than low and wind pruned as in coastal areas.

Three types of perennial grasslands exist at Fort Oral: valley needlegrass grassland, landscaped, and northern foredune grassland. These grasslands, located primarily in the southwest and northern portions of the installation, occupy approximately 4,500 acres.

Riparian communities occur on the banks of creeks and drainages that seasonally flood and provide a perennial high water table. Riparian habitats at Fort Ord are mixed riparian forests supporting a varie~ of tree species and a dense understory of amual grasses. Riparian corridors are important wildlife habitats because they support a high diversity of wildlife species and provide movement corridors between different communities.

3.3.2 Wildlife

Over 260 vertebrates have been identified to exist or potentially exist at Fort Oral, as documented in the Fort Ord Basewide Biological Invento~ (USACE, 1992).

Special status faum that exist in the dune community include: Smith’s blue butterfly (Euphilotes enoptes wnithi), westernsnowy plover (Charadrius akxandtinus), California black legless lizard .+. (Anniella pulchra nigra), and loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus). The greatest diversity of wildlife species occurs in chaparral communities. Special status wildlife species known to occur include: California black legless lizard, Monterey dusky footed woodrat (Neoto~fiscipes luciana), coast horned lizard (Phiynosoma coronatum), golden eagle (Aquila ch~saetos) and loggerhead shrike.

Special status wildlife species occurring in the inland coast live oak woodland community include: dusky-footed woodrat, American badger, Monterey ornate shrew (Sorex ornatus salarius), Cooper’s hawk (Accipiier cooperl], and yellow warbler (Dendroica petechia).

Special status wildlife species occurring in the grassland community are: American badger, California horned lark (Eremophilia alpesttis actia), golden eagle, northern harrier (Circus cyaneus), loggerhead shrike, tricolored blackbird (Agelaim iricolor), prairie falcon and burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia).

Special status wildlife species occurring in the wetland community are: Monterey ornate shrew (Somx ornatus salarius), sharp-shinned hawk (Accipiter striatus), Cooper’s hawk, Northern harrier, yellow warbler, tricolored blackbird, California tiger salamander (Ambystoma tigrinum callfomiense), California red-legged frog (Rana aurora draytoni), Southwestern pond turtle (Clemmys murmorata pallida), and California linderiella (Lindetiella occidentals).

Monterey Bay, adjacent to Fort Oral, contains five types of marine habitat: submarine canyon, near-shore sublittoral, rocky intertidal, sandy beach intertidal, and kelp forest. Only two of these habitats, sandy beach intertidal and near-shore sublittoral, are within the Fort Ord

W45.S3 Fort Oral, California - December 1995 Page 3-40 restricted firing range that extends 8,500 feet off shore. Monterey Bay supports a wide array ‘ of temperate cold-water organisms, with occasional influxes of warm-water species. There are more species of marine algae in the area than anywhere else in the temperate northern hemisphere; the richness of invertebrate species also rivals that of any marine environment of similar size. In addition, 26 species of marine mammals and 94 species of seabirds have been observed in Monterey Bay and the surrounding area. Monterey Bay has a large, economically important fishing industry, and surf fishing along the Fort Ord coastline is rated as excellent.

3.3.3 Wetlands

At Fort Oral, wetlands are widespread and associated with both mtural and artificial features. Remnant wetlands occur in the foredune along Highway 1 in the central dune scrub community. Numerous seasonal wetlands occur throughout the central maritime chaparral community within the inland firing range area, at Pete’s Pond in the Main Garrison, and in grasslands near Machine Gun Flats and northeast of the Laguna Seca Recreation Area. Wetlands occur in and adjacent to the Salinas River and Toro Creek on alluvial terraces. Several reservoirs have been constructed throughout the installation (e.g., Mudhen Lake south of the East Garrison, and within Pilarcitos and Barley canyons in the southeast portion of the installation). Wetlands have also developed within percolation ponds, sludge beds, and evaporation ponds at sewage treatment plants at Fort Ord (i.e., Main Garrison, Ord Village, East Garrison, FAAF).

Wetlands at Fort Ord support plant communities that are highly variable in structure and composition. Characteristic plants in seasonal wetlands include rabbitsfoot grass (Polypogon monspeliensis), perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne), and swamp knotweed (Polygonum coccineum); ponds and reservoirs support cattail (Typha angustifolia) and bulrush (Scirpus caltfornicus); alluvial terraces support willow (Salix spp.) and Fremont cottonwood. In addition to providing habitat for resident invertebrates and amphibians, wetlands at Fort Ord attract animals from surrounding upland habitats, local shorebirds, and migratory waterfowl.

Approximately 64 acres of vernal pools and ponds exist throughout Fort Oral. Vernal pools are internally drained basins in low-lying grassland areas that collect rainfall and surface runoff. Water accumulates in these depressions because of an impervious soil layer that prevents infiltration of water into the soil profile. The frequency and duration of this seasonal inundation varies among vernal pools, depending on the size of the basin and its watershed, soil depth to the impervious layer, and patterns of rainfall. Vernal pools provide habitat for many special-status species, which are adapted to complete their life cycles under the extreme conditions of winter and spring inundation and summer and fall desiccation.

3.3.4 Designated Preservation Areas

One sensitive habitat at Fort Ord is located along approximately 4 miles of beach frontage adjacent to the Monterey Bay and has been designated as National Marine Sanctuary. The habitat consists of coastal strand and dune communities. The vegetation that characterizes dune habitats is adapted to the harsh environmental conditions resulting from salt spray, strong winds, shifting sand, and low soil moisture. This habitat is vulnerable to invasion of non-native species, which compete with the native vegetation. The dunes are habitat for the following

0445.s3 Fort Oral, California - Decenzber 1995 Page 3-41 .. ~,, special-status species: the Smith’s blue butterfly, Monterey and robust spineflowers, Monterey sand gilia, coast wallflower, and the California black legless lizard.

3.3.5 Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species

There are 23 special status animal species and 22 special status plant species at Fort Oral.

Special status is defined as either being federally listed as threatened, endangered, candidate or proposed threatened and endangered. Other special status categories are California State listed species and plants, which are included on the California Native Plant Society’s List. Fort Ord has three federally endangered species, the Smith’s blue butterfly, the Monterey sand gilia, and the robust spineflower. Fort Ord also has two federally threatened species, the Monterey spineflower and the western snowy plover. Fort Ord is also home to one state-endangered plant called the Seaside bird’s beak. Special statusflora and fauna are described in more detail in Sections 3.3.1 and 3.3.2.

“z ;.,. Or 5 May 1993, to support the Disposal and Reuse EIS, the U.S. Army submitted a Biological ‘““’<”Assessmentto the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) that outlined the impacts on threatened and endangered species resulting from Fort Ord installation closure and reuse. The Bfilogical Assessment recommended that the U.S. Army could provide open spaces for development and at the same time protect special statusspecies. This would be accomplished by setting aside large contiguous and highly diverse parcels of habitat rather than numerous smaller parcels, which would be less beneficial to special status species.

,. On 19 October 1993, Fort Ord received a Final Biological Opinion from the USFWS. The Biological Opinion for the Disposal and Reuse of Fort Ord resulted from “Formal Consultation” under the authority of Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. The Opinion requires the U.S. Army to develop and implement a HMP, which would comply with the Terms and Conditions in the Opinion. The goal of the HMP is to promote preservation, enhancement, and restoration of habitat and populations of HMP species while allowing implementation of a community based reuse plan that promotes economic recovery after closure of Fort Oral.

The Multispecies HMP was signed by the Army and the USFWS in February 1994. IRP and other cleanup projects that involve disturbing sensitive habitats outside proposed development areas are now required to implement HMP mitigation measures designed to minimize the impacts to sensitive species and habitats.

As required by the HMP, there are several projects ongoing at Fort Oral:

F Implementation of a cooperative agreement to. allow State Parks to complete habitat restoration on dunes and other sites.

F Completion of vernal pool inventories.

F Training contractors in recognition of endangered species.

b Participation in predator control program to protect the endangered snowy plover.

0445.s3 Fort Oral, California - December 1995 Page 3-42 3.3.6 Cultural Resources

All federal agencies, including the U.S. Army, must investigate their properties to determine whether those properties may be eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places. “Eligibility” alone qualifies the prope~ for full historic status. Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (as amended in 1980) requires federal agencies to allow the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation to comment on any undertaking that may affect those resources eligible for the National Register. The conveyance of an eligible historic property without restrictions would be an “undertaking” leaving an adverse effect.

There are two Programmatic Agreements in place with regard to Fort Oral’s cultural resources. Both agreements involve the U.S. Army, the California SHPO, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. The first Programmatic Agreement outlines the steps that the U.S. Army would take to determine which studies would be performed for property disposal. The second agreement outlined steps the U.S. Army would take to safeguard cultural resources during environmental cleanup.

The U.S. Army Construction Engineering Research Laboratory and the SHPO developed an Archaeological Resources Survey of Fort Oral. Potentially significant sites and sites that are National Register eligible were identified. These sites include the East Garrison Building District and $tilwell Hall. The archaeological survey focused only on property that was being transferred to non-federal agencies (i.e., property that will be transferred to the BLM has not been surveyed).

3.4 Environmental Condition of Property

In October 1992, Public Law 102-426, the CERFA amended Section 120(h) of the CERCLA and established new requirements with respect to contamination assessment, cleanup, and regulatory agency notif~cationlconcurrence for federal facility closures. CERFA requires the federal government, before termination of federal activities orI real property owned, to identi~ property where no hazardous substances were stored, released, or disposed of. The appropriate regulatory agency (USEPA on NPL bases and the state on non-NPL bases) must concur with the designation. These requirements retroactively affect the U.S. Army BRAC 88 and BRAC 91 environmental restoration activities, and are being implemented at BRAC 93 sites concurrently with their EnPAs. The primary CERFA objective is for federal agencies to expeditiously identify real property offering the greatest opportunity for immediate reuse and redevelopment. Although CERFA does not mandate the U.S. Army transfer of real property so identified, the first step in satisfying the objective is to identify real property where no CERCLA-regulated hazardous substances or petroleum products were stored, released, or disposed.

An investigation to identify the environmental condition of property in compliance with CERFA has been completed for Fort O’rd. CERFA investigations included the following assessment procedures:

F Review of historical installation records; E Review of existing investigation documents;

(2445s3 Forc Oral, California - December 1995 Page 3-43 b Review of federal, state, and local records; F Interviews with current and past installation employees; and b A visual site inspection of the installation.

During the CERFA investigation process, evidence was gathered that screened installation property into four categories, or parcel types. These categories are CERFA Parcels, CERFA Parcels with Qualifiers, CERFA Disqualified Parcels, and CERFA Excluded Parcels as defined below.

The final CERFA report for Fort Ord was issued in March 1994. An environmental condition of property map provided as Figures 3-2A through 3-2J identifies property at the installation based on these four parcel categories as defined at the time of the investigation. The parcels are delineated using a l-acre square grid for boundary definition. Where CERFA Disqualified Parcels and CERFA Parcels with Qualifiers have coincided, the overlapped area has been designated CERFA disqualified. It should be noted, the CERFA investigation and associated mapping represent a snapshot-in-time. The basewide RUFS was not finalized and the installation had not yet closed at the time the CERFA Report was completed. Areas of contamination may have been redefined since the CERFA investigation. Many of the hazardous substances and waste storage areas identified during the CERFA investigation are no longer in operation.

The CERFA investigation included the entire 28,000 acres of Fort Oral. The regulators concurred with 47 percent (13,122 acres) of the CERFA assessment. The reason that USEPA did not concur 100 percent is because the USEPA considered the potential for UXO as a reason to disqualify property.

3.4.1 CEREA Parcels

CERFA Parcels are those portions of the installation real property for which investigation reveals no evidence of storage for 1 year or more, release, or disposal of CERCLA hazardous substances, petroleum, or petroleum derivatives and no evidence of being threatened by migration of such substances. CERFA Parcels also include any portion of the installation that once contained safety-related hazards, including asbestos, UXO, lead-based paint, and radionuclides, but has since been fully remediated.

3.4.2 CE~A Parcels with Qualifiers

CERFA Parcels with Qualifiers are those portions of the installation real property for which investigation reveals no evidence of storage for 1 year or more, release, or disposal of CERCLA hazardous substances, petroleum, or petroleum derivatives and no evidence of being threatened by migration of such substances. Parcels with Qualifiers do, however, contain safety- related hazards that may affect disposal and reuse such as the presence of asbestos, UXO, lead-based paint, radionuclides, radon, or stored (not in use) PCB-containing equipment.

cW45.s3 Fort Oral, California - December 1995 Page 3-44 This page intentionally left blank.

tki45.APX Fort Oral, California - December 1995 .,+”.--== ,+

Et7vironmet-ttal —— Installation Boundary Condition of Property n CERFA Parcel 4 .*” n CERFA Parcel with Qualifier(s) \ CERFA Disqualified Parcel Fr cot+’ ,’/,~,.,’.~.,’,. n,.,.,, , CERFA Excluded Parcel m 8 ., 0 65o 1300 w - Figure .3–24. Section X

Fort Ord, California – December 1995 Page 345 This page intentionally left blank.

0445.s3 Fort Oral, California - December 1995 Page 3-46 W%.&t&m,,!,,,,:. !...,

““’<,

,.

\,\ (,

“i..

k. %.

EXPLANATION Environmental — —— Installation Boundau Condition of Property I I CERFA Parcel +.-w m CERFA Parcel with Qualifier(s) \ CERFA Disqualified Parcel

/,,.,,, ,,’ ;,.,’,.,.,,. ,. CERFA Excluded Parcel D

Locus Ma Section El’

Fort OTd, Culifomia – Decenaber 1995 Page 347 This page intentionally left blank.

04-45.s3 Fort Oral, California - December 1995 Page 3-48 ,+

u Wmm!mww -lw— EXPLANATION

——— Installation Boundary Condition of Property n CERFA Parcel n CERFA Parcel with Qualifier(s)

CERFA Disqualified Parcel E#- ~lH t ,.,,.,.,. 49 ~ 650 1300 c1,;:::/+;CERFA Excluded Parcel o FE~ R51Locus Ma Section t .,m- FoTt Oral, Cal$fomkia – December 1995 Page 349 ----.

This page intentionally left blank.

W5.S3 Fort Oral, California - December 1995 Page 3-50 0

EXPLANATION— En;/i~~~~r=~t~l —.— Installation Boundary Condition of. Proper-ty CERFA Parcel El !/@’ CERFA Parcel with Qualifier(s) n \

CERFA Disqualified Parcel .EF c 1“ + ,.,,,,7,,., , 4/3 ~ ., , ,,.. o 650 1300 ,,/ ,,,, ,, CERFA Excluded Parcel n FTdr5 3–2D FEET ElLocus Ma — Section $ -.— Fort Ord, California - De~ember 1995 Page 3-51 This page intentionally left blank.

C445,s3 Fort Oral, California - December 1995 Page 3-52 I I

EXPMNATION ,Enj;jronmentul . . . Installation Bounda~ Condition of Property 0 CERFA Parcel A’ n CERFA Parcel with Qucilifier(s) \ CERFA Disqualified Parcel ,.,,,,. cor’”+ ,:,.,,.,,,CERFA Excluded Parcel 4&, ~ n,,.’ .,,. o 650 1300 F?51 ~ Figure 3–2E Locus Ma Section f

,M”— —“” Fort Oral, Cal-ifomvia – December 1995 Page 3-53 This page intentionally left blank.

0445.s3 Fort Oral, California - December 1995 Page 3-54 .——.—.. .,:.,.”—...,,..4.,,,.,....M. m..h,..,,,t.k..,., ,L...... -..-..,...,---- ,—-=ti~k:::. ‘~.:.,

%.

EXPLANATION Er7vironmental Installation Boundaty [Condition of Property u CERFA Parcel D CERFA Parcel with Qualifier(s)

CERFA Disqualified Parcel

>>’.,’.“ ,.,,.,.,,.., CERFA Excluded Parcel o 650 1300 n ~ Figure 3–2F

Fort Oral, Califomvia - December 1995 Page 3-55 This page intentionally left blank.

W5S3 Fort Oral, California - December 1995 Page 3-56 ;. ,,

!mm!l EXPLANATION ~nvjronm~nta] Installation Boundary Condition of Property CERFA Parcel n ! .+’ c1 CERFA Parcel with Qualifier(s) \

CERFA Disqualified Parcel ,.,.,,,,. D,:’+,’,:’, CERFA Excluded Parcel o 650 1300 FEET Figure 3–2G

Fort Ord, California – December 1995 Page 3-57 This page intentionally left blank.

C445.S3 Fort Oral, California - December 1995 Page 3-58 ,-

Er viranmdrltal . .. . Installation Boundary Condition of Property CERFA Parcel \ .+’ CERFA Parcel with Qualifier(s) \ CERFA Disqualified Parcel Ep co .f + CERFA Excluded Parcel qe ~ o 650 1300 —— R51 - Figure 3–2H Locus Map Section H

Fort Oral, Cal-ifomviu – Decenaber 1995 Page 3-59 This page intentionally left blank.

0!45s3 Fort Oral, Cal@mia - December 1995 Page 3-60 Environmental Installation Bounda~ Condition Qf Property n CERFA Parcel n CERFA Parcel with Qualifier(s)

CERFA Disqualified Parcel Ep ,.,.,,. co & + 4& ~ ,,,,,,<*,..,,:,,,, CERFA Excluded Parcel o 650 1300 D ~ El Figure 3–21 Lccus hiOp Section A .. Fort Oral, Califom,ia – December j 995 ‘ Page 3-61 This page intentionally left blank.

- >,

0445.s3 Fort Oral, California - December 1995 Page 3-62 L

L 221

Environmental —.—— Installation Boundary Condition of Property CERFA Parcel i -N- CERFA Parcel with Qualifier(s) 1 CERFA Disqualified Parcel ,.,.,,. .fpr“ + ,<,.,,,;,CERFA Excluded Parcel k“~ o 3250 6500 ,’7<,, . cl - Figure 3–2J 1$!24Lwus Map

Fort Oral) California - December 1995 Page 3-63 This page intentionally left blank.

0445.s3 Fort Oral, California - December 1995 Page 3-64 ,---- 3.4.3 CERFA Disqualified Parcels

CERFA Disqualified Parcels are those portions of the installation real property for which there is evidence “ofa CERCLA hazardous substance, petroleum, or petroleum derivative storage for 1 year, release or disposal, or threatened by such release or disposal. CERFA Disqualified Parcels also include any portion of the installation containing a PCB release or disposal, any explosive ordnance disposal locations, any storage sites of chemical ordnance, and any areas in which CERCLA hazardous substances or petroleum products have been released or disposed and subsequently fully remediated.

3.4.4 CE~A Excluded Parcels

CERFA Excluded Parcels are those portions of the installation real property retained by the DOD, and therefore not explicitly investigated for CERFA. CERFA Excluded Parcels also include any portion of the installation that has already been transferred by deed to a party outside the federal government, or by transfer assembly to another federal agency.

3.4.5 Suitability of Installation Prope@v for Transfer by Deed

SARA Title I, Section 120 to CERCLA addresses the transfer of federal property on which any hazardous substance was stored during any 1 year period, or was released or disposed. Section 120 also requires any deed for the transfer of this federal prope~ to contain, to the extent such .,- inforrnation is available based on a complete search of agency files, the following information:

➤ A notice of the type and quantity of any hazardous substance storage, release, or disposal, F Notice of the time at which such storage, release, or disposal took place, F A description of what, if any, remedial action has occurred, and b A covenant warranting that appropriate remedial action will be taken.

The U.S. Army has begun the identification of property suitable for transfer under CERCLA through the CERFA identification process. Those properties, designated CERFA Parcels and CERFA Parcels with Qualifiers, have had no activities that could potentially preclude them from transfer under SARA Title I, Section 120 to CERCLA.

The U.S. Army is currently in the process of refining the classification of CERFA Disqualified Parcels to better identify those suitable for transfer under CERCLA. Through this refinement process, properties are being defined as one of the following seven categories:

F Category 1: Areas where no storage, release or disposal of hazardous substances or petroleum products has occurred (including no migration of these substances from adjacent areas).

F Category 2: Areas where only storage of hazardous substances or petroleum products has occurred (but no release, disposal, or migration from adjacent areas has occurred).

c4’i5.s3 Fort Oral, Cal#omia - December 1995 Page 3-65 F Category 3: Areas where storage, release, disposal, and/or migration of ‘ hazardous substances orpetroleum products has occurred, but at concentrations that do not require aremoval or remedial action.

k Category 4: Areas where storage, release, disposal, and/or migration of hazardous substances or petroleum products has occurred, and all remedial actions necessary to protect human health and the environment have been taken.

F Category 5: Areas where storage, release, disposal, and/or migration of hazardous substances or petroleum products has occurred, removal and/or remedial actions are under way, but all required remedial actions have not yet been taken.

F Category 6: Areas where storage, release, disposal, and/or migration of hazardous substances or petroleum products has occurred, but all required response actions have not yet been implemented.

k Category 7: Areas that are unevaluated or require additional evaluation.

Figure 3-3, which is provided in Appendix F, identifies property at Fort Ord based on the DOD seven parcel categorization. The property is currently classified as follows:

b Category 1- TBD b Category 2- TBD k Category 3- TBD F Catego~ 4- TBD F Catego~ 5- TBD k Category 6- TBD F Category 7- TBD.

Under SARA Title I, Section 120 to CERCLA, those parcels that are Category 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 (if the remedy in place has been approved by the Administrator), meet the CERCLA criteria of suitability for transfer. Category 6 and 7 properties that involve releases of hazardous substances as defined in CERCLA cannot be transferred under CERCLA until environmental restoration is initiated. The environmental categorization process is dynamic. The property suitable for transfer maps provided in Appendix F represent a snapshot in time. As environmental investigation and restoration at Fort Ord proceeds, the portions of the property classified in each category will change. The property suitable for transfer maps will be updated as necessary to reflect these changes.

3.5 Status of Community Involvement

The community reuse organization, FORA, sets priorities for property transfer. The Army accommodates the community’s plans wherever possible. In turn, the BRP was developed to accommodate the presence of various known NPL sites. Community relations activities that have taken place at Fort Ord to date are summarized below.

0445.s3 Fort Oral, California - December 1995 Page 3-66 NEPA Process. During thedevelopment oftiedisposal EIS, numerous public scoping meetings were held. Public comments were received by Fort Ord and were addressed in the final version of the EIS. A Supplemental EIS is currently being prepared to address the additioml property to be excessed after the POM Annex downsizing. This EIS is to be completed in the fall of 1995.

FFA Process. In November 1990, the U.S. Army, USEPA, Cal EPA, DTSC, and the California RWQCB (Central Coast Region) signed the FFA. Under this agreement, the U.S. Army is the lead agency for the Superfund cleanup process.

Community Relations Plan (CRP). A CRP was prepared and published in Draft Final form in September 1991. The purpose of the CRP was to establish procedures for disseminating accurate and timely information to the communi~ about the Superfund process, developing ongoing two-way communication with the community, encouraging community involvement, and monitoring and responding to community concerns. The CRP was based on information gathered through interviews with elected ofilcials, representatives of public agencies, and interested citizens to identify the most effective ways to communicate with the community. The CRP will be updated as necessary.

Information Repositories. Two public information repositories have been established for documents pertaining to the cleanup process at Fort Ord. These information repositories are located at:

Fort Ord Post Library Building 4275 North-South Road Fort Oral, California 94941-5777 Telephone (408) 242-3421

Seaside Branch Libra~ 550 Harcourt Avenue Seaside, California 93955 Telephone (408) 899-2055

Administrative Record. Administrative Records are being established for OU 1, OU 2, installation-wide sites, and interim actions in accordance with CERCLA requirements. Copies of the draft Administrative Record File indices are located at Fort Oral.

Technical Review Committee (TRC). The TRC at Fort Ord consists of members from the USACE Sacramento District, Foti Oral, USEPA, Cal EPA DTSC, Cal EPA RWQCB, Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District, California Coastal Commission, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, California Department of Fish and Game, USFWS, Monterey County Health Department, Monterey Regioml Water Pollution Control Agency,

0$45.s3 Fofl Oral, California - December 1995 Page 3-67 Monterey County Water Resources Agency, Monterey Peninsula Water Management District, and a community representative.

Restoration Advisory Board (~B). To encourage public involvement and to keep the public informed about Fort Oral’s environmental restoration program, a RAB has been formed to include 24 individuals; the RAB includes the BCT. The Military Co-Chair is Gail Youngblood, the BEC. The Community Co-chair is Hal Thompson. The first monthly RAB meeting was held in February 1994; the RAB has established a number of committees that meet between these monthly IL413meetings.

Mailing List. A mailing list of all interested parties in the community is maintained by Fort Ord and is updated regularly.

Information Papers. A number of information papers describing various aspects of the Fort Ord environmental program have been distributed to people on the mailing list. Several examples are as follows:

February 1993- The UST Management Program at Fort Ord Februa~ 1993- The Groundwater at Fort Ord March 1993- Fort Oral’s Hazardous Waste Management Program May 1993- Ordnance and Explosive Waste at Fort Oral.

Brochures. A number of brochures about Fort Oral’s environmental program were distributed at public meetings and at locations where the display boards (described below) were exhibited. Several examples are as follows:

September 1991- The U.S. Army’s Environmental Cleanup at Fort Ord July 1992 - A Fort Ord Success Story, The Fort Ord Soil Treatment System.

Newsletters. Newsletters were prepared quarterly and distributed to people on the mailing list.

Display Boards. Three large display boards describing the environmental programs and strategies at Fort Ord have been constructed and are setup around the community and at public meetings on a regular basis.

Public Meetings. Irtformatioml meetings on the status of the cleanup program at Fort Ord are held periodically to augment the monthly RAB meetings. Several examples are as follows:

14 June 1991 (Media Tour) 21 June 1991 (Media Tour) 12 July 1991 (Media Tour) 16, 17, 18, and 19 September 1991 (Public Meetings)

0445.s3 Fort Oral, Califonzia - December 1995 Page 3-68 .,,---- 21 September 1993 (Media Tour and Public Meeting).

F Proposed PlarI Hearings. Public meetings on Proposed Plans for various OUS or installation-wide programs have been held as follows:

October 1993 (OU 2- Landfills) 30 November 1993 (Interim Actions).

F Community Reuse Group. The Fort Ord Reuse Group was established in 1992 and evolved into the FORA. The FORA has developed a reuse plan as described in Section 2.1.

,..

/-”

044ss3 Fort Oral, Califonzia - December 1995 Page 3-69 This page intentionally left blank.

M45.S3 Fort Oral, Cal~omia - December 1995 Page 3-70

CHAPTER 4

F INSTALLATION-WIDE STRATEGY FOR ENVIRONMENTALRESTORATION <

This chapter describes the installation-wide environmental restoration and compliance strategy for Fort Oral.

Prior to the official announcement of installation closure pursuant to BIL4C 91, restoration projects were underway to identify, characterize, and remediate environmental contamination at Fort Oral. The restoration strategy implemented during this period focused on protection of human health and the environment at Fort Ord with consideration of the ongoing and continued use of the installation by the U.S. Army. With the closure announcement, the primary strategy for Fort Ord shifted from supporting an active U.S. Army mission to responding to disposal and reuse considerations.

The overall environmental restoration and compliance strategy for the Foti Ord is currently the responsibility of the Directorate of Environmental and Natural Resources of the POM. The USAC,E is providing support in areas including RI/FS, RD, RA, compliance program management, and natural and cultural resource management. Fort Oral’s BRAC strategy is designed to ensure that all regulatory requirements are met, and that adequate and cost-effective restoration activities are implemented as quickly as possible to provide for the expedited disposal and reuse of the Fort Ord in compliance with U, S. Army and community goals.

The installation-wide IRP at Fort Ord is being conducted in accordance with the FFA which was signed in July 1990, following the installation’s placement on the NPL in February 1990. The FFA outlines the CERCLA environmental restoration methodology, review and oversight responsibilities by regulatory agencies, and investigation and restoration schedules required for the installation.

The FFA schedule for Fort Ord was modified when the installation was placed on the BRAC list in 1991. In December 1991, legislation (Public Law 102-190, commonly known as the Panetta Legislation) was passed; this legislation required that RI/FSs at closing military facilities that are on the NPL be completed within 36 months of passage of the legislation. As a result, Fort Ord required an accelerated approach to the CERCLA process. This accelerated approach was originally outlined in an Acceleration Action Plan for Fort Ord (Action Plan, Environmental Restoration Acceleration, Fort Oral, California, dated 12 March 1993). The acceleration was incorporated into the approach to the basewide RI/FS and other HIP planning documents for Fort Oral.

The following sections describe various elements of the Fort Ord accelerated BRAC environmental restoration strategy including the designation of zones, sites, and OUS, categorization of sites, sequencing restoration activities, early action programs, the remedy

(?445.S4 Fort O@ California - December 1995 Page 4-1 selection approach process, and integrated environmental compliance planning. Schedules for the implementation of this strategy are described in Chapter 5.

4.1 Zone/OU Designation and Site Characterization Strategy

This section describes the various strategies used to group sites for the investigation and restoration processes.

4.1.1 Zone Designations

Zones may be used to define an installation’s investigative strategy. These zones may be defined based upon geographic location, common land use, common AOCS, etc. In 1991, the USACE conducted a literature review and site inventory to develop a comprehensive list of AOCS for the draft final installation-wide RI/FS. Twenty zones were designated on the basis of land use, both past and present. The zones were subsequently divided into the 41 sites and two OUS currently used in the Fort Ord CERCLA program.

4.1.2 OU Designatz”ons

OUS may be used to define an installation’s remedial strategy. They are derived from an evaluation of hydrogeologic and chemical analytical data within an investigative zone, or by comparing data between zones. OU types may be based on geographic area, common media (soil, groundwater, surface water, other), common treatment technology, priorities, or schedules. Properly defined, OUS establish a logical sequence of remediation that addresses contamination releases in a comprehensive fashion.

Two OUS were identified in the Fort Ord FFA: the FDA (OU 1) and Fort Ord Landfill (OU 2). These two AREEs were classified as OUS because they had begun the CERCLA process prior to the FFA, they were on their own environmental restoration track, and they would require distinct remedial actions which could be most easily be addressed in individual RODS.

4.1.3 Categorization of Sites for Basewide R1/FS

Forty-one sites at Fort Ord were addressed in the basewide RI/FS effort. After completion of the first phase of basewide R.UFSfield work, it was evident that the sites could be categorized by (1) whether a release was identified at a site and (2) the nature and extent of the release. Using initial site characterization information and existtig pre-RI/FS data, the 41 sites were categorized as: (1) No Action sites, (2) Interim Action sites, or (3) RI sites. These three categories are defined as follows:

➤ No Action Sites. No Action sites do not warrant remedial action under CERCLA.

F Interim Action Sites. Interim Action sites have limited volume and extent of contaminated soil and, as a rssult, are easily excavated as an interim action.

M45.S4 Fort O-d, California - December 1995 Page 4-2 F RI Sites. RI sites have sufficient contamination to warrant a frdl RI, baseline risk assessment, ecological risk assessment, and FS.

To accelerate the cleanup process, interim action and no action sites are supported by RODS. These RODS provide a process for accelerated cleanup of interim action sites and transfer of no action sites under BIL4C, rather than delaying cleanup or transfer actions until a basewide ROD for Fort Ord is signed.

Table 4-1 shows the relationship between the two Fort Ord OUS, the 41 Fort Ord sites, and the various reuse parcels which have been designated for the installation. The sites and OUS at Fort Ord are graphically shown in Figure 3-1 in Chapter 3.0 and Figure 3-3 in Appendix F of this BCP. The status of each of these OUS and sites is described in Section 3.2 of this BCP.

4.1.4 Remedy Selection Strategy

Environmental restoration remedies for releases of CERCLA hazardous substances at Fort Ord are being selected in accordance with statutory and NCP criteria as outlined in the FFA. The Fort Ord BCT involves the RWQCB, DTSC, USEPA, other state and federal agencies, and members of the public in the remedy selection process through the BCT process, Project Team meetings, and the RAB. The U.S. Army BEC holds Project Team meetings to discuss progress of DDs, RDs and RAs to ensure appropriateness of selected remedies with respect to reuse.

A strategy for the remedy selection process at Fort Ord has been developed which provides for the execution of individual CERCLA tracks for the two OUS and an innovative approach consisting of “plug-in” no action and interim action RODS and a basewide ROD to accelerate the restoration process for basewide RI/FS sites. The execution of time critical removal actions is also incorporated into this strategy.

Particular attention is given to the following during the evaluation of alternatives and the selection of remedies for the various sites at Fort Oral:

F Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs). Site-specific applicable requirements for anticipated RAs were identified throughout the RI/FS process for the OU 1, OU 2, and the basewide investigation. The effectiveness of alternatives in reducing concentrations of contaminants to chemical-specific ARARs were evaluated. Chemical-specific ARARs set health- or risk-based concentration limits or discharge limitations in various environmental media for specific hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants. Action-specific and location-specific ARARs were also identified and evaluated.

F Future Land Use/Risk Assessment. The reuse of any parcel of land defines the required level of remediation. Risk assessment exposure scenarios were developed during each RI, which were consistent with reuse of the installation as proposed in the comunity reuse plan.

0445.s4 Fort Oral, California - December 1995 Page 4-3 TABLE 4-1. RELATIONSHIP 13ETWEEN SITES, C)US,ANDREUSE PARCELS I

NPL Reshmation Sites Operable Unit Reuse Parcel

Site 1- Ord Village Sewage Treatment Plant -- 12a Site 2- Main Garrison Sewage Treatment Plant -- 13 Site 3- Beach Firing Ranges .- 12b Site 4- Beach Stormwater Outfalls -. 12b Site 5- Range 36A (Site 39) -- 25

Site 6-Range 39 (Car Dump; Site 39) .- 25 Site 7- Range 40 and 41 (Fire Demo Area; Site 39) -- 25

Site 8- Range 49 (MC Range; Site 39) -- 25

Site 9- Range 39 (FFE Training Area; Site 39) -- 25 Site 10- Burn Pit -- 16 Site 11- AAFES Fueling Station -- 20h Site 12- Lower Meadow, DOL Yard, Cannibalization -- 2b Yard Site 13- Railroad Right-of-Way -- 2b Site 14- 707th Maintenance Facility 8b Site 15 ~ DEH Yard 2f

Site 16- DOL/Maintenance Yard, Pete’s Pond 16 Site 17-1400 Elk MP -- 16 Site 18-1600 Block Motor Pool -- 2e Site 19-2200 Block Facility -- 2b Site 20- South Parade Grounds 3800, 519 Motor Pools -- 16 Site 21- 4400/4500 Motor Pool, East Block 16 Site 22- 4400/4500 Motor Pool, West Block -- 16 Site 23-3700 Motor Pool -- 16 Site 24- Old DEH Yard -- 16 Site 25- Former DRMO -- 2d Site 26- Sewage Pump Stations -— 2b Site 27- Army Resetwe Motor Pool -- 9b Site 28- Barracks and Main Garrison Area -- 2b Site 29- DRMO -- llb Site 30- Drive Training Area -- llb .+,’ Site 31- Former Dump Site -. llb

W5S4 Fort Oral, California - December 1995 Page 4-4 ,.-, TABLE ~-l. RELATIONS~ BETWEEN SITES, OUS., AND REUSE PARCELS Continued

NPL Restoration Sites. “ Operable Unit Reuse ‘Parcel

Site 32- East Garrison Sewage Treatment System -- llb Site 33- Golf Course -- 22 Site 34- FAAFFuelingFacility -- la Site35- AircraftCannibalizationYard -- 7b Site36- FAAFSewageTreatmentPlant -- 16 Site37- TrailerParkMaintenanceShop -- 20i Site38- AAFESDryCleaners .— 16 Site39- ImpactArea -- 25 .:. Site40- FAAFDefuelingAreas .. la Site41- CreseentBluffFire DrillArea -- 1lb FormerFire DrillArea Ou 1 8a Fort Ord Landfdls Ou 2 la

0445S4 Fort Oral, Califomiu - December 1995 Page 4-5 ,“ F Applicable Remedies. The OU 1, OU 2, and the basewide FSS identified and screened the feasibili~ of a variety of remedial technologies to address the potential risk to human health and the environment posed by the contamination present at Fort Oral. The FSS considered facto~s including cost, implernentability and treatment effectiveness. The most applicable alternatives are determined through the Proposed Plan process and are identified in the DD. This process is also applied in determining interim action site criteria and remedial design parameters.

OU 1 and OU 2. For the Fort Ord CERCLA OUS, the remedy selection included the sequential completion of an FS, Proposed Plan, and ROD. Each FS identified and screened a variety of remedial technologies feasible in addressing the potential risks to human health and the environment. The FS considered factors including cost, irnplementability, and treatment effectiveness. The FS also included a qualitative evaluation of the risks to on-site and off-site populations resulting from the implementation of each cleanup alternative.

Proposed Plans were prepared which identified the preferred remedial action for each OU. Fort Ord,+BCT and Project Team involved all parties who had an impact on the remedies selected at the installation in the remedy selection process. A public comment period was held for each Proposed Plan to solicit continued community input in the remedy selection process. Following the public comment period, RODS were prepared for each OU which identify the chosen remedial actions.

For OU 1, the FAAF FDA, the remedy selection process has been completed. An RUFS was completed for the OU in 1987. A pre-NPL ROD was also prepared for the OU in 1987. Remediation, consisting of excavation and biotreatment of TPH-contaminated soils and the installation of a groundwater extraction and treatment system has been implemented. Soil treatment was completed in August 1991; groundwater treatment is ongoing.

A remediation confirmation study has been conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of the remedial actions for OU 1. Based on the results of the study, a Proposed Plan was issued that consisted of no further action for soils and continued groundwater treatment. These selected alternatives were documented in a ROD which is currently undergoing review.

The remedy selection process has also been completed for OU 2, the Fort Ord Landfills. The RI/FS for the site has been completed. A Proposed Plan has been prepared and reviewed and selected remedies for the OU were documented in a ROD signed in July 1994. Remedies include interim groundwater remediation involving both aquifers below OU 2 and landfill capping. The groundwater treatment system began operation in early December 1995. Landfill capping will begin in 1996.

Interim Action Sites. The interim action ROD was signed in Febmary 1994. The interim action ROD defines criteria that a site must meet to qualify as an interim action site and describes an approval process for implementing the interim action. The primary criteria include ,, (1) the maximum depth of affected soil is 25 feet and (2) the volume of affected soil is limited

04$5.s4 Fort Oral, California - December 1995 Page 4-6 typically to between 500 and 5,000 cubic yards. The cleanup goals and approach for these sites are conservative and consistent with those presented for the OUS and RI sites.

For each proposed interim action site, the process begins with a site characterization investigation and report. The regulatory agencies review the report and approve it after their comments have been addressed. If the site meets the criteria, an interim action approval memorandum is submitted for regulatory agency approval. The public is notifi~ that an approval memorandum has been submitted. If the approval memorandum is accepted, public notice of the proposed action is provided two weeks before work is started. The interim action is then implemented and a Confirmation Report is prepared. If the report is approved, the site is included in the interim action ROD process. If the confirmation report is not approved, it may be resubmitted after additional action is taken to address agency concerns. If it is determined that the contamination is too extensive to be remediated under the interim action ROD, the site is transferred to the RI category. An RI/FS report is then prepared for the site and it will be included in the basewide ROD.

Soil excavated during cleanup is taken to the FOSTA located at the 519th Motor Pool. The FOSTA serves several purposes:

F As an area to store excavated interim action soil pending waste classification as well as for storage of soil until sufficient quantities are obtained for treatment or recycling.

F As a treatment area for nonhazardous soil containing petroleum hydrocarbons and solvents.

No Action Sites. The no action ROD was signed in November 1995. The ROD defined the criteria that a site must meet to qualify as a no action site and described the approval process. No action sites at Fort Ord are either:

k Category 1 Sites. Already in a protective state and pose no current or potential threat to human health or the environment.

F Category 2 Sites. Where CERCLA does not provide authority to take any remedial action (e.g., POL remedies). These sites may be regulated by state or local agencies and follow their requirements. Source-specific actions for POL are being addressed under the state UST program as POL releases at Fort Ord have occurred mostly as a result of leaking USTS.

The criteria and approach for these sites are conservative and consistent with those presented for the OUS and RI sites. For each proposed no action site, the evaluation process begins with a site characterization investigation and report. The regulatory agencies review the report and approve it after their comments have been addressed. If the site meets the criteria, a no action approval memorandum is submitted for public comment and regulatory agency approval. If the approval memorandum is approved, the site is included in the no action ROD process. If

0445.s4 Fort Oral, California - December 1995 Page 4-7 approval is not granted, the site is transferred to the interim action category and follows the flowpath to an interim action ROD.

RI Sites. Once it is determined that the site does not meet the criteria for either the no action or interim action RODS, the site is categorized as an RI site. For each proposed RI site, the process begins with a site characterization investigation and report. Then a complete RI, baseline risk assessment, ecological risk assessment, and FS are prepared for each RI site. Results of these studies are discussed in the basewide RI/FS completed in November 1995. Upon approval of the RI/FS, a proposed plan will be prepared for each site. Public comments will be collected during a public meeting and a 30-day review period of each site. These sites will then be included in a basewide ROD. The basewide ROD will incorporate the existing no action and interim action RODS. The basewide ROD is anticipated to be completed in the summer of 1996.

Time-Critical Removal Actions. Time-critical removal actions are initiated when a site presents a threat to human health or the environment. For these sites, an action memorandum is submitted to the regulato~ agencies. Upon approval of the action, the public is notified of the proposed action. The proposed action is then implemented and a Removal Action Report is prepared. If it is determined that no additioml action is necessary, the site then follows the no action process. If additional action is necessary, the site follows the interim action process. If the site does not meet the criteria for interim action, it could become an RI site. Currently planned early actions at Fort Ord including interim removal actions and time-critical removal actions are listed in Table 4-2.

Figure 4-1 graphically portrays the CERCLA process being employed for the two OUS and 41 sites at Fort Oral.

4.1.5 Sequence of OUs/Sites

The sequencing strategy for the two OUS and 41 sites at Fort Ord is based on a logical order of events including the designation of no action sites, the completion of early actions including time-critical removals, interim action removals, and comprehensive actions selected via OU- specific RODS or the basewide ROD. This sequencing strategy is intended to expedite cleanup activity in order to make Fort Ord property available for transfer as soon as possible. The IRP and related sequencing strategy for Fort Ord has resulted in the following order of cleanup actions:

1. Remediation of OU 1 began in 1988 when the groundwater extraction and treatment system began operation and soils were biotreated as interim actions; groundwater treatment is continuing.

2. A groundwater extraction and treatment early action to control the underlying groundwater plume at RI Sites 2 and 12 has been completed.

0445.s4 Fort Oral, California - December 1995 Page 4-8 >.

TABLE 4-2. ENWRONMIZNTALllESTORATION PL-D &iRLY ACTIONS

I Oume N). Action Objective . . Comments

Site 6 Soil excavation Contaminantremoval Onhold; approval memorandumsubmittedto regulatory agencieson 11April 1995;USEPAcommentshave been received. Site 23 Soil excavation Contaminantremoval On hold; drail site characterization and investigation report completedin October 1994; draft futal report not yet issued.

Site 24 Soil excavation Contaminantremoval On hold; draft site characterization and investigation report completedin April 1995;draft final report not yet issued. FSite 40 and 41 Soil excavation Contaminantremoval On hold; draft site characterization and investigation reportscompletedin June 1995;drafi final report not yet L issued.

C445.S4 Fort Oral, California - December 1995 Page 4-9 This page intentionally left blank.

0445s4 Fort Oral, California - December 1995 Page 4-10 ./- s

!2

Cn y ~~ + gsw+

—------..7- i L . . . ..——------i .*... , -...,,

OJ 1-05 This page intentionally left blank.

0445.s4 Fort Oral, California - December 1995 Page 4-12 ,,--- 3. Ten sites underwent interim removal actions in accordance with the interim action ROD between September 1994 and July 1995; eight have undergone confirmatory sampling and are determined to be clean; two require further remediation; removal actions have not yet been conducted at five proposed interim action sites.

4. Of 18 proposed no action sites being addressed under the no action ROD, 8 have undergone public and regulatory agency review, final notice is pending; 2 have been transferred to non-CERCLA restoration programs (i.e., UST program); regulatory agency comments on the approval memorandum are pending for one site and the site characterization report is in progress for 7 sites; one site, Site 33 may require interim action depending on future use determination.

5. The ROD for OU 2 was signed in August 1994. Groundwater treatment remediation began in December 1995.

6. Restoration for eight sites will be initiated following the completion of the basewide ROD which is anticipated to be finalized in the summer of 1996.

Whenever possible, the cleanup sequence for OUS and sites at Fort Ord is developed with consideration of the reuse priority for the area as presented in the BRP. In some cases, timeframes for required remedial actions do not correspond with reuse priorities. The Fort Ord BCT and Project Team are working with FORA and the community to apprise them of these conflicts and develop means to resolve these conflicts if possible. Conflict resolution may include the institution of deed or lease restrictions or other means to transfer or lease the property prior to the completion of all remedial actions.

Table 4-3 provides the environmental risk, reuse priority, and cleanup sequence for each site. The cleanup sequence is designated as follows:

o = No Action Site 1 = Remedial Actions Completed 2 = Remedial Actions Underway (Interim or Final) 3 = Interim Remedial Actions Planned 4 = Site to be Remediated Following Basewide ROD

4.2 Compliance Strategy

This section describes the strategies for addressing compliance-related environmental issues at ‘Fort Ord prior to property transfer. These environmental compliance strategies have been developed to ensure that installations are compliant with federal and state regulatory programs, DOD, U.S. Army regulations, BRAC, and other directives and throughout the BRAC process.

4.2.1 Storage Tanks

The compliance strategy for USTS and ASTS is described below.

CM45.SA Fort Oral, California - December 1995 Page 4-13 TABLE 4-3. CLEANUP SEQUENCE

Reuse Parcel site EuvhmasrcsstalFUsw ReusePriority CleanupSequence

12a Site 1- Ord Village Sewage Treatment Plwu 1 2 0

13 Site 2- Main Garrison Sewage Treaunent Plant 3 1 2

12b Site 3- Beach Firing Ranges 6 2 4

12b Site 4- Beach Stormwater Outfalls 1 2 0

25 Site 5- Range 36A (Site 39) 4, 5 2 4

25 Site 6- Range 39 (Car Dump; Site 39) 2 2 3

25 We 7- Range 40 and 41 (Fire Demo Area: Site 1 2 0 39)

25 Site 8- Range 49 (MC Rarrgq Sim 39) 2 2 1

25 Site 9- Range 39 (FFE Training Area; Site 39) 4, 5 2 4

16 Site 10- Burn Pit 2 2 1

20h Site 11- AAFF.S Fueling Station 1 2 0

2b site 12- Lower Meadow, DOL Yard, 3, 4 1 2 Cannibalization Yard

2b Site 13- Railroad Right-of-Way 1 1 0

8b Site 14- 707th Maintenance Facility 2 1 I

2f Sirt 15- DEH Yard 2 1 1

16 Site 16/1 7- DOL Maintenance yard, pctc’s poml 4, 5 1 4

17 Site 17- 14(h3Blk MP 4, 5 1 4

2e Site 18-1600 Block Motor Pool I 1 0

2b Site 19-2200 Block Facility 1 2 0

16 Site 20- Souti Parade Grounds, 3800 Block 2 1 1 Motor Pool, 5 19rh Motor Pool

16 site 21- 4400/4500 Blocks Motor Pool, East 2 2 1

16 she 22- 44~/4500 Blocks Motor Pool, West 2 1 2(2)

16 Site 23- 37Ca3 Block MolOr pOOI 2 1 3

16 Site 24- Old DEH Yard 2 1 3

2d Site 25- Former DRMO 1 2 0

2b Site 26- SewagePump Srations 1 2 0

9b Site 27- Army Reserve Motor Pool I 2 0

2b Site 2S - Barracks and Main Garri~n Area 1 1 0

Ilb Site 29- DRMO I 1 0

llb Site 30. Drive Training Area 2 1 1

Ilb Site 31- Former Dump Site 3.6 1 4

llb Site 32- East Garrison Sewage Trea~cm piam 1 1 0

22 Site 33. Golf Course 1 1 0

la Site 34- FAAF Fueling Facility 2 1 y)

7b Site 35- Aircraft Cannibalization Yard 1 1 0

CM45.S4 Fort Oral, Califonzia - December 1995 Page 4-14 ,,---,. I TABLE 4-3. CLEm SEQUENCE I Continued

Reuss” Earcel WC Eawirmrmerstallli$k(~’ Reuse F%orkty Cleanup Sequence

16 Site 36- FAAFSewageTreatmentPlnn[ 1 1 0

20i Site37- TrailerPark MaintenanceShop 1 1 0

16 Site 38- AAFES Dry Cleaners 1 1 0

25 Si[c 39- Inland Ranges/Impact Area 4, 5 1 3[3)

la Site 40- FAAF Defueling Areas 2 1 3

Ilk! Site 41- Crescent Bluff Fire Drill Areas 2 1 3

8a OU 1- FAAF Fire Drill Area 5 1 2,

la OU 2- bndfdls 5 1 2

(l)~~k: 1 . Risk was not calculated; site not considered a current or potential threat . 2 Risk was not ealculatrxl; interim action is planrtal . 3 Cancer risk estimate is withht or below the USEPAthresholdriskrangeof 10*to 104 . 4 ~titnatd blood-leadlevelsare below the USEPAthreshold blood-lead level . 5 Cmrcerriskestimateexcccxlsor is within the USEPAthresholdrisk rangeof 10

IZ)[n[erfiremoval~ctioncompleted,veriticadonsampling indicates funtter actiOn requir~.

I?jsi[t 39A is cleanup sequence 3, Site 39 is cleanLIP sequence 4.

0445.s4 Fort Oral, California - December 1995 Page 4-15 4.2.1.1 USTS. The UST management program activities will continue at numerous sites. ~‘- These activities include tank closures and removals, initial site characterizations, remedial design, and remedial actions. All USTS, including those located within NPL sites, will be removed and/or remediated under the UST Management Program. Of the remaining USTS, approximately 77 have been identified recently for removal due to installation closure. Planned activities include:

F Removal of all remaining USTS beginning with those located in priority parcels.

F Characterization studies at sites where contamination is found. Site characterizations have been completed at 20 contaminated UST sites.

● Remediation of USTS sites and no action sites which exhibit petroleum contamination. These sites will be remediated via the CAP process outlined in California State Water Quality Board Guidance Article 11, Corrective Action Requirements, Amendment to Chapter 16 UST Regulations, Title 23, Waters, of the California Code of Regulations.

k Official closure from Monterey County Health Department for UST sites after removal and remediation.

F USTS associated with water wells, sewage lifts, or emergency facilities and USTS ,,- in areas to be retained by Fort Ord will be removed and replaced with double- walled tanks or ASTS.

4.2.1.2 ASKS. The strategy for ASTS with respect to property transfer will be determined on a case-by-case basis. Tanks which are determined to be excess to U.S. Army, new property owner or tenant needs will be removed. Restoration of AST sites will be completed as necessary, following the California CAP process. Active ASTS will be managed in accordance with federal, state, and U.S. Army regulations and the Fort Ord SPCC Plan.

4.2.2 Hazardous Substances Management

Hazardous substances at Fort Ord will continue to be managed in compliance with federal requirements outlined in the SARA Title 111and SPCC requirements in 40 CFR 110 and 112, California regulations, AR 200-1 and other applicable federal, state, and local regulations.

As activities at the installation diminish, the quantities of hazardous substances used by the U.S. Army component at Fort Ord will diminish. Spill response coordination with local emergency response agencies and all other hazardous substance management practices will continue.

4.2.3 Hazardous Waste Management

Fort Oral’s present program for hazardous waste management will continue as long as the U.S. Army retains the proper&y. This will include compliance with the ISCP, Installation Hazardous Waste Management Plan, and the SPCC Plan. All hazardous waste storage areas will be closed

0445.s4 ForI Oral, California - December 1995 Page 4-16 ,- prior to property transfer as described in Section 4.2.8. The U.S. Army will establish a centralized new temporary storage area for hazardous waste in the POM Annex.

4.2.4 Solid Waste Management

Solid waste generated by the U.S. Army and tenants at Fort Ord will continue to be transported to a permitted, local landfill for disposal.

4.2.5 Polychlorinated Biphenyls

All transformers with greater than 50 pprn PCBShave been replaced with non-PCB transformers. Transformers with PCB levels less than the TSCA level of 50 ppm are replaced as necessary.

In accordance with the U.S. Army memorandum dated 25 August 1982, all PCB transformers and PCB-filled electromagnets at Fort Ord are inspected on a weekly, quarterly, and annual basis as required by USEPA Rule on PCBS 40 CFR Parts 761, 761.120, and 268. These inspections will continue as long as the U.S. Army maintains ownership of the property.

4.2.6 Asbestos

The purpose of the asbestos management program at Fort Ord is to identify ACM in U.S. Army-controlled buildings, evaluate the friability, condition, and potential for damage, and implement appropriate response actions based upon the findings. Fort Ord will continue this management program as long as the U.S. Army maintains ownership of the property.

A summary report of the surveys conducted in 1994 for excess housing units was completed in February 1995. It will be made available to the recipients of the property.

4.2.7 Radon

Radon testing results indicate levels of radon in Fort Ord buildings are below action levels. No further action is required.

4.2.8 RCRA Facilities

A study was conducted by USAEHA to assist Fort Ord in complying with state and federal regulations and to identify units that may require environmental sampling and/or remedial action. The report recommended the following actions to aid in compliance:

b Inclusion of the USAEHA report with the RCRA Part B permit renewal application for review by the state and USEPA Region IX

b Coordination with state and USEPA Region IX for visual site inspections of the identified sites

Md5.s4 Fort Oral, California - December 1995 Page 4-17 b Completion of environmental sampling at seven SWMUS: FTO -001,-002,-010, -014, -025, -026, and -041

F Completion of closure process for abandoned landfills in accordance with state and federal regulations

F Consolidation of all hazardous waste at numerous motor pools in temporary storage areas.

Other planned activities include:

b Investigation of selected SWMUS under the NPL Program

F Removal of hazardous materials as motor pools and other SWMUS are closed

E Preparation of an “RFA Type Report” to obtain closure of SWMUS that have not been investigated under the NPL Program.

The RCIL4 Part B permit will require formal RCRA closure and withdrawal as a result of the base closure. This RCRA closure will also include areas defined in the original Part A permit such as the EOD range and the silver recovery unit at the hospital. The DRMO will be inspected for potential release after completion of base closure in 1995 and a closure report will be prepared. Corrective actions needed at Range 36A will be conducted under the RI/FS Program as part of Site 39. .. .,

4.2.9 Wastewater Discharges

NPDES compliance activities include negotiation of the Pollution Prevention Plan and implementation of a monitoring program. The U.S. Army will comply with the plan and implement a monitoring program as long as the property is owned by the U.S. Army.

4.2.10 Oil/Water Separators

Oil/water separators at Fort Ord will continue to be managed by the U.S. Army in accordance with all applicable state and federal regulations as long as the U.S. Army maintains ownership.

4.2.11 Pollution Prevention

Pollution prevention at Fort Ord will continue to be mamged through the Pollution Prevention Plan by the Directorate of Environment and Natural Resources as long as the U.S. Army maintains ownership of the property.

4.2.12 NRC Licensing

The medical facilities that had radiation sources have been closed. Close-out surveys are described in Section 4.2.14. .,

0445.s4 Fort Oral, California - December 1995 Page 4-18 -- 4.2.13 Mixed Waste

There is no mixed waste generated at Fort Oral; therefore, there are no compliance requirements or strategies under this program for the installation.

4.2.14 Radiation

Radiological survey activities for buildings located in BRAC Priorities 1, 2, 3, and 5 were completed in 1994. However, 138 buildings were not included in the survey because U.S. Army material was still stored in the buildings. These buildings will be surveyed when the material is relocated and a report will be issued.

4.2.15 NEPA

The NEPA EIS for Disposal and Reuse of Fort Ord has been approved by the Department of the Army. The ROD was signed on 23 December 1993, and a~ work for this EIS has been completed. A Supplemental EIS is underway for property that was made available for reuse when the POM Annex was downsized. The Supplemental EIS is to be completed in February 1996.

Once the FORA approves a specific reuse plan for the installation, the U.S. Army will need to adopt that plan. Therefore additional work on environmental documentation may be required.

After the U.S. Army lands are transferred to the reuse authorities, State, subdivisions of State, or appropriate agencies, the environmental documentation requirements for specific land use plans become the proponents’ responsibilities. The U.S. Army is no longer ethically or monetarily obligated to produce subsequent environmental documentation that is beyond the scope of the property transfers; the reuse issues will be local planning actions.

4.2.16 Lead-Based Paint

The purpose of the lead-based paint management program at Fort Ord is to identify and control lead-based paint and lead-contaminated dust in target facilities. The lead-based paint management program at Fort Ord will continue. It will be performed in accordance with the applicable U.S. Army guidelines and federal regulations by the U.S. Army as long as the properties are owned by the U.S. Army.

Mitigation of any lead-based paint hazard prior to the transfer of federally owned family housing will be reuse driven. Army housing disposed after 1 January 1995 will be subject to compliance with Public Law 102-550, Title X Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992. Impacts of Public Law 102-550 to closing installations is the inspection, permanent abatement of lead-based paint hazards (including the removal or covering of contaminated soil in pre-1960 constructed units), and disclosure of survey findings to new property owners. Fort Ord has 900 units potentially affected by Public Law 102-550.

CW45.Sb Fort Oral, Culifomia - December 1995 Page 4-19 4.2.17 Medical Waste

Medical waste is no longer generated at Fort Oral.

4.2.18 UXO

As an Army installation, Fort Ord has the authority, under CERCLA, to conduct removal actions. The UXO removal actions outside the 8,000-acre inland ranges are being done as time- critical removal actions under CERCLA. In May 1994, a time-critical removal action memorandum was prepared as required by the USEPA. The memorandum documented the actions necessary to mitigate the threat of explosion from OEW for all areas outside of the inland ranges.

Removal actions within the 8,000-acre inland ranges are planned to be conducted as non-time critical removal actions. This would require the preparation of a removal action memorandum and an Engineering Evaluation/Cost Assessment (EE/CA). An Explosive Safety Submission (formerly Land Disposal Site Plan) will also be required for that area.

The physical environment of Fort Ord makes OEW removal dangerous with respect to the densities of vegetation and rugged topography that conceals the OEW. The landscape consists of grassland, dense chaparral brush, and rough terrain. Therefore, burning of dense vegetation will reduce hazards to OEW personnel during investigation and removal actions. In accordance with the Fort Ord Multispecies HMP, Fort Ord has prepared a vegetation burn plan to support OEW removal.

The results of Fort Oral’spast OEW activities are being addressed in two investigation programs. Under the first program, OEW investigation and removal is managed by the USACE, Huntsville Division, Mandatory Center for Expertise and Design Center for Explosive Ordnance Engineering within USACE. Activities included in the OEW progmm are an archives search to identify the types of ordnance used and the areas potentially containing OEW on Fort Oral; a sampling program to verify information collected during the archives search; clearance of OEW; and demolition of ordnance and recycling of scrap metal. Range 36A (NPL Site 5) is used by USACE, Huntsville Division, as the demolition range for ordnance found as a result of this process. Currently, items are destroyed where they are discovered.

Under the second program, evaluation of the residue that remains after ordnance is detonated is managed by the USACE, Sacramento District, as part of Fort Oral’s basewide RI/FS. Activities included in the ordnance-related chemical evaluation program include a research task to define the conceptual model for potential impacts to human health and the environment from metals and other ordnance-related chemicals; a sampling and amlysis program to evaluate the nature and extent of metal and other ordnance-related chemical contamination in areas of ordnance use at Fort Oral; and a risk assessment and FS using data collected during the sampling and analysis program. Site 39 is included in this study as the Impact Area; other historic OB/OD ranges have also been studied as part of the RI.

W5.S4 Fort (hi, Cal~omia - December 1995 Page 4-20 There are two issues with respect to UXO that have not yet been resolved and may, therefore, result in property transfer delays. These issues are described below:

F The USEPA and Cal EPA have indicated that an assessment of UXO must be included in the RI/FS. The U.S. Army has not yet responded to this request.

b A memorandum of understanding for transferring property to the BLM was recently negotiated. This document is necessary to establish reuse plans for the 8,000-acre inland impact area. Reuse plans are needed before depth of UXO clearance can be established and U.S. Army documentation for UXO clearances can be completed.

4.2.19 Air Quality

Significant air emissions from chemical sources at Fort Ord have been drastically reduced and will be eliminated by closure. Analytical results from the high-volume ambient air monitoring at the beach trainfire ranges were available in spring 1994.

4.3 Natural and Cultural Resources $trategy(ies)

This section discusses the strategies for natural and cultural resource programs at Fort Ord developed to manage these resources throughout the BRAC cleanup and installation closure process. Natural resources will continue to be managed in accordance with the natural resources management plan as long as the U.S. Army maintains property ownership.

4.3.1 Vegetation

Vegetative surveys have been conducted at Fort Oral. Impacts to flora were assessed as part of the NEPA EIS. Impacts to flora from base closure actions will be mitigated as described in the Fort Ord Multispecies HMP (see Section 3.3.5). Fort Ord will continue to maintain their grounds maintenance program and upkeep the existing vegetation until property transfer.

4.3.2 Wildlife

Wildlife at Fort Ord has been described in previous reports. Impacts to fauna were assessed in the EIS for disposal. Impacts to fauna from base closure actions will be mitigated as described in the Fort Ord Multispecies HMP.

4.3.3 Wetlands

Wetlands on and near Fort Ord have been described. Impacts to wetlands were assessed in the EIS for disposal. Impacts to wetlands from base closure actions will be mitigated as described in the Fort Ord Multispecies HMP.

0445.s4 Fort Oral, Cal~omia - December 1995 Page 4-21 4.3.4 Designated l?reservation Areas

An HMP has been developed for Fort Oral. The U.S. Army will comply with the HMP as long as the U.S. Army maintains property ownership. The HMP mitigations for UXO removal have been developed and are being implemented prior to the remediation of UXO at all sites not planned for development. In accordance with the HMP, a vegetation management plan has been developed to support the remediation of UXO. HMP mitigations for other installation closure projects will be developed and implemented prior to any ground intrusive work.

4.3.5 Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species

The U.S. Army will continue to comply with the requirements of the Biological Opinion in order to minimize closure impacts to special status species.

4.3.6 Cultural Resources

As property is transfemed from the U.S. Army, protection covenants will be prepared so that new owners will be notified of any cultural resources and associated responsibilities.

4.4 Community Involvement/Strategy

A CRP, dated September 1992, was implemented to facilitate communications between Fort Oral, the USACE Sacramento District, regulatory agencies, and members of the community concerning the environmental program at Fort Ord. This communication ensures that all parties involved or interested are provided accurate, consistent information in a timely manner concerning related cleanup activities, and possible effects of any contamination. It provides mechanisms for all parties to provide input into the decision-making process of the cleanup program.

Fort Ord has adopted the following strategy to support a proactive community relations program in accordance with CERCLA requirements:

b NEPA Process. The Supplemental EIS is currently underway and will be complete in February 1996.

w FFA Process. The FFA has been signed, and requirements and schedules in the agreement are being compiled with; there are no plans to complete any additional FFA agreements.

F CRP. The existing CRP will be updated whenever significant changes occur during the cleanup effort.

F Information Repositories. Two repositories have been established. Information will be supplied for these repositories throughout the investigation/remediation process.

W5.S4 Fort Oral, Cal~otmia - December 1995 Page 4-22 ,,F- Administrative Record. Administrative records have been established; information will be provided for the Administrative Record throughout the investigatiordremediation process.

TRC. The TRC has been established and will continue to meet.

RAE. The RAB was formed in 1994 and will continue to meet as needed.

Mailing List. The mailing list will be updated as needed.

Information Papers. Additional information papers may be prepared as needed to provide updated information on the restoration progress.

Brochures. Additional brochures will be prepared as needed to provide updates on restoration progress.

Newsletters. Additioml newsletters will be prepared as needed to provide updates on restoration progress.

Display Boards. Display boards will be posted and updated as needed.

Public Meetings. Both informal and formal public meetings will be held as needed to provide opportunity for information exchange.

Proposed Plan Hearings. I%oposed plans will be developed. Associated fact sheets will be issued. A public notice will be issued in local newspapers 2 weeks in advance of public comment periods on these plans. A 30-day public cement period will be held on proposed plans, and a responsiveness summary will address all comments.

Community Reuse Group. The FORA will continue to play an active role in reuse planning.

0445.s4 Fort Oral, California - December 1995 Page 4-23 This page intentionally left blank.

IM5.S4 Fort Oral, Cal#omia - December 1995 Page 4-24

CHAPTER 5

F ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAM MASTER SCHEDULES <

This chapter presents the Fort Ord master schedules of anticipated activities in the installation’s environmental programs”. These schedules are simplified from detailed network and operational schedules developed to support OU-specific work plans and closure-related compliance agreements. Each of these schedules displays the critical path analysis for the respective installation program. Components in each analysis include critical and noncritical paths, baseline, completed duration, milestones, float, delay and conflict. These components are defined in Section 4.1.3.

5.1 Environmental Restoration Program

This section presents response schedules and outlines fiscal year requirements for Fort Oral’s environmental restoration program.

5.1.1 Response Schedules

On 19 November 1990, the U.S. Army signed an FFA with the USEPA and the State of California. The FFA outlined schedules for lWFS, ROD, and Remedial Design/Remedial Action (RD/RA). The FFA contained timetables for OU 1 (Former Fire Drill Area), OU 2 (Fort Ord Landfills), and the Basewide RI/FS, ROD, and RD/RA. Public Law 102-90 required an accelerated approach for completion of IRP activities at Fort Oral. Implementation schedule for the accelerat~d IIW at Fort O~d is summarized in Figure 5-1. Tables-5-l and 5-2 provide site- specific schedules for no action and interim action sites.

5.1.2 Requirements by I%cal Year

Fiscal information for the environmental restoration program is provided in Appendix A.

5.2 Compliance Programs

This section presents master compliance schedules and outlines fiscal year requirements for Fort Oral’s environmental compliance programs.

5.2.1 Master Compliance Schedules

Fort Ord has closed. U.S. by mission/operational-related compliance activities at the installation are limited to the POM Annex and U.S. Army Reserve Center. Currently scheduled projects include AAFES gas station tank replacements and asbestos abatement.

0445,55 Fort Oni, Cal~omia - December 1995 , Page 5-1 This page intentionally left blank.

0445. S5 Fort Oral, Califonzia - December 1995 Page 5-2 ,......

L ;; ,, :.: ‘—, ...... ,,,;,,,,,

...... ;,;; . ..-...... 0,,,,,, . ...~...,.,,,,,..... a m m

0. m m This page intentionally left blank.

C445.S5 Fort Oral, California - December 1995 Page 5-4 .,

Name

Interm Action (IA) ROD

Base~ide ROD (Sumner 96)

REMEDIAL ACTIONS

No A Sites (See Tb[ 5-1)

1A Sites (See Tb[ 5-2)

Time Critica L Re!nova[s

Site 24

Site 39B

Site 2/12 Purp & Treat

Basewide RAs (Post ROD) xl 1 - FIRE DRILL AREA

RI/FS (6/75/87)

REMEDIAL ACT 10NS

Soi ~ Biotreatment

Groundwater Pump & Treat I

REMED. CONFIRMATION STUDY

ROD (TBD)

NJ 2 - FORT ORO LANDFILLS

hydrologic INVEST. (6/1/88)

RI/FS

ROD

REMEDIAL ACTIONS

Groundwater Pump & Treat

Landf i 1 ~ Capping (1996)

noncritica~ 0 mi ~estone ~ free float _ conf 1ict m base~ ine ~ Page 5-5 This page intentionally left blank.

W5S5 Fort Oral, California - December 1995 Page 5-6 TABLE 5-1. No ACTION SCHEDIILE /

Draft Appr. PuMic Agency Report Draft Finaf DraftFti Memo DatI Pubfic Cmt. Cmt. Fiial rPriority Site Parcel Draft Report Cmts. Resmrt Cmts. Submit Notice Period Period Notice 1 CDPR 1 Aug. 1994 1 441 7 BLM out

POMA out

Marina Dec. 1992 Complete I Apr. 1994 Complete I I

18 MIRA Apr. 1994 18-oct-95 I 16-Nov-95

19 Marina Oct. 1992 Complete 12-oct-95 18-Ott-95 16-Nov-95 iCorn.

23 iCSUMB IV Oct. 1994

25 IMarina June 1993 26 IFHWA NA ==-1- 1 27 !USAR July 1992 Complete May 1994 Not =--P==-%= Complete I 28 IMarina Feb. 1994 14-Aug-95 Complete - ==--w= I 29 ICounty Dec. 1992 Complete I April 1994 14-Aug-95 lComplete Complete I

32 Coumy out 1 35 1-Ucsc June 1993 =E--t-i IFAAF out Waiting I

3 37 IBrostrom NOV.1992 Complete I March 1994 Complete 122-May-95 25-May-95 I Complete

38 CSUMB July 1994 Waiting 1 %

Priority for lisposal =First to transf c 2 = Next wave of transf rs: 3 = Draft has not been ~itiated; 4 = On hold.

W45S5 Fort Oral, California - December 1995 Page 5-7 I TABLE 5-2. ~ERIM ACTION SCHEDULE 1

Appr. Agency I I Crnts. I Draft Jlraft Final Memo Date Cmts. Public Excavation Verification Agency/ Final Wlority Slti Parcel Report Report submit Reeeiwd Notice Starierl “Samples Public I Notice

4 6 BLM out out 1l-Apr-95 USEPA I I I I I I 1 8 Mo. Co. NA NA 4-Jun-94 L.I.

NA 10 I Army lJarr. 1993 I Mar, ,995 I 19-Apr-95 I g-hhy-~s I complete

1 14A I CSUMB II 10ct. 1993 I Nov. 1994 I 15-Mar-95 I 3-Apr-95 IComplete 1O-JUI-95 lClean I I I 1 14B CSUMB If Oct. 1993 Nov. 1994 15-Mar-95 3-Apr-95 Icornp,ite 19-Jun-95 I clean I I I I 1 I I 2 15 I Marina I Nov. 1992 I Feb. 1995 I 15-Mar-95 3-Apr-95 IComplete l-Aug-95 Clean

1 20 CSUMB IJ Sept. 1993 l-May-95 l-Jun-95 8-Jun-95 Complete 5-JUI-95 Clean I I I I I I 3 21 I CSUMB III I Sept. 1993 IJan. 1995 127-Feb-95 I None I Complete 26-Ju1-95 lClean I I

1 22 CSUMB H May 1995 June 1995 Apr. 1995 13-Jun-95 Complete 2l-Jun-95 INot Clean I I I I I I I I 4 23 I CSUMB W 10ct. 1994 INot Out I I I

4 24 Not Out 3 =--l== Dec. 1994 15-Mar-95 3-Apr-95 Complete ~6.Jun.95 I Clean I I 1 34 Ucsc11 IJun. 1992 May 1994 2-Feb-95 15-Feb-95 Complete 16-Jun-95 Not Clean 3 39A =--l=- 1 40 FAAF IJun. 1995 Not Out

3 41 County Jun. 1995 Not Out

Priority for Disposal: 1 = First to transfer: 2 = Next wave of transfers; 3 = Draft has not been initiated: 4 = On hold.

0445.s5 Fort Oral, California - December 1995 Page 5-8 A variety of BRAC closure-related compliance projects have been completed, are underway, or are planned at Fort Oral. Compliance-related schedules regarding USTS, asbestos, RCRA closure, radiation, lead-based paint, UXO, and others are provided as Figure 5-2.

5.2.2 Requirements by l%cal Year

Fiscal information for the compliance programs is provided in Appendix A.

5.3 Natural and Cultural Resources

This section presents master natural and cultural resources activity schedules and outlines fiscal year requirements for Fort Oral’s natural and cultural resource programs.

5.3.1 Natural and Cultural Resources Schedule(s)

Schedules for natural and cultural resource preservatiordrestoration programs are provided in Figure 5-3.

5.3.2 Requirements by l%cal Year -

Fiscal information for natural and cultural resource preservatiordrestoration programs is provided in Appendix A.

5.4 Meeting Schedule

Meetings are scheduled with the regulatory agencies and the BCT in accordance with the FFA and are typically held as follows:

F BCT Meetings - Monthly b Remedial Project Manager Meetings - Monthly F Restoration Advisory Board/Teclmical Review Committee Meetings - Quarterly F Technical Meetings - as needed.

A list of BCT meetings is provided in Table 5-3. As additional meetings are scheduled, this table will be updated.

U?45S5 Fort Oral, California - December 1995 Page 5-9 This page intentionally left blank.

0445.s5 Fort Oral, California - December 1995 Page 5-10 . ‘ROJEIX: Fort Ord IANAGER: Gai ( Youngbloocl Fig 5-2 Compliance Programs :URRENT OATE: 12/09/95

1996 1997 1998 Name JAN MAY SEP JAN MAY SEP JAN MAY

GENERAL : .:. . .; .,,.

ECAS Assessment

USTS

char Study (1988)

AAFES Ser Stn Invest (1990)

FAAF B~cfg 511 Invest (1990’

LIST Mgmt P(an

LIST .Remova[s

UST Re[ease char

UST ke~ease Rerned

Annual UST Testing lSTs

Bldg 4441 Registration

SPCC Plan (1995)

Draft ISCP (1995) ;...... :; tIAZ SUB/HAST MANAGEMENT ,. ;:,.

Installation-iJide

POM Annex & AR Reserves

SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT

I.andfi [ 1 Operations

North ( 1956-1966)

Main ( 1960-1987)

Off-site D!sposai

~CB MANAGEMENT

Trans Testing (1985-1987) This page intentionally left blank,

0445.s5 Fort Oral, Califotwia - December 1995 Page 5-12 ?91 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 Name \N MAY SEP JAN MAY SEP JAN MAY SEP JAN MAY SEP JAN MAY SEP JAN MAY SEP JAN MAY SEP JAN MAY j; ;: ;: ; ;: ;, {; :: :: :: : :: ...... ,:,,...... ,,:,.,,,. ., ...;,,,, ,,, ,,, ,,:, ,, PCB>50 ppn Remova~s (1992) ;; ,: : Transformer Inspections

ASBESTOS

Non-Fare House Srvy ( 1989-90]

Ex Fam House Srvy (1993-94)

ACM Abate - P0f4 Annex (1996]

Ex B[dgs Abatements (TBD) :,, ..: ...... ,,.,,,,,.,,,,.{,,

RADON

Inita~ Testing (1989-1990)

Retesting (1994)

RCRA FACILITIES

.~. :...... : ...... ~..,. ...!. Evaluation of SWMUS (1988) :. ,

Verification of SWMUS (1993) .,,......

Part B Permit App (1986) ,,,,,.,:......

C~ose Plans (4 SWMUS)(1995

JASTEiJATER DISCHARGES

NPDES Permit (8/1/74)

Discharge Monitoring

Stormwater Mngt P~an (1995)

StormMater Mon P~an (1995) lIL/WATER SEPARATORS ,.:,..,,...... Inspect ion ::

IAD I AT TON

Radio [ogica~ Surveys

EPA

Disposal and Reuse EIS

EIS ROD This page intentionally left blank.

0445.s5 Fort Oral, CalVomia- December1995 Page 5-14 ~, i .J—

?991 1992 1993 1994 7995 1996 1997 1998 kame JAN MAY SEP JAN MAY SEP JAN MAY ~: : :: :: : ..,,,,.,, .,:,,,,,,,, ,,, ,:, ,,, ,,,, ,, .,...... ,,, ,,, ,,...... LEAD-BASED PAINT :: ...... {..,,,,,...... ~,,,,, ,. LBP Survey ( 1994} ,;,,,,,,...... ::. . . L BP Abatement (TBD) ,. ,: ;: ...... ;.,,,,,,,...... JXO {; ;: :; :: ,:,,,,,,,,,:.,...... Comp[ete UXO Research ...... Begin Samp( ing ;: ... ,.: Prep Fina( Land Disp P(an

Begin Remediation ...... ;.. iIR QUALITY

solid Waste Test ( 1987)

Toxic Air Emissions Inv

Beach Fire Range Mon (1993)

Air Emission Source Permits

critica~ m comp[eted _ tota( f(oat = de~ay _ n

noncritical m mi(estone ~ free f(oat m conflict m baaeline - This page intentionally left blank.

C445.S5 Fort Oral, California - December 1995 Page 5-16 ROJECT: Fort Ord

!ANAGER: Gai [ Youngb(ood Fig 5-3 Natura{/Cu[tural Res. URRENT DATE: 12/09/95

?92 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 ‘1998 1999 Naine

CULTURAL RESOURCES

Section 106 Prog Agreement ;.

NATURAL RESOURCES

Bio~ogical Assessment ...... ,,.i.,,,,,,.,

Habitat Management Plan

Burn P(an

Landfi~[

Beach Ranges

critical m compieted _ tota~ f[oat = delay . n noncritical m mi {eatone 0 free f~oat _ conf [ ict ‘U base~ ine ~

Page 5-17 This page intentionally left blank.

(Mass Fort Oral, California - December 1995 Page 5-18 .---=.,

.

TABLE 5-3. BCT MEET~G SCHEDULE

Date Topic

17 December 1992 OU 1 Work Plan and Sampling Basewide Background Soil Report Interim Action Feasibility Study Remedial Technology Screening

14 April 1993 Ecological Risk Assessment Site 3 Work Plan Soil, Storage, Treatment, and Educational Facility Comments on Draft Site Characterization Reports .— 10 August 1993 Site Tours (Site 2/12, 40) Comments on Site 2/12 Report

November 1993 BCP Version 1 Kickoff Meeting

February 1994 Transition from TRC to RAE

31 May 1994 Basewide Hydrogeological Program 0Uland2 Site Update (8, 34, 19, 15, 33) Basewide RI/FS Draft No Action Proposed Plan and ROD

18 July 1994 BCP Version 2 Kickoff Meeting

10 August 1994 Salinas River and Monterey Bay Outfalls Sites 1, 2/12, 3729, 36

0445.s5 Fort Oral, California - December 1995 Page 5-19 This page intentiomdly left blank.

0445.ss Fort Oral, Ctdifomia - December 1995 Page 5-20

,-- CHAPTER 6

F TECHNICAL AND OTHER ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED 4

This chapter summarizes technical and other issues that are yet to be resolved. These issues include information management; the usability of historic data; data gaps; natural (background) levels of chemical constituents in soil, groundwater, surface water, and sediments; risk assessment; state cleanup standards; and program initiatives to complete cleanup requirements as required to meet property transfer schedules.

6.1 Information Management

This section identifies issues that need to be resolved with regard to mamging information gathered and used in the environmental restoration and compliance programs at Fort Oral.

6.1.1 BCT Action Items

There are currently no unresolved issues related to information management.

6.1.2 Rationale

As the number of agencies and contractors associated with the Fort Ord disposal and environmental restoration program increases, it is important that all parties involved are able to share data for decision making. The establishment and maintemnce of an electronic data base of on-site and off-site investigation sampling and analysis data and spatial data (e.g., real estate and environmental condition of property maps) is the most efficient method of sharing data among parties. The availability of reports and maps in an electronic format that can be assessed and shared by multiple users is also important in managing and expediting the environmental restoration process.

Data are collected in accordance with the Fort Ord Quality Assurance Project Plan. Chemical data are validated in accordance with USEPA Functional Guidelines and the Quality Assurance Project Plan.

6.1.3 Status/Strategy

The status and strategy for issues related to information management is summarized as follows:

F All data generated during the IRP are managed by the USAEC. A centralized data base system has not been used.

0!45.S6 Fort Oral, California - December 1995 Page 6-1 F The Version 2 BCP and versions generated in the future will be loaded into DENIX.

F A property suitable for transfer map has been generated using a computer geographic information system (GIS). Electronic map and data base electronic files are available at the installation and at the USAEC.

F Two information repositories have been established at local libraries to provide community accessto information.

F Various public outreach programs have been established to provide for the dissemination of information to the community. These include the formation of the MB, open houses and installation tours, and fact sheets.

6.2 Data Usability

This section summarizes issues that need to be resolved with regard to the validity of using historical data sets in the installation environmental restoration program.

6.2.1 BCT Action Items

There are currently no unresolved issues related to data usability at Fort Oral.

6.2.2 Rationale

Historical analytical data can contribute to the completion of site characterization and risk assessments by filling data gaps. Current and fiture data from each data collection system (e. -,g., field laboratories, field screening techniques) are critical to the completion ‘of all’ site characterization efforts, comprehensive conceptual model development, risk assessments, and ultimately the selection of remedial actions to protect human health and the environment.

6.2.3 Status/Strategy

Data are processed and managed in accordance with the Fort Ord Data Management Plan. Procedures have been established and approved by the regulatory agencies to complete the management of data collected during the completion of the Fort Ord RI/FS.

6.3 Data Gaps

This section summarizes issues that need to be resolved with regard to data gaps identified during the environmental restoration program.

M45.S6 Fort Oral, California - December 1995 Page 6-2 <.- 6.3.1 BCT Action Items

Data gaps will be identified during the completion of site characterization and remedial investigation activities. This will require the development and approval of work plans to fill these data gaps.

6.3.2 Rationale

Site characterizations and remedial investigations will not be deemed complete by the regulatory agencies until the lateral and vertical extent of contamination has been adequately defined.

6.3.3 Status/Strategy

The BCT will continue to be updated regarding data gaps during monthly remedial project manager meetings and other technical presentations. Data summary reports have been submitted after each phase of sample collection and data evaluation with recommendations for the next phase of sampling, if necessary. Any additional phases of sample collection which are determined to be required to fill data gaps will need to be contracted expeditiously to allow project schedules to be met.

6.4 Background Levels

.— This section summarizes issues that need to be resolved with regard to establishing background levels at Fort Oral.

6.4.1 BCT Action Items

There are currently no unresolved issues related to background levels in soil and groundwater at Fort Ord.

6.4.2 Rationale

Background levels must be established to evaluate and compare field sampling results during the RI process and to establish cleanup goals.

6.4.3 Status/Strategy

Background levels for inorganic chemicals have been developed for soils. Background levels for anthropogenic background chemicals such as pesticides and petroleum hydrocarbons in soil may be required at a later date. The BCT has chosen to identify background levels for anthropogenic-related chemicals on a site-by-site basis rather than on an installation-wide basis. Procedures and agreements with the regulatory agencies have been developed such that no further action is required to define background levels at this time.

CW45.S6 Fort Oral, California - December 1995 Page 6-3 6.5 Risk Assessments

This section summarizes unresolved issues pertaining to the completion of risk assessments required to complete the Fort Ord environmental restoration and compliance programs.

6.5.1 BCT Action Items

Risk assessments for select sites have been prepared as part of the Basewide RI/FS. The Fort Ord Project Team must determine has to address the question of whether or not an installation- wide risk assessment will be needed. Further discussion is necessary between the U.S. Army and the regulators before cumulative risk assessments between sites are calculated.

6.5.2 Rationale

Human health and ecological risk assessments will dictate cleanup standards for Fort Oral.

6.5.3 Status/Str&egv

Human health and ecological risk assessments are presented in the Basewide RI/FS that was finalized in November 1995. Potential receptors and exposure pathways were based on anticipated future land use. Risk assessment strategies and assumptions have been discussed with the regulatory agencies prior to the submittal of the RI/FS report. Table 6-1 presents a summary of future land use risk assessment for the development of remedy selections; this table is limited to the two OUS and the sites that underwent a full RI/FS to include a risk assessment.

6.6 Installation-wide Remedial Action Strategy

This section summarizes unresolved issues pertaining to the completion of remedial actions required for the Fort Ord environmental restoration and compliance programs.

6.6.1 BCT Action Items

The following action items have been identified for the BCT:

F Prepare Basewide Proposed Plan F Prepare Basewide ROD F Complete design and contract for remediation F Complete outstanding interim actions

6.6.2 Rti”onale

An installation-wide ROD, subsequent remediation, and agency approvals are required prior to removal of Fort Ord from the NPL.

CW.S6 Fun?O&, Califonzia - December 1995 Page 6-4 ,,,,,,,,,.,,,,,,, ,,.,: “OF@@DY ~@~ECTION$ ~~,,

.:,:,.:x.:.,,,,7..,,,,.,,,:,,,..,,.,,},,:,; ,. ,, ;: Co ‘ “ is ,,:+:..::,,:,! ;:.:;,; .:::::’,’’:;:,’,:, : ,,,, ,,, , ,: ,, .&e ,, ,,, $tkk% “ ““ Curreiiww,;fl ‘‘““”””~Adjac@ Use” Atstieipated U~IE @jurrdyatm ,,,,soti, , ,, ,,,.,,,, .,,,;;jfi*:,: . .,.,:,,.,

Operable Unit 1 (Fritzsche Ingestion of soil, dermal Fuels, waste oils, Fuels, waste oils, Open space Open space University research ardhabhst management Army Airtleld Fire Drill contact with soil, inhalation solvents, TCE, MEK solverrts, TCE, MEK Area) of airborne soil particles

Operable Unit 2 (Fort Ord Ingestion of water and soil, TCE and other TCE and other Open Housing/recreatioml Larrdfrllresearch area Landfills) demral contact wit!r water, solvents solvents, meta[s spacekecreatiorral inhalation of chemicals from groursdwateror soil Site 2/12 (Main Garrison Cancer risk is within or Metals, chlorinated Metals, PAHs Sewage treatment Site 2: agricultural facilities; research STP, DOL.Automotive below USEPA threshold soIvents plant, auto yard Yard, Camibalization Yard Site 12: businesses, retsiI, residences, school and Industria[ Areas, SPRR Spur)

Site 3 (Beach Tr-sintlre Estimated blood-lead level - Metals No longer in use Highway State Park Ranges) exceeded USEPA rhreshold

Sites 16 and 17 (DOL Cancer risk exceeded A - Aquifer: PCE, Metals, dioxins, No longer in use Site 16: public agency corporation yards Maintenance Yard, Pete’s USEPA threshold TCE, antimony; pesticides Pond/Extension, Disposal Upper 180-ft Site 17: California State Universiw campus Area) Aquifer carbon tebacblonde, PCE, TCE

Site 31 (Former Dump Site) Estimated blood-lead level - Metals, PAHs, No longer in use Leadership reaction Monterey Agricuhoral Center and habitat exceeded USEPA threshold pesticides, dioxins training compound preservation Site 39 including Sites 5 & Cancer risk exceeded Explosives, metals No longer in use Residential (off- Natursf resourees management area 9 (Inland Rartges/impact USEPA threshold post), open space Area) (on-post)

Key: PAH = Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons Uxo = Unexploded Ordnance

Source: Rf/FS (December 1994)

0445T.&l Page 6-5 6.6.3 Status/Strategy

All previously identified areas that require remedial action are in the proposed plan/ROD, design, or implementation phase of remediation.

6.7 Interim Monitoring of Groundwater and Surface Water

This section summarizes unresolved issues pertaining to interim monitoring of groundwater and surface water. Drinking water supplies for Fort Ord are derived from production wells on the installation. Surface water monitoring has occurred to “assess ecological risks; however, the results have not been evaluated to determine if further monitoring is needed,

6.7.1 BCT Action Items

The BCT will determine the number of wells and monitoring frequency required to assess changing conditions in groundwater quali~ during cleanup activities. The BCT will also determine if further surface water monitoring is needed. Presently, agreement on a groundwater monitoring program for Site 2/12 is needed.

6.7.2 Rationale

Interim monitoring of groundwater is necessary to assess contaminant extent, the rate and direction of contaminant movement, and provide sufficient data to verify when cleanup levels have been achieved or when no further reduction in contaminant level is feasible. Interim monitoring of surface water is required to assess ecological risks.

6.7.3 Status/Strategy

Approximately 160 wells are monitored quarterly for water levels and for chemicals of concern. The current groundwater extraction and treatment system at OU 1 is sampled monthly for chemicals of concern at the influent and effluent sampling ports.

6.8 Excavation of Contaminated Materials

This section summarizes unresolved issues pertaining to the excavation of contaminated materials at Fort Oral.

6.8.1 BCT Action Items

Soil excavation removal actions are to be conducted for five interim action sites.

6.8.2 Rationale

Excavation of contaminated materials is necessary to remove sources of potential groundwater contamination and to protect human health and the environment. Soil excavated during cleanup is taken to the FOSTA located the 519th Motor Pool. The FOSTA serves:

0445.S6 Fort Oral, California - December 1995 Page 6-6 F As an area to store excavated interim action soil pending waste classification as well as for storage of soil until sufficient quantities are obtained for treatment or recycling.

F As a treatment area for nonhazardous soil containing petroleum hydrocarbons and solvents.

6.8.3 Status/Strategy

Contaminated soil has been excavated at various sites on Fort Ord as part of remedial investigations and/or interim and final remedial actions. Removal actions have not yet been completed for five designated interim action sites.

6.9 Protocols for Remedial Design Reviews

This section summarizes unresolved issues pertaining to protocols for remedial design reviews at Fort Oral.

6.9.1 BCT Action Items

The BCT will review remedial designs for Fort Oral.

6.9.2 Rationale

Review of remedial designs is critical to ensure that they are technically sound and meet the requirements of the FFA and the ROD.

6.9.3 Status/Strategy

Remedial designs are reviewed by technical staff at the USACE, USEPA, and state regulatory agencies at the 30 percent design stage. The design may be revised based on the technical comments from the reviewer(s). Remedial designs are reviewed again at the 90 percent design stage. The remedial design may be revised based on technical comments and finalized.

6.10 Conceptual Models

This section summarizes unresolved issues pertaining to the development of conceptual models required to complete the Fort Ord environmental restoration program.

6.10.1 BCT Action Items

There are no BCT action items related to conceptual site models.

W5S6 Fort Oral, California - December 1995 Page 6-7 6.10.2 Rationale

Conceptual models are necessary to understand contaminant migration pathways and potential receptors such that remedial investigations, risk assessments, and feasibility studies can be completed.

6.10.3 Status/Strategy

The Basewide RI/FS (November 1995) includes contaminant fate and transport, identification of chemicals of concern and potential receptors for both human and ecological risk assessment, and exposure pathways for sites that underwent a fill RI/FS. This information is summarized in Appendix E.

6.11 Cleanup Standards

This section summarizes unresolved issues pertaining to the establishment of cleanup standards at Fort Oral.

6.Il. 1 BCT Action Items

The BCT has planned to:

F Develop cleanup standards for chemicals of concern in soil and groundwater at each site, and

F Establish cleanup standards for sites that are likely to be reused or transferred to the public.

6.11.2 Rationale

In the absence of federal or state mandated cleanup standards for hazardous or designated waste, the approach for providing cleanup criteria for a site is to conduct a risk assessment specific to the site or to use preliminary remediation goals which have been developed for Fort Oral. Preliminary remediation goals provide health-based guidance criteria concentrations for a number of chemical constituents based on specific exposure routes.

6.11.3 St&s/Strategy

Cleanup standards have been developed for OU sites, interim action sites, and RI sites. Table 6-2 presents human health standards.

6.12 Initiatives for Accelerating Cleanup

In June 1992, the Fort Ord Project Team prepared an Acceleration Action Plan for Cleanup at Fort Oral. This plan outlined the objectives and purpose of accelerating the cleanup process and actions to be taken to meet those objectives.

CLid5.S6 Fort Oral, Califonzia - December 1995 Page 6-8 TABLE 6-2 Piammmy ~MEDIATION Go&s*

Basedm NoncancerWalthEffects BasedanCarcinogenesk .Lmvest ““ Child Adult Construction Adult ~ Construction Chemical PRG Resident Resident Worker Resident Worker

Acenaphthene 960 960 4,600 31,000 NA NA Acetone 220 220 900 8,200 NA NA Antimony 27 27 290 57 NA NA Arsenic 0.87 20 220 44 0.87 60 Barium 1,000 1,000 4,700 4,100 NA NA Beryllium 0.39 340 3,700 730 0.39 28 Bis(2-etbylhexyl)phtialate 13 320 1,500 1,000 13 3,200 Cadmium 8.1 34 370 73 8.1 380 Carbon disuhlde 0.96 0.96 3.9 3.7 NA NA Carbon tetrachloride 0.025 29 190 750 0.025 8.6 Chlordane 0.14 0.97 4.6 3.2 0.14 34 ChromiumVI 0.23 7.2 30 38 0.23 11 Copper 2,500 2,500 27,000 5,300 NA NA 4,4’-DDT 0.53 8.0 38 26 0.53 130 Dieldrin 0.011 0.80 3.8 2.6 0.011 2,8 13thylbenzene 830 830 3,700 3,900 NA NA Fluorene 640 640 3,100 21,000 NA NA Lead(a) 240 240 3,900 460 NA NA Mercury 20 20 210 41 NA NA Methylethyl ketone 620 620 2,900 3,300 NA NA 2-Methylnaphthalene 640 640 3,100 2,100 NA NA PetroleumHydrocarbons** 500 (b) 0) (b) 500 120,000 Naphthalene 640 640 3,100 2,100 NA NA Nickel 130 1,400 15,000 2,900 130 6,300 Phenanthrene 640 640 3,1000 2,1000 NA NA Pyrene 480 480 2,300 16,000 NA NA Selenium 340 340 3,600 710 NA NA Silver 340 340 3,600 710 NA NA Tetrachloroetbylene 0.16 4.10 2,700 11,000 0.16 54 Thallium(as Thallic oxide) 4.7 4.7 50 100 NA NA Toluene 190 190 770 3,700 NA NA 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 49 49 210 710 NA NA Vanadium 470 470 5,000 1,000 NA NA Xylenes 130 130 520 5000 NA NA Zinc 20,000 20,000 21O,OOO 42,000 NA NA

*A1l PRGs are in milligrams per kilogram, and are taken from the: Drqft Technical Memorandum, Preliminary Remediation Goals, Fort Oral, Calvorniu, dated June 14, 1993. Prepared by HLA for the USACE, Sacramento. **This pRG is based on maximum concentrations of individual carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic cOnSthUentS in used ITIQtQr oil. (a)Drugl Final Basewide Background Soi.h hsvesrigalion, March 15, 1993. Prepared by HLA for the USACE, Sacramento. (b)Calculated value exceeds 100% of soil, indicating noncancer health effects would not be expected at any soil concentration. NA = Not available.

0445.s6 Fort Oral, Califonsia - December 1995 Page 6-9 6.12.1 BCT Action Items

The BCT will continue to implement the key elements of the plan, which include:

F Risk-based approach to identify site-specific contamination source areas and installation-wide contaminant transport mechanisms.

F Rolling RI; confirmed source areas or other areas of interest are placed on independent schedules so that extensive work at the area does not delay investigation or cleanup activities at other sites.

F Designation of OUS for sites with previous IRP investigations.

F Minimization of regulatory agency review of documents by including next phase workpkms as appendices to site reports and use of data summary reports coupled $::; with technical presentations to eliminate complex characterization reports. ., Additiomlly, proposed plans and RODS are submitted concurrently to decrease review time.

F Site Elimination Actions are conducted as part of the investigation approach to cleanup small-scale sites concurrent with investigation. This eliminates additional steps of site characterization and cleanup feasibility amlysis. To implement this process, Fort Ord has prepared, with regulatory agency concurrence, an Interim Action ROD applicable to the entire installation under specific guidelines.

F Innovative investigation techniques to decrease amount of investigation time including specialized drilling techniques or non-intrusive techniques such as surface geophysics.

F Development of installation-wide risk-based cleanup levels consistent with the regulatory agency Prelimina~ Remediation Goals and ARARs and utilizing an installation-wide background chemical study.

Additional activities proposed in the Acceleration Action Plan include:

F Basewide Remedial Action Technology Screening to identify generic technologies most suited to cleanup at Fort Ord and decrease the number and length of site- specific feasibility studies.

b Utilization of desigrdbuild concept using the Fort Ord Department of Public Works employees or potential displaced workers in combination with A-E investigation and design contractor.

b Identification of innovative but non-experimental cleanup technologies.

W5.S6 Forc Onl, California - December 1995 Page 6-10 -. In addition to the Acceleration Action Plan activities to accelerate cleanup, a significant community relations program has been conducted to keep the community informed or solicit input on proposed cleanup activities.

6.12.2 Rationale

Itis desirable to initiate accelerated cleanups at Fort Ord to facilitate the property transfer process.

6.12.3 Status/Strategy

The following initiatives have been implemented by the Project Team for expediting response actions at the installation:

E ‘ Evaluate the use of OUS that reflect cuent IRP investigations to expedite investigation and review processes.

k Target Source Areas - Target source areas for early Ws.

b Identify AlU4Rs - Early in the project, develop a list of ARARs by obtaining lists of ARARs from the state and other agencies and examine the RODS for similar sites in the same state to identi~ which ~s are likely to apply.

F Risk-based Cleanup - Pursue negotiations with the regulators to agree on risk-based cleanup standards based on future land use.

F Agreements - The use of Interagency Agreement, FFAs, and DOD/State Memorandum of Agreement to implement agreements and expedite cleanup needs to be explored.

F Defined Document Review Process - Negotiate terms with the regulatory reviewers to streamline the review process by agreeing to a definitive time cycle (such as 12 months) from the submittal of a draft FS/PP to the signing of a ROD.

F Concurrent Reviews - Develop a complete list of reviewers early and pursue parallel review tracks to eliminate delays.

F Team Approach - Build a strong team consisting of the installation Remedial Project Manager, U.S. Army representatives, contractors, and federal and state regulato~ personnel that have the authori~, respo~sibilhy, and accountability for implementing innovative solutions to remediate and close sites in a timely, cost-effective manner.

F Joint Preparation - Expedite the document preparation and review/approval by forming a working team with USEPA and the state when preparing required documents such as DDs and RODS.

CW45.S6 Fort &d, California - December 1995 Page 6-11 F Community Involvement - Involve the community during the remedial process to encourage support at the time of she closure. By informing the community during the process, the likelihood of opposing cements during the public comment period would be lessened.

F Concurrent Proposed Plan and ROD/DD - Prepare the Proposed Plan and the draft ROD or DD concurrently to facilhate simultaneous review by DOD, USEPA, andlor the state. Remain flexible as comments to the Proposed Plan may result in changes to the ROD/DD.

F Innovative Technologies - Pursue collaborative projects using innovative technologies being researched at the U.S. Army or those suggested by the contractor.

F Generic Procedures - Develop generic procedures and scopes of work for common problems or common types of contaminated sites (such as fuel contamination in soil). The procedures should be flexible enough for she-specific modifications to be made.

b Innovative Contracting - Maximize flexibility of contracting procedures, investigate use of level-of-effort, direct/cost reimbursement, award incentives, and other flexible contracting methods.

b Personnel and Resource - Determine person-hour requirements expertise and funding required to handle existing and proposed IRP/compliance programs, including support to the TRC and the CRP.

6.13 Remedial Actions

This section summarizes unresolved issues pertaining to the implementation of remedial actions performed as part of the Fort Ord environmental restoration program.

6.13.1 BCT Action Items

The BCT will finalize the OU 1 and complete the Basewide RODS so that implementation of remedial actions can begin.

6.13.2 Rationale

A ROD is required under CERCLA before a remedial action can be implemented,

6.13.3 Status/Strategy

An Interim Action ROD for shallow soil remediation was approved in February 1994. The OU 2 ROD was signed in July 1994. The OU 1 ROD is currently undergoing review. The Basewide ROD is scheduled for completion in March 1997 according to the FFA. Fort Ord is

CM.45.S6 Fort Oni, Cal~omia - December 1995 Page 6-12 currently targeting completion of the Basewide ROD for the summer of 1996 in accordance with the accelerated schedule for the installation. Installation-wide remedial actions are scheduled to begin in February 2000 according to the FFA schedule and in February 1999 according to the accelerated schedule. However, remedial actions are likely to begin in 1997.

6.14 Review of Selected Technologies for Application of Expedited Solutions

This section summarizes unresolved issues pertaining to the review of selected technologies for the application of expedited solutions at Fort Oral.

6.14.1 BCT Action Items

There are no BCT action items for review of selected technologies.

6.14.2 Rationale

The implementation of proven technologies may reduce the time required to remediate certain areas at Fort Oral.

6.14.3 Status/Strategy

A draft version of the Fort Ord remedial technology screening report is currently under USACE - and agency review. This report presents a process for screening and selection of proven remedial technologies to expedite implementation of remedial activities at selected areas.

6.15 Hot Spot Removals

This section summarizes unresolved issues related to hot spot removals at Fort Oral.

6.15.1 BCT Action Items

There are currently no hot spot removal actions anticipated at Fort Oral. If any hot spots are identified at Fort Oral, the BCT will review the situation to determine if removal of the hot spots will expedite cleanup and property transfer efforts. If these efforts will be expedited by a hot spot removal, the BCT may elect to incorporate this approach into the remedial action strategy for the installation.

6.15.2 Rationale

Hot spot removals may expedite any required cleanup efforts and facilitate property transfer. If appropriate, hot spot removals may be used to achieve these goals.

6.15.3 Status/Strategy

Should information arise which would suggest the need for immediate action in order to protect human health and the environment, the BCT in conjunction with USAEC and USACE,

Q445.S6 Fort Oral, California - December 1995 Page 6-13 Sacramento District will evaluate the situation and make decisions regarding the best strategy - for removal.

6.16 Identification of Clean Properties

This section summarizes unresolved issues related to identifying clean properties at Fort Oral.

6.16.1 BCT Action Items

As clean properties are identified or become available for property transfer, the BCT will update the BCP. As areas at Fort Ord are remediated, the BCP and associated environmental condition of property and property suitable for transfer maps will be updated to reflect the changes. Similarly, if additional contamination is identified at the installation, appropriate modifications to the maps will be made.

6.16.2 Rationale

It is necessary to identify clean properties as part of the property transfer effort. SARA Title I, Section 120 to CERCLA addresses the transfer of federal property on which any hazardous substances were stored during any 1 year period, or is known as the site of any release or disposal of hazardous substances. SARA Title I, Section 120 to CERCLA also requires any deed for the transfer of this federal property to contain, to the extent such information is . . available on the basis of a complete search of agency files, the following information:

b A notice of the type and quantity of any hazardous substance storage, release, or disposal. b’ Notice of the time at which such storage, release, or disposal took place. F A description of what, if any, RA has occurred, and F A covenant warranting that appropriate RA will be taken.

Under CERCLA Section 120, federal property which has had a release cannot be transferred unless the release has been remediated or has a remedy in place.

In October 1992, Public law 102-426, CERFA amended Section 120(h) of CERCLA and established new requirements with respect to contamination assessment, cleanup, and regulatory agency notificationlconcumence for federal facility closures. CERFA requires the federal govement, before termination of federal activities on real property, identify property where no hazardous substances were stored, released, or disposed of. The primary CERFA objective is for federal agencies to expeditiously identify real property offering the greatest opportunity for immediate reuse and redevelopment.

6.16.3 Status/Strategy

Sections 3.4 and 3.5, Environmental Condition of Property and Suitability of Property for Transfer, outline the steps Fort Ord has taken to define the environmental condition of property

[email protected] Fort Oral, California - December 1995 Page 6-14 and identify property that is suitable for transfer as required under CERCLA Section 120 and CERFA.

The CERFA Investigation for the installation was completed in January 1994 and the final report was issued in March 1994. An environmental condition of property map was generated as part of that effort and is provided as Figure 3-2 in Section 3.4 of the BCP. The map identifies property in four environmental categories orI a l-acre grid basis.

The CERFA map has been further refined as part of the BCP process. A property suitable for transfer map has been developed using information from the CERFA Investigation, the installation S1, and other sources. The maps identi~ properties in seven categories based on historical evidence of storage or release of hazardous materials or POL and the status of related restoration activities. The map is provided in Appendix F as Figure 3-3. The map was created using GIS.

The property suitable for transfer map will be updated as portions of Fort Ord are remediated !,. ,.‘:>;, so that an accurate visual portrayal of property available for transfer is maintained.

6.17 Overlapping Phases of the Cleanup Process

This section summarizes issues that need to be resolved with regard to overlapping phases of the cleanup process at Fort Oral.

6.17.1 BCT Action Items

There are no BCT action items planned to overlap phases of the cleanup process.

6.17.2 Rationale

Overlapping phases of the cleanup process may expedite the remediation process by eliminating redundant efforts.

6.17.3 Status/Strategy

Fort Ord has implemented overlapped phases of the cleanup process and is continuing to do so to ensure timely cleanup and disposal of property.

6.18 Improved Contracting Procedures

This section summarizes the status of ongoing contracting procedures and issues that need to be resolved related to improving contracting procedures at Fort Oral.

W5S6 Fort Oral, California - December 1995 Page 6-15 6.18.1 BCT Action Teams

The BCT will develop capability to provide a full service contractor that can provide environmental investigation, remedial design and remedial alternative construction activities (full turn-key capability) for appropriate sites and projects at Fort Oral.

6.18.2 Rationale

The capability of a full service contractor as described above would provide for total “cradle to grave” continuity on applicable projects. Procurement times would be significantly reduced or eliminated between phases of a project, leading to expedited remediation.

6.18.3 Status/Strategy

Fort Oral’s main contracting support currently comes from the USACE Sacramento District. One contractor was selected for all environmental restoration activities at Fort Oral.

Currently, remedial alternative construction activities must be handled through separate procurement, by either an Invitation for Bid, a Request for Proposal, or a Purchase Order. Other means, such as pre-placed remedial contracts or emergency remedial contracts, are available through the USACE.

Other USACE contracts and USACE Districts or Divisions have been used over the course of the NPL/BIL4C project at Fort Ord when such use was appropriate for the requirements of the installation. In addition, the installation has obtained services from other U.S. Army agencies for restoration activities when the requirements dictated the need.

The USACE has selected a Total Environmental Restoration Contract (TERC) with Fort Ord designated as the “anchor installation, ” or primary user, for this contract. This contract will provide the full service capability described above. Contract award occurred in July 1994.

6.19 Interfacing with the Community Reuse Plan

Interface with a community reuse plan is desirable to expedite implementation of remedial actions, and identification and transfer of parcels to the community.

6.19.1 BCT Action Items

A CRP has been prepared for Fort Oral. The BCT will update the CRP as necessary.

6.19.2 Rationale

Coordination with the CRP contributes to the selection of appropriate cleanup standards and facilitates implementation of remedial alternatives, ultimately resulting in successful transfer of property.

0445.S6 Fort Oral, California - December 1995 Page 6+16 6.19.3 Status/Strate~

The BCT is using the reuse scenario provided by the FOIL4 to evaluate the restoration with respect to future land use. In addition, the RAB will allow the communi~ and the BCT to study the progress and decisions regarding Fort Oral.

6.20 Bias for Cleanup Instead of Studies

This section summarizes unresolved issues related to implementation of cleanup rather than studies.

6.20.1 BCT Action Items

Whenever possible, the BCT will select early cleanup rather than additioml studies of potentially contaminated sites. This approach will expedite early achievement of cleanup goals and transfer of property. There are currently no BCT action items related to this issue.

6.20.2 Rationale

Early implementation of remedial alternatives will reduce the need for additional studies of contaminated sites and will accelerate completion of cleanup activities. This in turn will facilitate property transfer efforts.

6.20.3 Status/Strategy

As demonstrated by the Acceleration Action Plan discussion on Site Elimination Actions, cleanup is emphasized in lieu of long-term studies. As part of Fort Oral’s initiatives to clean up sites, Fort Ord has prepared an Interim Action ROD that allows small-scale cleanup of potential contaminant source areas.

6.21 Expert Input on Contamination and Potential Remedial Actions

This section summarizes issues that need to be resolved regarding expert input on contamination and remedial actions at Fort Oral.

6.21.1 BCT Action Items

There are no BCT action items with regard to obtaining expert input on contamination and potential remedial actions.

6.21.2 Rationale

The use of several experts can reduce the time it takes to reach target cleanup levels and promote an expedited property transfer process.

CM45.S6 Foti Oral, California - December 1995 Page 6-17 6.21.3 Status/Strategy

The state, USEPA, USAEC, USAEHA, and contractors will continue to ensure that the proper resources are used to evaluate contamimtion and potential remedial actions.

6.22 Generic Remedies

The USEPA has issued guidance on presumptive or “generic” remedies for a few specific contamination scenarios, e.g., one of the generic remedies for vadose zone volatile organic compound contamination is soil vapor extraction. Some of these generic remedies may be applicable to Fort Ord if contamination scenarios are similar to those in the generic remedy guidance.

6.22.1 BCT Action Items

The BCT will consider generic remedies to expedite implementation of the installation’s remedial action strategy.

6.22.2 Rationale

The use of generic remedies may potentially expedite the cleanup process by allowing for expedited implementation of cleanup technologies.

6.22.3 Status/Strategy

Field studies and cleanup activities have been completed which identified bioremediation and soil venting as presumptive remedial technologies for implementation at other appropriate areas at Fort Oral. Evaluation and selection of additional generic remedies will continue during the proposed plan and remedial design process.

6.23 Partnering (Using Innovative Management, Coordination, and Communication Techniques)

This section summarizes unresolved issues related to partnering at Fort Oral.

6.23.1 BCT Action Items

Partnering is the process of fostering cooperation and communication between key players in the BRAC process. At the present time, the BCT is actively fostering partnerships with USAEC, the community, and regulatory agencies through scheduled meetings and the document review process.

6.23.2 R&-onale

Close cooperatiordcoordination between Fort Oral, USAEC, the community, and regulators helps foster good working relationships, and can accelerate implementation of the installation’s ‘“

0445.S6 Fort Oral, Califonzia - December 1995 Page 6-18 -—. remedial action strategy by keeping “key players” informed of the status of environmental efforts, soliciting their input, and addressing potential concerns in the remediation process.

6.23.3 Status/Strategy

The BCT has been established to facilitate input at all levels from the U.S. Army and regulatory agencies. This cooperation and teamwork is evidenced by the concurrence of the signatory regulatory agencies of the Acceleration Action Plan. A RAE has also been established to provide an opportunity for the community to provide input to the BCT orI cleanup activities at Fort Oral.

6.24 Updating the CERFA Report and Natural/Cultural Resources Documentation

Outstanding issues related to updating the CERFA and Natural/Cultural Resource documents for Fort Ord are outlined in this section.

6.24.1 BCT Action Items

Natural and cultural resources will be further documented as necessary. Environmental condition of property and property suitable for transfer maps will be updated as necessary based on the results of ongoing investigations at Fort Oral.

6.24.2 Rationale

Updates of the environmental condition of prope~ and property suitable for transfer maps are necessary to reflect changes in property classification based on completion of the RUFS, risk assessments, and R.As. It is anticipated that property reclassification will ultimately result in most, if not all, of Fort Ord becoming eligible for property transfer.

6.24.3 Status/Strategy

The Final CERFA Report was issued in March 1994. The environmental condition of property map from the CERFA Report is provided as Figure 3-2 in this BCP.

A property suitable for transfer map has been produced for Fort Ord and is included as Figure 3-3 in Appendix F of this BCP. The map, which classifies property in seven environmental condition categories, was generated using GH. The BCT will periodically review the CERFA report, environmental condition of property and property suitable for transfer maps, in conjunction with new data from Ws to determine if parcels can be reclassified to allow property transfer.

Natural resources at Fort Ord were documented to support the Disposal and Reuse EIS. Cultural resources were documented in an archaeological overview and historic properties report prepared in the early 1980s.

0445.S6 Fort Oral, Cal#omia - December 1995 Page 6-19 -. 6.25 Implementing the Policy for On-Site Decision Making

This section summarizes issues that need to be resolved to implement policies for on-site decision-making at Fort Oral.

6.25.1 BCT Action Teams

There are no BCT action items for clarifying on-site decision-making policies.

6.25.2 Rationale

Procedures have been developed with the regulatory agencies to minimize delays in the investigation and cleanup process when field conditions are different than those anticipated.

6.25.3 Status/Strategy

Procedures have been developed to allow contractors to make field decisions as conditions change during field investigations so long as the regulatory agencies, USACE, and the U.S. Army are notified. On-site decision-making will continue to be implemented as necessary using these procedures.

6.26 Structural and Infrastructural Constraints to Reuse

Structural and infrastructural constraints to the reuse of Fort Ord are described below.

6.26.1 BCT Action Items

The Base Reuse Plan (December 1994) includes a chapter on infrastructure. In 1992, the Fort Ord Reuse Group instituted a task force to study water, sewer, and solid waste and to appraise the infrastructure condition and capacity and to plan for the phased expansion of the utility and roadway systems to support reuse of Fort Ord. The resulting Fort Ord Infrastructure Study has focused on the usability of the existing systems and on the cost of upgrading those systems. A key conclusion of the infrastructure study process is that the potable water supply is the controlling factor for reuse, because water well sources are threatened by salt water intrusion and by the threat of water bush adjudication, which may reduce pumpage.

6.26.2 Rationale

Potential structural and infrastmctural constraints must be overcome or alternative reuses must be identified to allow transfer of Fort Oral.

6.26.3 Status/Str&egy

Limitations of the present potable water supply have been identified as the primary constraints to reuse at Fort Oral. The FORA has studied the infrastructure at Fort Ord and has a phased approach to dealing with these constraints.

Ch145.S6 Fort Oral, Califotmia - December 1995 Page 6-20 ,r-- 6.27 Other Technical Reuse Issues to be Resolved

At the present time, no other technical reuse issues have been identified.

0445.S6 Fort Oni, Califonziu -December 1995 Page 6-21 This page intentionally left blank.

CM45.S6 Fort Oni, Cal~omia - December 1995 Page 6-22 /’ ,-- CHAPTER 7

➤ PRIMARY REFERENCES <

Army Regulation 200-1, Chapter 11, Environmental Protection and Enhancement, 23 April 1990.

Code of Federal Regulations, Title 24, Subtitle A, Part 35, Subpart E, Elimination of Lead- Based Paint Hazards in Federally-Owned Prope~ies Prior to Sale for Residential Habitation.

Communip Environmental Response Facilitation Act RepoH, Fort Oral, Monterey, California, Arthur D. Little, Inc., 6 December 1993.

Enhanced Preliminary Assessment Repoti, Fort Oral,California, Volume 1, Roy F. Weston, Inc., December 1990.

Environmental Protection Agency Publication EPA/625 /5-8S/024, Application of Radon Reduction Methods, April 1989 (Rev.).

-. Final FeasibiliQ Study RepoH, Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Stu@ for Fort Ord Lundfills, Fort Oral, Monterey, California, Dames & Moore, 1 October 1993.

Fort Ord Base Reuse Plan, Fort Ord Reuse Authority, December 1994.

Fort Oral,California, Base- Wide Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study, Volume 1: Literature Review and Base Invento~ Repoti, EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, March 1991.

Fort Ord Flora and Fauna Baseline Study, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1992.

Memorandum, Assistant Secretary of the Army, (Installations, Logics and Environment), Lead- Based Paint Policy Guidance, 28 April 1993.

Memorandum, Chief, Base Realignment and Closure Division, (Headquarters Forces Command), Policy Guidance Lead-Based Paint and Asbestos in Army Properties AJected by Base Realignment and Closure, 15 December 1993.

OU 1 Remediation Conj7rmation Study, Drafi Repoti, Fen! Oral, Harding Lawson Associates, 8 February 1994.

Public Law 102-550, Housing and Community Development Act of 1992, (contains Title X, Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992), 28 October 1992.

Remedial Investigation/Feasibili~ Study Work Plan, Fo~ Oral, Cal~ormia, excerpts, Harding Lawson Associates prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Fort Oral, December 1991.

(u45.S6 Fort Oti, California - December 1995 Page 7-1 Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study, Ford Oral, Cal~ornia, Harding Lawson, Associates for ““” U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Fort Oral, Draft, August 1994.

Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study, Ford Oral, California, Harding Lawson, Associates for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Fort Oral, Final, December 1994.

Sumrrwy of Base Reuse Plan, Fort Oral,Prelimintuy Dra~, Fort Ord Reuse Group, 8 February 1994.

Radon Mitigation, Technical Note No. 420-70-6, Department of the Army, 1 December 1992.

U.S. Army Engineering and Housing Support Center Technical Note 420-70-2, Lead-Based Paint: Hazard Identification and Abatement, 3 September 1991.

....-.

CM45.S6 Fort Oral, Califonzia - December 1995 Page 7-2

,_..

APPENDIX A

➤ FISCAL YEAR FmING REQUIREMENTS/cosTs +

W5,APX Fort Oral, Califonzia - December 1995 This page intentionally left blank.

M45,APX FOHOral, California - December 1995 TABLEA-1. TOTAL ENWRONMENTALPROGRAM SUMMARY

FUND RllQUUWME~S ($000) FY FY m FY FY FY FY .Frogram 1994 1995 1996 1997 199s 1999 2000 Total

IRP DERA 494 235 60 3,317 1,282 1,333 6,721 IRP BRAC 68,762 52,815 173,016 10,754 10,000 10,000 169,637 EC-CR 10 0 0 0 0 0 EC-MR 6,706 5,449 4,378 2,378 2,120 2,015 23,046

NAT/CULT 285 150 120 25 25 25 630 Subtotal , 76,257 58,649 21,864 16,474 13,427 13,373 200,044 NEPA 120 70 0 0 0 0 190 Total 76,377 58,719 21,864 16,474 13,427 13,373 200,234

TABLE A-2. HISTORICAL ENWRONMENTAL PROGRAM EXPENDITURES SUMMARY

FUND RIWUIREMENTS ($000) I

FY FY FY FY FY FY FY Program 19S6 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 Total

IRP DERA IRP BRAC EC-CR EC-MR NAT/CULT Subtotal

NEPA (Disposal and Reuse EA) Total

Key: IRP — Installation Restoration Program DERA . Defense Environmental Restoration Account BRAC . Base Realignmem and Closure EC . Environmental Compliance EA . Environmental Assessment FY . Fiscal Year NEPA — National Environmental Policy Act CR — Closure Related MR — Mission Related NAT . Natural Resource CULT . Cultural Resources

0445,APX Font Oral, California - December 1995 Page A-1 ,,..

,. This page intentionally left blank.

0445.APX Forc Oral, Califontia - December 1995 Page A-2

APPENDIXB

➤ INSTALLATION ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION DOCUMENT SUMMARY TABLES 4

W5.APX Fort Oral, Cal~omia - December 1995 This page intentionally left blank.

0445.APX Fort Oral, California - December 1995 ,/ I TABLE B-1. mOJECT DELIVERABLES I

Delivery Year Phase Project .Title Report No. Sites Examined Date./Contractor

1990 PA Enhanced Preliminary 1 12/90, Weston for Assessment USATHAMA

1993 RI Basewide Background Soil 2 Basewide 3/15193. HLA Investigation

1993 RI Basewide Hydrogeologic 3 Basewide 617193, HLA Characterization

1993 RI 13asewide Surface Water 4 Basewide 4/5/93, HLA Outfall Investigation

1992 RI Basewide Storm Drain and 5 Basewide 7/6/92, HLA Sanitaty Sewer Investigation

1993 RI Data Evaluationand 6 Site 10 6/9/93, HLA I RecommendationReport I 1993 RI Data Evaluation and 7 Site 1 & 2 515193, HLA Recommendation Report

1993 RI Site Characterization Report 8 Site 14 1/8193, HLA ,,.- 1993 RI Site Characterization Report 9 Site 20 3129/93,I-ILA

1992 RI Site Characterization Repott, 10 Site 34 612192, HLA I I I Part I I 1992 RI Site Characterization Report, 11 Site 34 6/12/92. HLA Part 11

1992 RI Basewide Biological Inventory 12 Basewide 12/8/92, HLA

1993 RI Data Evaluation and 13 Site 5 1/14/93, HLA Recommendation Report

I 1993 I RI I Sile CharacterizationReport I ,4 Site 32 8/6/93, HLA

I 1992 I RI I RI I 15 Site 6 11/11/92, I-WA I 1992 I RI I Site CharacterizationRermrt I 16 Site 9 1115192, HLA

I 1993 I RI I Site Characterization Report I 17 Site 11 2126/93,HLA I 18 Site 13 12/10/92, HLA

1992 RI Site Characterization Report 19 Site 15 11/19/92, HLA

1993 RI Site Characterization Report 20 Site 16 3119193, HLA

1993 RI Site Characterization Report 21 Site 17 8/6/93, HLA

1992 RI Site Characterization Report 22 Site 19 10/27/92, HLA

1993 RI Site Characterization Report 23 Site 21 4/8/93, HLA

Cd45.APX Fort Oral, Cal~omia - December 1995 Page B-1 ,-.+ I TABLE B-1. PROJECT DELIVERABLES I Continued

Delivery Year ‘..1 Phase Project’ Title Report .No. Sites Examined Date/Contractor

1992 IN Site Characterization Repofi I 24 Site 23 10/20/92, HLA

1992 IRI Site Characterization Report I 25 Site 27 7/24/92, I-ILA

1992 IRI Site Characterization Report 26 Site 29 12/4/92, HLA I 27 2/1 1/93, HLA 1993 IN Site Characterization Report I Site 30 1992 IRI Site Characterization Report 28 Site 31 10/27/92, HLA 1 6127193, HLA 1993 IR.I Site Characterization Report J 29 Site 35 1992 IN Site Characterization Report 30 Site 37 11/20/92, HLA I 31 Site 40 & 41 12130192, HLA 1992 I w Site Characterization Report I 1993 I RI Site Characterization Report I 32 Site 25 6/18/93, HLA

Site Characterization Report 33 Site 38 7/15/92, HLA I Soil Contamination 34 Ou 1 4/14/86, HLA I 1 6/5187, HLA 1987 I RI Ground water / 35 Ou 1990 RA Construction Report, 36 Ou 1 5/30/90, EILA Groundwaterand Soil I Treatment System 1 I ---l==- OU 1 Proposed Plan I 37 Ou 1 3127192, HLA 1993 RCRA Draft Verification of Solid 38 Basewide 1993/usAcE Waste Management Units Sacramento District

Basewide RI/FS Literature 39 Basewide 1991/USACE Review and Base Inventory Omaha District/Fort Ord DEH 1 1988 Hazardous Waste Management 40 Basewide 1988/USAEHA I Survey

Update of the Initial I 41 Basewide 1987/ES&E InstallationAssessment I Installation Assessment 42 Basewide 1983/U.S. Army + Chemical Systems , Laboratory ~

1991 I PA/SI 2, 5, 18, 20, 23, 199 l/OMM for 24, 25, 32, 38 USACE Omaha I District 1 3

M45,APX Fort Oral, California - December 1995 Page B-2 I TABLE B-1. PROJECT DELIVERABLES I Continued

Delivery Year Phase Project Title Report No. Sites Examined Date/Contractor

1990 S1 Report of Investigation, 44 Site 11 1990/OMM for AAFES Service Station USACE Omaha District

1990 S1 Site Investigations, Fort Ord 45 10, 12, 14, 22 1990/EAES for and Fort Hunter - Leggett USACE Omaha District

1989 .. Preliminary Hydrologic 46 Ou 2 1989/HLAfor Investigation,Fort Ord USACE Landfills Sacramento District

.,;,.. 1988 Investigation of Building 511 47 Ou 1 198WHLAfor UST FAAF USACE Sacramento District

1987 RI RI/FS Addendum,Study of 48 Ou 1 1987/HLAfor Soil Contamination, FAAF USACE Fire Drill Area Sacramento District

1994 PA/SI EnPA for Monterey Bay 49 Basewide 1994/HLA for USACE, Sacramento District

1995 RI/FS 13asewide RI/FS 50 141, Ou 1, 0U2 1995,HLA for USACE, Sacramento District

Key: FS = Feasibility Study PA = Preliminary Assessment RA= Remedial Action RCRA = Resource Conservation and Recovery Act RI= Remedial Investigation S1 = Site Investigation

0445.APX Fort Oral, Cai~onria - December 1995 Page B-3 TABLE B-2. SITE DELIVERABLES

site m PA/Sl RIIFS RD/RA 1A LTM No Action 1 50 50 2 43 7, 50 3 50 4 50 50 5 43 13, 50 6 15, 50 50 7 50 50 8 50 50 9 16, 50 10 45 6, 50 50 11 44 17, 50 50 12 45 7, 50 13 18, 50 50 14 45 8, 50 50 15 19, 50 50 16 20, 50 17 21, 50 18 43 50 50 19 22, 50 50 20 43 9, 50 50 21 23, 50 50 22 45 50 50 23 43 24, 50 50 24 43 50 50 25 43 32, 50 50 26 50 50 27 25, 50 50 28 50 50 29 26, 50 50 30 27, 50 50 31 28, 50

IM45.APX Forf Oral, California - December 1995 Page B-4 ,,-’ TABLE B-2. SITE llELIVERABLES Continued Site ID PA/SI RI/FS RD/RA IA LTM No Action

32 43 14, 50 50 33 50 50 34 10, 11, 50 50 35 29, 50 50 36 50 50 37 30, 50 50 38 43 33, 50 50 39 50 40 31, 50 50 41 31, 50 50 Ou 1 34, 35, 36 36, 37, 48, 50 .. Ou 2 50

Key: IA = Interim Action LTM = Long Term Monitoring PA/SI = Preliminary Assessment/Site, Investigation RD/RA = Remedial Design/Remedial Action RI/FS = Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study

Note: The numbers refer to the documents listed in Table B-1.

W5.APX Fort Oral, Califomiu - December 1995 Page B-5 .:”. lXIiLE B-3*” ~~@.@~?@GV@Sl~ATA ‘,. ~~ ,,, ,, .,, ,.. LoADiNG’””sTAmii’”’stm’MRY“::”‘“ “““ “’”“ .,,,,

IRDMCS Date IRP Title Site Contractor Service Center Status/Other

1992-1993 RI/FS 2, 5, 6, 9-17, HLA Data managed NA 19-21, 23, 25, in USACE data 27, 29-32, 34, base 35, 37738, 40 amd41

1986-1987 RI/FS Ou 1 HLA Data managed NA in USACE data base

--

CM45.APX Fort Oral, California - December 1995 Page B-6

APPENDIXC

F DECISION DC)CUMENT/ROD smMARIES 4

b: ,

. ,“

—.

CM45.APX Fort Oral, California - December 1995 This page intentionally left blank. .. ./

.-,

0445.APX Fort Oral, Califontia - December 1995 RECORD OF DECISION OPERABLE UNIT 2 FORT ORD, CALIFORNIA JANUARY 10, 1994

SITE DESCRIPTION not been developed. This area is covered by uneven sand dunes with grass, shrubs, and The landfills were used for 30 to 35 years for bushes. This decision document presents the residential and commercial waste disposal. The selected remedial actions for the OU 2 landfills north landfill was used from 1956 to 1966 and site and underlying aquifers (upper aquifer and was closed to waste disposal when the main 180-footaquifer). landfill began operating. The main landfill was operated from 1960 until 1987 and may have SELECTED REMEDIAL ACTION received a small amount of chemical waste along with household and commercial refuse. The The selected remedial alternative for OU 2 main landfill -facility stopped accepting waste for described in this ROD addresses current or ,-.,, ..< disposal in May 1987 because of the initiation of potential significant risks to human health and ““‘“;;,interim closure of the facili~. the environment posed by OU 2 at Fort Oral, California. This is the second identified OU at Waste received at the main landfill facility was Fort Oral. The identificationof OUSat Fort Ord placed in trenches approximately 30 feet wide, is pending completionof the basewide remedial 10 to 12 feet below ground surface, and 10 to investigationin 1994. The selected remedy will 15 feet apart. Waste was normally placed in involve the followingactivities: these trenches to a height of approximately 10 feet above the trench bottom and covered with ● Placementof an engineeredcap over the about 2 feet of native dune sand deposits OU 2 landfills to restrict rainfall excavated during trenching operations; however, infiltration and prevent leaching to thicker refuse sections exist within the landfill. underlying groundwater of any The disposal methods at the north landfill are remaining volatile organic compounds unknown but are believed to be similar to (VOCS) in waste materials or soil. practices used in the main landfill. Deed restrictionswouldbe placed on the property to ensure that the integrity of Detailed records on the amounts or types of the cap is maintained during future use waste disposed of at the landfills are not of the site and prevent potential future available; however, information collected during direct exposures to VOCS of the field activities and from other sources indicate environment or people associated with that household and commercial refuse, dried future use. sewage sludge, construction debris, and a small amount of chemical waste (such as paint oil, ● Extraction, treatment, and recharge of pesticide, electrical equipment, ink, and epoxy groundwater that contains VOCS from adhesive) were placed in the landfill. the upper aquifer at, and downgradient of, the Fort Ord landfills. This action This ROD addresses the Fort Ord Landfills, also would remove VOCSfrom groundwater known as OU 2, north and south of Imjin Road. that could pose threats to human health A playing field and roads are located on the and the environment. landfill north Irnjin Road. The north landfill covers approximate y 30 acres, and residences ● Extraction, treatment, and recharge of are located nearby. The landfill south of Imjin 180-foot aquifer downgradient of the Road (referred to herein as the main landfill) Fort Ord landfills groundwater as an encompasses approximately 120 acres that have interim action to prevent further

C445.APX Fort Oral, California - December 1995 Page C-2 ,., migration of VOCS. The final cleanup remedy for the 180-foot aquifer will be addressed in the basewide ROD, which is anticipated to be completed in 1995.

PERFORMANCE STANDARDSOR GOALS

The remedial action objective for the shallow soils and waste materials is to restrict rainfall infiltration to prevent leaching to underlying groundwater of VOCS remaining in waste materials or soil and to prevent potential direct exposure to VOCS of the environment or people who use the she in the future. To protect human health and comply with federal and state law, groundwater must be returned to a condition that will allow beneficial uses to occur, including future potential use as a drinking water source, without unacceptable risks to the users. Thus, the remedial action objectives for groundwater include cleaning up the upper aquifer to MCLS or lower. The provisional goals for the interim action in the 180-foot aquifer are also MCLS. Currently, no on- or off-base residents are exposed to TCE, because there are no consumers of untreated contaminated groundwater and no residents occupying land overlying the landfill.

M45.APX Font Oral, Cal#omia - December 1995 Page C-3 /... INTERIM ACTION RECORD OF DECISION CONTAMINATED SURFACE SOIL REMEDIATION FORT ORD, CALIFORNIA FEBRUARY 1994

SITE DESCRIPTION ● Excavation of limited quantities of shallow contaminated surface soil, Generally, chemicals present in soil at Interim followed by confirmation sampling and Action sites are the result of former routine backfilling with clean fill maintenance and support activities on Fort Oral. Such activities include: maintenance of military ● Soil treatment, recycling and/or vehicles at wash racks, tank storage of chemicals disposal. Whenever possible, the such as waste oil, the use of oil/water separators contaminated soil will be treated or in drainage areas, and pesticide use and storage. recycled, with landfill disposal used ordy as a last resort. Soil treatment/recycling The decision document presents the interim will be performed at the Fort Ord Soil action plug-in ROD for soil remediation of Treatment Area using biotreatment selected areas at 41 Comprehensive and/or soil vapor extraction. Whenever Environmental Response, Compensation, and feasible, treated soil will be reused on Liability Act (CERCLA) sites on Fort Oral. Fort Oral.

SELECTED REMEDIAL ACTION ● Preparation of confirmation reports of site remedial Interim Action activities The selected remedial alternative for the Interim Action described in this ROD addresses PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS immediate, imminent, and/or significant risks to human health and the environment posed by Interim Action at Fort Ord will be implemented limited areas of shallow contaminated surface before final remedial alternatives or cleanup soil at Fort Oral, California. Interim Action at levels for given chemicals or combinations of Fort Ord will likely be implemented before final chemicals have been established. Further remedial alternatives or cleanup levels for given remedial actions may be required at Interim chemicals have been established, but a Action areas after final cleanup levels are conservative approach will be used in developing established in the basewide ROD for Fort Oral, soil cleanup levels for these Interim Action areas which is anticipated to be completed in 1996. A to reduce the likelihood of further remedial conservative approach will be used in developing actions at an Interim Action area. The selected soil cleanup levels for these Interim Action areas Interim Action remedy will involve the to reduce the likelihood of further remedial following activities: actions at an Interim Action area. Therefore, the Interim Action is consistent with the ● Biological and ecological assessment of anticipated final remedy for these areas. each Interim Action area

● Use of site eligibility criteria for screening potential Interim Action areas

● A regulatory approval process for implementing Interim Actions

0445.”4PX Fort Oral, Cal#omia - December 1995 Page C-4 ,,,-. NO ACTION RECORD OF DECISION FORT ORD, CALIFORNIA APRIL 1995

SITE DESCRIPTION ● Where a previous response action (e.g., interim remedial action or removal A no action site is a site where CERCLA action) eliminated existing and potential remedial action is not necessary to protect risks to human health and the human health and the environment. environment such that no further action is necessary. SELECTED REMEDIAL ACTION PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS This decision document presents the No Action Plug-In ROD for selected areas at Fort Oral, Although the No Action sites at Fort Ord do not California (see Plate 1). The plug-in ROD require treatment or controls, groundwater describes the process for identifying a No Action monitoring may be performed as part of site. Site specific documentation justifying that basewide monitoring activities. the no action criteria has been met will be provided subsequent to the ROD through an A number of sites have been identified as AOCS Approval Process. This process is referred to as or AREEs in historical PA/SIs at Fort Ord and the “plug-in” process, because the Approval were addressed during the first phase of the Memoranda plug into the ROD. This plug-in basewide RI/FS. ROD was prepared in accordance with CERCLA, as amended by SARA, and, to the extent practicable, the Natioml Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). This decision is based on the Administrative record for Fort Oral. The USEPA and the State of California concur with the No Action site criteria.

No action (i.e., no treatment, engineering controls, or institutional controls) would be warranted under the following general sets of circumstances applicable to sites at Fort Oral:

● Where the baseline risk assessment or screening risk evaluation concludedthat conditions at the site pose no unacceptable risks to human health and the environment.

● Where a release involved only substances exempt from remedial action under CERcLA Section 101 (investigation and/or remediation maybe undertaken pursuant to other state or federal authority).

W5.APX Fort Ont, California - December 1995 Page C-5 Fort Oral,California Disposal and Reuse Environmental ImpSct Szatem=nt Record of Decision

In my caqacity as the Acting Assistant Secretav of the AZZy fo: Installations, Logistics, and Environment, ~d based on the ~nalysls contained in the find envmonmentd mpact s~atemen~ (EIS) for Fort Ord ~i~~os~~ and reuse, I have determined that. the EIS adequately addresses impacts of the >my’s actions relating to the disgosal of property at Fort Ozd , California, on the biological, physical, and cultural ●wizonment. As a result of this Record of Decision (ROD), the F–my will proceed to dispose of excess pro~erty at Fort Oral, retain the resene centez, .236 establish the Presidio of Monterey (POM) annex. ‘ In making my decision, I h=va ccasicered the transcripts of scoping meetings, public hearings, znd all verbal and written comments received during the public cor.mencperiods associated with the preparation of the EIS. In addi:ion, I have considered the results of real estate screening, anticontinued coordination with feceral, state, local, and r~gulztory-=gencies and public groups. The 1990 Base Clos=e ACC =zecifies that th= N2tional EnvlrQ~ment~l policy ACt (FJJPA) does not GQDIY to the Base CIOSUre and Realign.me.ntCommissio~.’stiecisior~to close Fort Ord or to t~ne closing action itself. The realignmz: of troops from Fort Oral,to Fort- Lewis, Washington is covezed in separate env~rome~tal ~rAysis . Therefore, the EIS on wk.ichthis ROD is based covers only the disposal of ZE=L property a.zdreuse of Fort Oral. The Army will b~gin the =ctioz of preparing for disposal (i.e., placing excess land in a czreta~ker status, initiating interim leases ana outgr=nts where appzo~ri=te, and proceeding with remediation of environm~ntal cont=mm=tion and disposal of approximately 26,000 acres of excess prop=rty made available by the closure of Fort Or&, with retention of a rese~e center and establishment of a POM mn~x. The EIS desczibes a range of alternatives for retaining the resene centez and ●stzblishing th~ POM annex (i.e., different configurations of the ?OM annex and no POM znnex or rese=e center) that adequately addresses the enviror-==nt=leffects of this portion

1

Page C-6 of the Army action. Modifications at the ?residio of Monterey anti any Changes to the proposed POM annex will be =ti&’essetiin a segarate enviroment.al analysis as appropriate untie~NEFA.

The my is not adopting a ~eu=e plan =t this time. A va~iez: o= reuse alternatives nave instead been analyzed to ensure that the &rry has adequately considered the secondz.ryor indirect effect:soi itq disposal action. I ~t~cip~te th~~ the resulting reuse will be consisten~ with the land use development cancegt ad resource protection me-asures &mbodied in the anticipated reuse scenario identified in P.ttachment1. The local communities will dev@lop and adopt gener=l plans to guide reuse.

In the EIS, the lumy analyzed Fiv= levels of Cie::elopment intensity for reuse of Fort Or&, including . open space, institutional , antia range of mixed use int~nsities. The P_ry also developed and analyzed a pzeferred re’~se~~ternative (A~tenn~tive 6R: Anticipated Reuse), b~~ed on re~~ e~:~te screening re~e~t~. The EIS concluded that the open SPaC= alte==tive and the ~nticipated reuse ~ltern~tive axe the emrizon.mentdly preferable reuse alternatives. The low-, mediwv- ZHE hi:h-density mixed use alternatives were eliminated from further consldexation in the EIS because of significant adverse envizcr~ien=alimpacts. The open space alternative presented options for minor amounts. of public access and open space, but did not pzesent measures to rn=nage and conse_Te e2&ngere5 ~p-~ sgecial-staLus species. Further, the open space alzern=tiv= wculd retain large gortlons of Fort Ord in a caretaker status pen~~z~ fu~the~ Ciecisions, eXCepW for lands requested by the U.S. Buze=u of Land Management (EIJ4)-,. California Department of Parks and Recreation (CDPR), and Mont=rey Pminsula Reg~onzl Park District. This condition is not consistent with the Army’s interest in disposin~ of excess property =6 with local interest in making useable lane available to offset the loss of regional economic activity assocktsd with the closure of Fort Ord. The anticipated reus~ altermtive WES developed to describe the most likely reuse based on real Estate screening, local reuse planning, and market factors- In th~ ar=:t EIS, this alternative= reflected preliminary results of the real estate screening requests and incorporated market and community factors. In the final EIS, this alternative reflected an update of the real estate screening process. Comments received from local government entities on the final EIS, however, indicated a strong desire to have a locally generated reuse plan be considered by Zhe kmy to guide its disposal actions. Although a local reuse plan has not yet been finalized, the Fort Ord Reuse Grouq adopted a “draftreuse plan in October 1993. The local commun~ties with land use “planning authority will formally aaopt a final reuse plan in April 1994. The anticipated reuse scenario has ‘been updated to reflect comments from the local co~unlt~es On the final EIS (see Attachment 1) . These modifications EZe c~nsisten~ with_,therangf of alternatives analyzed. in the firal EZS. These modification~.

2’

Page C-7 primarily ugdate the pot=tial actions of others that would afiec: land use and result in c~tiktive environnientallmqacts. These modifications would not result in tipacts not analyzea in the fin=l ,.. EIS . This modified alternative consists largely Of updates to federal, state, and local screening requests antii~corporates those portions of local reuse planning th=t have been an=lyzed in tne final EiS. The modified alte.m=tive in Attachment 1 the:eiore re~lects the current most likely reuse b=ed on screening requests and community reuse planning. AS decisions on screening revests are finalized. md the community’s reuse plan is refined, Lt is expected that actual reuse may vary. prior to disposal, v~ri~tions and changes to the current =nticipeted reuse must be reviewe~ for consistency with ‘the final EIS analysis and to ~ete.~ine w’nether additional environmental aalysis is required.

I have decided to dispose of excess property’at Fort Oral. I anticipate that the resulting reuse will be cor.sisten.t with the land uses end resource protection me=== embodied in the upczt~d anticipated reuse scen~rio identified in Attachment 1. ~o~~ elements of the updated scenario w~re cont=ineti in re,~se alternatives an~lyzed in the EIS; seve~d uses proposed in th~ community’s reuse plan we=e not ==3Yz=d in the EIS -a aye indicated on Attachment 1 as areas needing furthe= analysis betor~ those prape~ties could be traqsfe=r~d.

Implementing the disposal process in this m=rn.erwill provide positive =s:ects of economic recover: for local communities whil~ providing ~or areas of open Spaca Zze othez envi~onmental considerations. The Arry will develop additional mvirarunental analysis following this reccrd of dec~sion (ROD)to address impacts of thos= uses in the community’s reuse plan pot =Lready addressed in th~ EIS . This analysis w-illbe completed afcez the local communities have finalized theiz reuse plan. The ~+~y will not dispose, of property for reuse not covered by this EIS until the environmental evaluation is complete. The additional evaluation will be use5 to dete.mine if adequate planning changes or mitigation measures have been developed or included through the local planning process. The disposal process will consi~eu federal requests received in the screening process for transf~u of fedezal land tha~ is required under the Federal Property =*E Administrative Se.mites Act of 1949, as well as all McKinney Act reguescs. The -y will honor, where possible and appropriate, all stat= and 10C=L1requests for conveyance from separately authorized federal programs for transportation, education, recreation and open space, public health and safety, and airports. Adjustments may be necessary prior to disposal to resolve conflicts .betw~en various reguests and to accommodate transfers and development for these uses in z way that is environmmtally compatible or can accommodate these uses without - significant adverse environmental consequences or degradation. - The -y will not retain the Siias E. Hays Army Commur&ity Hospital as a medical facility, because it has beenideter%ined that 3

Page C-8 -- there are no significant remaining Department of Defense he=ltk caxe requixe-mentsin the Monterey area. Those retirees using Silas B. Hays P-y Community HospiLal will be acco~odat:d through Civilian Health and. Medical Program of the Unlfo~ea Se~~ces (CX4MPUS). The environmental impacts of this dec=lon have been covered undez the wide range of reuse alternatives analyzed in th{ EIS . ., The Army will seek fair market value for property where appropriate. As required by the 1990 Base Closure Act, proceetis from this process aze placed in the base closure account to pay for the cost of closu=e. replacement facilities, anti remediation of closing installations. ,, The Army will follow the qeneral concepts Of lts PrOPO==d action, including procee~ing with studies supporting the action and preparing for disposal. In initiating this process, adjustments will be made to =ccount for new ~nfo~=tlon f~om ongo~ng ~~c~-~~c~~t . . engineering, real est~te, ana economic studies and coordination with various goveznmen.tzlagencies relating to disposal which =re described below. Natural Resouce Consultation. Implementation of the A-my’s disposal action has the potential to directly and indirectly affect populations &nd F+abitat of several special-st=tus ~lznt and wildlife species (22 plant species- and 22 wilalife species) . As ~ ~~=ult, the P_rY LS developing a h=bitzt m=nzgenent pla (“kilF) . The my has consulted with th~ U.S. ,Fish ~q~ Wi~dlife Se.Tice (USFVJS), California DeparcmenZ of Fish ana Game (DFG), the California Native Flant Socisty (CNPS), 10CZ1 co~~~:ities, and othezs and has concluded that the by’s action, with implementation of an instael=lcahti:~-wi~~ mu~ti-species ~F , will adequately conse-we - tk@ species aadressed in the HMP. Additionally, t~~ ~~-~-cJ biolo~ical opinion concludes that there will be no jeopardy to listea species from this action, provided that such an F.XPis developed and mutually agreed uqon between the my and USFWS prior to taking action. Coordination and consultation with USFWS ad DFG will cmtinue as proposals for disposal are refined. Environmental cleanug. The Remedial Investigation/Feasibility study (RI/FS) and the Federal Facilities Agreement (FFA) =d unexploded ordnance studies are ongoing procedures at Fort C)rd that will result in clarification of the extent of environmental contam~natlon and mechanisms for remediating to appropriate levels to protect human health and the environmentt. Cleanup actions will be taken commensurat~ with reuse. Some areas may be transferred with restriction on future uses where proposed reuse or cleanup-related environmental damag~ may warrant less than unrestricted use. The RI/FS process and Unexploded ordnance studies will be used to refine these decisions. For example, in some range areas this cleanup will need to be accomplished “n a sensitiv~ fashion commensurate with special-status 8,pecies-. habitat 4

Page C-9 requirements of the range are=. Re=l Estate Screening. Red estate screening ha= been comnleted for most of the excess lands at Fort Oral. Although additional screening may be undertaken for small pazceis within the POI!annex, the EIS h= addressed the impacts Of E range of uses in this area, so additional envlroxamental . documentation mzy not be needed. ‘ Coastal Resour~s. The -y” is continuing coordination with the California coastal Cor.niis=ion(CCC) ~0 complete the coashal consistency determination as”required by the Coastal Zone Management Act. , Monterey E=y National Marine S=nctua.ry. The Axmy is working with the ::zzionel Oceanic and Atinosqneric Administration (NO-~~)to ensur~ compliance with =wlatlons being promulgated to protec~ tn~ Moncezey Bay National Marine Sanctuary. Air Qualizyl T~.ePH,:J is contir.uingto coorci.natewith the Monterey Ezy UIQI..‘ ‘i+ ~.~r pollucioc Contzol District (M5UAFCD), the U.S. Envizor.aent=l Protection Agency (EPA), anti other agencies raspon.siDlefor updating eir quality manaqem=nt plans required by the CIE= Air Ac: “as the aisposal process continues. The .-.h~-~_ ;=~sevaluatea its acti-sr:for consktency. Disposal is not e.xpeczedta result in increases in population that are inconsistent with local plans or incr=ases in emissions tn=t would violate =i: quality standard=. Land “ reuse pro~osed throuqn the fedezzl screening process is also considered consistent with air qulity management planning. The most recent input from the local communities .inaicates that proposed reuses are not e.wectetito.‘exc=ed population esti.mdtesused fou local air q~di ty management plennin: or cause incre=s=s in air emissio=s beyona baseline conditions used to develop local implementation plans. Congestion Management-. The P_zy will retain the road end lighting system, in the short t=.m, needed to support the POM ann~x =nd th~ rese-rv= center =R6 .to retain access to key infrastructure facilities outsid= the POM annex and reseme center. in the long term, the ~–~ly will dispose of all roads not needed to support the POM =rc~exor resene center. The ~ywill continue coordination wich the California Department of Transportation (Cdtrans) and tie Transportation Agency of Monterey County (TP.MC) regarding transportation corridors within Fort Oral. The Mzny’s action of disposal is consistent with local congestion management.planning. Disposal of lanas requested through the federal screening process is also - considered to be consistent with local congestion management.

-,

5 Page C-10 . Cultural Resources. Cultural resource inventories ar~ continuing at Fort Oral. Concurrent with this effOrE, the -y will continue ccnsul~ation with the Advisoq Council on Historic Prese=tion (A~”P)and the C~lifornia State Historic Presentation Officer, ic compliance with Section 106 of tt’ National Historic Preservation Act and the Amend~ . Programmatic Agreement Between the Department of the Axmy, the A~~, and the Na~ion~l Coucil of State Historic Presentation Officers concerning realignment and closu~e of Mmy Installations ‘in accordance with the Base Closure and Realignment Act.

Utility Systems. In the short”tezm, the Axmy will,xetain the existing utility systems (i.e., water kupply and distribution, sewage collection and disposal, storm arainage collection, telephone and communications systems, and disposal, electrical and gas SUQplY =nd ciiscributio~) EO sene the POM annex, the rese.we center, environmental =.meai=tionl and any interim uses granted prior to disposal. In the long term, the Amy will pursue disposal of these systems as described in the EIS.

The kmy has taken .a wide racge of measures, to avoid .or mitigate harmful effects of its actions. It is my aecision to adopt the mitigation mess-mes described for implementation by the my in the Mitigation Monitoring ProSzam (Attachment 2) , which is based-on the mitigation dsscribed in the “Executive Summary” of the final EIS. Additional measures wezs developed in response t’ comments on the final EIS. (Se= Attachment 2 for mitigatic adopted with this Record of Decisio~.)

Additional mitigation for reus= that is beyond Army pumiew was identified in the EIS to reduce c= avoid secondary or indirect impacts. These mitigations have been au~ented through discussions with and conunents from local land uss planning entities. The Amny will provide these recomm~nded mitig~:ions to responsible federal, state, and local agencies and any other recipients bf land (see Attachment 2) . Attachment 2 incluass a list of those local mitigations identified and agreed to to date by local entities with land use regulatory authority in and around Fort Oral.

The Axmy will continue to encouzage these entities and others receiving land to adopt appropriate mechanisms for avoidance and mitigation of harmful environmental impacts as part of their decisions for their reuse actions. Appropriate measures will be

. ,,+

6

Page C-1 1 consistent with feaezal used to ensure that the my’s actions are incluain~ the Clean Air ACL, envizomental laws and regulations, the Cle=n W=ter ACLf the Zone Y!nagement Act , /. Ehe CO~SCal Historic PreseHatlon Ace. Endangered Species Act, and the National

● W& “ Michael W. Owen AcKing Assistant Secveta~ of the Army (Installations, Logistics & Envirom=~c)

Dats: / 2/2 3/95

.-.

7

Page C-12 This page intentionally left blank.

@145,APX Fen?Oral, Cal~onzia - December 1995

“J-

I APPENDIX D

(M45.APX Fort Oni, California - December 1995 TABLE D-1. No ACTION SITE SUMMARIES

We No. RMIS Site No. Site Class Description MateriaI Disposed Of Date of Operation

Site 1 FTO-001 NPL Ord Village Sewage Treatment Waste oils, solvents, fuels, heavy 1950s-1964 Plant metafs

Site 7 FTO-007 NFL Range 40 and 41 (Fire Demo Gasoline As early as 1917-1970s Area)

Site 11 FTO-011 NPL AAFES Fueling Station Fuels, oils, heavy metals 1962-present

Site 13 FTO-013 NPL Railroad Right of Way Unknown Present

Site 18 FTO-O 18 NPL 1600 Block Motorpool Fuels, oils, solvents 1940s-present Site 19 I FTO-019 I NPL I2200Block Facilitv Fuels. oils. solvents I Present I Si[e 25 FTO-025 NPL Former Defense Reutilization and PCBS, pesticides Unknown I I I Marketirm Office Site

Site 26 FTO-026 NFL Sewage Pump Stations - Buildings None Present 5871/6143 I Site 27 I FTO-027 I NPL Army Reserve Motorpool Fuels. oils 1 Unknown I Site 28 FTO-028 NPL Barracks and Main Garrison Area PCE Present Site 29 FTO-029 NPL Defense Reutilization and PCBS Present Marketing Office I Site 32 FTO-032 NPL East Garrison Sewage Treatment Sewage Present I I Plant I Site 33 FTO-033 NPL Golf Course Pesticides, fungicides 1950s-present Site 35 FTO-035 NPL Aircraft Cannibalization Yard Aircraft fuels, solvents I Unknown I Site 36 FTO-036 NPL FAAF Sewage Treatment Plant Solvents, heavy met&, fuels 1950s-present I 1 Site 37 FTO-037 NPL Trailer Park Maintenance Shop Grease, fuels, oils 1959-present I Site 38 FTO-038 NPL AAFES Dry Cleaners Solvents I Present I T“h~s page mtent~oni ly left blank.

Page D-1 ,,,. ‘J

..-

,/.- APPENDIX E

F CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL DATA SUMMARIES 4

., .

lM45 .APX Fort Oni, California - December 1995 .-

This page intentionally left blank.

C445,APX Fort Oral, California - December 1995 ) I lABLE E-1. CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL llATA . ..VIMARY AND CHEMICAL STANDARDS SUMMARY ‘

site DMcription and !hJr& Charmdwtiion Palhww. Dcscritiion Pdential Recepis& klwcOnminnnt ARAR PreferredTCCIIIIOIIW

Site 2/12 Main Ganison STP (sludwdrying bd.$); Lower s Vela(ilmlionofchemicals10air hmn Sk Z Onsiie workers Soik NA, because cmrisk NA Meadow (buried cam[r-wtion debris, buried soilandgroundwatir Antimony stormwatermtfallk DOL Awonmtive Yard (w source ● Enmainmntorcommhatcdsoilin Arsenic confirmcdk cannibaliza~ion YardandItiust[ialAmu wind(dust) Cadmium [odlxa[,r separator);SPRR Spu (w source ● Transportof chmicalsin$ur(auwml Coppu confirmed No continuing source areas u,erc ● Lzaching O( chemicals into vadmc ZOTE MKcury confirmed, bul a TCE p[ume has teemmessed and fyourdwatcr Si[ver be~a[h!he!ile. ● Mi@ion of dissolvedcompour!dsk TimIlium groulwmter Site 12 Onsi!e Residems SOI1: 500 mgf’k~ for TPH Yes Amimmny Arsenic Beryllium Lead Ber@a)PFre BEHP PAHs ● ln~estion 0[ groundwakr Site 12 OnslttResidcnti GroundwateC MCLs Yti Groundwater cxtraclion, Anlimony, Ccppw, 1,1-DCE, weatmen! and dismal 1,2-oCA, 1,2-WE. Manganese, MCTCUIY. Metiykw Chloride,Nickel, Nitrme, PCE, TCE

SiICs 16 ad 17 DOL Maintcmme Yard, Pete’s Pond, Pe[c’s Pond 4 Volatilization of chemicals 10air from Ulilily Worker, Comtruction Soti 500 mg/kg for TPH YES Debrisremwl, Exmnsion, Oisfmsal Area soil ard groutdwater Worker, Commercial Worker DOL Maimermmm Yard: mamenl, ad di5~al, ● Entrainment of coniaminakd soil in Arsenic soi[ cxravation ard wind (dust) BEHP [mm nt ● TramporI of chemicals in surfam waler Cadmium ● Lraching 01 chemicals into vadose zorm TCDD-TE and grmdwater ● Migralrnn oi diswlwd comgmtk in Peter’! Ford: groutiwater TCDD-TE ● Potential volalilimtion from vapors wilh Chlordaw future wawr usageomim Arsenic ● Infilkat ion of stormwalcr rurmff Beryllium ● Volmilization of chemicals from Cadmium grmrdwmr inm vadcmmm soil Pm’s Poml Exlemiom 4,4’-DDT Chladm TCDD-TE Anllmony Arsenic Cad!nhm G3ppx w Nwhl

DispasalAM TCDD-TCE Antimony Arwnic Cadmium ccQ~r had Mercury Nickel

Page E-1 I TABLE E-1. CONCEPTUAL WTE MODEL DATA SUMMARY AND CHEMICAL STANDARDS SUMMARY I Continued Currm[ Si@ ID ,’:., (l%+ S1[.?ID) Site Description and Sourw C3mraderizatkm Pathway ~Cti@Il Polentia! R6c@0m MtdislC&inht ARAR Em&Kx OSARAR PrMerrfd Technology

Si[cs 16 and 17 (Cont.) ● Ingeslionof grcurdwatcr S[udem Gmundwnter: N/t tJA Plume to h kealed a!.pm A.hquifec or 0112 pumpand mu PCE TCE Amimony

U~r l~fcat Aquifer Calm lmmhkride PCE TCE

site 3 !3mch Traimlre Ramges(Spmi Ammunition) s hli~la~ionoi spenlammunition10tic ● H~thrlicd nearby[es[den! .%11:Antimony ka~: I,!@ mgfig Yes ExcavationOrspnt surr zom through crrnion CtiId cGppI ammuftiltonand ● Leachingof nu!alsfromspent ● AdulI rxarby resident Lead comamifwed soil ammunition [0 soil ● On?i[e park ranger ● Ixacbing of mclals fhrough soil m groundwamr ● Migration or dissolved me!als wi[~inati bewctnaqulfccx ● DischargtO(gro”ti%,amLOMomerey Bay ● EnlrmmCnCin air td m!ah absorlmd m dust Sile 31 Oump Sile fiwimramr mh ad debris): O[her * V01a[i[i2ari0n oi cknicals 10 air from Nor+b S!opc Soils: had: ~,8@lmgkg Yes Soil excavation, pbys!cal ~~int sources imkde 1) asphali Pawment sod Antimony scrccning, ad dismal cpm[iom, 2) s!cchpiling OrCOd.3) a~licatiow of ● Enirajmmrnt01wzti-gcwrmd dust Arstnk psticidcs paniclesinair Bmm(a)pyrm ● Lcartdngofchemicalsim[outierlyin~ BcrylliMm vadosezonesoilandEroutiw?.ler Cadmium ● Tmtspari of cbcmicals in soil via soil Ccpper erosion or slqx wash 4,4’.DDE a Trampm of chemicals in surface rutmii 4,4’-tJDT waler via sur~accchantds or storm Lad draim PAHs 4 Infilmalicm of chanrAcdwrkce wa[cr TCOD-TE runaff Swtb Slope Soils: TCDD-TE Cadmium

LRTC Area: TCDD-TE cql~

she 39 (irwludes Si!es Inlard Ranges 4 Imidemal ingcsdom of soil ● Hypotbctical babi[a[ Soil! 2-AmimDNT TPH: WI mgfig Yes Soilexcawlionand 5 ad 9) Range 39A: Ircmhes for fire ad smlu ● Drrmalcomcl witi soil managementWOTker 4-Amh+DNf lmlmt mt dcmonslratio~ ● Inhalationofdui[ Anlimony Range 33: ordrmx disps~l ● Inges[ion of grmmdwamr Beryllium Beryllium: 2.S rng/k.g Expl.mivc ordmrxe mrge[ areas Cadmium Yts SmallArm Ranges:SWIIIammunidon ccQ~r HMX ● Irddalion of dust ● Nearby resident Sd bad Lead 1,8(JJmiJkg Yts Nmkel RDX RDX: 0.5 rngfkg 2,4,6TFiT Yes

SOum: DrafI R1/FS (Dwemlm 194),

Key: TNT — Trini[rogolucw 00E = bthlordiphe~ldichlorxfb~~ LRTC LemlmbipRcaclio~TrainingComymti ONT Diniuowduwe 00T = D~hlmdipkmyl!riChlww[b~~ ROY C~lrnlimtihylewt[[nmmire HMx = Cyclotctramc!hy!cne !emanimaminc TCOD 2,3,7,8-Teiracblmtih~@ i~~j” TE Toxic Equivafem

Page E-2 ,, ... ‘~.- ,’

:.!, :.

T~LE E-2. SUMMARY OF BACKGRO~ CONCEPTIONS

0445.APX Fort Oti, Cal@onzia - December 1995 Page E-3 TABLE E-3. TOTAL METAL RESULTS OF 13ACK~RON I GROUNDWATER LOCATIONS I

A-Aquifer @iitered Results) ,, M-hot Aquifer <ered Results) . .. “’““’‘j’

Maxiolslns Maximum ::: ~atinn of Fre@ency Of Concentration ~~~~“. , Fmqumcy of ; ~concentration ticaiio~ if ““‘.tikl IMectiono) (JLg/L)” “’”:“ :“’mrxi+rl “’”’:“” Ildectiorp (#Lg/L” Twmisllurn “ I I IArsenic I 3of26 I 2.60 I MW-BW-01-A I 1 of 17 I 3.10 I MW-20-07-180 I

Lead 3 of 26 2.00 MW-BW-12-A 3 of 17 1.20 MW-20-07-180

Selenium 2 of 26 3.60 MW-23-03-A 3 of 17 2.90 MW-10-06-180

Thallium 2 Of 26 1,90 MW-23-03-A 2 of 17 6.50 MW-10-O6-180

Calcium 22 of 26 46.500 MW-23-O1-A 14 of 17 46,100 MW-10-O6-18O

Chromium 8 of 26 6.40 MW-23-03-A 14 of 17 8.00 MW-10-O6-18O

Copper 6 of 26 10.40 MW-23-02-A 1 of 17 2.80 MW-10-O6-I8O

Iron 7 of 26 311 MW-BW-01-A 2 of 17 341 Mw-20-04-I 80

Magnesium 22 of 26 31,700 MW-23-01-A 14 of 17 30,300 MW-10-O6-18O

Nickel 3 of 26 43.10 MW-23-01-A 1 of 17 19.00 MW-20-06-180

Potassium 18 of26 5.100 MW-234 I-A 14 of 17 6,010 MW10436-180

Sodium 22 of 26 118.000 MW-2341 -A 14 of 17 153,000 MW- 10-05-180

Zinc 14 of 26 56.10 MW-8-18-A 8 of 17 62.80 MW-20-06-180

(lJNllmber of positive detections out of the total number Of obsematims.

.. .,

0445,APX Fon6Oral, Cal#omia - December 1995 Page E-4

APPENDIX F

➤ ANCILLARY BCP MATERIALS +

Table F-1, BCP Distribution List Table F-2, UST Inventory Table F-3, AST Inventory Table F-4, SWMU Sumary Environmental Justice Issues at Fort Ord Figure 3-3, Property Suitable for Transfer Map

0445.APX Fort Oral, California - December 1995 This page intentionally left blank.

M45.APX Fort Oml, California - December 1995 ➤ TABLE F-1, Bcp DIsTHBmIoN LIST <

0445.APX Fort Oral, California - December 1995 Page F-1 .—— —.

This page intentionally left blank.

(M45.APX Fort Oral, Cal~on@ - December 1995 Page F-2 I TABLE F-1. BCP J31STIUBUTION LIST I

Name Title Address

GailYoungblood BEC Commander, DLIFLC and POM ATTN: ATZP-EP (YoungbIood) Presidio of Monterey, CA 93944-5006

Bill IWegore BCT Representative California EPA Department of Toxic Substances Control 10151 Croydon Way, Suite 3 Sacramento, CA 95827

John Chesnutt BCT Representative USEPA, Region IX 75 Hawthorne Street

‘. San Francisco, CA 94105

Dan McMindes Technical Project Manager, USACE U.S. Amry Engineer District, Sacramento Sacramento District ATTN: CESPK-ED-PM 1235 J Street Sacramento, CA 95814-2902

Grant Himebaugh Cal EPA - RWQCB Coast Region, California Regional Water . .. . Quality Control Board 81 Higuera Street, Suite 200 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-5414

Linda Temple Environmental Engineer Commander, DLIFLC and POM ATTN: ATZP-EP (Temple) Presidio of Monterey, CA 93944-5006

Mark Reese Errvironrnentrd Protection Specialist Commander, DLIFLC and POM ATTN: ATZP-EP (Reese) Presidio of Monterey, CA 93944-5006

Barbara Schmitt Cultural Resource Coordinator Commander, DLIFLC and POM ATTN: ATZP-EP (Schmitt) Presidio of Monterey, CA 93944-5006

Bill Collins Wildlife Biologist Commander, DLIFLC and POM ATTN: ATZP-EP (Collins) Presidio of Monterey, CA 93944-5006

Melissa Hlebasko Environmental Protection Specialist Commander, DLIFLC and POM ATTN: ATZP-EP (HIebasko) Presidio of Monterey. CA 93944-5006

Claire Murdo Hazardous Waste Division Chief Commander, DLIFLC and POM ATTN: ATZP-EP (Murdo) Presidio of Monterey, CA 93944-5006

Bob Ckridi NEPA Coordinator Commander, DLIFLC and POM ATTN: ATZP-EP (Guidi) .. Presidio of Monterey, CA 93944-5006

CM45,APX Fort Or-d, California - December 1995 Page F-3 TABLEF-1. BCP llISTRIBUTION LIST Continued

Name Title Address

Alan Freed USAEC Project Manager USAEC ATTN: SFIM-AEC-BCA Building E4450, Beal Road Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21010- 5401

coNllzA&RS

Don Smallbeck Harding Lawson Associates Harding Lawson Associates 105 Digital Drive P. O. BOX6107 Novato, CA 94948

-- EARTH TECH 1420 King Street,- Suite 600 Alexandria VA 22314

M45.”4PX Fort Oral, California - December 1995 Page F-4 F TABLE F-2, UST 1NVENT0R% ●

Oi45,APX Fort Oni, California - December 1995 Page F-5 This page intentionally left blank.

M45.APX Fort O&, Cal~ornia - December 1995 Page F-6 I 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 I z I 1 1 i I U I m I E I i i I I ! I I I 1 I I I I I i 1 I 1 I I I I ; 1 I I I ! I I 1

!1 I I I ;!; :1

+t-k!-F

I

~ .,, ,,

1, .,11,1 :1. ,., ! :,, !!!:iiiill :i~~!!~;t! 1

l.; ~l:: ,. .:, , ,,, , ,1, ,, !: :.- ,1, .,

.,. , .:. , ,. 1.1;- 11. , !,. I 1!: :1. i:l!l. :. .- Itumm”d—.— —-,...,---TUIS --- —*T .. -- ...... - =.. .—. — ❑.0, ar&mTJ atd N TM. am ~ hEC Oste 96 95 93 92 w 4s Can” ‘ 3 ——- .HJU,.- 501 4 JP-4 IOJJOO 19G1 mm DOL P P P P .——T ———JWUQ - . ..—-m 1 JP4 21$00 1976 relnwe ‘D-OL ~btjan P P P P 3 .EULIAUG ml 2 F.4 24.000 1976 rranmt IIOL Airman r r r P ‘ —— —, .-— 7“4-. . . , -., --- -. . . 6 mno’m” F DOL —-..—- -—UW P P f P I 4 JP4 23,0w 1976 rcamrs - 131JL II p p’ p . Aircr~ — i 2 w 530 1976 — .— -- .— wnEISoil P P v P ) 3 w 210 Iwri Wmc 011 P P r P Wmc oil g. F P P P —. T I DYWwm. It. GmcraIat I PP P F I Im I 1917 I mmai,e DPW Hydrmlic H. F r P —. I r~d OiI T “P P P - tMerSermy only Ma. Mm m Monitor cmtilicd awwetly mm= P P r F 4 I remmwe I DPw =enmlar -T P N P- m — .— m 1 1 # 1 Ichw I JICM l)milu PIPIP Flml --ttToHti o i 10.000i 194: ! cemom nm I v@l&h?_ w P F m t P I

..—__=~.LEF-..-,-. ..- ...... _ ---- . ___ h-l-% -., --- —. 3 AUWSEP I 497 i u- 13 pDo 1976 ----- .-. -. —..-_, __ ..._ 1 . -Hi-+. I 3 AUCISEP 1m ..-— -. —------s u 23,0D0 19’?6 ‘ iii / ~i’’’”++ : i P P P -----3 ------mtmmw — —___iiiW 1 u 12.ODO 1941 fcmow (xl nlT Vchiclc P P P N AUEISEP 1470 p p p -----3 -.--—------.,—— --- .— 2 D IlJIDO ml rcmw cm J Ill Vehicle P -—3 .-—. AUa)SEEI______-. ._ ._16ao _1 W 1,000 19s3 rcmw M J Ill WSEICoil F P F P I - 3 AUG/SEP 1037 I D 12#oo 1941 remuw 4.-— —.., -- .-.. ..__ * llm Vdticlc—. — r P P p —— ..—.-3 . .——...AuGjsEP.— _- 2iH7 2 u 12.000 m il rcmlow DOL Vddc4e F P F P 3 ~ucllrw 2039 12#nn iaAl ..- I D .~-. rclnnw DOL Vehicle P P P P “\ 3 Awsw -. -- —— .. -2039 z T In h-’ --- rcmm Dol.--- Wllck P 1 P P 3 Aufmssp 1040 1 D 4 -—- .— __ I2,000 1941 rcnr~ WLaup Iply Vdrlde P (r P I \. ---3 —___AWMMP i64b -i- i) 12$200 1941 mm Ixx.&lp Iply %Aick P P P P .-3 - .— MfMsEP 2041 J D I2,00U 1941 mom mmllp lflty vehicle P P PIP 3 AUWSEP lti I 2 u 12,000 194 I mmwc -— ..-.. -.. ——. — _- ._ . .. . ~_L~ yly VdlirJe P Fir / 3 UEwm 4492 1 w A. W*---- l-m z e * “ a..- I ..— -“ I.. –- b– - -–A.*. , -–– .-,* / —. . -. -=-- -... ----- —. ---- qono 1986 ‘ddsy AuM Ga,u ! wa3aliml 1 .1 r r [ mum. ~3 5EFKKT 4492 -2 75 Soon 19S4 dclsy - — ——- ,. . Auk) Gslh Waslc—.—-~otwL I S I F I [ AuK -tE3 ,- ,- 1 3 — Slworx‘- 4338 2 w s50 I976 mmovc , > —- — .. -—. -. _.. _ cm II I LHI-wntcr-2 h . P P[P P a i 3 ———SEP(OC~---- 4343 1 w s50 lEK mnwe rca Ws#e Oil P P P P ti”3- sEPtoc7 4izd 2 V/ 750 1976 rcnlaw+-x!’!I b“” ,,: Wlsrc oil F P P P ‘3- .- .. ..—. —sEmcT.—. - ..— 4545 J D lo,mo 1976 Icmm Csu II11 Whiie P P P P tEP)UCr 454$ 2 D &. ---—___ :_ . mmo 1976 lcmave I cm !1 Vdlide “ F p p p — Gsmr W4$ -: IJ m.mo 1976 mmms Csu rl:1 Vehicle P P P p .— .—. - -. 4541 ; w 550 197fi rcmwo Csu 1[ Wnik on — P P P P rcmwo. ..— l’JPw —kx- F P– P p Jald 9(13S4 l.JIBfariEmm romam —- —. —-,-_,E’ ————13PW ‘——m.wm__ SCJ Addedto M lnA@~9K —.. avmw -—.Scp— A~n Apil 1995 -r Sep. —— 1 . MJadtofi91in@il 199S “ ‘:R7-Jul~_ l—%!%wtiseB.~ i Pi ~ ~ —- -. —-r- r ., 1 . P

2 pa~-F-8 , KCrnnvm > . —— — 1“ TCEIS I -1 ❑ .0. mn ~d~ H Cm. $ixc Am Dam (hwrcr “’r+m,, s[ .33 n 90 M co .. “; 3 SFPI. 4511 3 w 230 rmmue .—— .m-w& Scp AW06 [D I!M h ~ @l 1993. - 3 Smfocr 4546 3 w 2s0 ImllDV* F* iJWOh Sql. Added htiiia April 199$. = Slmmcl -.. —.-4BS5 1 D 550 1978 rmovdAGT CMJ1111l/Ewkon I Fuel oll s ‘P F P P 7 Gi -2- —. SEPlmx___ 40s5 2 w MO t976 mmc Im3 mm-mkmm. I WMICail I sir 1 ?]P N —.—- ri --— — %5 -507 1 D U,00r1 1976 I -Mar42 T“ “511 I u 5,000 I 9s9 1-h(aT42 tia CAD ..—. — ..__ _, Vehkk ! w N vqpmah-tin pm]e:tamnylcfcd c 511 2 D .— _ IO,ODO I 976 I -MaJ.42 I 7UBcAii vttilGfc N N c 515 1 R m 1963 1-APF92 Ah,Twr, I DH[ I GCUMIOM 1 P P .-—. -—-—- c., _ 511 1’ ‘D 1JO13 19??7 I l-Mm42 I I . .— —.______R 550 A II 185 1964 1-Apr-92 NH Oulcr hlmkm I G 1 F P NTC 6/92, Fit+mqmst tOr CIOCUM tubtniucd c ——_ —-. —---- Sio u R — 205 ‘-1964 - 1-ApT42 t3EHc m?--- C:R:_..._,., I r P —-. . — :, 552 1- %4 lZODD I9RS I -W-W Nww rxed Alrmll —--—- . —.. —— —— k i N N E c 92 I ltw 4,61M 1941 I-MU-91 4 —- —— 1 t .. .—. c 93 2 -TIP SJw W41 l-M8r4N I I — T-—.- __I 28 I NA Soo 1-Mm.9 I I 1 s .—.-—-—-..____ .— _c --_.139_ 1 R 1.Jli .——. _ _ R 13!) l– R I-J= — c 4~6 T Ii 1,000 l+lw9 .---- ———... .--,__ _-c i!6 z n 1.M4r-91 —-.l - -—-—-.—— -. ,.-.— --- .—--. ——— .-. ,.—.

,. -— . _ ._, ~1 c 1426 3 D muB . -— - .—__ _ ,, I l-Fdr41t 1 .. .-. - . . ______c 1434 3 s J,mtl 19SJ I-Mar* 1 c 14no I w 5M .- — _, .,_ ,_ 1976 l&qr4?lz I Grcm M W* oil N M —-, - ..— . . -E I ia3 I 72 2.300 1976 1-111144 DEN i I rud oilI P P P pnchrrcd druins RI c 1463 2 w S50 1976 —.. —.., .— .-— -.. — LScpm Gmn[e R* \vss&oil—11- N P IU, clod J Mm 9S ——. c !4e7 I w 550 m l-Mar-91 I -- c IG36 1 w [,000 1965 - l-Mq.9; i 12EII Wnrlc Oil — ,. c -1628 1 D 1,000 197s I -Mui 2 R 16BS I 431 - —. I 1- [ I-JuL34 -R I f}B5- 1 iii- ] [ —. I -Ju144I I t ● —— t I 1 1 m 1 ClsBn,ncd fOpdl hem d c4nao, R IOB3 1 1 -. — D 1 I 1 UU144 I r —. —_- —.c ——-1699 I w- 1.000 I 935 I-Mu-92 . . I I I r C 169? I D lJTO 19BJ I-lUI.94 - — -- ,—— ____ P F Cltmml3 Mar 9s .- —_ ___ M 1697 2 w Sso 19at t -Mw-9J — .--- NTC J h 91; RA,reqrmslh dourrc sahmillc~ -—.. .,— ..— —— c— ...Mm..— 1 – w 550 198 t 1Jhr-?l I , 1 I I c 2042 1 - K --m-i-i 1941 l-4kI.93 .— ——- 1 mAq@y Kerosene ~NiMi i c 26= 1 s m I 1 13000 1941 1.&l-93 D02Jslllrrlly I SdWrll I I ilNlti. ! , -.. . I I ~“ . n 2(IM I n 1-M@I a 1 1 I I I I I [VIM m m 1 K I 18..ra-.,.. m,..wm bmbt.n, mu.wrzmq MWIIIG q. c- 20X 2 D 2,0110 19B3 LMmE92 y — ‘– —— . — -— [ DEtl I bt~r I — -- — L “ 1076 1 11 m ‘“- 1.M@3 I I 1 f I -n 1253 1 0 y -- --: ==1’$ ~:- -g:” ,.- .- - — ..=. —-. — —..-— * -. -.. —. — ~:_ <:- .:– 1 Fuel oil ?4 P ..- -- —— — .- -—- .— I I ..-. -- __ _. _,-_ -_C 1705 2 R lI,ODO IM 1 l-Pcb91 R 2jf4 I R , t,ml(l 1942 ‘ I.%b+l “- —_____ I I I t 1’ i I I?4TC ml, Sib? ChmaL (JodcIwuy I 3 page F-9 “tcw 1 .. ( I IUdg. I # I CmL Slu AT I MC i fiwmcr T.”. I et 1 me I P I -mn I , I n19219ml Ml D a,oon 194i J m m ‘waodm D l,lxllD 7FTL ...... “:= z : D 3,000 1976 IMM-91 Dl 2 AI D 3,0ti 1976 LMw4Ji II IOU 1916 I war-n Ma m D IJOO 1976 l-May-92‘—— 039 Al r?- 1,000 1976 l-rrsar-92 .J46 A D Ipofi 1976 1.Mw92 --- . m 1 I c :10s0 Al ?3 4JJO0 1976 1+4R142 I ““”~—l ! .“ ! “ ! 1 c 3066 ~ Al II 2,(MO I W74 i#ny!J2 2)E11 -— Fuel011 P P “—– c ‘3107 JA*J II [ 4JI L t-Mcr-9i —— “---ii -,.3“”- ‘“-’ - 1-SCO.76 -- —__ —. - ) --- __ —-. ——— -i- ink ~\ gj .—— — —. ---- — c 3 1 1Mm-m —,— — c 3.=7w4Els-*,,” c 317U ‘, ‘ ‘,- ‘ -“--&uw m =-~Iy>u : l+blJF-~~~~”’-~~ —-— = c ~JM3 1“ D 3,000 1962 i -Mnr411 1723 1 D 1,000 1914 t way42 Wd.cctlkl rricl Oii N!4J 1 ‘“ 1 , . . . . I I Y _ ,i! I,,,i I I ,, 1 Er-- 1 1 ti-I -hfmr-91 ll i-MmW H===13E !, i g : If ‘-MU+’ ‘ .— —, ______&- ,..>Ytl-_ & IJI> l-MW-91-i-- ‘ —-— c 377-T,7S[IIU —, ymQ_ 1941 —, ——... -,- 1-Marr4 1 _ C17}31JIUIS $00 1941 I -M*W-q----I r RI— 3001 t NA I.5011 1942 I-MorA.. . 1 — NTC 9/91, RI unhwy —__ RI ,-----3R03 2 NA Ism IW2 I-MB1141 mL ~ t4TC9/91, IUundcmy —- _ i .xyz 3 NA 5,4300 1942 1-Mar P l-% 14TCW91, RIurtdenwy ——. & ●866 1 D ;94 I I-Jan-W)I 1 .! c- 3s7[ I (J E I I I r I I [ —. ..— 6,S00 1942 1-W141 1 II Hr. L “076>0 r “1 w 6,S00 19d2 l-Feb41J {1 I I I I 1 I 1. I I e?c 4i617 -. —.. 1 2cy . TM Udm 1-Mu-W GdrCoucsc N F t4TC 619~, clmd 3 Mar 95 R “4TIIll 1 n 500 1* I 1-M@2 Gdf Comma AGT trmfmlted r’ P 422.ml ●1 ,”,, 11 I NTC602, R1...umdewav.-.. . . . —1 — IJl,ooo W64 Ic@a* AAFES Mdn Vthkk s r r p N mq hiiurc 7 Dac 94; Skc char. ufatkmq. 4X z[?”~ u do,oon 1%4 J’cplau AMWS Maim Vehkk s P F P M ?4Tc Iw. I 4220 311 u m,aoo 1%4 -W AAFs Mcln Z% 4-II R Woo 1964 ,:.” . , lZ~lJS Am= mitt Vakldc s ? ~ adu > —..—— 10,000 I 9M raphce AAFES Mdn Vahick s P 41m 6 P N— --—- -— 10,OOO 1964 mplam AAFESA#dn whlck s P —--~=j ;: ; -: I,00Q 1916 rcamavrfh(i’ x ...... - - pnumuwlbm11m!C41alwJmll~- “H--- n 1#lo 195t‘“- l-Mur42 I I ,I I ! I I I I m I n 8s0 197s ITG31 ~ 19~ ,-hti42 , A-” -l----–--– —.--p: @Q- ! .D 2,5013 - “280 T D 1,s00 J9S7 I-Mr42 —. 162 1 D Jllltlicll 4,000 1952 I-Ai I _ Nm W19f9~ Ill, additiarid LlST{15~ m I D 3,00U 19S6 e . . . I-*9E ill diwcnwrcd cud rcmmed during E#tiWtihm, - 19al I -Mw41 MP T~smnlitkr MT Irmclkd :41 kE=#!LH ’42 i

4 ,.- P?- F-10 Rcllmvat ) T-IS -,_ 1 ----- — ——.. 96 % 93 *Z ~ ~ ~ Conl 0 .a. Srbnzl: ‘~ BIIIE # ml. Sl?s 4 Ilnto ChYlcr –.! -DE ‘ R 4399 I ~ i@o 1975 l$k~l ._— —. — -.—— -— — dunicd c- 4410 I n 3JIO0 1954 1-AFPW --- Slumid c 4U0 I lJ 3,000 1954 1-A@z d P r T+ c 4493 1 ~ 2qml 1976 141d-93 mmi@y Vehw ,— ------N P c 4491 2 D 20,00U 1910 I&p92 00LI’SqI@y.— Vehicle .—---- r P NIC II17J94, N, dd 3M,u95 . .—— c -@ -3 D mm 1976 Hk&91 DDIJSup@y vehicle c 4493 4 u 12,00D 19m I -s@U DOUSUPF4Y Vc4iidt N P .— .— --,.. —— ?41~ IUW94, ill Ckl?C63hlm 9S c 4a93 5 IJ 2QODD 1976 l-0d~3 DOIISUWIY Vchide P P — ---- Dausupply Whiic r P -::::=. $: .$+ .: : ‘aoao 1976 1-=43 — r r r NTC9i91,1t2, r.4ti J MMF95 .- .- —— - ..--— —. — .: — U c, 451R N T .— ---- . i w. ._ ~! R 452 ! ! !U Ummm — . . ..W “,. N N — -— -- --- —— —— c 4526 1 D Spo 19m 1.Mar4; — ..—.--- .— - ..— ?“ 4.~6 D s,oml 1953 l-Mw4i ,--., -—. ——-— i c 4s26 .3 D 5JCql 19s3 I-MDr+l — .— - ---, ------..-— -- .- C d~lti 4 u _5,00DWI&e.l-Mar-91 — — —,, ,-. .-.— NTC ~1, Rl, Chd 3Mm 95 -— -.--.---——— -c--- .-—4534— . I W 550 Undoc l+4ar+l -K l-3:p4$2 G-m Rmk wash mi _ N P —, ___ . .... ——- ..-— - c ----4540 I W 550 I ; ir ;d< : -B,- s U-SW.“.* ..— “.. M P — l-’-l–-—--– IW:– ‘- : 2 * ‘-=%I%%!.,JIW j _ * 1-npr7G ‘ “’’=’--’‘“”-’ . ■ .-. FFI m-nJI#7& NTC E/W Mid 3 Mu 9S , ._,_,._---.,_*fi~ — .—— ~ ;, ~1 j!jj‘ l-Apr-93 C4 14dar-9?u _- —- . . — -- 1 D ----—.—-——=C4 -B5tl I u *% M3 1JAMI — __ -—--—— =3 w 2 IJ %Ooo 1932 l-hw r - .-- .,------. —- .— C4 0s0 3 u 5jmD 1952 1-W-9 0 ,.-. __— .—— — N ‘c! 19S2 t-Feb9 u 1 — —-. —— —-— __ E I u 5#m u .. I-I------W%13 ;“ : -~ K Hx:, F-1”-----” .. 1965 Undoa CERCIA “SitE t4 lrWrim AUIM” ucavmirnn —.- — +-m ,-U3 I w T 5,00D i9s2 l-rd14t —-- -———— —.. --—.4%! 1 6 c 4M*I 2 D 5.00D 19S2 1 a.rwifa‘ ‘Am’ — ----- c 4861 3 0 5.000 1952 l-r-l i i -- -—- - C 49U0 1 D 1,500 1956 l-M8r92 — -— h 1 I H- : c ‘- 4!JTI “,1 u 3,5430_ 1%7 l-mm I ~-–t––I-rdm -+-+” -–i– + + -— ! 1 L 1 . . Iklcloil I W[r t I .—-—-—.-— %~@ 1 m 1 –1 cd I —-, ,.,— --- p i!?.. -v---~ ml oil-i + + t liL-l.———-- c- ---- Fud= -1 I I 1 P I I . -,. . :.:Z3$ -$-! “: = $: . - --, = CILU* 13LM07379,2Wq I L ●

‘ ● N N N ktl— _——— --c j-. “ i d“” ma. .-..n-ra DPw.—lbmm S1l. GmdortAGT I . .— ---- c mos 1 II 3Jml 1970 1-MU-92 —— — .—-—. —. a0timM07s7m60.2 8 .— ...— . c 6020 1 N — Hml-B9 —— u c 60S4 i u I.h-wl — ~ w -— — 6120 1 u clo@NLA#07579,260.2 —— .- —.—— c . -.— l-Jlrt-B9 I 6160 1 ruu Iopw 19U6 AAPES lmjim Vehicle s P N Allkl Mon w NTC 6~3 6160 2 u 10JIOD 1986 ~ AAPES hrtjk I Vshicic s P N AUID Mori Dw

5 Page F-11 k ~..-,

.-.

—8 -:12 . i ●✎

I 1 I I

w&El:zT Ss. w 33 m F TABLE F-3, AST INVENTORY +

C445.APX Fort Oni, Cal~onzia - December 1995 Page F-13 This page intentionally left blank.

W5,APX Fort Oral, Califontia - December 1995 Page F-14

This page intentionally left blank. .

C445,APX Fort Oral, California - December 1995 Page F-16 F TABLE F-4, SWMU SUMMARY +

C-145.APX Fort Oni, (hl~ornia - December 1995 Page F-17 This page intentionally left blank.

0445.APX Fort Oral, Califonzia - December 1995 Page F-18 1

SwMrJ siteNo. t SWMU Name Udt Tvue .1 Parcel

Froool AbandonedFire Thermal rreannent CSU Monterey Bay TrainingPit & FToa32 I Abandoned Larrdffll Landfdl CSU Monterey Bay

FTO-003 FAAFSewage Storage/treaunenr CSU Monterey Bay I treatment Plant facility

FTO-004 707TH Maintenance Corrrainerstorage CSU Monterey Bay Now used for storage of I I Bn, A,B, AND C Cos. paints and coatings

FTO-005 13rh Engineer Bn I Motor Pool

==-+==

Waste pile CSU Monterey Bay + I

FTO-008 DRMO Hazardous Container storage CSU Monterey Bay Waste storage Yard

FTO-009 DRMO PCB storage Conrainer storage CSU MontereyBay -. I Bldg T-111

FTO-O1O I AAFES Service Station Waste POL storage CSU Monterey Bay

FTO-011 East Garrison Sewage Sanitary waste-water CSU Monterey Bay treatment Plant treatment

FTO-012 I Main Garrison Sewage Sanitary waste-water CSU Monterey Bay I treatment Plant uearmerrt FTO-013 Building 1442 Thermal treaunern CSU Monterey Bay Autoclave

FTO-014 Fire Training Area Thermal treabnent CSU Monterey Bay

FTO-015 PCB storage Area Containerstom~e I CSUMontere~Ba~

FTO-016 Open Detonation Area Thermal trearrrrent CSU Monterey Bay Originally listed as 7/7rh

1I I ADA

mo417 I TASC Plastics Shop i FTO-018 Pesticide Mixing Area Originally Iiscedas 2nd/62nd I ==+== ADA-B-Battery I

FTO-019 AAFES-Economy Container storage CSU Monterey Bay Originally listed as 7tb Cleaners UST for I Medical Battalion Product Solvent

Ffo-020 Infectious Waste Incinerator at Building 4385 FTO-021 Silver Recovery Unit Recovery unit CSU Monterey Bay E&&&&J

0445.APX Fort Oti, California - December 1995 Page F-19 TABLE F-4. SWMUS~Y Continued

- Site No. SWMUName lhdtTyp Parcel Cmmlents

FT0422 Abandoned DRMO Site Storage facility CSU Monterey Bay

ITO-023 TASC GmphiCSSttOP Temp. container storage CSU Monterey Bay

FTO-024 519th Maintenance Temp. container storage EG Company Motor Pool

ITO-025 14tb Engineer Battalion Temp. container storage EG Motor Pool

FTO-026 127th Signal Company Temp. container storage EG Motor Pool

FT04)27 2/9 Recon Battalion Temp. container storage FM Closed, demolished Motor Pool

FTO-028 9th Regiment Temp. container storage FAA No longer in existence MANCHU Motor Pool

FTO-029 9th Regiment HHC Temp. container srorage FAA Motor Pool

FTO-030 HHC Aviation Brigade Temp. container storage FAA Motor Pool

mo-031 8th Evacuation Hospital Temp. container storage FAA Originally listed as 121st Motor Pool

FTO-032 HHC Aviation Brigade Temp. conrainer stotage Ffi No longer in existence Motor Pool

Fro-033 1/23 Aviation Temp. container storage FAA Originally listed as 7tb AVN Regiment, A, B, and C Co. Motor Pool

FT0434 2nd Brigade Temp. comainer storage MRA Consolidated Motor Pool

Fro-035 3rd Brigade Temp, container storage MM Consolidated Motor Pool

FT04)36 DOL Heavy Equipment Temp. container storage MRA Maintemrtce Motor Pool

F-ro-037 DOL Main Automotive Temp. container stosage MRA or CSU ? Yard Motor Pool

FTO-038 DOL General Temp. container storage Uc Closed, remediated Equipment Maintenance Motor Pool

FT0439 DOL Aircraft Temp. container storage UNCLAIMED Maintenance Motor Pool

FT04W0 DOL Temporary Motor Temp. container storage UNCLAIMED N. of SK, S. of CSU Pool

W5,APX Foti Oral, California - December 1995 Page F-20 I I Continued

SWMU Site Na. .!’, SWMU Name “hitTyp . . “Parcel . Corrsmellts

F“ro-041 590* SS Company Temp. container storage UNCLAIMED W. of w Closed, hooked Motor Pool into municipal system

FTO-042 HHC CombrdAviation Temp. container storage UNCLAIMED E. of MRA Brigade Motor Pool

Fro-043 l-123rd AVN Reg. A, Temp. container storage UNCLAIMED B, C, and D Co. Mo~or Pool

FTO-044 123rd AVN Batralion, Temp. container storage UNCLAIMED E Company Motor Pool

,..... Fro4145 237th Medieal Temp. conminer storage UNCLAIMED 2:. Detachment Motor Pool 1, ., lT0k6 219dl cavalry Recml. Temp. contier storage UNCLAIMED S. 9, Adjacent to UC Flight Wmt. Motor Pool

FTO-IM7 3rd Bn. 123rd AVN Temp. container storage UNCLAIMED S. of CSU; Closed, to be Brig. D Co. Flight remediated Main. Motor Pool

FTO-048 6th/8th Field Artillery Temp. container storage UNCLAIMED Closed, still in place Battalion Motor Pool

FT0449 7th/ 15tfrField Astillery Temp. container storage UNCLAIMED Closed, still in place Battalion Motor Pool

FTO-050 2nd Battalion, 62nd Air Temp. container storage UNCLAIMED s.of Csu Defense ArdlleSy Motor Pool

FTO-051 5/15thField Artillery Temp. conrainer storage UNCLAIMED S. of CSU;Was originally Battalion Motor pool listed as 56th Medical Comprmy

FTO-052 7dI Military Police Temp. conrainer s~orage UNCLAIMED s.of Csu Company Motor Pool

FTO-053 123 Regiment AVN Temp. container storage UNCLAIMED s.of Csu Regiment, E Company Motor Pool

FTO-054 107UIMedical Batmlion Temp. comainer storage UNCLAIMED s. of Csu Motor Pool

mo-055 U.S. Army Reserve Temp. container storage UNCLAIMED S. of CSU; Originally listed Center Motor Pool as 7th Aviatn Bn, C and D co.

FTO-056 707th SPT Battalion Temp. conrainer storage UNCLAIMED s. of Csu Organizational Motor Pool

M.45.APX Fort Oral, Cal#ornia - December 1995 Page F-21 TABLE F-4. SWMU SUMMARY Continued

~ Site No. SWMU Nmsm UfitTyw Parcet comments

FTO-057 571stMilitary Police Temp. container storage UNCLAIMED s. of Csu Company Motor Pool

FTO-058 761st Chemical Temp. container storage UNCLAIMED Company Motor Pool

0445.APX Fort Oral, California - December 1995 Page F-22 .....

.-. ➤ ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ISSUES AT FORT ORD <

‘.-..,-

(M45,APX Fort Oni, California - December 1995 Page F-23 This page intentionally left blank.

0445.APX Fort Oni, Cal@omia - December 1995 Page F-24 .-. ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ISSUES I AT FORT ORD

There has been growing concern during the past decade about the effect of environmental pollution on particular population groups. A movement to ensure environmental justice for all individuals is the outgrowth of a widespread belief that minority and low-income communities bear a disproportionately high risk of exposure to health hazards related to contamination or pollution.

The President issued Executive Order 12898 on Environmental Justice on 11 February 1994. The Order and its accompanying Presidential memorandum marked a significant step toward focusing the attention of Federal agencies on concerns of environmental justice. The order requires certain Federal agencies, including the DOD, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their missions by identifying and addressing disproportionately high and adverse health or environmental effects on minority and low-income populations.

At closing installations such as Fort Oral, considerations of environmental justice must be .+.. examined in the context of cleanup activities, including their relationship to plans for reuse of land and community redevelopment initiatives. The decision-making processes for establishing cleanup priorities, determining relative risk, developing reuse plans, and other actions related to installation closure, must ensure that environmental protection and environmental justice are adequately addressed.

The Defense Environmental Response Task Force of the DOD formed the Environmental Justice Subworking Group to determine whether concerns related to environmental justice are being adequately addressed at installations affected by BRAC. The subworking group has identified a number of significant issues related to environmental justice that are applicable to environmental restoration at BRAC installations. These include:

F Outreach F Cultural Resources b Risk Assessment P Cleanup Priorities k Risk Communication k Natural Resources P Deed and Lease Restrictions.

Fort Ord has proactively addressed many of these issues in its current BRAC environmental restoration, compliance, and natural resources strategies. The Fort Ord approach for addressing each of the issues is summarized below and is also addressed in context, in applicable sections ----... of the BCP.

CM45.APX Foti Oral, California - December 1995 Page F-25 Outreach. Fort Ord has an active outreach program. A Community Relations Plan was prepared in 1991. The plan establishes the procedures for effective communication with all elements of the surrounding community on environmental issues. ARAB has been formed at the installation and meets monthly to promote public involvement and provide a forum for public input on the Fort Ord IRP. During the formation of the RAB, particular attention was placed on ensuring balanced comunity representation. Public hearings are conducted to obtain community input on particular environmental documents including EISS and Proposed Plans. The installation also keeps community members informed through display boards at Fort Oral, installation tours, the issuance of brochures, information papers, and the maintenance of information repositories.

Cultural Resources. Investigations conducted at Fort Ord to date including an archaeological survey. Studies have not identified any religious sites or sacred lands at the installation which could have environmental justice impacts. In the event that any significant cultural resource sites are identified at Fort Ord in the future, those sites will be protected in compliance with regulatory requirements and with consideration of cultural impacts. Environmental justice issues such as the provision of installation access to interested parties will be investigated.

Risk Assessment. Riskassessments (human and ecological) were conducted for sites that warranted a full RI. The baseline risk assessment conducted during the RI did not discriminate in its evaluation of risk. An exposure pathway analysis was conducted to identify all potential on-site or off-site receptor population. Risk was calculated for each restoration site. The potential for varying patterns of consumption or other risk factors relative to particular population groups in the Fort Ord area were considered in the RI risk assessment exposure pathway analysis. This ensured that the risk assessment accurately evaluated risk for all potential receptor populations.

Cleanup Priorities. The prioritization of environmental restoration at Fort Ord versus other BRAC installations is conducted on a programmatic level by the DA and DOD.

On an installation basis, the Fort Ord BRP provides the basis for determining cleanup priority. The RI risk assessment identified site-specific and installation total risks to on-site and off-site populations. This information was evaluated in conjunction with community reuse goals presented in the BRP. A restoration strategy was then developed that accomplish two goals: prioritization of cleanup to mitigate any immediate risks to receptor populations, and prioritization of cleanup based on community reuse planning goals and priorities.

Risk Communication. Issues relative to human health risks are fully disclosed to the public through the various outreach activities conducted by the installation.

Natural Resources. The multispecies HMP was signed by the U.S. Army and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in February 1994. This plan identifies mitigation measures designed to minimize impacts to sensitive species and habitats.

Deed and Lease Restrictions. Deed and lease restrictions are a critical element in the disposal planning process for Fort Ord because RA at the installation will continue past installation closure and property disposal. Issues such as access, liability for RA equipment and operation,

M45,APX Fort Oni, Califontia - December 1995 Page F-26 -. impacts on redevelopment, and conflicts with construction are being investigated as bid documents for the sale/development of Fort Ord property are prepared. Small, small disadvantaged and minority-owned business impacts from potential deed and lease restricts will be considered by the U.S. Army throughout the disposal process.

,>~ s, “,,. ‘ .,.+, ,,

Md5.APX Fort Oti, Califonzia - December 1995 Page F-27 ,.l ,,

. . .

This page intentionally left blank.

C445.APX Fort Oral, California - December 1995 Page F-28 F FIGURE 3-3, PROPERTY SUITABLE FOR TRANSFER MAP ●

IM45.APX Fon! Oni, California - December 1995 Page F-29 -=3

This page intentionally left blank.

W.45.APX Fort Oral, California - December 1995 Page F-30 Figure 3-3 Property Suitable for Transfer Map

This map is in progress and will be provided under separate cover.

M45.APX Foti Oral, Cal#ornia - December 1995 Page F-31 This page intentionally left blank.

@145.APX Fort Oral, Califomzia - December 1995 Page F-32